Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), light carriers CVL als basis ipv LHD

[Sparkplug]

Link naar het complete rapport Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW), Program: Background and Issues for Congress van 27-05-2020.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6932710/Navy-Light-Amphibious-Warship-LAW-Program.pdf

[Harald]

Report to Congress on US Navy Light Amphibious Warship

The Navy's new Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program envisions procuring a class of 28 to 30 new amphibious ships to support the Marine Corps, particularly in implementing a new Marine Corps operational concept called Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO).

From the report

The Navy's proposed FY2021 budget requests $30 million in research and development funding for initial industry studies and concept design work on the ship. The Navy envisions procuring the ships on an expedited schedule, with the first LAWs potentially being procured in FY2023 and a total of 28 notionally being procured by FY2026.

The EABO concept was developed with an eye toward potential conflict scenarios with China in the Western Pacific. Under the concept, the Marine Corps envisions, among other things, having reinforced-platoon-sized Marine Corps units maneuver around the theater, moving from island to island, to fire anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and perform other missions so as to contribute, alongside Navy and other U.S. military forces, to U.S operations to counter and deny sea control to Chinese forces. The LAW ships would be instrumental to these operations, with LAWs embarking, transporting, landing, and subsequently reembarking these small Marine Corps units.

As conceived by the Navy and Marine Corps, LAWs would be much smaller and individually much less expensive to procure and operate than the Navy's current amphibious ships. The Navy wants LAWs to be 200 to 400 feet in length, and to have a unit procurement cost to be "several digit millions not triple-digit millions," a phrase that might be interpreted to mean a unit procurement cost of less than $100 million, or perhaps one that is closer to $100 million than to several hundred million dollars.

The LAW as outlined by the Navy is small enough that it could be built by any of several U.S. shipyards. The Navy states that in response to an initial request for information (RFI) about the LAW, it received responses from 13 firms, including nine shipyards. The Navy's baseline preference is to have a single shipyard build all 28 to 30 ships, but the Navy is open to having them built-in multiple yards to the same design if doing so could permit the program to be implemented more quickly and/or less expensively.

The LAW program poses a number of potential oversight matters for Congress, including the merits of the EABO concept, how LAWs would fit into the Navy's future fleet architecture, the Navy's preliminary unit procurement cost target for the ship, and the industrial-base implications of the program.

The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2021 funding request and envisioned an acquisition strategy for the program. Congress's decisions regarding the program could affect Navy and Marine Corps capabilities and funding requirements and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/june/8516-report-to-congress-on-us-navy-light-amphibious-warship.html

[Harald]

Turning Amphibious Ships Into 'Lightning' Aircraft Carriers

The concept would transform amphibious ships into aircraft carriers.

The U.S. Marines claim that their ability to turn amphibious ships into aircraft carriers is a major advantage on the battlefield.

Amphibious ships, though not full-fledged aircraft carriers, can carry up to 20 F-35Bs.

The ability to mount different types of attacks on an adversary using the same ship platform complicates the enemy's ability to mount an effective defense.

.../...

Eigenlijk net zoiets als dat de Marine's hun LPD 17 willen upgunnen.

Outfit LPD-17 San Antonio class of amphibious transport docks with Mark 41 vertical launch systems.

The San Antonio class (LPD-17) has proven to be an incredibly effective "micro military in a box." These ships can be deployed off the coasts of low-intensity conflicts where they can execute a wide spectrum of missions. These include everything from humanitarian relief to special operations to embassy evacuation to close air support to strike missions, and many others in between. The USS San Antonio's recent deployment to Libya proved this model to an unprecedented degree.

These are incredibly versatile ships, and they don't necessarily need to be locked within the standard "Gator Navy" concept of operations. The fact that a single ship has a voluminous flight deck and hangar space that can embark a "pocket air force" of AH-1Zs, UH-1Ys, MV-22s and unmanned vehicles, carries an embarked Marine contingent of roughly 700 grunts and their gear, retains a well deck that can accommodate a large variety of water craft ranging from RHIBs to LCACs, and has mission planning and command and control spaces and capabilities, makes the San Antonio class unique.

What they lack is the ability to defend themselves from a credible aerial threat and the ability to strike deep into contested territory. They have RIM-116 Rolling Airframe missile launchers fore and aft for point defense, but like the LCS, they lack the ability to provide area air defense for themselves or other ships nearby for that matter.

