Alternatives to the 313 ship navy?

With the USN already far behind the curve the envisioned 313 ship navy is clearly slipping away. So one should think about an alternative structure. Food for thoughts:

>> 8 CVN
It should be 15, but as long as 100.000 tons CVNs are built, that won't happen.
(Alternative would be 24 CVKs of around 55.000 tons with a 50 plane airwing).
Build one every 4 years.

>> 40 Large Escorts
Based on (re-built) Burkes. Five per carrier, two for anti-air, three for anti-sub (or the other way round, depending on war game analysis).

>> 16 Fleet Replenishers

>> 8 BMD Cruisers
Rebuild the best of the remaining Ticonderogas.

>> 30-35 Amphibious Assault & Fire Support Ships
LHAs and LPDs, using older helicopter carriers as platforms for ATACMS batteries for fire support and hospital ships. Forget about DD-X.

>> 30 Large Fregates
NOT LCS! A ship for policing the ocean's backyards.

>> 30 SSN and 10 SSKs

>> 18 to 24 SSB/CN with 12-16 SLBM/SLCM each
The current number of Ohios is too low for survivability against a real enemy, the large number of missiles on one boat is a problem. A mix of single-warhead SLBM, mirv'd SLBMs, and SLCMs is advisable.

>> Combat Support Vessels
Like ice breakers, mine hunter, high-sea tugs, tenders, &c. Around 20 to 30.

>> Strategic Sealifters
Mostly RoRo, Container Ships, Tankers. Whatever is needed, 30 to 50.

>> USMC Riverine and Coast Guard Units

Why does the US navy want 12 aircraft carriers? Answer, the navy likes to operate the carriers in a rotation of three, with both Atlantic and Pacific fleets deploying two carriers at a time for around the clock coverage. So two carriers times a rotation of three equals six, and multiply that by two to have two carriers deployed in the other ocean. For operations in the Indian ocean, one of the two carriers deployed in the Pacific, and/or the Atlantic provides one carrier in the Indian Ocean and/or two.

Why did you settle for eight total, surely the US navy needs either three, six, nine, or twelve. Eight is two too many or one too short. Keep in mind the weakness of the carriers are their one flight deck crews. Yes, the carriers do have night shifts, like other ships, but they cannot operate all of their flight deck crews all day and all night. Well, not for long.

Currently the navy has one less carrier air wing than it does aircraft carriers. This is because one of our nuclear carriers is undergoing a nuclear refueling at any given time. This is a long outage of at least a year. In reality considering this there is a very good case for thirteen carriers, and twelve carrier air wings. During the Reagan buildup there was the suggestion of fifteen carriers, so neither Atlantic or Pacific fleets would lose a carrier. Of course, then the number of sixteen to cover nuclear refuelings is raised.

Unfortunately, the US navy is down to eleven carriers. Obviously, switching carriers into the Indian Ocean of one carrier or two has provided one or two carriers in the Indian Ocean. Stationing a carrier in Japan has helped somewhat on the rotation policy in the Pacific.

There is a reason why the US navy wants twelve. Its a very good reason. If twelve is too expensive, I highly suggest building smaller carriers. But as it is there are many complaining about smaller carrier air wings as is. Building smaller ships will only create even smaller air wings.

Sailors understand the rotation policy of three in peacetime. Of course, during a world war this policy wouldn't apply. Don't expect sailors to re-enlist if they are spending half of their time at sea.

One thing hasn't changed, we still need a convoy to Europe or Asia leaving everyday. So its seven days times how many ocean escorts, say 6 per convoy equals some 42 ocean escorts. We'll let the Europeans worry about the other direction that week, surely they have 42 ocean escorts under the impression it takes a week for a convoy to reach Europe.

Two cruiser escorts per carrier, four destroyers per carrier, say for 11 carriers equals 22 cruisers and 44 destroyers. Plus one attack submarine following each carrier, add another 11 attack submarines total.

We'll need a cruiser and four destroyers for each marine expeditionary force, say four groups, two for each ocean equals 4 cruisers and 16 destroyers.

Not to forget the replenishment groups, we'll need at least say 4 replenishment groups to feed four deployed carriers with 4 ocean escorts equals 16 ocean escorts.

