Posted on 03/03/2007 6:36:47 AM PST by Jeff Head
Edited on 03/03/2007 8:34:45 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Spruances were quiet and very good at ASW...and the trained for that. The Burkes are primarily AAW but being used in multi-role...and therefore spend less time training ASW than what the Spruances did.
When you add the loss of the Spruances to the fact that the S-3 ASW capability has been completely removed from the carriers...well, I am uneasy about it.
We are pinning a lot of hopes on the multi-role capability of the LCS...but they are smaller than the Perries were without as much endurance. Great for the littorals, but I do not believe strong enough for a CSG or even escorting PHIBRONS. BTW, all of the Standard Missile capabilities from all of the remianing 30 Perry class have been removed. Their only armament now is a single CIWS, a 76mm gun and the top tubes. AAW coverage is gone from them.
Anyhow, it sickens me to see the Spruances sunk. They would have been excellent for at the very least reserve duties. Semi-mothballed until needed.
But with AIP, I expect more and more Diesel/Electrics, which are extremely quiet, will be out in the blue water laying traps and laying for our capitol ships. Every sub in WWII was a diesel and their patrols took them all over the world. We cannot project our own thoughts on our enemies and posture just according to that.
Buils the LCS...go into the littorals and take the fight to them...but realize that some of them, maybe a lot of them, will be trying to take the fight to you too so keep that strong ASW capability, every bit of it, all around your carriers and other capitol ships. I believe we are going to need it.
When you add to that the unbelievable naval shipbuilding going on in China for major surface combatants, they are making it clear that they intend to come out into the blue water as well, with the subs, and take us on.
...of course, thank goodness for our own very quiet and capable SSNs because they may well be what we fall back on and put a lot of marbles into.
The Ukraine would have had to put it in drydock to gut the engine room and taking the shafts means sealing some sizable holes. Like you said the rudders and screws are simple enough. The U.S. Navy usually removes and reworks them on a carriers every 5 year overhaul. The boilers could be pulled out but WHY would be the question.
Anything that goes in the engine room after the main deck is installed {hanger deck on the U.S. Carriers} means cutting them open and accessing by cutting down several decks. Even the galley ovens etc have to go in that way. Most stuff like that can be done in the three month yard period. The major stuff would be replaced in the overhaul if it could hold out.
I spent my last year while we were in a year long overhaul including 9 months drydock time. It was a great learning experience. You'll see places on the ship you'll never otherwise ever get to see like underneath the bottom of the ship LOL. I was T.A.D to the Fire Department and had to do fire safety inspections. During that time I made it a point to see every space I could possibly find especially the ones that were usually otherwise off limits. In one yard period some of us went through a boiler, out the exhaust, and up to the base of the stack.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2997
The airwing is largely outdated and not realistic. It will be SU-33s, and maybe some day a navalized J-10.
I'm pretty sure this is what you were talking about.
Those are exactly the pictures and by implication, their intentions are perfectly clear. Thanks for pointing out the Sino Defense Forum. I have registered there.
Glad to have been able to locate them for you...but the guy that really found them was a poster named swimmerXC over there whi is simply phenominal when it comes to finding pics of the Chinese Navy. You have a FRemail.
I like the idea of STOAL. It's a Russian invention, but so were a lot of things.
I wouldn't venture to guess about the numbers, but you'd probably be able to build two or three such carriers for the price of one new CVN -- and having that many flight decks available would be a heck of a force-multiplier and also allow us to reduce our CVN exposure.
Our doctrine is different and it is one that inlcues those roles the Russians use, but adds the role of strike at sea, or on ground with our air wing, and the reason that our carriers are so much greater force multipliers is precisely because we use cats. That allows an air wing that can carry a lot of surface pounding ordinance, and it allows large AEW and EW aircraft to be embarked as well.
The Russian doctrine was basically one of using such carriers to help defend their submarine bastions at sea and so they have the airwing to mainly provide air coverage.
If we build smaller carriers (and we can) we should build them with cats...or if we go the STOL route, it will be along the lines of the Soviets, and that is to provide air coverage over carriers and to do ASW work, freeing the large decks for the strike role...which role, IMHO, is indespensable for sea control and for strategic power projections.
In a head up conforntation between one of our carrier groups and one of theirs, because of the huge advantage given by the larger, long range AEW aircraft, and the long distance, heavy ordinance strike capability of the air wing, the US carrier strike group will win virtually every time.
I guess what I am saying is that I like the idea of having more flight decks available than we have with just the CVNs.Agreed on all counts.
