Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

is there a role for the helicopter cruiser in a modern fleet?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles

one thought i had was in reference to the commandant's desire to move away from relying solely on big deck amphibs. helo cruiser, carry 4-6 helicopters and a flight deck that can operate at least two at a time. 4 MH60s for example can deliver 20+ troops ashore  6 could carry 30+ factor in one or two large RHIBs and you can likely put 50+ troops ashore while the helos carry enough ordnance to provide some effective air support/CAS.

it could also fill the role of a dedicated ASW C&C ship when there's an ASW mission and do most of the heavy lifting itself.

the best part (imo) that while an LPD could do most of this, but better, a helicopter cruiser wouldn't require 2-3 other ships to follow it around every where making it exponentially more economical to use in many situations.
 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles

No, not really.

It seems ever ship currently in the USN service has helicopter capabilities. Besides redundancy, nothing new is gained.

As to freeing up escorts, no. In any peer v peer environment, no ship will be able to operate independently and in low intensity conflicts, the LPD is more then sufficient.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
6 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

No, not really.

It seems ever ship currently in the USN service has helicopter capabilities. Besides redundancy, nothing new is gained.

As to freeing up escorts, no. In any peer v peer environment, no ship will be able to operate independently and in low intensity conflicts, the LPD is more then sufficient.

the LPD is more than sufficient in low intensity conflict, but low intensity conflict is exactly when you'd get that savings in not needing an escort from a helicopter cruiser. an LPD will never go into waters any where near a conflict zone or a potential conflict zone without at least 2 ships escorting it.

why did navies that had helicopter capable destroyers and frigates built helicopter carriers? because having 4 helos is better than 2, having 6 is better than 4, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
9 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

the LPD is more than sufficient in low intensity conflict, but low intensity conflict is exactly when you'd get that savings in not needing an escort from a helicopter cruiser. an LPD will never go into waters any where near a conflict zone or a potential conflict zone without at least 2 ships escorting it.

why did navies that had helicopter capable destroyers and frigates built helicopter carriers? because having 4 helos is better than 2, having 6 is better than 4, etc.

Those nations that tend to operate helicopter carriers, tend to not be able to operate proper carriers, either for cost or infrastructural reasons.

As to the LPD not being escorted in low conflict areas, the USN has routinely done so. 

As to the more available helicopters, of course more is better. "More" & "better" cost money and many a military program has been ruined by capability creep.

For cost savings, a small carrier operating prop planes would have better value and capability.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
965
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,303 posts
12,978 battles

Except in an ASW role, not really.

In the ASW role, such a ship would be the flagship of an operation, bringing a lot of helicopters of it's own, and coordinating the efforts of many other ships, just like the Japanese do and the Russians did. A nation with actual fixed wing aircraft carriers is unlikely to build any, as money for them would compete with money for actual fixed wing aircraft carriers. The US Navy would have ships like this, if they had a completely unlimited budget, as they operated old Essex class CV's in this role back in the 60's.

In doing something like an amphibious/helicopter assault ship like an LHA, an important distinction is LHA/LHA, ect... are troop and equipment carriers that happen to have flight decks instead of being a helicopter carrier that happens to carry some troops. Not much of a point in investing in a slightly higher speed ship carrying a small number of troops, limited equipment for them and limited other facilities. An LHD or LHA carries a large troop compliment, a fair amount of equipment, and packs a good sized hospital for when someone gets shot.

As far as needing an escort, it's not like they're dedicated escorts anyway, If an assault ship requires a couple DDG's as escorts for a given situation, those same DDG's are likely to be carrying cruise missiles and other weapons to support whatever reason the assault ship is there anyway. Also, the psychological effect of sending a fleet of ships larger than a third world nation's navy to express ones displeasure at whatever said third world nation is doing is probably worthy in it's own right.

Now, once combat drones become a thing in second and lower rate navies, I expect to see those countries building "drone carriers" to fill the role of a traditional fixed wing aircraft carrier that they never could have afforded before and to get themselves above the countries that can't even afford that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
10 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Except in an ASW role, not really.

