.jpg)
I believe in forcible entry.
I think naval gunfire is important. But. And here comes the sacrilege. I don't think we need a cruiser that is committed to providing those fires.
The USMC provides one of our three forms of forcible entry but it has evolved to a point where another Tarawa or Iwo Jima shouldn't happen. With the guns on the Burke's, with the airpower from our carriers and LHA's and with the ability to go over or around beach based obstacles we shouldn't dedicate a large ship to this function.
The Zumwalt class should be reformatted as the replacements for the anti-air cruisers that are soon to be retired. Considering the magazine capacity that these ships have we would have an amazingly capable anti-air arsenal ship that could cripple a strike on our carriers. By having these ships at the center of our formations along with our carriers and pushing the Burke's out to picket duty we could easily handle any Chinese Alpha stike with ship based assets alone.
There would be no need to rush fighters into the air to reinforce the CAP. Those fighters that we do have in the air can focus on killing the launch aircraft instead of attempting to knock down missiles heading toward our ships.
This one move could accomplish...
1. It would provide a platform that would have instant influence on enemy actions causing them to rethink any current plans on how to destroy a carrier battle group.
2. It would provide a platform that would have the power generation necessary for the next step in naval firepower...lasers or another form of electronic attack.
3. It would be a better test bed for reduced manning and automation of the fleet.
4. It could provide a strategic strike asset if the follow on to Tomahawk has the range desired by the CNO.
If we want to fix the fleet we need to get back to winning at sea. Winning the blue water battle. A DDG-1000 reformatted as an anti-air cruiser would be a smart move.
No railguns? :(
ReplyDeleteif they can be made to work then they can go on a Burke class. my idea is that the Navy has to get back to being a Navy. win the fight at sea first...then, once that's done, then you can focus on land targets....rail guns will have utility but i think lasers or other beam weapons will be more valuable for the sea fight.
ReplyDeleteonce the navy is fixed then we can talk about hitting targets 200 miles inland with our naval railguns!
They (railguns or large megawatt lasers) can't go on the Burkes, because the power generation capacity isn't there.
ReplyDeletetoday it isn't there. i expect progress to lower the size and power requirements temendously. i really expect railguns to replace standard cannons on the battlefield much less at sea. its coming. just not today.
ReplyDeleteSol, in this hypothetical attack how much did the Chinese lose in order to sink just one of our carriers and half the escorts?
ReplyDeleteeverything. for practical purposes their fighters, missile boats, bombers and subs were all eradicated.
ReplyDeletesmall price to pay for sinking a carrier though and a price that one of our admirals would pay if the roles were reversed. want proof? remember midway. we had an slightly worse loss ratio and still considered it a victory if i'm remembering correctly. that's saying something.
Oh they have lost so much more. They've lost well trained crews that can't be replaced over night, the experience that came with those crews, and actual equipment (fighters, bombers, subs, etc). And we haven't even retaliated with the unrestricted submarine warfare and relentless bombing campaign you know we would carry out. I disagree with you on the Battle of Midway. The Japanese lost four aircraft carriers, hundreds of planes, and thousands of well trained and experienced men. They lost everything while we lost a squadron or two of aircraft, a few hundred men, an aircraft carrier and an airbase that was only temporarily knocked out.
DeleteIf this scenario that you played out really happened and I were the SecDef or PACOM commander I wouldn't feel too bad. Yes, we lost thousands of men and women, some escorts and an aircraft carrier but we've really hit China in the gut and we haven't even retaliated.
Sol I think you have it backwards. The Zumwalt's do have the capacity to be upgraded with rail guns or energy weapons while the Burke's do not; moreover, the Zumwalt's are not designed for SM-2/3/6 and only carry ESSM and thus are not exactly an area anti air defense ship. A 15,000 ton area defense cruiser the Zumwalt is not and the notion was cancelled along with CG(X). This program cancellation is why we have DDG-51 flight III's.
ReplyDeleteIn fact there's been some noises that the DDG-51 flight III's are going to be more expensive than planned and that the Zumwalt's might be purchased in greater numbers due primarily to having lower operating costs and having superior shallow water ASW. Don't get me started on calling a 15,000 ton ship a destroyer nor buying cruisers for shallow water asw.
I don't think focusing on the platform and picking the best one we have is the right answer because they are all extremely problematic. LCS is a total joke and clearly we need general purpose frigates which we neither have nor LCS can become. Zumwalt while having some good systems is simply ridiculous design and LCS's big brother. You don't design a ship whose primary mission is both naval gunfire support and long range cruise missile strike and then add in AEGIS (and then without SM-2/3/6) to end up with a $3 billion 15,000 ton cruiser that we're not going to risk for NGS.
The USN has entirely lost it's way. Instead of cost effective mine warfare craft, patrol boats, general purpose frigates, and perhaps a double hulled monitor with 2 AGS that might actually get used for NGS in the face of a minor mine threats we get a ship that either can't do the mission or can't do so cost effectively.
