Thread: New Maritime Strategy Out

Some rambling thoughts I made at Galrahns blog about LCS/Motherships/Strategy/Force Structure etc.:

Information Dissemination

I never really understood what the LCS was supposed to or how it was supposed to do it.

The high-speed requirement which isnt likely to be met must certainly have caused a myriad of design problems.

With 62 Burkes and 22 Ticos plus a handful of DDX/CGX the USN should be able to field 10 CSGs, 10 ESGs and 10 SSGs.

Another requirement is a dozen frigate type ships for mostly Western Hemisphere Ops and ASW/MW R&D.

Four based in San Diego and the rest in Mayport.

This ship should have high endurance/Seakeeping standards and the ability to operate/maintain two 15 ton helos, boats for boarding, a remote vehicle operating capablity and appropriate self-defense weapons/sensors.

Larger than LCS but not over 5000 tons and preferably less if possible.

Ten Motherships based on the LPD 17 class capable of supporting small boats/attack craft, support up to four CH 53 equivilants and able to operate remote vehicles. And again fitted with appropriate self-defense weapons.

These vessels could be operated independently or with CSG/ESG/SSG formations.

But usually accompanied by a single non-organic helo fitted Burke DDG.

With 28 Burkes with no organic helo divvied up with other helo capable ships in particular Carriers, LHA/Ds and "motherships"(for lack of a better term) their true strength can be leveraged and their inherent shortcomings minimized.

Those Burkes, Frigates and Motherships are all team players in wartime scenarios and all but the Burkes capable of useful independent non-wartime missions.

How to pay for it?

Seabase to me its a non-starter far too vulnerable tactically, strategically and logistically IMHO at least as proposed.

Just some thoughts.

Im probably way off base.


A few things that are related.:

Did you read my comments under your LCS blog?

Seabase must evolve quickly to get the ten LPD 17 variants I talked about above.

Maritime Strategy: The key for me is "scalability"

Again Global fleet Stations and the Mothership/New frigate class/Burke class DDGs plus the SSG formation are the key.

Increased USMC participation ie ESGs and Air Power ie CSGs flow from the above.

And would greatly increase the unpredictability of those large formations deployments.

But the Seabasing plan as now envisioned and at the point of being funded along with the LCS program must be scrapped.

The LSD deployments are fine for a start but IMHO are not the long term answer that an LPD 17 variant could, would, should be.

The USN has window of opportunity that will close in less than six months to secure its future.

It must bite the bullet where necessary and must not fail to exploit this short window of opportunity to the fullest extent possible.

The only question is the USN leadership prepared to to do what is right, realistic and pragmatic or will it be business as usual????????????????????

Wow, I agree 100% with you there Rick. It just makes so much sense.

I've always thought the Navy made a HUGE mistake in the late 90's by saying that the "Frigate" hull classification was no longer needed in the fleet, and no new designs would be pursued. They instead opted for the LSC, which in my opinion is not an effective warship. Breaking up the functions to be performed by the LCS into a LDP-17 variant and a new Frigate is the perfect solution to what had become a major problem.

I do worry about the time it would take to design/plan/manufacture/trial and finally field an entirely new class of Frigate, perhaps there is a suitable design already in production somewhere in the world the US Navy could easily modify to meet its needs, and start production more quickly. I personally like the MEKO A-200, MEKO-D, and Formidable classes. Perhaps they are a bit too multi-mission for your designs, but that can be changed.

Also, what is the SSG you refer to? I assume this is a surface action group designation, but I am not sure. As well, I wonder if there is room for a smaller patrol boat type vessel to fill part of the LCS gap as well. Perhaps a Corvette sized vessel or something like the Skjold or Visby class?

Your right, the big question is, will the US Navy recognize this as a big problem, and pursue the right solution.

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

Also, what is the SSG you refer to? I assume this is a surface action group designation, but I am not sure.

