Littoal combantants

[roughneck06]

I've been reading a website- newwars- it seems to be anti CVN, DG51 and advocating a bunch o frinkin- dink small ships for the USN- bogeyman swarms ships, etc BS Blah blah blah.

I mainstain the USN should stay the course- we have allies doing anti piracy. Overkill id best with a DG or to contributing to the fight- but really a USCG fight rather than the USN.

My thoughts- 10-12 CVNs, 4-6 CVM ( think Midway CV-41) and 4-6 " Littoral" CBS which would have a complement of JSF, Helios, and UAWs.

Thoughts/ideas for the CVN/ Littoral CVX??

Iranian "Swarms" are bogeymans are just that in MOHO. Deep blue supremacy is what the USN should strive for.

Any thoughts for a " Midway" CVM and/or " Littoral" CV??

[proditor]

I read some interesting conjecture about making a Flight II upgrade to the LCS to make them "motherships" for littoral swarms.  It seemed to indicate a robot fleet of boats, copters, and subs that would all come back to an uprated/gunned LCS.

The idea was interesting, but I think we could have a lot more fun with the same idea on a Spruance hull.  I mean, how many of those do we have waiting for scrap?  

As to anti-CVN, unfortunately that may be the way of it soon.  Lots of "Why do we need 11 Carrier Battle groups?" from the SecDef lately, sort of ignoring the whole "We were trying to get to 12" part of things.  It may mean that concepts like the SCS get another look in the future.  

[Jschmus]

This "New Wars" blog reads like a new version of Combat Reform.  It seems a little better read, but that's all.

[dy031101]

Unrelated to the USN, I've read more than once suggestions that the ROCN should give up its capital ships and concentrate on FACs that rely on stealth and anti-aircraft assets (from other military branches, that is) to protect their collective butts in case of a conflict.

Personally I'm not sure about this this beyond the "benefit" of saving money.  When was the last time a brown-water navy successfully did its part in fighting off an enemy that includes a blue-water navy?  Relying on other military branches for protection sounds do-able on paper, but they have their own responsibilities and might not be able to do everything at the same time.

[proditor]

I just read some of the blog, and I really think part of it is based on a flawed assumption.  They castigate the LCS for being a blue water baby, and state that you need something more like a boghammer swarm.

Quick question...

How do you get it there from the US?

Are we going to airdrop them out the back of C-5's?

Crap.

Now I have a diorama idea.

[Thorvic]

I just read some of the blog, and I really think part of it is based on a flawed assumption.  They castigate the LCS for being a blue water baby, and state that you need something more like a boghammer swarm.

Quick question...

How do you get it there from the US?

Build a variant of the San Antonio class with a weapon/senor fit akin to a Zumwalt (local AAW rather than area, plenty or Anti-surface missiles, decent gun) then use dock and davits for small FAC or various types - maybe include a moon pool for SEAL underwater insertion/recovery 

That do ?

[proditor]

No more ideas!  My SA is in pewter and still en route!   

[Weaver]

I just read some of the blog, and I really think part of it is based on a flawed assumption.  They castigate the LCS for being a blue water baby, and state that you need something more like a boghammer swarm.

Quick question...

How do you get it there from the US?

Build a variant of the San Antonio class with a weapon/senor fit akin to a Zumwalt (local AAW rather than area, plenty or Anti-surface missiles, decent gun) then use dock and davits for small FAC or various types - maybe include a moon pool for SEAL underwater insertion/recovery  

That do ?

The French LSDs (Foudres & Ouragans) have a two-section flight-deck, the lower, rear section of which can be slid forwards under the forward fixed section. This makes the rear part of the dock open-topped, enabling them to carry a 400 ton P-400 patrol boat. They mostly use this for transporting the boats to far-flung colonies, but you could see how the idea could be adapted to a multi-role "intervention ship" for littoral situations.

The RN has experimented with carrying Swedish CB90 combat boats in an LPD, and the Royal Marines have small hovercraft that can be carried in them too.

To an extent, I agree with the blog in the sense that in some situations, a large number of limited-capability small craft are more use than one big one. For instance, you'd get a lot better results in anti-piracy patrols off Sudan if you deployed six 1000 ton corvettes than one 6000 ton destroyer. Modern navies probably should divert some resource to this kind of craft. However I don't agree with the blog's dismissal of the USN's carriers, because it ignores the effect on other powers of their simple existance. The fact that they've never fought a carrier-to-carrier battle after 1944 is irrelevant*: the fact of their existance and threat forced the Soviet Navy to design itself around dealing with CBGs instead of projecting Soviet power abroad.


*There was very nearly a carrier-to-carrier battle north of the Falklands in 1982. The only thing that stopped it was that the 25 de Mayo couldn't generate enough wind-over-deck to launch it's Skyhawks.

[PR19_Kit]

Just what DOES 'Littoral' mean anyway? In the literal sense of course 

Wasn't there a word for it already in existance?

[GTX]

The littoral zone refers to that part of a sea, lake or river that is close to the shore. In coastal environments the littoral zone extends from the high water mark, which is rarely inundated, to shoreline areas that are permanently submerged. It always includes this intertidal zone and is often used to mean the same as the intertidal zone. However, the meaning of "littoral zone" can extend well beyond the intertidal zone.



For the purposes of naval operations, the United States Navy divides the littoral zone in the ways shown on the diagram above.

Generally, I think the idea of a Littoral CV in the traditional sense (i.e 15000 tonnes+ and manned) would be fraught with danger - suddenly someone with a truck mounted ASM could strike a carrier!  If however one was looking at something smaller, perhaps similar to the TSSE Crossbow proposals, it might be possible.

Regards,

Greg

[PR19_Kit]

Hmm, I relish the thought of one of their recent 'littoral support ships' doing it's supporting above the high water mark. Presumably they have caterpillar tracks on the bottom of the hull?  

Yet another invented word that has been made to lose its real meaning..........

[RLBH]

I read some interesting conjecture about making a Flight II upgrade to the LCS to make them "motherships" for littoral swarms.  It seemed to indicate a robot fleet of boats, copters, and subs that would all come back to an uprated/gunned LCS.

The idea was interesting, but I think we could have a lot more fun with the same idea on a Spruance hull.  I mean, how many of those do we have waiting for scrap?  

As to anti-CVN, unfortunately that may be the way of it soon.  Lots of "Why do we need 11 Carrier Battle groups?" from the SecDef lately, sort of ignoring the whole "We were trying to get to 12" part of things.  It may mean that concepts like the SCS get another look in the future.  

Simple approach to littoral warfare whilst retaining blue-water capability: park your CVN 400 miles offshore, and let your 600 knot Hornets chase down the 40 knot go-fasts with cannon, rockets and cluster bombs, or go after them in port. E-2Ds can give you advance warning, and a 400 mile head start on something with a 600 mile one-way range will do quite nicely, however many of them there are. Send the gators in once you've trashed the 'swarms'.

[proditor]

I agree.  Now someone go explain it to Gates. 

[dragon]

As I understand it, Lindberg is re-releasing their "Bobtail Cruiser" this year.  That might provide for a wonderful base to start whiffing from.

[Taiidantomcat]