Luckily the San Antonio's designers weren't nearsighted when it came to the ship's potential, as they actually designed these ships with an area for two eight-cell Mark 41 vertical launch systems to be installed. These cells are capable of packing four Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs) each, for a total loadout of 64 highly capable anti-air missiles. Or a mix of ESSMs and other missiles could be carried. For instance, eight of those cells could house BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, giving the ship an independent penetrating strike capability. Or, upgrade dependent, even the very capable SM-6 could be adapted for the ship's use.

SM-6 has the ability to hit air breathing and some types of ballistic missile targets, as well as possessing a secondary medium-range surface-to-surface/ground capability. In recent months, Lockheed has pushed to get the Navy to fund the installation of the Aegis combat system on LPD-17 class ships, which would allow them to employ the SM-6.

Even without Aegis or the SM-6, the ability to lug around 36 ESSMs and eight Tomahawks would usher in a whole new dynamic when it comes to the ship's mission capabilities. The Tomahawks could also be sidelined by bolt-on canisters of Norway's much touted medium-range Naval Strike Missile—which is likely to show up on many other Navy surface vessels in the not so distant future.

With these additions, a single San Antonio class ship alone could provide a hardened and capable presence in low and medium threat environments, and would be especially capable of supporting contingency operations in "hot spot" regions around the globe. If they were paired with an LCS or frigate for anti-submarine warfare, they could venture into the high-threat realm as well.

The same concept can be ported over to the upcoming LX(R) ships that will replace the Harpers Ferry and Whidbey Island classes of dock landing ships. These vessels will very likely leverage the existing LPD-17 hull design, although their overall capabilities will be degraded compared to their San Antonio class cousins to save money and to better emulate the more basic ships they replace.

But providing room for a VLS on these vessels as well may be prudent, even to work just as a remote magazine for Aegis equipped cruisers and destroyers, and especially for their LPD-17 sister ships that will accompany them during most operations. But if not, an LPD-17 class could protect them with their own anti-air capabilities alone, all without the need for a nearby destroyer or cruiser. This would allow for new pairings of ships for various operations.

For instance, an single LPD-17 class ship could be accompanied by a single LX(R) for additional war fighting capacity. Basically, in doing so the LPD-17 could double its combat power, without the need of another costly LPD-17. All the high-end combat capability, including air defense capabilities, and the small flotilla's "brains" are deployed aboard the LPD-17 with the LX(R) working as something of a subordinate force.

A VLS equipped LPD-17 could also be useful for sea basing operations, by being able to provide air defense for the assets around it. Once again, this would free up destroyers and cruisers for other tasks.

Basically, by giving the San Antonio class its VLS system, it will be able to operate more independently in many more scenarios than it can today. This gets back to the whole arbitrary 350 ship navy mandate. It is better to have a few less ships, but ones that are far less rigidly dependent on others for protection under most circumstances. It allows the US Navy as a whole to be in more places, with more capabilities, at one time than simply demanding "more ships."

Currently 12 LPD-17 ships are planned, a 13th could be ordered to bridge the gap between LPD-17 and LX(R) production if the LX(R)s end up being built based on the LPD-17 hull.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9224/7-revolutionary-hardware-changes-the-us-navy-should-make-in-the-trump-era

[Ace1]

Turning Amphibious Ships Into 'Lightning' Aircraft Carriers

The concept would transform amphibious ships into aircraft carriers.

The U.S. Marines claim that their ability to turn amphibious ships into aircraft carriers is a major advantage on the battlefield.

Amphibious ships, though not full-fledged aircraft carriers, can carry up to 20 F-35Bs.

The ability to mount different types of attacks on an adversary using the same ship platform complicates the enemy's ability to mount an effective defense.

The U.S. Marines are touting the ability to quickly reconfigure an amphibious assault ship into a mini-aircraft carrier carrying up to 20 F-35B Lightning II fighters. The Wasp and America-class ships, both 840 feet long, can carry a Marine landing force or two squadrons of the fifth-generation jets, alternating between the two in a matter of days. The result, the Marine Corps claims, is an unpredictable force that a wartime enemy will find difficult to counter.