In the ASW role, such a ship would be the flagship of an operation, bringing a lot of helicopters of it's own, and coordinating the efforts of many other ships, just like the Japanese do and the Russians did. A nation with actual fixed wing aircraft carriers is unlikely to build any, as money for them would compete with money for actual fixed wing aircraft carriers. The US Navy would have ships like this, if they had a completely unlimited budget, as they operated old Essex class CV's in this role back in the 60's.

In doing something like an amphibious/helicopter assault ship like an LHA, an important distinction is LHA/LHA, ect... are troop and equipment carriers that happen to have flight decks instead of being a helicopter carrier that happens to carry some troops. Not much of a point in investing in a slightly higher speed ship carrying a small number of troops, limited equipment for them and limited other facilities. An LHD or LHA carries a large troop compliment, a fair amount of equipment, and packs a good sized hospital for when someone gets shot.

As far as needing an escort, it's not like they're dedicated escorts anyway, If an assault ship requires a couple DDG's as escorts for a given situation, those same DDG's are likely to be carrying cruise missiles and other weapons to support whatever reason the assault ship is there anyway. Also, the psychological effect of sending a fleet of ships larger than a third world nation's navy to express ones displeasure at whatever said third world nation is doing is probably worthy in it's own right.

Now, once combat drones become a thing in second and lower rate navies, I expect to see those countries building "drone carriers" to fill the role of a traditional fixed wing aircraft carrier that they never could have afforded before and to get themselves above the countries that can't even afford that.

well the commandant of the marine corps seems to disagree with you on the point of larger ships carrying more troops being better as he's said he wants to move away from relying on the big decks, and disburse marines among more ships in the fleet to so as not to continue putting all of our eggs in one basket.

big deck amphibs like an LSD or LPD will be necessary to put things like AAVs and LCACs in the water to move the heavy stuff sure, but distributing marines among a number of smaller ships is the direction the commandant wants to go.

and a helicopter cruiser would also have cruise missiles to support the shore based operations if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

well the commandant of the marine corps seems to disagree with you on the point of larger ships carrying more troops being better as he's said he wants to move away from relying on the big decks, and disburse marines among more ships in the fleet to so as not to continue putting all of our eggs in one basket.

It's called "3rd offset" or "distributed lethality," both of which are flawed concepts.

As to the marines, their CONOPS is FUBAR'ed. Their current doctrine is to launch amphibious forces 30 miles from the objective with AA7Vs... that's nearly a 2 hour turnaround and leaves the Initial assault holding the bag. The Marines are also downsizing their tank numbers and becoming a "lighter force," which is ok for COIN but idiotic for peer v peer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
13 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

It's called "3rd offset" or "distributed lethality," both of which are flawed concepts.

As to the marines, their CONOPS is FUBAR'ed. Their current doctrine is to launch amphibious forces 30 miles from the objective with AA7Vs... that's nearly a 2 hour turnaround and leaves the Initial assault holding the bag. The Marines are also downsizing their tank numbers and becoming a "lighter force," which is ok for COIN but idiotic for peer v peer.

 

all concepts have flaws..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
965
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,303 posts
12,978 battles
23 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

well the commandant of the marine corps seems to disagree with you on the point of larger ships carrying more troops being better as he's said he wants to move away from relying on the big decks, and disburse marines among more ships in the fleet to so as not to continue putting all of our eggs in one basket.

big deck amphibs like an LSD or LPD will be necessary to put things like AAVs and LCACs in the water to move the heavy stuff sure, but distributing marines among a number of smaller ships is the direction the commandant wants to go.

and a helicopter cruiser would also have cruise missiles to support the shore based operations if needed.

More smaller ships means higher operating costs (big ships are more economical to operate than a similar tonnage of smaller ones).

Adding cruise missiles and other weapons to this "Helicopter Cruiser"  would probably drive the cost up beyond the LHD-8 and LHA-6 range. For a ship with less capability to actually land marines that will still have a DDG-51 or three near it.

As far as dispersing marines among ships, at some level that is already done in an amphibious group, smaller amphibs carry troops that the LHD's and LHA can land by MV-22 if needed. It's still just one amphibious group, just the big deck ships have more landing capacity than they have troops on board.