So in summary our navy needs 11 carriers, 28 cruisers, 60 destroyers, 58 ocean escorts, and 11 attack submarines. Of course, you will want some submarines on the attack, but for just defensive purposes we'll stick with the above. This is how you build a navy on paper, not dream up numbers out of the blue.

Obviously, to cut the size of the navy it seems best to cut the number of aircraft carriers and their escorts.

Please note these numbers aren't the official numbers of the US Navy.

Not entirely out of the blue.

We all know the 15/16 number. My 8 CVN number is based on the idea that a wartime strike group should have three carriers, as demonstrated in Valiant Shield. One such group for each coast, two carriers in deep maintenance resp for airgroup training.

[The question of CVKs vs CVN is settled for our generation simply by the existence of the CVNs for the next 30 years. Otherwise a fleet of two dozen 50-55.000ts gas turbine powered carriers would be interesting. Or maybe the Navy should switch to such CVKs anyway].

Five escorts for each single forward deployed carrier during peacetime duties, ten for a three carrier wartime group, which frees five for other duties.

And regarding escort for amphib groups: It would save a lot of money/assets not to see the amphib groups, the whole "USMC Fleet" as stand-alone, but operating only in conjunction with the carrier groups.

Submarines are a minimum, the number mostly comes from the minimum utilization of the industrial base. Regarding the SSBNs one could argue that cutting the number of SLBM tubes down to 16 (incl two for single warhead SLBM, and two for multiple SLCMs) would restore the force back to pure deterrence pre-Trident D5 levels (remember the discussions 20 years ago about the first strike capability of the D5/W88 boats). And at same time rising the numbers would increase platform survivability.

Of course all this would mean a single major conflict at one time only.
And I think that is not unreasonable in absence of a global enemy.

Plus it would also mean being capable only of keeping a single carrier group on station all the time if deployed out of CONUS, or max two if deployed from out closer to the ops areas. Has anybody ever looked at western Australia for a CVN dock? Like Perth for example? The idea of putting a CVN dock on Guam is crazy, as is the whole idea of concentrating a multitude of assets there (survivability).

Yes, a western Australia naval base makes sense for deploying to the Indian Ocean. While Japan has been forthcoming with funds for a base, I don't think Australia could. Forward bases have always been wonderful. Unfortunately they create political pressures at home and abroad.

Last year an Italian government fell after NATO's plans to expand Vicenzia's Southern European Command. We ain't that popular in Italy, especially ending Vicenzia's goal of achieving an international airport. The runway exists, but not a terminal. After spending millions to build a base the last thing America would want is an Australia following New Zealand, kicking us out for nuclear reasons.

I was thinking Diego Garcia may be a better location, but I'm not sure whether its doable, much less western Australia. With Japan we could always move to Guam. But one cannot plan US navy fleet numbers on speculation.

Sea Toby said:

Yes, a western Australia naval base makes sense for deploying to the Indian Ocean. While Japan has been forthcoming with funds for a base, I don't think Australia could. Forward bases have always been wonderful. Unfortunately they create political pressures at home and abroad.

Last year an Italian government fell after NATO's plans to expand Vicenzia's Southern European Command. We ain't that popular in Italy, especially ending Vicenzia's goal of achieving an international airport. The runway exists, but not a terminal. After spending millions to build a base the last thing America would want is an Australia following New Zealand, kicking us out for nuclear reasons.

I was thinking Diego Garcia may be a better location, but I'm not sure whether its doable, much less western Australia. With Japan we could always move to Guam. But one cannot plan US navy fleet numbers on speculation.

Click to expand...

I don't think Oz would kick you out on a Nuclear basis. More likely its that you won't get permission in the first place becuase of the political headache it would create for the government (whichever one is in eg. Pine Gap). CVN's do come to Aus and most in part its only a small group that protest. The large majority don't give two hoots.

Best place though may be East Timor if the US was actually serious. Revitalise their economy and tell them not to allow PRC to build an airbase or anything there . Second choice being PNG, its more dealing with the governments and any corruption that may cause some headaches than protestors in these countries. Its also a good location roughly halfway between the Indian ocean region and Japan to give some felxibility in any deplyment to both theaters.

