US Navy News and updates

Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
Actually if the QE class was modified to CATOBAR then it definitely would meet the criteria. I do believe that there exists a CATOBAR design option for it, because the UK looked at it and started the process around 2011 when their pollies were going through their cost cutting frenzy.
Click to expand...
For a CATBAR carrier of a nation without better yes. But you are talking about a moving from an Airwing capability of 60-90 on Ford and Nimitz class to one designed for 40 or less. That’s a significant down step. Farther when you consider the MQ25 and other unmanned platforms being added to the USN Airwing.
www.thedrive.com

Navy’s Aviation Boss Lays Out Big Vision For Drone-Packed Carriers Of The Future

The Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance program is now seeking to replace its Super Hornets and Growlers with a family of systems.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Moving to CVL just doesn’t seem like it has the room for a larger wing. If we were talking about the French Navy or Indian Navy CVL okay based off QE class CATBAR Great but the USN. No.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
Other news.
news.usni.org

Admiral: Next Navy Helos Will Be Mix of Manned, Unmanned - USNI News

The Navy is pursuing both manned and unmanned platforms for the aircraft that will replace its rotary-wing fleet, according to a service official. Rear Adm. Gregory Harris, who leads the chief of naval operation’s air warfare directorate (OPNAV N98), said during a Navy League breakfast this week...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
USN and USMC helicopter mix of manned and unmanned.

@Terran

Just a friendly reminder that you should value add rather than just posting a link and pointing to it,

Cheers
Alexsa
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CB90

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Terran said:
For a CATBAR carrier of a nation without better yes. But you are talking about a moving from an Airwing capability of 60-90 on Ford and Nimitz class to one designed for 40 or less. That’s a significant down step. Farther when you consider the MQ25 and other unmanned platforms being added to the USN Airwing.
www.thedrive.com

Navy’s Aviation Boss Lays Out Big Vision For Drone-Packed Carriers Of The Future

The Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance program is now seeking to replace its Super Hornets and Growlers with a family of systems.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Moving to CVL just doesn’t seem like it has the room for a larger wing. If we were talking about the French Navy or Indian Navy CVL okay based off QE class CATBAR Great but the USN. No.
Click to expand...
It’s not just about “better.”

The industrial capacity to build CVNs is capped by the throughout of our nuclear yards. Same goes for major maintenance, which also has limits on capacity of repair yards capable of nuclear work. In the context of expanding flight deck capacity force wide, a CVL option would offer a way to more quickly expand that.

If the CVL were conventional powered, it would also easily fit into the existing build and repair infrastructure that already supports the LHD/A class.

The LHA type ships are also approaching a crossroads as the USMC slowly shifts away from desiring to base their force structure around large amphibious raids centered on staging from big deck amphibs.

The size of the Fords is also predicated on a need for sortie generation to be able to cycle aircraft on and off to deliver a steady stream of ordnance. Very useful to have in the 2000’s, somewhat less relevant when aircraft are conducting a major war at sea where the CVN can’t simply simply stay on station for days with impunity.

In the short term, I expect the LHA “Lightning Carrier” to be the thing that supplements the USMC EABO concept. Longer term as they age out? Depends on what the Marine mission future looks like 10-15 years down the track. Could be a CVL functioning as the equivalent of a WW2 CVE may become more attractive depending on how EABO evolves. It is highly doubtful the CVN can dedicate time to provide air cover for ground forces in theater, and the South Pacific is too far for TACAIR from other established land bases to be fully effective.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
@CB90 I was responding to the pitch of a CVL that would be derived from the QE class or akin their in as in a dedicated design medium sized Catbar carrier of 65-70,000 tons. That would in theory replace a CVN.
This in my opinion wouldn’t meet the needs of growth of factor into a pacific fight vs Air denial. Which would likely demand an expanded air wing of Manned escort/Intercept aircraft (F35C F/A18E/F F/A-XX) Tanker/ISR/augmented AEW (MQ25), CSAR/COD (CMV22), ASW support, Electronic warfare (E/A18G), AEW(E2D), and unmanned platforms. In particular an unmanned flying wing low observable with aspects like the X47C was supposed to be but with a mission closer to the old A5 Vigilante a Naval Bomber.
Strikes and other support missions would still need that sortie rate to get those platforms into the sky, the size to house and repair them to.
That’s why I don’t feel a “CVL Medium” is right for the USN. Farther I add that given the issues the USN has with maintenance and upkeep of existing types and the number of available yards as well as the size question it doesn’t in my opinion make sense. Particularly since last I saw the USN already has orders for the first 6 Fords.