The only reason I can see for operating a bunch of smaller amphibious ships would be so the US Navy doesn't take them and use them as modern CVL's with USMC pilots, which as I understand is exactly what happened with LHA-6 and her F-35's, which was a point of concern when the whole JSF program started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
7 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

all concepts have flaws..

To some extent, yes. Usually thou, they only become apparent during the litmus test of combat.

Distributed lethality is fundamentally flawed from inception and will probably cost us ships needlessly. They, the USN, is planning on putting long range ASM on tankers, supply, repair, and even medical ships and using them in offensive roles, even thou they lack the FCS to effectively use them.

The USN answer to that criticism was "advance networking" will solve that. When the Navy was then questioned about GPS and all broadband jamming... they didn't have a responce.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
8 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

More smaller ships means higher operating costs (big ships are more economical to operate than a similar tonnage of smaller ones).

Adding cruise missiles and other weapons to this "Helicopter Cruiser"  would probably drive the cost up beyond the LHD-8 and LHA-6 range. For a ship with less capability to actually land marines that will still have a DDG-51 or three near it.

As far as dispersing marines among ships, at some level that is already done in an amphibious group, smaller amphibs carry troops that the LHD's and LHA can land by MV-22 if needed. It's still just one amphibious group, just the big deck ships have more landing capacity than they have troops on board.

The only reason I can see for operating a bunch of smaller amphibious ships would be so the US Navy doesn't take them and use them as modern CVL's with USMC pilots, which as I understand is exactly what happened with LHA-6 and her F-35's, which was a point of concern when the whole JSF program started.

Well said.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the elimination of the "well deck" on the LHA6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
965
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,303 posts
12,978 battles
2 hours ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Well said.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the elimination of the "well deck" on the LHA6?

It's interesting, If you're going for full "Vertical Envelopment" she's great, and she's not bad as a modern CVL (provided that you don't mind annoying the USMC). She'd be awesome in operations like Panama and Grenada. After all the landings are done, she makes a nice aviation depot and hospital. She can still land anything that can be slung under a MH-53 or MV-22. The only way it's really a liability is if the US Navy has to land the US Army on a beach somewhere, and the army brings more tanks than the LPD's can handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
3 hours ago, SgtBeltfed said:

More smaller ships means higher operating costs (big ships are more economical to operate than a similar tonnage of smaller ones).

Adding cruise missiles and other weapons to this "Helicopter Cruiser"  would probably drive the cost up beyond the LHD-8 and LHA-6 range. For a ship with less capability to actually land marines that will still have a DDG-51 or three near it.

As far as dispersing marines among ships, at some level that is already done in an amphibious group, smaller amphibs carry troops that the LHD's and LHA can land by MV-22 if needed. It's still just one amphibious group, just the big deck ships have more landing capacity than they have troops on board.

The only reason I can see for operating a bunch of smaller amphibious ships would be so the US Navy doesn't take them and use them as modern CVL's with USMC pilots, which as I understand is exactly what happened with LHA-6 and her F-35's, which was a point of concern when the whole JSF program started.

if the big ships require an escort of smaller ships, they're no where near as economical to operate in reality. maybe on paper comparing ship to ship, but in reality no.

the reason the commandant wants to disperse the marines is to avoid having all their eggs in one or two baskets. to stop a landing you need to take out X% of marines to ensure it won't be successful. hitting an LHD/A thus is the obvious target, and you can focus all of your efforts on that one ship.  if you have 30% in an LSD/LPD, and 30% in another amphib, and 40% spread out amongst other smaller ships you can focus on one of the larger ships, but even if you sink/cripple the LPD, you still have 70% of the force bearing down on you, you and you're not  necessarily sure which of the smaller ships have troops or not complicating the enemy's targeting equation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
13 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

It's interesting, If you're going for full "Vertical Envelopment" she's great, and she's not bad as a modern CVL (provided that you don't mind annoying the USMC). She'd be awesome in operations like Panama and Grenada. After all the landings are done, she makes a nice aviation depot and hospital. She can still land anything that can be slung under a MH-53 or MV-22. The only way it's really a liability is if the US Navy has to land the US Army on a beach somewhere, and the army brings more tanks than the LPD's can handle.

army has their own ships and the tanks would likely be primarily transported by the MSC RO-ROs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
4 hours ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

To some extent, yes. Usually thou, they only become apparent during the litmus test of combat.