You can bet your bottom Yuan that they already have several competing plans for the next series of ships and are arguing about them as we speak. And you can also bet money that the next series of ships will be built and launched a heck of a lot faster.
The major disadvantage of STOAL is that those attack aircraft just cannot carry much ordinance or fuel...they are very limited in the strike role. And the AEW aircraft on every STOAL carrier in the world are helos, also very limited when compared to an E-2C type bird.
Now, get an AEW V-22 out there (and we really, really should) and this helps the AEW picture immeasurably for the STOAL.
Until that is done, I believe one large deck super carrier would in fact take on and take out two or three of these STOAL carriers. It could keep its distance, out of range of the STOAL strike groups, and it would know where they were much better with the AEW assets they have.
I still think we should have more of them because in terms of escorting PHIBRONS and large convoys in a major conflict, and in terms of giving aircover to, and major suppoprt to, ASW operations they would be invaluable and allow the large decks to do the strike packages.
They would also be invaulable in being combo'ed with a large deck carrier, providing the local CAP and major ASW thereby freeing up more birds on the large deck for strike and strike escort.
I believe we should have 14-16 big decks and 12-14 Sea Control STOAL decks.
Trying to get into the head of the PLAN planners (heh) is tough, but let me try.
Can't take off with a full load of ordnance and fuel? OK, we configure one type of bird as a tanker, launch those first, then launch the strike birds with just enough gas to get into the air, hook them up with the tankers for a full bag, and off they go.
Obiously that is not as flexible as a USN CVBG, plus you don't have as many aircraft available, but it could be done.
Especially, I am thinking, if you configure the flight deck in a way that allows you to use the entire lenght of the ship AND the STOAL ramp.
Right now, unless I am mistaken, the USN is flying ONE combination strike/fighter bird off of all our carriers, the Hornet. No more A-6s, A-7s, or even S-3s. Yet, they obviously do the job. If we can figure that out, I am sure the ChiComs have figured a workaround.
I dunno. Given the political atmosphere in the Navy today, I think the brass would fight tooth and nail against anything except MORE full-sized CVNs, and would probably win the fight. Foolish in my book. If the ChiComs thought full deck CVNs were the way to go, they would be building them. They aren't -- and THAT worries me.
The Chinese are going to launch the Varyag, and I believe it will be an operational carrier and used in the STOAL mode for ASW, for escort fleet air defense, and for very limited, relatively short ranged strike capabilities. They will learn with her. I fully expect that they will launch at least two full sized carriers in the teens.
Their designs are already out there. Project 81 in particular. I believe that the keel for at least one of them may already have been, or soon will be laid.
Now, these earlier pics lacked the angle deck, which was a problem. Newer pics from the PRC and their coneptual artists fix that.
What numbers do you think we should have on cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes (LCS), submarines, and amphibs in both active duty and reserve?
14-16 Large Nuclear Carriers
12-14 STOLA/Sea Control Carriers
14-16 LHA large deck Amphibs
14-16 LPD Amphibs (Like the San Antonio Class)
36 CGs (AAW)
48 DDGs (AAW-ASW)
18 DDGs (ASuW-ASW)
48 FFGs (Multi Purpose-ASW)
60 LCS (Littoral Multi purpose)
60 SSNs
30 SSKs (Modern AIP Diesel Electrics)
20 SSBNs
10 SSGNs
And then all of the air wings, patrol aircraft, smaller amphibs, replenishment ships, oilers, ammo ships, and other logistical ships to support it all.
A modern, 500 ship Navy that is maintained and keeps a good 100 ships (over and above the active 500) in the reserve fleet, ready for emergency commissioning in a crisis, and are rotated through as new technology and classes of vessels are implemented and the older ones retired.
Then, beefing up, modernizing and then maintaining the Coast Guard with the following force structure:
20 High Endurance cutters (National Security Cutters)
30 Medium Endurance Cutters (Offshore Patrol Cutters)
100 Coastal/Marine Patrol Boats (Fast Response Cutters)
And all of the helos, patrol aircraft, logistical vessels, and smaller vessels necessary to cover critical shore and waterways.
Although it may simply be a dream, I believe his level of effort effort is vital and necessary to allow us to maintian our pre-eminance on the high seas, protect our vital interests and the sea lanes between them, and maintain our technology and production base so that we can sustain those things for the long term.
What percentage of the national budget would this defense program cost? What percentage of the national budget should we spend on defense?
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.