Isn't it amazing how widely separated the work is? From Detroit to Australia? Everyone is getting a piece of this pie. No wonder these ships are so popular.CONTRACTSNAVYAustal USA, Mobile, Ala., is being awarded a $99,557,548 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-2217) for long lead time material (LLTM) for ships four and five of the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program. This contract provides LLTM for main propulsion engines, aluminum, waterjets, reduction gears, generators and other components to support construction of JHSV ships four and five, commencing in fall 2010. Work will be performed in Detroit, Mich. (38 percent); Chesapeake, Va. (18 percent); Henderson, Australia (13 percent); Gulfport, Miss. (10 percent); Ravenswood, W.Va. (9 percent); Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. (4 percent); Mobile, Ala. (3 percent); Auburn, Ind. (2.6 percent); Winter Haven, Fla. (1 percent); Gardena, Calif. (1 percent); and Davenport, Iowa (0.4 percent), and is expected to be completed by December 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity
do u think these are purely logistic or could these be armed to be a competitor to the LCS? i mean they seem like they could be armed quite easily and do the same thing the LCS would do for a fraction of the price.
ReplyDeletei'm beginning to wonder what the deal is with these ships.
ReplyDeletei think they could perform a WW2 type landing craft rocket ship...meaning they could provide shore support but as far as other roles i just don't know.
but i wonder why we're buying so many of them. it seems like we're buying way more than we actually need. i mean really ...the Army and Navy are going to have separate fleets of these ships operating in the same theater????
my big question would be why?
one of the things i have wondered about these ships as opposed to logistics is anti-submarine warfare. they can carry a helo, they can carry the weapons neccessary, and have great speed, endurance, and i am guessing can be fitted with a towed away sonar and possibly another sonar fitted to the lower part of the ship. with our frigates retiring, i wonder if these can take the slack, i have pointed out in the past i think something like the sea fighter could also do a good job in that role, and it could fit two helos.
ReplyDeletefunny you should mention that. after checking out the MH-60R today, i've come to the conclusion that the helicopter is the primary weapon and sensor platform in that fight. i know ships play a role but the big boy is the helicopter.
ReplyDeletesame in the littoral fight.
i just wonder if we wouldn't do better by just outfitting an LHA as a littoral combat ship and dismissing the LCS concept all together.
wait a sec, you just gave me an idea for a blog spot.
but wouldnt an LHA be a large platform for a sea control mission? i mean thats still an expensive ship, i was thinking of many smaller ships that could be fleet escorts, if you can have one small and fast ship carry one helo, that you can have many in a task force, thats a hell of a force.
ReplyDeletethat heads to the New Wars question. which is better a bunch of small ships or a few larger ones.
ReplyDeletei personally think a few multi role ships are more valuable than dozens of smaller less capable ones...but thats just me.
well i think a few capital ships surrounded by smaller ships, that way if you lose one or a few of yoru larger multirole ones you can still fight. also the smaller ships are capable of multiple roles. the HSV and sea figther can board marines and special ops for deployment, carry logistics to shore, be anti-submarine warfare, anti-piracy, etc. i dont think we need one or the other, i think we need both. although what we should do is cut our carriers out there and let loose our fleet of burkes in task forces for sea control, we dont need 11 carriers active, we can have a few out there and some in reserve
ReplyDeletethe pirate situation is showing the fallacy of depending on corvettes, frigates or destroyers for sea control.
ReplyDeletein the 1970's Admiral Rickover tested LHA's as sea control ships. And for good reason. even in the limited deployments that they've had, the LCS has shown itself to be extremely short legged, to need replenishment from larger ships and their mission modules are still in doubt.
if you start boarding Marines on LCS type ships then what are you going to ask them to do? Boarding missions on pirate or terrorist vessels.
extremely limited raids?
the mission set goes down when you have fewer people. Infantry tasks are still people dependent. that's why SOCOM always has a Ranger or Marine Company or more as backup whenever possible.
small units are easily destroyed once the shock and surprise wear off. that's a historical fact.
as far as real multi mission work, then imagine this. an LHA/LHD with a modified air wing of F-35's, MH-60R's and AH-1Z's with a few CB-90's (a bone to the Riverine forces) in the well deck...
you would have a formidable sea control ship that can't be equaled by a squadron of LCS'. Additionally you'd have crews trained and ready in the boarding mission...you'd have helicopters that can chase down diesel subs...its a win win and much more capable than the force you put together.
just getting a little in close protection added to the mix and you add a DDG-51 and you have perfection personified.
well i agree that would be a hell of a force but could one DDG-51 and one LHA defend itself against a host of diesel subs, i mean you have improved kilos from Russia, and other quite capable subs from russia, and the ASEAN nations are building subs like crazy, my only concern is if you stack all of your capability into one or two ships and it gets hit, you lose all of your capability.
ReplyDeletewho has a host of capable diesel subs?
