Posted on 04/16/2015 6:29:30 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Yeah, that 1.2 inches is going to increase stability an awful lot while she plows through a heavy storm!
Instead of the idiotic LCS ship, the USN should have fielded a light CVH based on the DDG-51 hull.
A fast ship cable of operating 20+ SH-60 sized helicopters, which could have flexed from mission to mission:
- Choke point control, loaded with Marine attack helicopters
- Mine sweeping, loaded with a new generation of CH-53s
- ASW, loaded with SH-60Rs
Normal ops could field a combination of USMC attack helicopters, a single CH-53 with a Marine combat contingent, and USN LAMPS helos. Think how useful that would have been off of Libya during Benghazi.
Possibly even field a pair of VTOL jets, if they are ever fielded, although that might be a bit too much.
Operate the modified CVH in defensive proximity to a DDG-51. That combination, could handle almost every naval player in the world, freeing up the CVN strike groups for the ones it couldn’t handle.
That 1.2 inches is multiplied by the length and width of the area contained of the ship, and all its mass within that volume.
Assuming that area contains a lot of mass, and not empty space, it could be quite significant............
I’ll modify my last. Base the new CVH on the CG hulls. That would make them about the same size and tonnage as the WWII CVLs.
the Littoral combat ship is an under achiever so far to be sure, but the age of Hulls in the fleet is getting to the point that even under achievers will get there day in the sun... in fact they are being upgunned to FF’s (losing some of the gear for the LCCS standard)
The San Antonio Class is a good LPD(H) but that is what it was made to be.
If a true CH(H) is what is wanted..
A converted container ship or Double hull tanker design would be good choices but ... lack of speed would make much like the CVE of the second World War.
edit
CH(H) ment to be CV(H)
The CVLs were on cruiser hulls for a reason, and that reason was speed.
We could use about a dozen helicopter carriers, whether you want to call them DDHs like the Japanese or CHs, or CVHs.
The goal would be affordable presence and capability. Obviously a CVN would always be better, but we don’t have enough of them. A smaller conventional 600’ / 10-20k ton ship would provide a lot of economy. No reason to load it up with sensors and weapons, just pair it with a DDG.
Yes, using a commercial hull would give you a flight deck, but it wouldn’t be fast and it wouldn’t have the survivability, damage-control already designed into the existing hulls/power plants.
Strip the ship above the current weather deck and put on a hanger and flight deck. I would not place armor on either, due to weight.
“I’ll modify my last. Base the new CVH on the CG hulls.”
Yeah, all the DD-962’s the Navy scrapped might have worked well, having the same hull as the CG-47’s.
Fine platforms. Keep building!
Correction - DD-963, not DD-962
Interesting, although I would go the whole hog, getting rid of gun mount, center super structure, phased-array, VLS, and then building a wider flight deck.
It might also be possible to get rid of a dedicated hangar deck as well, keeping the flight deck low to the water, but some enclosure would be required for deep maintenance.
LPD hulls would be even better for size, but they are slow with the current power plant, at 22 kt.
The CVLs of WWII were built on Cruiser Hulls more becuse they were handy.
The entire class was a series of compomises which the Navy did not really think worth it.. but FDR did.
In hindsight I agree with FDR (shudder) it was best to have the Independence Class in production just in case the Essex class was delayed (thankfully the Essex’s were early)
I met John Finn once. Had a few beers with him.
The CVLs were not fleet carriers and in hindsight the idea of building them might not seem rationale, but in 1942 when we couldn’t scrounge up fleet carriers and Midway could have gone the opposite way, it was a fantastic idea. They were much preferable to the Kaiser hulled jeep carriers.
Without cruiser like speed, they could not have been a part of the fast CV/BS strike groups.
The idea of having a DDH type ship is not a throwback to the CVL concept (CVA light). I referenced them only concerning their size and speed.
A DDH would bring a lot to the table, not to replace CVNs, but to supplement them. I think a group of 2 DDHs and 3 DDGs could hold the Straits of Hormuz on their own. A DDH would be better for anti-piracy than a CVN (with standard air wing load out).
Cost should be far less than a DDG, as the expensive weapon systems go away. Just CIWS and M2s.
If the Navy had 15 such ships, it would add enormous presence at about the same cost as 1 more CVN.
Sounds like that DDX-10000 or whatever it was is dead? A bridge too far.
Agreed more platforms make for more flexibility.
Cost would not be as low as one would hope probably due to Aircraft + Electronics / Air Control.
A linked Control and support system, like Fleet and Jeep CV’s had could be used but the weak link of Command and Control is still present.
IF the F-35 works as well as hoped... sigh
Then the UK style “through deck cruisers” could be used as CV’s fairly well.
As a fan of Harpoon, I would rather have ANY CATOBAR CV but if not available STOBAR with a GOOD Aircraft would be the next best thing.
Note
* YAK-38 = Poor.
* Harrier FRS = Fair
* Harrier AV8 = Fair+
* F-35 as proposed = GOOD
The LPH’s with AV8’s are as good as most countries CV’s but that is a low bar indeed.
I would use the DDGs for all command and control. Just use the DDH as a flight deck. I’m a retired Naval Flight Officer and the CC was quite often on the DDGs during strike group ops.
It would be concept wherein the DDHs were simply never operating on their own, so onboard CC sensors and comms wouldn’t be required. The moment the aircraft left the deck, they would check in with the DDG.
Aircraft costs for 15 DDHs would be comparable to the cost for one CVN air wing, as helos are substantially less expensive and the normal load out would only be ~10, with existing USMC attack squadrons available to supplement.
My concept is purely for sea control, not overland strike. Going fixed wing would enormously increase costs with deck stressing, fuel use, heavier ordnance, more topside weight problems, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