Should be "Surface Strike Group". As I understand it, that's currently simply the globally-deployed taskforces that don't fit the CSG or ESG pattern.

Rickusn:

I'd be interested what you mean with "appropriate self-defense weapons/sensors" for that frigate. Something cheaper, maybe less capable, derived from current systems? Or just a simplified/smaller outfit (in comparison to DDG/CGs)?
Because "appropriateness" is really an issue people can clash on.

Originally Posted by kato

Should be "Surface Strike Group". As I understand it, that's currently simply the globally-deployed taskforces that don't fit the CSG or ESG pattern.

Thanks, I just remember the surface groups that deployed with an Iowa class Battleship in the late 80's were called Surface Action Groups. Another question, during the Cold War, what were the groups of surface ships (and possibly submarines) that would have been assigned to guard a specific convoy group called? Convey Escort Group (CEG)?

On convoy excort formation naming.

They didnt have a name because in fact they didnt exist.

The USN just grouped the FF/FFGs as earmarked for the "convoy proetection" role that they didnt want to be seen by Congress as battlegroup escorts but in fact that is exactly how they were used.

As I have shown countless times.

And am in the process of forming another short piece to post or maybe even a longer essay documenting the USNs chicanery(And I mean that positively) to try and overcome Congressional reluctance to OK the ship building programs they really wanted.

Foor JA Boomer:
The Third Battle: Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines

"The deployment of the Thresher and the establishment of Task Force Delta in 1961 were the culmination of a decade of experimentation and development of passive acoustic ASW methods.

At the same time the evolution of the more traditional radar and active sonar-based methods used during the Second Battle continued.

This line of development was centered in the destroyer and carrier-based air ASW communities, commonly organized for ASW purposes into a Hunter-Killer (HUK) group consisting of an aircraft carrier, its air wing, and a destroyer squadron.

HUK groups had first been used in World War II, both as a means of closing the North Atlantic air gap, and as a means of attacking U-Boat concentrations revealed by Ultra decryptions and HF/DF.

Special escort carriers (CVEs) were developed to support these groups, whose air wings consisted of naval attack aircraft converted to the ASW role. After the war, the Navy retained HUK groups in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Their operational focus lay in three distinct ASW tasks, offensive area search based on offboard cueing, screening for carrier battle groups or amphibious task forces, and convoy escort.

In 1958, the Navy took the additional step of permanently assigning one HUK group the task of accelerating tactical development and increasing readiness in each of these three ASW mission areas. These groups were named Task Force Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie respectively. "

However as the P-3 Orion long-range ASW aircraft came into service the ASW carrier groups focused entirely on screening the Attack carrier groups.

With the demise of ASW carriers in the early 1970's due to the integration of Organic ASW aircraft both fixed-winged and helicopters on the attack carriers the USN didnt want to give up the escort force these ships required.

And also to pay lip service to convoy escort.

Therefor we have the conceptual paradigm promulgated that nominally earmarked the FF/FFGs for duty as escorts for the amphibious, UNREP and convoy groups.

Although of course for the most they werent used that way being instead assigned to carrier battlegroups.

Although the USN officially didnt consider them as carrier/battleship battlegroup escorts that was in fact what they did until recently.

I reccommend that you read this in its entirety in addition to the section I linked above.:

The Third Battle: Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines

Also Norman Friedmans USN discussion in Conways All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1947-1982 is a wonderful relatively short,succint description of USN reasoning of the Cold War to that point.

From Kato:

"Rickusn:

I'd be interested what you mean with "appropriate self-defense weapons/sensors" for that frigate. Something cheaper, maybe less capable, derived from current systems? Or just a simplified/smaller outfit (in comparison to DDG/CGs)?
Because "appropriateness" is really an issue people can clash on."


I did not want to be tied down to any specific weapon/sensor self defense package for the frigates.

For just the reason you mention.