Neither location would have any hinterland for support. Can't even get eatery stuff there. Could as well go to Diego Garcia instead.

Distiller said:

Neither location would have any hinterland for support. Can't even get eatery stuff there. Could as well go to Diego Garcia instead.

Click to expand...

Perth is a better idea than PNG or Timor. The infestructure in both of those places is primitive, not to mention the mood of local governments, local threat and cultural issues (yanks would probably find Perth specifically and Aus in general alot more like home [and probably more enjoyable] than port Moresby or Dilli).

I dont see it as being all that unlikely if you guys were serious about it. I think the majority of the Australian public would welcome a perminant deployment of a Nimitz class CVN & her air group to mainland AUS. Such a move would solidfy the US's commitment to the alliance (which is still very popular here) in the eyes of the public & double the strength of the RAN & RAAF in one stroke.

There definetly wont be any nuclear issues! Australia actively developed nuclear weapons for over a decade, we came pretty close too. The thing that that stoped us was not public opinion, but the NNPT treaty and the assured presance of the US's nuclear umbrella. Aus is not NZ and we dont have a similar attitude to nuclear weapons or propulsion, there was even a serious push here for nuclear power last year.

Is the USN less enthusiastic about keeping parts of the fleet overseas on a more or less permanent basis (like e.g. the Brits did when they still had the Empire), or like the Army does with large formations (Germany, Korea)?

With less ships available, keeping more permanent overseas stations could drastically cut transit requirements. The crew management would have to be remodeled, resulting in a leave cycle where only a small percentage of the crew is rotated out. During refits the crew could go for land based training or re-enforce other ships of the station.

Doable?

Not really. Most American soldiers, airmen, and sailors enjoy a three year tour of duty to Europe or Asia. I'm sure most wouldn't mind a tour of Australia. As I noted before, I spent three years as an army dependent in Vicenzia, Italy and another three years in Frankfurt, Germany. My family did a lot of touring on weekends. But I surely missed my aunts and uncles and cousins. But both my grandmas showed up on vacations. In both cases, neither had traveled abroad before. As Pug Henry says in the Winds of War, a military life leaves a family of tumbleweeds.

Sea Toby said:

Last year an Italian government fell after NATO's plans to expand Vicenzia's Southern European Command. We ain't that popular in Italy, especially ending Vicenzia's goal of achieving an international airport. The runway exists, but not a terminal. After spending millions to build a base the last thing America would want is an Australia following New Zealand, kicking us out for nuclear reasons.

.

Click to expand...

Actually no, the Italian government did not fall last year, it fell one month ago because a minor centrist party defected from the centre-left majority. Last year despite the extreme left's attempts to scutter the deal, Prodi kept on track the expansion plans of Vicenza's base.
While Italy has phased out Maddalena's SSN base, Naples remains the 6th fleet base. And we are not making a fuss of the nuclear weapons which are probably aboard the 6th fleet carriers...
So you can still count on Italy... and even on France eventually, as they are rejoining the central command of NATO (they've been out of it since 1966)

cheers

The Mules of the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the Southern European Command thank all the Italians. Unfortunately, there is much more activity in the Southern European Command's area, and the base is targeted for expansion. And unfortunately, the available land is the land reserved by the runway. I would like nothing more than see Vicenzia get an international terminal.

Frankly, I enjoyed Italy better than Germany. I found the Italians more friendly, like my favorite tenor, a great who passed away last year. We spent lots of time in Asiago and Rimini. And the best salad dressing is good simple table wine. I still consider Vicenzia home.

My mother made home movies, long before videos, of the area, especially driving along the roads by all of the vineyards. People always ask where she took the wonderful movies, and we always replied Vicenzia. Most don't even know where Vicenzia is!

I think a full naval base for a permanently forward based USN fleet should have a CVN capable drydock. Or a CVN-capable floating dock, which might be the better solution all in all anyway. Plus also a training range should be in the area.

Sometimes I think it might be easier to replace the CVNs with two dozen CVK with 50/55.000 tons and a 45+ aircraft airwing. But crewing and the additional escorts needed wouldn't make it any cheaper as a fleet, I guess.

