The outlook for U.S. Navy firepower doesn't have to be all doom and gloom.
Some clever spending and management on the things that we need to project real power is possible. By dumping bad ideas like the LCS and DDX (scrap; do not follow through), there can be a bright future. Savings can also be had from down-sizing our second land army and cancelling the F-35 program.
Future wars may involve a reduced and/or interrupted supply of fossil fuels. We need a nuke escort for our nuke carriers. That way, you only bring fuel to the carrier battle group that supports air ops.
A nuke "frigate" (friendly funding language) on a destroyer hull (stripped not equipped), could be to our advantage. Something like this:
Nuke Frigate
Gun, Bow VLS, 6xASW torp, (light cal guns as needed) Helo hanger/deck
cost $1.5B
A requirement for 3 hulls per big carrier (we would probably get 2).
Next, the carrier air wing still has some possibilities even if the F-35C never sees service in the fleet.
Start out with something like this where the AT6II label is there only to represent a trainer-class turbo-prop made into a light attack aircraft. This requirement would most likely be a different airframe.
This would be handy in numerous operations; is cheap to operate; is networked and has great loiter and endurance. It is also a bit safer with danger/close strafing. It would be for day or night ops in permissive air environments.
Carrier Air Wing
12 F/A-18E, 12 F/18F, 24 AT6II, 8 Romeo/Sierra, 4 EA-18G, 4 E-2D.
As time goes on, it may be possible that that the UCAS-N will prove itself. The carrier air wing composition below (along with Tomahawk support as needed) would have taken care of the Libya op very well. I mention this because some are so in love with mentioning Libya as a pattern for future war even if it doesn't apply in a Syria, Iran or Kosovo scenario.
12 F/A-18E, 12 F/18F, 24 AT6II, 8 UCAS-N, 8 Romeo/Sierra, 4 EA-18G, 4 E-2D.
And finally, with time, the addition of FA-XX; which should be a Navy priority sooner rather than later.
12 F/A-XX, 12 F/18F, 24 AT6II, 8 UCAS-N, 8 Romeo/Sierra, 4 EA-18G, 4 E-2D.
There may be doom and gloom in the DOD budget climate. There will always be restructuring followed by more doom and gloom. We may loose some carriers to budget cuts.
With that, the Navy still can have a bright future; if only resources are not wasted on things we do not need.
5 comments:
Agree on nuclear escorts. Would probably follow the Burke Flt.1 approach here, not putting a full aviation complex on the escorts. At the same time I'd drastically increase the self-defence capability of the carriers.
Would also add nuclear fleet replenishers.
And of course I advocate an unified tactical aviation, which changes the role of the carrier more towards a mobile forward airfield. Especially looking at heavy attack UAV.
Attack props I'd rather operate off amphibs.
I see the F/A-XX / NGAD as a two-crew aircraft: you need the WSO to provide local control over a UCAS-N.
Agree on the all-nuke CSG compliment.
Both land armies need reduction, but the Marines are important contingency forces, so you don't cut them too much. You can revise their aviation structure: no F-35B, retire AV-8B's, no more MV-22, add -60's and -53K's.
Nuclear escorts are a good idea. Not so sure about light attack...it's good for Operation More Useless Dirt, but little else.
I really don't think USA can build a small nuclear frigate for $1.5 billion. It just won't happen, next thing you know, it weighs more than a destroyer and costs more than $5 billion.
IMO, it is inevitable that we will see reductions across the board in defense. We can do it half ass (most likely scenario because we have idiots across the military/civilian leadership in Washington)or have some sort of re-org and intelligent draw-down.
Probably would have no more than 100 F35B + 150 AT6++ (get rid pronto of all other fast jets)for a very much reduced Marine Air (mainly helos and UAV)and change the concept of why and what the Marines do. Do we need 200,000 Marines? I'm not sure or at least I am not sure we can afford them, if we do, they have to justify it better. Navy goes to 9 carriers, maybe 8. No more than 10 new SSBNs, maybe 8. Keep F35C, get rid of early Hornets, maybe a small top up of SHs. Get serious on Navy UAV. If we have less jets on decks, is there anything else we can put on those carriers, more helos, more UAVs, maybe buy some of those Russian containers with cruise missles? Navy did a great job turning SSBNs to SSGNs, maybe spend some money on a study of what else carriers can do? Cancel LCS and DDX. Keep buying 2 Virginias and 2 Burkes a year if we can.
You need to make the fleet survivable in this budgetary environment, the US military is going to have to live with in the means afforded by the money given and avoid a hollow fleet which we will get with a bunch of carriers with no jets, bloated programs, poor maintenance or lack of spares,etc....
Interesting concepts.
I guess while I'd support at least some nuke-powered Destroyer hull sized ships for the added capacity to juice future DEW or laser systems, I'm questioning if such a nuke-heavy future fleet might have some issues with making friendly port calls in nuke-free ports? But the idea is worthy, especially with a substantially reduced future combatant fleet.
In the short term, I'm curious of the progress with Hybrid powered Burke class and possible Hybrid feasibility for naval ships in general (support ships, mini-deck carriers eg)? I read something awhile back re: a Burke hybrid propulsion power program but haven't read up on it.
Regarding a potential 80k lb MTOW class FA-XX program, I'd start laying the ground work now to insist that it be a common, joint service airframe, per Distiller's long championed vision of an evolved joint command. I'd also contemplate if such a 40k lb empty design could be triple F414 EPE engined (tuned for durability and fuel efficiency), instead of dual F135 engined (which would be a monstrosity of a chunky, torch blowing and expensive aircraft) imho. If anything, one might be a bit squeamish with the thought of 4 different logistics going on (FA-XX, Super Hornet, UCAV, and prop COIN) in addition to E-2 and helo. Any way to consolidate that line up would seem to be prudent.
But I too have pondered/advocated the multiple force-multiplier effect of a light multi-mission prop capability - operated either from Amphib or CVN. With it's claimed 6-9 hr endurance, it could probably be configured as anything from an S-3-lite, to fleet force protection (anti- small boat), to intra-fleet OTH comms/network relay, light CAS/COIN, etc.
Other than that, I'd probably agree with more thoughts posted on this broad topic than any other thread before.
Post a Comment