But also because for this ship I wanted to emphasise Endurance, Seakeeping, Flexibility, Adaptability with an optomization slanted towards ASW/MW systems.

And for the ASW/MW systems Im quite open to what the suite/remote vehicles should be but Im pretty set on two medium sized helos.

I would prefer a larger helo than the MH-60R/S but thats not likely. However I would like them to be capable of operating/housing/maintaining MERLIN sized helos.

I dont see a need for an AEGIS/Standard missile type system.

But a relatively cheap but modern 3D radar, ESSM, 76/127mm gun, CIWS gun/missile, 25/30/35mm guns for small craft/boat threats, modern electonic contermeasures gear and maybe some type of anti-ship missile IMHO would be appropriate.

As for details again Im quite open to suggestions.

My whole point in the exercise was really based on getting a platform that was as different from LCS as possible.

Originally Posted by rickusn

I did not want to be tied down to any specific weapon/sensor self defense package for the frigates.

For just the reason you mention.

Oh, was just wondering, because its exactly that which drives the price of a system up quite quickly really. Didn't want to go into details either. More along the lines of "Aegis or not?", which you answered.

Your desired specs make it sound almost like the German F125. Bit smaller, plus ESSM and potentially ASW systems. Which wasn't cheap by any means either, for whatever reason - i still gotta figure out just why we're paying €600 million per ship.

Would you see these frigates then in a similar role to the F125 in Germany?
Central to maybe maritime interdiction overwatch, patrol roles and disaster relief (plus that R&D role), with only a secondary "combat role"?

First im not looking for a low end ship so while cost is a consideration I dont want the ship to turn out with the severe limitations that plagued earlier USN frigates but neither do I want it to be seen as a surrogate for High-End Highly capable Multi-purpose ships ie Equally capable in all warfare areas ASW, ASuW, AAW, Land-Attack, BMD like the Burkes and Ticonderogas and future envisioned large USN battle-group combatants.

As for the comparison to the F125:

Not as large.

Empasis on ASW/MW rather than land attack.

No special commando capability other than that inherent in the design.

No large VLS.

Probably not as sophisticated a radar suite.

Primary combatant role ASW with patrol/marititime interdiction a close second.

Limited disaster relief capability.

The closest ship I see in size would be the Japanese Murasame class although laid out differently but similary if possible although not exactly armed and sensored and of course different propulsion and two helos vice one..

Internal volume is important for space for remote vehicles. So an effcient and carefully planned weapons and sensor lay out is paramount.

So there you go. Blast away. Contstructively if possible. LOL

PS Kato please post or PM me your blog link I lost it.

Let's see, constructive...

well, in Germany the F125 is seen as the "core" of the stabilization flotillas primarily (i'm working on a blog entry for that in particular). Hence not really comparable in role or equipment.

Hm. Just some ideas...

Regarding internal volume - dieselelectric propulsion maybe, nowadays? Would allow more options in internal arrangements, especially in the stern area, from where you'd want to launch UUVs or boats more likely.

A bit of growth space maybe pre-built in the design. Not just regarding the helo hangars and flight deck laid out for 15-ton helos, but also regarding potential UUV/UAV/USV hangars.
Maybe a single large "preparation deck" in the stern beneath the flight deck for these purposes, would allow for variety and some modularity. Not like LCS, but more like the option of carrying say MW equipment and a towed array for ASW versus carrying having more boats and accomodation space on a maritime interdiction missions.

Armament - well, not that much of a choice, is there? Some Harpoon, ESSM, Phalanx, and a pair of 25mm Bushmasters, or something like that. Standard stuff.

Should all be doable in a 3,500-4,500 ton design easily.

Radical idea - how about a SWATH design? Wouldn't be exactly fast, but would have very good seakeeping. Would also allow for a large, wide helo deck. The technology is rather mature by now - Germany is operating a 3,500 ton SWATH as a NATO "research ship" for sonar and weapons trials since last year, and is introducing several smaller versions for its coast guard.