Distributed lethality is fundamentally flawed from inception and will probably cost us ships needlessly. They, the USN, is planning on putting long range ASM on tankers, supply, repair, and even medical ships and using them in offensive roles, even thou they lack the FCS to effectively use them.

The USN answer to that criticism was "advance networking" will solve that. When the Navy was then questioned about GPS and all broadband jamming... they didn't have a responce.

i've seen/heard nothing about trying to put ASMs on MSC ships of any sort, do you have a source for that?

what i've seen is that every surface combatant should have a valid ASuW capability, not just a small boat ASuW capability or a token capability represented by a 57mm or 76mm gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
965
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,303 posts
12,978 battles
17 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

if the big ships require an escort of smaller ships, they're no where near as economical to operate in reality. maybe on paper comparing ship to ship, but in reality no.

the reason the commandant wants to disperse the marines is to avoid having all their eggs in one or two baskets. to stop a landing you need to take out X% of marines to ensure it won't be successful. hitting an LHD/A thus is the obvious target, and you can focus all of your efforts on that one ship.  if you have 30% in an LSD/LPD, and 30% in another amphib, and 40% spread out amongst other smaller ships you can focus on one of the larger ships, but even if you sink/cripple the LPD, you still have 70% of the force bearing down on you, you and you're not  necessarily sure which of the smaller ships have troops or not complicating the enemy's targeting equation.

The problem is, this "Helicopter Cruiser" would also require an escort, it's still at least as costly as an LHD. Larger ships are more economic on a per ton basis in the open ocean while in transit, and while the crew is larger, it's still less crew per ton, ect... that's the reality of it, that's why freighters across the world got bigger, instead of just building more ships. 

Knowing what ships are carrying marines isn't a problem either, that would be any ship that was built to carry marines. It's not like you're using DDG's as troop carriers. Also, it's not like you have to kill the marines, you can settle for sinking their equipment, most of which will be on the big amphibs. A bunch marine light infantry with potentially compromised leadership (The big amphibs have the all the command facilities too) is a lot less threatening. 

Such a plan is also a bigger problem for clearing mines, as the amphibious group has a bigger footprint the more ships it has, and there's the little problem of the amphibs running into each other,  the more ships you have, the more likely it is to happen. There's also the problem of corralling a larger bunch of ships through straights, canals, ect... getting through the Strait of Hormuz with a large amphibious group would be a nightmare. It's also much easier to refuel and resupply a smaller fleet, even if the ships themselves are bigger and require more. (less chances of colliding and accidents while UNREPing, ect...)

45 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

army has their own ships and the tanks would likely be primarily transported by the MSC RO-ROs.

The RO-RO's are useless for landing tanks on a beach, and I don't think they can transfer vehicles at sea either. The US Army does have a bunch of what are basically different sized LST's, which would be in an amphibious group, either running between the big amphibs and the beach, or to a nearby port to pick up stuff from where the RO-RO's can drop it. All of which would require escorting or operating in a secure area, as they really aren't armed. The US Army would obviously prefer to not land a bunch of tanks on a beach if they can help it.

My point was, the LHA-6's lack of a well deck isn't that big of a liability, as I doubt the Marines on their own would bring enough vehicles to need more than an couple LSD's or LPD's, or simply pair the LHA-6 with a LHD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
49 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

i've seen/heard nothing about trying to put ASMs on MSC ships of any sort, do you have a source for that?

what i've seen is that every surface combatant should have a valid ASuW capability, not just a small boat ASuW capability or a token capability represented by a 57mm or 76mm gun.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/if-it-floats-it-fights-navy-seeks-distributed-lethality/

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/every-ship-a-minesweeper-navy-looks-beyond-lcs/

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/us-navy-looking-to-arm-its-logistics-ships-with-missile-1681064662

1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

if the big ships require an escort of smaller ships, they're no where near as economical to operate in reality. maybe on paper comparing ship to ship, but in reality no.

the reason the commandant wants to disperse the marines is to avoid having all their eggs in one or two baskets. to stop a landing you need to take out X% of marines to ensure it won't be successful. hitting an LHD/A thus is the obvious target, and you can focus all of your efforts on that one ship.  if you have 30% in an LSD/LPD, and 30% in another amphib, and 40% spread out amongst other smaller ships you can focus on one of the larger ships, but even if you sink/cripple the LPD, you still have 70% of the force bearing down on you, you and you're not  necessarily sure which of the smaller ships have troops or not complicating the enemy's targeting equation.

