Thread: A closer look at USN Fleet Structure

"There isnt and hasnt been an a dedicated "Amphibious command center ship" for at least 20 yearsa and if I deigned to look it up exactly probably closer to 25 years, maybe even longer."


I decided to look it up "exactly":

LCC 20 USS Mt. Whitney was commissioned in 1971 as a FLEET FLAGSHIP and has done that duty her entire service life.**


**"USS Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC 20) departed Naval Station Norfolk on Jan. 14, 2005 en route to Gaeta, Italy, where she was to serve as the U.S. 6th Fleet flagship and to relieve USS La Salle (AGF 3). Mount Whitney would as a result now be forward-deployed in Europe, after 34 years being homeported in Norfolk as the 2nd Fleet flagship."


LCC USS Blue Ridge was commissioned in 1970 and became a FLEET FLAGSHIP in 1979 replacing the USS Oklahoma City (CG 5).

As for Surface Combatants:

The requirements the reason why we have fewer is not because their capabilities have increased.

Its because the need for frigates(93)/Destoyers(17) to escort Underway Replenishment Groups and Convoys have disappeared. Reducing the needed 238 escorts to 128(120 Cruisers & Destroyers plus 8 frigates).

With the reduction of DEPLOYABLE carriers from 15 to 11 (and soon possibly 10) reduced the escort requirement to 104(96 Cruisers & Destroyers plus 8 frigates). In the late 90s the USN added the need for 8 to 12 NRF ships to respond to contingency requirements.

This is how the 112-116 figure was arrived at in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review.

The USN wasnt sure what to do with the OHP/Spruance mix, first they retired 7 non-vls Spruances then considered reducing the OHPs quicker and keeping the rest of the Spruances longer. But then it was decided that the OHPs were much cheaper to keep in the roles envisioned. Ergo goodbye Spruances.

Subsequently the USN has juggled requirements. But they they have never as yet had enough Cruisers and Destoyers to fill out all of their stated formations.

In fact during the mid-late 90s the OHPs were pressed into the DDG role for which they were ill-equipped.

Even now 14 OHs have continued in roles they werent designed for and dont have the capabilities to fulfill.

The deletion of the MK 13 launcher has only exacerbated the situation. But with 28 Burkes(and five Ticos after the SH-2G was taken out of service) not having organic helos the 14 OHPs still deploying in Combat Groups became de facto Small Helo Carriers to complement those ships.

The rest of the shortfall has been made up by not deploying all the formations they say are required.

My Point: In no way shape or form have Surface Combatant #s been reduced because of any increase in capabities of individual ships. If anything they have been kept as high as they are for just the opposite reasons.

The CBO.gov site has two studies anyone interested in USN force structure should read. Also following how surface combatants have been employed since the mid-1930s on (As I have done) is useful.

Indeed the CBO studies put the lie to the notion SAGs were not envisioned or couldnt/wouldnt/shouldnt be employed w/o battleships. But thats probably a whole nother post.

Originally Posted by rickusn

There isnt and hasnt been an a dedicated "Amphibious command center ship" for at least 20 yearsa and if I deigned to look it up exactly probably closer to 25 years, maybe even longer"


Do a google to check out the differences. BTW the USN hasnt had an LPH in quite a # of years.

Your ignorance is showing big time. Do a little research and get back to me.

I do not profess to be a naval expert. In fact, I'm just a novice so keep the acerbic comments to a minimum. This is a forum where I come to be educated, not to browbeat others with my professed "military knowledge". I post answers for the sake of being wrong and being corrected with further knowledge. I post hypothesises and theories so I can see what I am being wrong and ignorant about and further expand my knowledge base.

If you expect the majority of people on this forum to have great naval experience, then you have come to the wrong forum.

Why is that people like you demand posters to do their research before asking questions on this forum? This is the reason why this forum was created in the first place, a place where people can exchange information and learn more about military matters that they are interested in. If you don't agree with this, then I strongly suggest you go find another forum.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I do not profess to be a naval expert. In fact, I'm just a novice so keep the acerbic comments to a minimum. This is a forum where I come to be educated, not to browbeat others with my professed "military knowledge". I post answers for the sake of being wrong and being corrected with further knowledge. I post hypothesises and theories so I can see what I am being wrong and ignorant about and further expand my knowledge base.

If you expect the majority of people on this forum to have great naval experience, then you have come to the wrong forum.

Why is that people like you demand posters to do their research before asking questions on this forum? This is the reason why this forum was created in the first place, a place where people can exchange information and learn more about military matters that they are interested in. If you don't agree with this, then I strongly suggest you go find another forum.

I suggest that YOU find another forum.
First of all, your previous posts have indicated a certain amount of knowledge about naval affairs, so I don't buy your "I'm just a novice". You might not have ever been in the Navy, but then neither have I.
So when you put forth detailed comments and assertions, you had better be prepared to back them up.
And second, if you post a message asking for information, it's considered common courtesy to show that you have at least made an attempt to find information beforehand but are still stumped about something.
Several times I have asked a question and been politely told to Google it and come back with further questions (Sniper, are you reading this? ).
Did I get bent out of shape and start whining about how people are making "acerbic comments"? No.
In other words, if you are "just a novice" then you just might want to approach the experts on the board, like rickusn, with just a tad of humility. It will work wonders, I assure you.

Originally Posted by rickusn

Yep I knew about Ocean. It reportedly has a # of limitations. Worse yet it is already schedulded to decommission in 2018 after only 20 years of service!!!!!

Rick,
I havent been able to find anything on HMS Ocean that was less than complimentary, but then again it's mostly MOD fluff-stuff that's available on the web
Your opinions and thoughts on her please, and also where did you hear she was to be decomm'ed in '18?
Guess they like doing that in the RN...just look at those nice destroyers they had.

No actually you made very strong statements which were false and did so posing as an "expert". No questions atall:

Blademaster:

"During the Cold War, USN had a requirement of 600 ships but that was no longer feasibile. DUring those days, most of those ships were not as capable as today's ships are, meaning they could not do multiple roles at a time. Therefore, they needed more ships at that time.

Now we can do more with less. For example, it takes two ships to support a role in one spot and two more ships in another spot in the Cold War. Now it only takes one ship to support a role in that spot and another ship in the other spot. So I don't see how the argument, "Can't be everywhere" applies."

And in some posts where you did ask questions they were less in search of information and more challenging widely known and easilly accessible information w/o providing any.

And this is why I suggested not demanded you do at least a "little" research.

I have posted considerable information on these boards. If you had actually read all my posts. This would be quite apparent to you. And you would have already been "educated".

And in spite of my not liking your tone and air of authority and superiority.

I did provide you with a modicum of details.

I now see I was mistaken to have done this.

I would have provided even more but wished to see your response before wasting more of my valuable time on you. Glad I did.

If you think Im required to spoon-feed arrogant posters as yourself who pose as knowing what they are talking about when its quite obvious the reverse is true your sadly mistaken.

Blademaster:

"If you don't agree with this, then I strongly suggest you go find another forum."

You should take your own advice IMHO.

Heres a snippet of your usual responses(again your own quotes say it all about your less than sincere stated agenda):

Blademaster:

"Oh whoopee fucking do. Get your **** outta your ass."


How do you get away with comments like that?

Ive seen people banned for much less.

And thats why discussion boards have no credibility with me when it comes to who should stay and who should go.

Im only here because it pleases me. I wish to enlighten and be enlightened. Its a two way street.

When I consider the street to be one way too often. As with you. I will indeed exit at a time of my choosing. Not yours. Of that you can rest assured.