The Marines, according to Business Insider, consider the "Lightning carrier" concept a game changer. The USS Wasp and USS America-class amphibious assault ships can both carry between 16 and 20 F-35Bs—the vertical takeoff and landing version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter used by the U.S. Marine Corps. The ships both have full-length flight decks, hangars, and stores for fuel and munitions that allow them to typically carry about half a dozen F-35Bs. If the ships delete their normal complement of helicopters and MV-22 Osprey tiltrotors, they can carry more than three times as many F-35Bs.

The Marines have tested the Lightning carrier concept several times. In November 2016, USS America conducted exercises off the coast of California with 12 F-35Bs embarked, twice as many as usual. In 2019 the Japan-based USS Wasp deployed into the South China Sea with at least 10 F-35Bs. China has issued warnings it considers up to 90 percent of the South China Sea a Chinese territory and has built numerous artificial islands bristling with missiles, fighter jets, and radars that would become targets for the Marines in the event of war. There are currently eight Wasp-class ships and one America-class, with more ships of the latter planned or under construction.

The "Lightning carrier" can create an ad hoc carrier during wartime while the U.S. Navy's Nimitz and Ford-class supercarriers are tied up elsewhere. Alternately a Lightning carrier could sail alongside such a supercarrier, adding up to 20 more fighter jets to the supercarrier's 44 jets. That's almost a 50 percent increase in fighter planes.

Lightning carriers do have their disadvantages. The Wasp and America-class ships are built to normally carry helicopters, tiltrotors, and fighters, and deploying three times as many fighters as the ship was meant to carry could create supply problems, especially in terms of fuel and munitions. The America-class ships, built with expanded aviation services at the expense of the ability to land Marines by sea, would be considerably better in supporting a large number of F-35Bs.

Lightning carriers also lack catapults and arresting gear, meaning the ship can't embark Navy aircraft such as the E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning plane, EA-18G Growler electronic attack jet, and the planned MQ-25A Stingray unmanned tanker. These aircraft extend the detection range of a carrier, escort strike fighters into enemy territory, and extend the range of embarked fighters. A Lightning carrier could benefit from such planes by sortieing alongside a supercarrier.

In strategic sense, the Lightning carrier ability complicates an adversary's ability to defend against a Marine force. If an adversary with a coastline knew a Wasp or America-class ship were in the area, they would need to prepare for the possibility of an amphibious attack. Thanks to the Lightning carrier concept, they would also have to array their forces to defend against the possibility of heavy air attack by F-35Bs.

Defending against one threat is different than defending against the other—and that's the point.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a31025821/lightning-aircraft-carriers/?fbclid=IwAR3eKRcF_Zvea0klcInVAaZCk0lV2RkxIQzBxG4GhXVjjEJs_X_463tsB2o

[Harald]

https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/USMC-F-35Bs-USS-America-shaping-the-future-of-amphibious-operations-1.jpg

USMC F-35Bs & USS America shaping the future of amphibious operations

When more than a dozen F-35B Lightning IIs thundered across the skies of the Eastern Pacific and touched down on the USS America on Oct. 8, 2019, it signaled the birth of the most lethal, aviation-capable amphibious assault ship to date.

..../....

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/11/usmc-f-35bs-uss-america-shaping-the-future-of-amphibious-operations/


Here's the USMC's Plan for 'Lightning Carriers' Brimming With F-35Bs

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8798/heres-the-usmcs-plan-for-lightning-carriers-brimming-with-f-35bs

[Parera]

'Fight To Get To The Fight:' Marine Amphibs Under The Gun (... bewapende LHD/LPD's met bijvoorbeeld VLS.. )

Onderdeel van het plan ''distributed lethality'', prima plan als je het mij vraagt en ook iets voor Nederland om van te leren bij de vervanging van de LPD's!

[Harald]

'Fight To Get To The Fight:' Marine Amphibs Under The Gun (... bewapende LHD/LPD's met bijvoorbeeld VLS.. )

Threatened by hundreds of precision-guided munitions now in the hands of Russia and China, the Navy and Marine Corps continue to search for technologies and tactics that will allow them to operate close to the coastline without unsustainable losses.

"We're going to need long-range fires that can operate from a ship or from the shore to take out sea-based or shore-based platforms"  Lt. Gen. David Berger, the head of the Corps' combat development office, told a group of industry execs and lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday.