No ship will be able to operate without sufficient force, i.e. multiple ships, in a peer v peer environment, period. In a low intensity environment, ships can operate independently, like they have been doing so, with the sole exception of the CBG (Carrier Battle Group.)

Dispersion of units, while it increases survivability, decreases concentration of force. Likewise, as @SgtBeltfed stated, having smaller, more ships, to fulfill the role of a single ship, is economically more expensive due to the increase in maintenance, equipment, and logistical requirements. 

Additionally, the current marine doctrine, however flawed, acknowledges the LHA / LHP cannot approach a contested objective without total supremacy of the Land/Air/Sea domain. If that is achieved, they then will sit 30 miles of shore and start sending in marines. The marine core is not set up for opposed landings and could not do back-to-back operations due to attrition. The commandant is simply wanting more funding...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/if-it-floats-it-fights-navy-seeks-distributed-lethality/

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/every-ship-a-minesweeper-navy-looks-beyond-lcs/

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/us-navy-looking-to-arm-its-logistics-ships-with-missile-1681064662

No ship will be able to operate without sufficient force, i.e. multiple ships, in a peer v peer environment, period. In a low intensity environment, ships can operate independently, like they have been doing so, with the sole exception of the CBG (Carrier Battle Group.)

Dispersion of units, while it increases survivability, decreases concentration of force. Likewise, as @SgtBeltfed stated, having smaller, more ships, to fulfill the role of a single ship, is economically more expensive due to the increase in maintenance, equipment, and logistical requirements. 

Additionally, the current marine doctrine, however flawed, acknowledges the LHA / LHP cannot approach a contested objective without total supremacy of the Land/Air/Sea domain. If that is achieved, they then will sit 30 miles of shore and start sending in marines. The marine core is not set up for opposed landings and could not do back-to-back operations due to attrition. The commandant is simply wanting more funding...

first article has one throw away comment about 'why not think about it' no one said they were actually putting ASMs on MSC ships.
second article doesn't provide an actual quote about arming auxillaries...and considering it's the same source as the first article i'd say they're extrapolating from that throw away comment they quoted in the older article. except for a slogan they don't provide a real quote about arming literally anything they can
third article, again no quote, simply stating the possibility of putting deck launchers on auxiliaries(jalopnik isn't what i'd call a reliable source for military news btw).

so out of three articles you found one that has a quote that says "why not think about it"
since 2015 have there been any exercises with an MSC vessel test firing an offensive missile? you'd think if that were their actual plan they'd have tested it, and checked it out in the almost 5yrs since the first article was written.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, SgtBeltfed said:

The problem is, this "Helicopter Cruiser" would also require an escort, it's still at least as costly as an LHD. Larger ships are more economic on a per ton basis in the open ocean while in transit, and while the crew is larger, it's still less crew per ton, ect... that's the reality of it, that's why freighters across the world got bigger, instead of just building more ships. 

Knowing what ships are carrying marines isn't a problem either, that would be any ship that was built to carry marines. It's not like you're using DDG's as troop carriers. Also, it's not like you have to kill the marines, you can settle for sinking their equipment, most of which will be on the big amphibs. A bunch marine light infantry with potentially compromised leadership (The big amphibs have the all the command facilities too) is a lot less threatening. 

Such a plan is also a bigger problem for clearing mines, as the amphibious group has a bigger footprint the more ships it has, and there's the little problem of the amphibs running into each other,  the more ships you have, the more likely it is to happen. There's also the problem of corralling a larger bunch of ships through straights, canals, ect... getting through the Strait of Hormuz with a large amphibious group would be a nightmare. It's also much easier to refuel and resupply a smaller fleet, even if the ships themselves are bigger and require more. (less chances of colliding and accidents while UNREPing, ect...)