The only successful surface combatant the USN has is a 30 year old ship design they seem entirely unable to replace with a new design while now reaching the limits they can improve DDG-51. It's as if we don't know how to either design or build warships anymore. If it was up to me I'd cancel every damn surface warship we're building. We need to entirely change how we do business, our design requirements (which are internally illogical in the case of both LCS and DDG-1000), and the entire process. First thing I'd do is RFP a general purpose frigate that will cost less than $500 million for the first one and less than $400 million for the 30th and if US industry can't get it done I'm certain we can get Germany or Spain to do it for us and build them here as well.
I'd also do the same for new mine warfare craft, patrol boats, and a monitor carrying two AGS. At some point when we fix our shipbuilding base then we might be able to improve on the DDG-51 in a manner we can afford. Neither DDG-1000 nor DDG-51 flight III seem to be something we can afford in the numbers we require.
Of course none of this is going to happen, well they might stop LCS at 24 ships, but given the budget environment we can't even buy 2 SSN's a year when that's one thing we still seem able to build properly and cost effectively. The entire situation is rather frustrating.
As for the whole China can kill our battlegroups scenario's I'd like to suggest that if we think there's a reasonable chance of this happening then why sail them in range till we lower that threat through our own offensive actions? How do China's key airfields look after we hit them with 2 SSGN's and 8 to 12 SSN's worth of Tomahawk's? Why aren't we preparing the battlespace for our carriers to operate and using systems, like our subs, that are a total over match for Chinese capabilities? Just a few thoughts.
Lane you got it right! Remember the current thinking as published by Bob Work is go ELSEWHERE to conduc Theater Entry Operations.
Deletewell one issue with not being able to properly prepare the battle space might be that Tomahawks are extremely easy to kill even with 2nd rate tech weapons. additionally China has the resources and intellignece indicates that they're hardening their hangars that are within range of our missiles. lastly if you did prepare the battle space in that way then you would have to write off every base Marine/Air Force and Navy from Korea to Australia...especially Okinawa and Guam. the missile strikes would be brutal and you'd lose a good amount of your force in the first volley.
ReplyDeletei don't understand the hatred for the DDG-1000's design though. i kinda like it. as far as the DDG-51 is concerned i don't see the hurry to get moving on that. the cruiser problem seems more pressing. as does the frigate issue.
but it all starts with killing the LCS. i really believe that's about to happen.
DDG-1000 is a 15,000 ton cruiser. It's a large expensive ship. It doesn't do area anti air even though it's fitted with AEGIS and it's two primary strike missions are entirely compete with each other. What's the point in adding 2 advanced 6inch guns to a ship designed for long range missile strike and conversely what's the point in assigning a $3 billion cruiser for naval gunfire support (NGS)? The ship has too many assets for the role and costs too much to risk near shore to exploit the gun's range.
ReplyDeleteThere was a version of DDG-1000 that was going to replace our CG-47 class but the entire CG(X) program was cancelled. Funny that when we took a destroyer and added more systems and tonnage we called the 10,000 ship a cruiser but today we somehow call a 15,000 ton cruiser a destroyer. In any case I don't hate DDG-100 I just don't think we want large expensive cruisers for NGS and that if we put that much money into such a large ship along with AEGIS that it should be carrying SM-2/3/6.
I think the very first issue of Proceedings I ever read was calling for an inexpensive NGS ship armed with 2 or 3 main guns and very little else. It just seems rather silly taking large expensive AEGIS ships away from a task force to operate near shore for NGS. This is exactly where you want an asset you're willing to first remove from the task force without lowering the ability of the TF to defend itself and one that's both cost effective and survivable within it's mission set.
What we should have is a ship armed with 2 AGS and very little else with a double hull so a single mine isn't going to sink her. Something very much like a modern monitor. Monitors were the most effective NGS ships in the ETO during WWII and provided NGS on every major invasion within the ETO often when the BB's couldn't be assigned for NGS and were doing force protection.
Other tasks it could do would be HQ and support for patrol and mine warfare craft. Traditionally major assets operating near shore at least provide refueling for minor vessels. A ship with 2 155mm and perhaps a couple of 57mm is also going to be a serious threat to other ships and craft. It's certainly not going to need a module of 3nm range missiles to defend itself against speed boats.
The main problem with DDG-100 is that it's overkill for one primary assigned mission (NGS) and is underwhelming for area anti air. It should never have gotten the NGS mission. One might be forgiven for suspecting that the USN eventually wants to replace AGS with rail guns or energy weapons which is fine but it's questionable if the resulting conversion then still provides for NGS. We need a few affordable NGS ships that will actually get used for the mission not ships too expensive to risk, too important to the task force to assign, or ships that will eventually be converted into doing other things.
As for China attacking Okinawa and Guam with ballistic missiles I'd suggest that's a WWIII scenario and that bases like Guam and Okinawa are not defenseless against ballistic missiles. Guam in this scenario probably has PAC-3, THAAD, and AEGIS support. Japan actually is a partner with us on SM-3 and they're AEGIS DDG's carry it as well as ours. South Korea has AEGIS DDG's as well and you'd love them as they have 128 VLS vs 96 on our ships or Japan. SM-3 has a land based version and together with other SAM's the level of ballistic missile defense we and our allies are going to have in the Pacific is only going to increase.