ReplyDeleteGermany just retired over half its force. if you're talking about N. Korea, i would bet that 11 MH-60's on an LHA would take care of them easily and that's before we get the DDG-51 involved.
once we kill one or two enemy subs they're seriously degraded. the big flaw in Mike's argument (and yours) is that you view these small ships as expendable.
that's wrong headed in my opinion. who are you going to put on these throw away ships? not my friends, not my buddies...not other US citizens if I have my way...so who is going to man these ships that we're willing to lose?
well i am not saying their "expendable", but these can go faster, so more likely to be able to get out of a dangerous situation. in addition if we get into a major war with a country with strong naval capabilities (i.e. china) i would be willing to bet we will lose some ships, now those people who man them are brave individuals but smaller ships are less of a target, are less expensive and can be made in numbers and if destroyed would lead to less loss of life. now i like your idea of an LHA paired with a DDG-51, but i am afraid in a major shooting war, where you have enemies in three dimensions, having smaller ships doing the anti-sub warfare (working with our own los-angeles, seawolf and virginia class subs) doing that and leaving the anti-surface, AA, and strike up to the burkes, the CVN's and Ticonderogas.
ReplyDeleteyou hit on another important work. the best weapon to kill a tank is another tank. the same applies to subs.
ReplyDeleteit seems that the surface navy folks always think of themselves as operating individually and not as part of teams. its even creeping into the amphib community and they've worked with Marines for years.
but back to the issue. against subs you will have P-8's, MH-60's, Burke's, FireScout UAVs and even satellites. we're not hurting as bad as many think.
the problem with thinking that you can limit vulnerability by putting it on numerous platforms is a mistake too. one heavy torpedo can take out an LCS sized ship and being able to do 40+ knots might be impressive against another surface ship but not against that ships weapons...you can't out run a bullet. or a missile. or a modern torpedo.
China still doesn't scare me. concern me yes, scare me no. many people forget the mauling the Vietnamese gave them in their border war. they're advancing but have yet to demonstrate the ability to operate many of the systems that they're developing....no let me state it properly...the systems that they're copying.
they have yet to develop original vehicles, airplanes or even trucks. the J-10 is a LAVI copy. the J-11 is an SU-27 copy. they've even copied Hummers and MAN trucks.
that means that they're acquiring weapon systems to fit our operating style not their own.
we'll fight the Chinese (if they want war) and win.
if we fight, we will win, but we will lose ships in the process, it will be a completely different war, mostly fought on the seas and in the air, not on the ground.
ReplyDeletewow Joe.
ReplyDeletedo you really want to stick to that statement. you're a smart guy. a PHD candidate. you know better.
history indicates that when there are two established super powers, they engage in proxy wars. they wage wars over resources. they wage wars to gain influence.
those wars take place on land.
combat happens where people are. wars at sea and in the air are designed to influence situations on the ground. now whether that ground is a small island in the pacific or in africa, it really doesn't matter the point is that even if air and sea power play major roles, in the end it comes back to a Grunt with a gun claiming a piece of ground.
sorry but the revolutionist that see air power doing it alone are wrong.
those same revolutionist that want to wrap sea power into the equation are still wrong.
people don't live on the sea which means that major warfare will occur where they do live.
on the land.
well i agree wars have historically been fought on land but what lands are teh chinese going to fight on? they have no real enemies on land they will go to war with. they have border disputes with india, russia and others but nothing that would provoke war. china is really pushing hard their pre-eminence in the south china sea, and of course Taiwan. now if they became stupid enough to invade Taiwan, they would be pushed back into the ocean by the Taiwan army. the south china sea would be a major sea conflict between them, ASEAN and possibly Australia and NZ (but i dont see them immediately jumping in).
ReplyDeletenow i do agree about the proxy wars, 100%, and if that happens it will be with North Korea (but even they seem to be backing off them) or other places, like in Africa (the Sudan comes to mind). its not like the soviet union when we saw them on the other side and new their probable land assault routes (i.e. fulda gap), but dont know who they would fight.
BTW i didnt respond to your comment before, and one thing i have over looked is they are copying weapons, and badly. Their J-10s are crashing at quite high rates, we had one F15 crash and we grounded the whole fleet, the news leaking out said they have lost 3 or more in the last few years. In addition i think you mentioned this which i also overlook is we have been doing sea-warfare for 60 years (we have been doing it since our inception but became a world naval power betwen WWI and WWII (especially after the latter)), but they have only built in the last few years, so do they have the Military doctrine, tactics, maintenance capabilities like we do, i think their getting better, but still behind us. Although as we have read, there are ways to do sea denial, like the development of cruise missiles, torpedo, and things, i do believe we would win, it just wouldnt be as easy as Iraq in overthrowing the regime.
i do know we disagree, and i think we agree on more than we think but i do enjoy the discussion!
I don't suppose it would be possible to have this posting illustrated with a picture of the JHSV rather than one of those wavepiercing vomit comets?
ReplyDelete