The RO-RO's are useless for landing tanks on a beach, and I don't think they can transfer vehicles at sea either. The US Army does have a bunch of what are basically different sized LST's, which would be in an amphibious group, either running between the big amphibs and the beach, or to a nearby port to pick up stuff from where the RO-RO's can drop it. All of which would require escorting or operating in a secure area, as they really aren't armed. The US Army would obviously prefer to not land a bunch of tanks on a beach if they can help it.

My point was, the LHA-6's lack of a well deck isn't that big of a liability, as I doubt the Marines on their own would bring enough vehicles to need more than an couple LSD's or LPD's, or simply pair the LHA-6 with a LHD.

last i heard the america class design was being altered to include a well deck
the MSC has been scrutinized as not having enough of any thing to allow the US to fight a conventional war against a true near peer/peer adversary, so no the navy and MSC don't have enough well decks to or LSTs to really make a major amphibious landing work in general.

you honestly think something like the jeanne d*arc or vittorio veneto (but modern) would cost $3.5billion give or take a couple million? it would probably cost $2.2-2.5billion, and at smaller than the zumwalt the jeanne d'arc could operate 10 helicopters, which is about as many as an LHD/A typically carries any way if i'm not mistaken...wasp is listed as it's standard load out being 4 cobras, 4 super stallions, and 3-4 hueys, sea control loadout 6 MH60s. so a helicopter cruiser would carry about as many helos as a flat deck amphib, but overall provide more options of what missions it could do if amphibious capability isn't actually needed.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20201/the-next-america-class-amphibious-assault-ship-will-almost-be-in-a-class-of-its-own

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

first article has one throw away comment about 'why not think about it' no one said they were actually putting ASMs on MSC ships.
second article doesn't provide an actual quote about arming auxillaries...and considering it's the same source as the first article i'd say they're extrapolating from that throw away comment they quoted in the older article. except for a slogan they don't provide a real quote about arming literally anything they can
third article, again no quote, simply stating the possibility of putting deck launchers on auxiliaries(jalopnik isn't what i'd call a reliable source for military news btw).

so out of three articles you found one that has a quote that says "why not think about it"
since 2015 have there been any exercises with an MSC vessel test firing an offensive missile? you'd think if that were their actual plan they'd have tested it, and checked it out in the almost 5yrs since the first article was written.

I understand questioning the sources, truly do and I approve of that. However, you can verify this actually happen, this was said, by active duty navy personnel...

The navy was kind enough to put this entire presentation on youtube. The 27th national symposium on surface warfare, distributed lethality.

As to why theres been several years from discussion to implementation, look at the F35 acquisition program, 20 yrs development cycle. Zumwalt, nearly the same. LCS, nearly a 15 year one. The Ford is still undergoing development, even thou it was "commissioned" despite not being shock tested nor meeting relaibilty requirements.

With how naval development occurs today, 5 years isn't enough time between initial concept and implementation. Rear Admiral Fanta was right about that.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,017 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

I understand questioning the sources, truly do and I approve of that. However, you can verify this actually happen, this was said, by active duty navy personnel...

The navy was kind enough to put this entire presentation on youtube. The 27th national symposium on surface warfare, distributed lethality.

As to why theres been several years from discussion to implementation, look at the F35 acquisition program, 20 yrs development cycle. Zumwalt, nearly the same. LCS, nearly a 15 year one. The Ford is still undergoing development, even thou it was "commissioned" despite not being shock tested nor meeting relaibilty requirements.

With how naval development occurs today, 5 years isn't enough time between initial concept and implementation. Rear Admiral Fanta was right about that.