If we can't get our Tomahawks' to Chinese airbases then we need new cruise missiles.
Just to answer your thought about the DDG-1000 land attack missiles (TLAM in the near future) competing with the AGS, the reason for the two systems is the cost of the munitions. Missiles cost on the order of millions of dollars (TLAM costs around $1.5M each) while shells cost on the order of thousands. It's just not cost effective to use a million+ dollar missile to take out a mortar position when a shell can do the job for thousands.
DeleteAlso, magazine capacity enters into this. A DDG-1000 can carry a max of 80 missiles (do I have that number right?) and that assumes no ESSM for self-defense. By comparison, the AGS has around 1000 rounds depending on what reference you read.
You make several good points in your post. Well reasoned!
ComNavOps
Navy-Matters Blog
Thank you for the kind words. Perhaps I should have tried to be more brief and to the point. The main issue with DDG-100 having both a long range strike role and gunfire support role, in my view, is that these are mostly mutually exclusive. Moreover, while all our major surface combatants and SSN's carry Tomahawk the AGS is a unique system that should not be competing with long range strike aboard the same ship.
DeleteCertainly I quite agree if we can get within AGS range we probably want to use cost effective shells vs cruise missiles; however, I don't think there's much overlap in using Tomahawk tactically, it's really more of a national strategic asset.
I'd also like to mention that as a long time supporter of the RN, from the US, I've been looking at Navy Matters for years and still reference the blog regularly. It truly has been tragic to witness the RN decline the past 20 years.
Just to clarify, the Navy Matters blog is not the one you're familiar with. Mine focuses almost exclusively on the US Navy and has no connection with the other. I invite you to take a peek!
DeleteOK, I think I understand that you're saying that the long range strike and short range gun support are two different missions. That's fine. How are you suggesting that they compete? I'm not quite sure what you see as the drawback to having both capabilities in a single platform unless you see one as taking resources (internal volume and deck space?) from the other? Maybe you'd be willing to expand on that thought a bit?
Also, you state that DDG-1000 is overkill for its primary purpose, NGS. Am I correct in assuming that you mean that the ship is overkill (size, cost, complexity, etc.) rather than the gunnery itself? Certainly, the Navy has little effective NGS capability so the DDG-1000's gunnery capability would not seem to be overkill.
ComNavOps
Navy Matters Blog
Thanks for the correction and I will take a look at your site. The issue from my perspective is that a battle group asset with AEGIS and VLS loaded with Tomahawk's costing $3+ billion is less likely to actually get assigned the NGS mission and put in harms way near shore.
DeleteMoreover, how likely is it we leave a 15,000 ton cruiser sitting around off shore to potentially support troops ashore? We already shot ourselves in the foot with DDG-100 costing so much we only have current plans to build 3. If NGS is an important mission that I'd suggest we need at least 6 to 8 dedicated ships, that don't compete for other missions, with the intent of having a few forward deployed so they actually get used for NGS on a regular basis.
Is a ship loaded with 60 to 70 Tomahawk's, a strategic asset, really something you want to risk near shore because it also happens to be equipped to tactically support troops ashore?
It's not clear given various threat, especially mines, that the USN is going to be overly excited risking DDG-100 near enough to shore to exploit the guns range?
On a ship design level all the other systems aboard DDG-1000 did directly compete with AGS ammo storage. At 10 rounds a minute per gun it's not clear 920 total rounds is sufficient?
So yes the ship is overkill for NGS, which isn't it's primary mission, and it's strategic strike capacity and other capabilities compete with assigning it to NGS. Consider that DDG-1000 has superior shallow water ASW to DDG-51 and how excited the battle group commander is going to be losing his best ASW asset to go off and do NGS?
I agree completely with you that the wisdom of placing a $3B ship in a near shore position is suspect. How that economic reality gets reconciled with the fact that the DDG-1000's designed purpose is exactly that, remains to be seen.
DeleteRegarding your point about why only 3 ships rather than several, as I understand it the Navy wanted to completely cancel the ship shortly after the contracts were let but the terms of the contract (termination penalties) were such that it made more sense to build the minimum number which turned out to be three. The irony, now, is that there is actually the small possibility that a modified form of the DDG-1000 may replace the Burke Flt III.
Would in not be smarter to put new/better NGFS guns on amphib warships? More space and weight available and closer to the intended targets~
ReplyDeleteNo it wouldn't. They take up far too much space and firing the gun tends to interfere with things like flight operations. It's not the space of the guns that's as important as the magazine spaces. Moreover, NGS is not simply about supporting troops ashore during amphibious operations but rather supporting forces ashore from the sea. We don't have to keep large amphibious ships and their crews around just because we happened to put the guns on them.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama is reelected your discussions will be if America can fight wars with refurbished tug boats
ReplyDelete