Speaking at an Amphibious Warship Industrial Base Coalition breakfast here, Berger warned that in the near future, "we're going to have to fight to get to the fight. Nothing is sacred and nothing is protected."

The Navy has been wrestling with the thorny problem of area denial, particularly in the Western Pacific and tighter spaces like the Black and Baltic seas, where China and Russia have deployed a host of radar, mid-and long-range missiles — in addition to modernized surface ships and submarines — to keep American ships away from the littorals.

The Navy's amphibious ships are particularly at risk, as they are lightly armed and designed to transport Marines, helicopters, and supplies close to shore.

The Marines have for several years called for the Navy's 32 amphibious ships to be outfitted with Vertical Launch System cells or other weapons that would give them a fighting chance in the littorals. But, as Breaking Defense reported last month, Navy officials say that's not going to happen, at least in the short-term.

But that didn't stop Berger from pushing forward with the idea. "We have to increase the lethality of the ships," he said. "The ships are not [just] lift. They are a warfighting platform."

At the same time the Marines are pushing for more firepower, they also want the ships to be more networked with air and land assets, as Pentagon leadership moves forward with its Multi-Domain Operations concept. "We have to upgrade the command and control systems because this is part of a joint construct," Berger said. "Moving information and closing the targeting loop is what we have to do. Vertical launching systems or some other way to make an amphibious ship more lethal is absolutely necessary."

The Marines have already been kicking the tires on some innovative ways to send enemy ships to the bottom.

Breaking Defense recently learned that the service has kicked off a rapid development program to begin firing long-range anti-ship missiles from shore-based ground vehicles. Dubbed the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System — or NEMSIS — the program has completed its design phase. The Marines are looking at Lockheed Martin's new Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), Raytheon's Naval Strike Missile, and Boeing's venerable Harpoon.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, a former Marine officer who also spoke at Thursday's event, told the military and industry leaders that the Navy needs to think differently about lethality now that its ships can be ranged by enemy missiles are greater distances.

The Mk 6 patrol boat, deployable from the well decks of amphibious ships, are a good place to look for innovation he said. The small, highly maneuverable vessels can be outfitted with the LRASM, he suggested, "so you can imagine using amphibs as a mother ship, you can imagine parking patrol boats armed with LRASMs in disputed or strategic areas where they provide near-constant presence. The point is, it's going to be up to our nation's amphibious force to deliver outside-the-box solutions like this."

The idea of getting anywhere close to enemy shorelines might be one whose time has come and gone, however. A new report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that American big-deck aircraft carriers are likely to have to stay at least 1,000 miles away from the coast in order to protect themselves from precision missile salvos and new generations of aircraft.

"If the U.S. Navy is going to continue to invest in aircraft carriers, it need to re-consider how it's going to configure its [carrier] air wings," said Bryan Clark, a CSBA senior fellow. His n report calls for a uptick in investments in unmanned air, surface, and undersea platforms that can act as picket lines for a carrier strike group, while manned aircraft act as "pouncers" to quickly hit enemy ships or subs once detected by the unmanned assets.

Current carriers are "not designed for the way we're going to operate in the future," Clark said on Thursday. "I would even go further to say, unless the Navy is going to re-configure its air wings, it should reconsider its continued investment in aircraft carriers."

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/02/marines-want-more-punch-on-amphibs-but-littorals-increasingly-risky/

[Parera]

Dit is wat ik bedoelde met de Italiaanse LHD die in aanbouw is 33,000 ton vol beladen (al zie ik ook dat ze spreken over 35 en zelfs 40,000 ton).
Wel denk ik dat er een beperking opzit qua bereik met maar 7000 zeemijl (12,964 km) met 16 knopen en dat daar verbeter ruimte zit o.a. door het gebruik van Diesels i.p.v. GT's.

[Parera]

Neem dan de Enforcer 30.000

Staat ook niet meer in de huidige series  De LPD series lopen maximaal tot de 22.000 op dit moment, dit is gebeurd toen men een nieuwe generatie enforcers is gaan ontwikkelen waarbij de LHD's weg gelaten zijn van de openbare brochures maar ik verwacht wel dat ze nog aanwezig zijn.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Ik denk dat je dan beter kunt beginnen met een schoon ontwerp met als uitgang de de Enforcer 22000 (dit is ook de basis van het JSS) maar juist van wegen het dok en amfibische taken denk ik dat het beter is om met een schoon ontwerp te beginnen. Zeker als je wilt kijken naar een LHD.