5 years is plenty of time for a concept that's almost literally boils down to bolt deck launchers for offensive missiles onto an oiler, give it a console and a sensor to receive data link info and launch a missile at a target.
we're not talking about designing and building a whole new class of ship like the other programs you referenced.

well it's after 4am here and i'm in my 14th hour of work so i'll search that after i've had some good sleep and trust i can keep my eyes and ears open  through an entire naval symposium...unless you have a time mark for me to start at lol.

but if they seriously said that putting missiles on auxiliaries is something they actually intend to do, then i agree that's stupid. put some SEARAM and mk38s maybe for defensive purposes but offensive weapons on MSC vessels most certainly is dumb. distributing offensive missiles to warships that otherwise wouldn't pose a credible threat to anything larger than a boghammer. it would be moderately entertaining to see a cyclone or an avenger with a few harpoons/NSMs bolted onto the deck some where lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
3 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

5 years is plenty of time for a concept that's almost literally boils down to bolt deck launchers for offensive missiles onto an oiler, give it a console and a sensor to receive data link info and launch a missile at a target.
we're not talking about designing and building a whole new class of ship like the other programs you referenced.

well it's after 4am here and i'm in my 14th hour of work so i'll search that after i've had some good sleep and trust i can keep my eyes and ears open  through an entire naval symposium...unless you have a time mark for me to start at lol.

but if they seriously said that putting missiles on auxiliaries is something they actually intend to do, then i agree that's stupid. put some SEARAM and mk38s maybe for defensive purposes but offensive weapons on MSC vessels most certainly is dumb. distributing offensive missiles to warships that otherwise wouldn't pose a credible threat to anything larger than a boghammer. it would be moderately entertaining to see a cyclone or an avenger with a few harpoons/NSMs bolted onto the deck some where lol

No time mark. It's broken up over several hours based on speaker and it's been two years since I listen to it.

I knew breaking defense was there cause, that's their shindig... covering long powerpoints presentation.

From what I understand, they want to link up the weapon via networking so that their not to close. One ship identifies a target and relays the data to the shooter... I believe that a "navy matters" post might have some attach links, hes pretty good about attaching the primary sources. I'll try to track them down later.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
10,937 battles
6 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

5 years is plenty of time for a concept that's almost literally boils down to bolt deck launchers for offensive missiles onto an oiler, give it a console and a sensor to receive data link info and launch a missile at a target.
we're not talking about designing and building a whole new class of ship like the other programs you referenced. 

I think, and this is speculation, the idea was to use the LCS missile system, as it was to be modular and/ standalone in nature. Once that development was canceled, it left the arming of other ships in limbo.

With the navy still evaluating other missile platform still for the LSC, I feel that is the reason we haven't seen any testing done yet on the concept. 

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
965
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,303 posts
12,978 battles
14 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

last i heard the america class design was being altered to include a well deck
the MSC has been scrutinized as not having enough of any thing to allow the US to fight a conventional war against a true near peer/peer adversary, so no the navy and MSC don't have enough well decks to or LSTs to really make a major amphibious landing work in general.

you honestly think something like the jeanne d*arc or vittorio veneto (but modern) would cost $3.5billion give or take a couple million? it would probably cost $2.2-2.5billion, and at smaller than the zumwalt the jeanne d'arc could operate 10 helicopters, which is about as many as an LHD/A typically carries any way if i'm not mistaken...wasp is listed as it's standard load out being 4 cobras, 4 super stallions, and 3-4 hueys, sea control loadout 6 MH60s. so a helicopter cruiser would carry about as many helos as a flat deck amphib, but overall provide more options of what missions it could do if amphibious capability isn't actually needed.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20201/the-next-america-class-amphibious-assault-ship-will-almost-be-in-a-class-of-its-own

 

The LHA-8 is getting a well deck back as I understand, along with a reduced superstructure to leave more space on the flight deck. I suspect the return of the well deck is more to keep the US Navy from using them as CVL's, so that the marines can use them for what they are actually built for, transporting and supporting marines.

Could the US Navy make a helicopter cruiser cost 3.5 billion? Certainly, there's too much room for mission creep, what do you think happened with everything the US Navy's done in the past 20 years? Once it evolves into something akin to a modern, multi-role Kiev, it would be closing on CVN prices. Another problem is the growth of aircraft,  Jeanne D'Arc doesn't look big enough to operate MV-22's effectively, which from a standpoint of how quickly a given number of aircraft can deploy troops and the range, is the troop carrier of choice. MH-53's would be a tight fit as well.

You'll also notice both the French and Italians have stopped using Helicopter Cruisers, in the Italians case using a modern CVL for the task and the French likely using their new LHD's for the same role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×