Originally Posted by rickusn

PS Kato please post or PM me your blog link I lost it.

Rear Echelon.

Thanks for your thoughts in particular the below its perfect for what I envision.:

"Not like LCS, but more like the option of carrying say MW equipment and a towed array for ASW versus carrying having more boats and accomodation space on a maritime interdiction missions."

Because I want to keep the ships displacement low yet be able to configure it for different missions but unlike the LCS have a better "core" capability.

And as the towed arrays are already stored ashore and modular type specialized MW gear is seldom required that would be perfect.

AS the ships would mostly operate in the Western hemisphere/Home waters like the majority of the OHP class has and does your example is perfect for me.

This type expertise would be perfect for the NRF component to focus and train on IMHO.

On the displacement 3500-4500.:

Is that full load?

On the SWATH design:

The USN actually had one in the late 1980's. However the USN design came out to be 9200tons full load!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And of course was rejected as too espensive.

The mono-hull design that was proposed came to 7000tons full load.

And of course was rejected as too large and too expensive.

Therefore the USN publicly stated that they would never again build a frigate.

In fact they contemplated retiring all the OHPs by 2000.

The F-125 I think is a good fit for the DEUTCHE MARINE/ German Navy but for the USN I envision with an LPD-17 variant Motherships/new Frigate/Burke DDGs its not neccesary.

Now if I cant get the Mothership and frigate then an F-125 ship would be my next choice.

Thanks for the link Kato!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by rickusn

On the displacement 3500-4500.:

Is that full load?

Yeah. Consider that the Murasame is somewhere around 4500 tons FL. The German "workhorse" design, the F122, is around 3700 tons FL, with full ASW suite, two helos, and accomodation for 220 people. I think 3500 to 4500 full load should be realistic there, if we figure in the somewhat larger helo requirements in comparison to the old F122, as well as less crew through modern automation.

Originally Posted by rickusn

On the SWATH design:

The USN actually had one in the late 1980's. However the USN design came out to be 9200tons full load!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And of course was rejected as too espensive.

Planet is 73x27m, and 3500t (full load). Cost was €90 million - not bad for a nominal prototype. She has even occasionally gone to see fully armed with standard torpedo tubes, used in trials (iirc for surface launch trials of DM2A4).

Thanks Kato I feared that I was beginning to ask too much for the displacement I proposed.

Note:

My Combat Fleets states 5100fl for the Murasame.

What source do you use that cites 4500?

Thanks

Originally Posted by rickusn

My Combat Fleets states 5100fl for the Murasame.

What source do you use that cites 4500?

Ah, that was just from memory, sorry. Considering it's the middle of the night here not too good it seems lol
Jane's states 4550t standard, 5100 fl for Murasame. Guess i got the standard value stuck in my head somehow.

I've always wondered at just how big USN designs tend to get - and usually attribute it to somewhat excessively sized VLS - mostly for AAW purposes - that simply need a lot of deck space. There's a similar development in European systems now, with introduction of VLS systems everywhere.
Looking at the early 90s European or Japanese designs, it's really possible to build a perfectly well ASW frigate on say a 4,500 ton frame. Just look at the Type 23, the F123, or, as you said, the Murasame. Cut a bit here and there, and you're within your requirements.

Originally Posted by rickusn

Now if I cant get the Mothership and frigate then an F-125 ship would be my next choice.

The F-125 is really a design built with a very specific role in mind, and is seriously intended to fill only very specific capabilities within a defined force structure which is designed for specific purposes (which the USN doesn't have).
As a generalized system, it strikes most people as very odd especially due to its non-existant armament (for its huge size) in anything but ASuW - but for the German Navy it makes some sense to procure it exactly like this.
Within the USN, a F125 wouldn't really make any sense due to an entirely different force layout. Plus, in the USN, the F125 main capabilities can already be filled by other ships (such as your motherships).