In de oude Enforcer series zaten LHD's maar deze zijn tegenwoordig niet meer opgenomen in de publiekelijke documenten. Maar ze zullen zeker ook ontwikkeld zijn bij het herzien van de serie.

Neem dan de Enforcer 30.000

[Parera]

Met de JSS romp heb je de (vermoedelijk) basis voor zowel het CSS als de LPD opvolger(s). (dit in het kader van de zo gewenste familievorming)

Voor het CSS gaat dat prima lukken, maar of je de LPD vervangers op eenzelfde basis moet ontwikkelen twijfel ik aan. Ik denk dat je dan beter kunt beginnen met een schoon ontwerp met als uitgang de de Enforcer 22000 (dit is ook de basis van het JSS) maar juist van wegen het dok en amfibische taken denk ik dat het beter is om met een schoon ontwerp te beginnen. Zeker als je wilt kijken naar een LHD.

In de oude Enforcer series zaten LHD's maar deze zijn tegenwoordig niet meer opgenomen in de publiekelijke documenten. Maar ze zullen zeker ook ontwikkeld zijn bij het herzien van de serie.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Pak de JSS Karel Doorman (basis 204 meter x 30 meter)

Met de JSS romp heb je de (vermoedelijk) basis voor zowel het CSS als de LPD opvolger(s). (dit in het kader van de zo gewenste familievorming)

[Harald]

Het ideale type schip voor de KM als we ons meer zouden richten op de KM en amfibisch optreden, 2 van die dames met het nodige vliegende tuig en de gehele KL is VVT.

Pak de JSS Karel Doorman (basis 204 meter x 30 meter) en haal het voorste brug gedeelte compleet weg, plaats een extra laag (hangaar gedeelte) bovenop het gedeelte waar nu het flight deck is en maak aan 1 kant een brug gedeelte.   

Zie afbeelding hieronder de grijze lijn doortrekken naar achteren en het witte weglaten .... (knippen en plakken...  )



http://i40.tinypic.com/2e399gz.png

[Parera]

De reden dat LHA zonder well deck uitgerust werd is om meer F-35B en/of MV-22 te kunnen gebruiken/bergen.

Here's the USMC's Plan for 'Lightning Carriers' Brimming With F-35Bs
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8798/heres-the-usmcs-plan-for-lightning-carriers-brimming-with-f-35bs

Ach blijkbaar toch overbodig als je er maar 2 bouwt met die capaciteit. En de capaciteit van die F-35's valt reuze mee als je het zo bekijkt:
- 12 MV-22B Osprey
- 4 CH-53K King Stallion
- 7 AH-1Z of UH-1Y's
- 2 MH-60S knighthawk
- 6 F-35B

Tenzij je kijkt naar light-carrier load dan zit je aan 20 F-35B's + 2 MH-60's, ik ben wel benieuwd naar hoeveel de schepen met dock aan boord dan kunnen meenemen in verhouding met de andere 2. Ik had er toch ten minstens 6 in de LHA versie gebouwd en dan nog eens 6 in de LHD versie. De totaal klasse zal bestaan uit 11 schepen vandaar dat ik zou zeggen 2x 6 stuks is maar 1 meer dan gepland en 50% van de klasse is dan instaat om echt ingezet te worden als light-carrier.

Het ideale type schip voor de KM als we ons meer zouden richten op de KM en amfibisch optreden, 2 van die dames met het nodige vliegende tuig en de gehele KL is VVT.

Ja al denk ik dat deze toch nog iets te groot zijn voor ons en kijk ik eerder naar het formaat Juan Carlos of Italiaanse Trieste klasse. Niet veel kleiner maar net wat compacter voor in de haven van Den Helder.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Het blijven machtige schepen die LHD/LHA's van de Yanks. Tot op heden nog maar 1 keer mogen bewonderen met op het dek slechts een groep CH-53's maar wat een bak 
Goed dat ze besloten hebben om het dock terug te brengen want wie dat ooit besloten heeft zat niet op te letten.

Het ideale type schip voor de KM als we ons meer zouden richten op de KM en amfibisch optreden, 2 van die dames met het nodige vliegende tuig en de gehele KL is VVT.