This said I actually agree with what you are talking about here. IMO the USN should buy more LHA America class in the same configuration or similar to the America and Tripoli. That is no well deck expanded aviation. To augment and support. Basically making the America class a CVE. It’s air wing is limited to be sure optimally something like a dozen F35B, MV22 to serve as CSAR/COD/Tanker (in a pinch), V247 Vigilance for ISR/ASW/AEW light. Which is basically what Adm Harris said.https://seapowermagazine.org/light-carrier-concept-not-compelling-navys-air-warfare-director-says/
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Terran said:
@CB90 I was responding to the pitch of a CVL that would be derived from the QE class or akin their in as in a dedicated design medium sized Catbar carrier of 65-70,000 tons. That would in theory replace a CVN.
This in my opinion wouldn’t meet the needs of growth of factor into a pacific fight vs Air denial. Which would likely demand an expanded air wing of Manned escort/Intercept aircraft (F35C F/A18E/F F/A-XX) Tanker/ISR/augmented AEW (MQ25), CSAR/COD (CMV22), ASW support, Electronic warfare (E/A18G), AEW(E2D), and unmanned platforms. In particular an unmanned flying wing low observable with aspects like the X47C was supposed to be but with a mission closer to the old A5 Vigilante a Naval Bomber.
Strikes and other support missions would still need that sortie rate to get those platforms into the sky, the size to house and repair them to.
That’s why I don’t feel a “CVL Medium” is right for the USN. Farther I add that given the issues the USN has with maintenance and upkeep of existing types and the number of available yards as well as the size question it doesn’t in my opinion make sense. Particularly since last I saw the USN already has orders for the first 6 Fords.

This said I actually agree with what you are talking about here. IMO the USN should buy more LHA America class in the same configuration or similar to the America and Tripoli. That is no well deck expanded aviation. To augment and support. Basically making the America class a CVE. It’s air wing is limited to be sure optimally something like a dozen F35B, MV22 to serve as CSAR/COD/Tanker (in a pinch), V247 Vigilance for ISR/ASW/AEW light. Which is basically what Adm Harris said.https://seapowermagazine.org/light-carrier-concept-not-compelling-navys-air-warfare-director-says/
Click to expand...
Nope, the pitch for a CVL is not to replace a CVN at all. The idea put forward by Dr Roper was for a CVL class to compliment the CVN capability. IIRC it would be about half the size and because they will be easier and cheaper to build the Navy can deploy more as part of its distributed lethality concept.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
ngatimozart said:
Nope, the pitch for a CVL is not to replace a CVN at all. The idea put forward by Dr Roper was for a CVL class to compliment the CVN capability. IIRC it would be about half the size and because they will be easier and cheaper to build the Navy can deploy more as part of its distributed lethality concept.
Click to expand...
Yes, the plan is/was? to compliment the CVN fleet but IIRC it is means a reduction in the CVN fleet size.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
Nope, the pitch for a CVL is not to replace a CVN at all. The idea put forward by Dr Roper was for a CVL class to compliment the CVN capability. IIRC it would be about half the size and because they will be easier and cheaper to build the Navy can deploy more as part of its distributed lethality concept.
Click to expand...
Two concepts were studied for CVL one based on America class which would be far smaller than a CVN. The other based off Ford.
www.thedrive.com

Navy Looking At America And Ford Class Derivatives In New Light Aircraft Carrier Studies

Greater emphasis on unmanned aircraft, including ones that take off and land vertically, could also impact light aircraft carrier proposals.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
In the end based on Adm. Harris neither is a go.

John Fedup said:
Yes, the plan is/was? to compliment the CVN fleet but IIRC it is means a reduction in the CVN fleet size.
Click to expand...
That’s an argument that has been made by critics of the Ford. Particularly for the Ford lite. But If America CVL then it would be a compliment.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Terran said:
Two concepts were studied for CVL one based on America class which would be far smaller than a CVN. The other based off Ford.
www.thedrive.com

Navy Looking At America And Ford Class Derivatives In New Light Aircraft Carrier Studies

Greater emphasis on unmanned aircraft, including ones that take off and land vertically, could also impact light aircraft carrier proposals.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
In the end based on Adm. Harris neither is a go.


That’s an argument that has been made by critics of the Ford. Particularly for the Ford lite. But If America CVL then it would be a compliment.
Click to expand...
Yes, an expanded number of America class ships seems the most logical quick term solution, especially if new engine technology and perhaps a conformal fuel tanks can enhance the F-35B’s range. WRT to a new design CVL, how much bigger does it need to be? A CATOBAR capable CV that the USN would accept, I am guessing 50-60 kilo tons, probably more. With EMALS, how many GTs would you need for a CVL in this range? At this point the US nuclear lobby would jump in ( and they should IMO). Then the debate becomes CVL(N) or Ford CVN. Assuming the Ford has resolved its outstanding issues, the America class and Ford classes should prevail, but that’s just my opinion.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
The size would depend on mission.
If we were talking Capt. Jerry Hendrix idea.
www.nationalreview.com