Distiller said:

I think a full naval base for a permanently forward based USN fleet should have a CVN capable drydock. Or a CVN-capable floating dock, which might be the better solution all in all anyway. Plus also a training range should be in the area.

Sometimes I think it might be easier to replace the CVNs with two dozen CVK with 50/55.000 tons and a 45+ aircraft airwing. But crewing and the additional escorts needed wouldn't make it any cheaper as a fleet, I guess.

Click to expand...

im sure you can buy the CVF design and change it to suit the USA if you want something smaller and cheaper than a CVN.

Sea Toby said:

Most don't even know where Vicenzia is!

Click to expand...

Neither does google, are you sure your are spelling it correctly or do you mean Vicenza which is just north of Venice in Veneto Region.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

I dont see it as being all that unlikely if you guys were serious about it. I think the majority of the Australian public would welcome a perminant deployment of a Nimitz class CVN & her air group to mainland AUS. Such a move would solidfy the US's commitment to the alliance (which is still very popular here) in the eyes of the public & double the strength of the RAN & RAAF in one stroke.

There definetly wont be any nuclear issues! Australia actively developed nuclear weapons for over a decade, we came pretty close too. The thing that that stoped us was not public opinion, but the NNPT treaty and the assured presance of the US's nuclear umbrella. Aus is not NZ and we dont have a similar attitude to nuclear weapons or propulsion, there was even a serious push here for nuclear power last year.

Click to expand...

Do you really think the majority of Australians would support the permanent basing of an CVN in Australia. I have worked with a lot of Aussies and have many Aussie friends, most of them would find the idea of US bases in Australia abhorrent. I would bet the farm on it the protests would be massive and not nice.

As for nuclear weapons so what lots of countries have had a crack at designing just because the govt thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean it has popular support, plus I believe the vast majority of people on this planet apart for the odd wacko would be in favour of total disarmament, only a fool would be in favour of nuclear weapons. The Rudd Government opposes nuclear power generation.

Not all Nzers are opposed to nuclear power generation, a lot of us favour it, we came very close to building two plants in the 70's and contrary to what many believe nuclear power generation is not banned in NZ, the government wasn't that stupid when they introduced the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987.

Sorry, I still have problems spelling. Vicenza, not Vicenzia. Either way my English spell checker underlines both. And its more west of Venice, not to the north, and east of Verona. Frankly, I haven't spelled or written it in years. I don't know where the last i came from.

KiwiRob said:

the government wasn't that stupid when they introduced the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987.

Click to expand...

Well, it killed any defense treaty relationship with the United States, thank you, its one less country the USA will have to defend. As far as foreign policy, its pretty much killed a free trade agreement with the USA. Ten years ago they may have been popular, but lately they are not in the USA.

America may turn to isolationism again, many want us out of NATO and other defense treaties. Frankly, many in the USA are tired of leading the free world, and tired of UN peacekeeping missions. Let the rest of the world rot.

Then there are nations like New Zealand that take freedom for granted. There are still those of us who understand freedom is won, not given. That isolationism led to Hitlers. Did the UN ensure the Falkland Islanders freedom? I recall disarmament treaties before WWII, too bad they didn't stop a world war.

Isolationists do want to do one thing I agree with. They want to stop importing oil from the middle east, converting our energy fuel to bio fuels, growing corn. If we can supplant sugar with corn syrup, surely we can refine gasoline, or something similar, from corn and other crops.

I think the 313 fleet is a mirage anyway, with the cost of TWOT. Even LCS unit costs seem to be heading toward US$1 billion; maybe serial production will get that back.

Which CNO faced this before, with Vietnam costs and the old WW2 hulls needing replacement, was it Zumwalt? As I recall he favoured a smaller CV, and also planned the large number FFG7 class and the Pegasus hydrofoils. I have often wondered if the capture of the RN sailors this time last year by Iran would have been attempted if they had had a Pegasus class nearby!

With the F35 in the B and C versions a smaller deck carrier - as an augment to the big CVN's, may now be an idea whose time - and aircraft - has come. CVF, if allowed to be built to military, not budget, specifications, could be a winner.

LCS is a great concept with the modular mission systems, but dont gold plate them!