The Aircraft Carrier We Need | National Review

A strategic design update is due.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com
That would be a Ford light, something between Queen Elizabeth class and Ford class so 70-95k tons.
with my bet being closer to the heavier side.
But that’s not a CVL. It’s a Ford replacement class but built off the same tech and tooling. Like Seawolf class to Virginia or comparing a Chevy Suburban to a Chevy Tahoe.
The US did that once before. CVN 65 Enterprise of her own class was followed by CV 66 America and CV 67 John F Kennedy of Kittyhawk class Nuclear to conventional. Of course CVN 68 was the Nimitz back to Nuclear.
But the Ford light concept for CVL seems to have always been Nuclear due to Speed and range.
America class of course was and remains conventional turbines.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The Hendrix article is interesting, especially wrt the UCAV strike squadrons. I am not sure if a 65-70 ton CVL(N) is going to provide the same savings that the Sea Wolf to Virginia transition did. Much of the technology will be the same, the EMALS, elevators, and most of the electronics. If two reactors from the Columbia class SSBN could power this proposed CVL then perhaps this offers a significant cost reduction. If not, and add in the design costs and time required, seems high risk. The Ford shock trials will be a huge factor in what happens.
 
Boagrius

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
A closer look at what appears to be an AIM-174 in the link above

174113536_10216934427306795_1706156476083338582_n.jpg

I am not sure how much the missile weighs sans booster but my guess is the Rhino could plausibly carry somewhere from 2-4 of these. Simultaneously a massive step up for fleet defense and anti-shipping, particularly if the new SM6 Blk IB gets the same treatment.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It has offensive and defensive purposes. Pretty neat and the spiritual successor of the AIM54?
I wonder if this has raised in priority given issues with the CFT on the block III.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The USN has ordered the integration of the LRASM into the the P-8A Poseidon. Boeing has been awarded the $74 million contract and the work is expected to be completed by October 2024.

seapowermagazine.org

Navy Orders LRASM Integration into P-8 Aircraft - Seapower

ARLINGGTON, Va. — The Navy has awarded a contract to Boeing to integrate the AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) into the P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol reconnaissance aircraft. The Naval Air Systems Command awarded Boeing a $74 million cost-plus-fixed-fee order for...
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
The USN has ordered the integration of the LRASM into the the P-8A Poseidon. Boeing has been awarded the $74 million contract and the work is expected to be completed by October 2024.

seapowermagazine.org

Navy Orders LRASM Integration into P-8 Aircraft - Seapower

ARLINGGTON, Va. — The Navy has awarded a contract to Boeing to integrate the AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) into the P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol reconnaissance aircraft. The Naval Air Systems Command awarded Boeing a $74 million cost-plus-fixed-fee order for...
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org
Click to expand...
Can’t see too many reasons why Australia won’t keep pace with this program, we are a development Partner on the P-8, we have already ordered the Missile, seems very close to being a no-brainer.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
A rather embarrassing situation for the USN. After numerous promises all elevators would be ready for USS Ford’s pending shock trials, apparently 4 elevators won’t be ready. COVID can’t be the sole reason and a combination of bad management and perhaps outright lying is likely. Perhaps more concerning is the possibility the close tolerances for these elevators won’t do well during the shock trial.
www.forbes.com

Despite Promises, USS Ford Heads To Shock Trials With 4 Broken Elevators

The pattern of broken promises on the USS Ford is a symptom of an ongoing naval credibility crisis. The next Navy Secretary must move quickly to solve this corrosive threat to U.S. National Security.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
An article by Prof James Holmes who is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the US Naval War College. It's an interesting article and suggests a way for the US and it's allies to master the PRC at sea in the Asia Pacific region. The real question is although the PRC will use Mao's active defence doctrine, do they have an effective defence strategy for it if its used against them?

www.19fortyfive.com

America’s Maoist Maritime Strategy To Beat China in a War

It’s one way to understand China’s maritime strategy in the Western Pacific. It’s also a way for the American sea services to plot strategy to deny China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy control of the sea.
www.19fortyfive.com www.19fortyfive.com
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Systems Adict said:
Found this article about the 'LCS'.

What do y'all think ?

1st two LCS's to be Mothballed.
Click to expand...
We actually had a discussion on this sometime last year when the original announcement had been made to decommission the first 2 Vessels of both classes. I think those 4 Ships are regarded as prototypes to some degree and would need significant work to bring them up to the same standard as their later Sisters.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Some preliminary information on what the next US SSN(x) might be. Seems the plan is to return to a high end SSN similar to Seawolf. The emphasis will more ASW which makes sense given the increasing threat from new Chinese and Russian SSNs not to mention a wide range of new SSKs from numerous navies both friendly and otherwise.

www.navalnews.com

U.S. Navy Outlines the Next-Generation Attack Submarine SSN(X) Program - Naval News

The U.S. Navy has received $1 million dollars from Congress to start research and development in FY2021 for a successor to the current Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN).
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top