Swamp Yankee of Oz: Something old Something new something blue make the old new

Sitting here and checking my daily traps and lines for Navy developments worldwide, and its as always a bit distressing. It seems like when I do check both reliable and somewhat reliable sources concerning Navy developments there is a renaissance in Navy operational concepts going on everywhere but in the U.S Navy. We seem to have a leadership / vision problem. Mixed up with some good idea fairyisms.

To sum it up we seem stuck in a rut where our Carriers are the offensive punch and the Surface Warfare Community is the escort function.

My major problem with that is that the legs of our aircraft are simply put to short. And no longer are capable against peer or near peer OPFOR

Yes we can add unmanned refueling, but still I am guessing that it is a couple tanks, or diminished armament carrying (external tank means less bombs and missiles) to get to the 1000-1500 mile range that I have arbitrarily chosen as the range that seems to correspond to the threat we face from near peer competitors. if we want to execute a strategic strike mission.

And remember, double that to 2000 - 3000 miles for a manned asset that has to come home and then add another bit of distance in case they actual have to fight their way in and or out.

Over at Navy Matters (navy-matters.blogspot.com) they present an interesting scenario where essentially our tomahawk missiles become game for OPFOR as they are too slow, and that essentially the carrier air wing has to escort the missiles in .

Also scenario where we have to mass 4 flat tops to accomplish the objective. My basic question is where is the tanking capacity to support that.

And when would we on short notice have the ability to surge 4 flat tops (I'm using Flat Tops to incorporate platforms like the America)

The real issue I have with the scenario is that we would have to get within a 1000 miles (and I'm being generous here) to make this work.

Simply put without a long range fighter and strike aircraft I'm not sure our carrier based business model works anymore and neither does our subsonic tomahawk capability.

(Full disclosure I am nor have I ever been an airdale/ aviation type so some of the above and below may be inaccurate and is derived from wiki and other easy web resources so maybe not totally right )

Cold war Era and then some:

A-6 Intruder: Combat Range 878 Nautical miles

F-14 Tomcat: Combat Range 580 Nautical Miles

EA-6B Prowler: Combat Range 2,022 Nautical Miles / 2400 tanks dropped

Current

F-18 Hornet:. Combat Range 400 Nautical miles

EA-F-18 Growler. Combat range 400 Nautical miles

F-35 C .Combat range 670 Nautical miles ( I think its less for the Navy version)

And these are just range issues, don't forget the "legacy" aircraft were much more capable at their designated missions.

Think of having a broadsword and a spear vice a utility knife. I'll take the former two please

My solution, break out the old blueprints for these legacy platforms, upgrade the avionics and call it a day. That might go a ways to hep. Yes re-start the F-14, A-6, S-3 and EA-6B lines upgrade the avionics and call it done. Not real trade studies needed. Retraining yes, as there would once again be strike, fighter and ASW types.

Simply put the 1990's to present Carrier Air Wing Experiment was predicated on the thoughts the Soviets were gone and no one else was around to challenge us and it would be much cheaper and more effective to cut the types and number of airframes being flown. Sometimes old tech and conops are better than what they replace.

Yo be clear I'm not proposing we turn the navy back into its 1970's and 80's version, but we could take the good of those and update them rather than forcing tech were it is not needed. The below encapsulates what I think has gone wrong with the navy acquisitions for the last 20 years. Yes I can create an electronic bridge note that works well on a laptop. but why would I. A piece of paper works fins. And yes I know this is a comic, but our integrated ships control are now touch screens which must do wonders for night vision. So we kind of already did this . Vice good old analog (lead) glow in the dark controls.

So to conclude, I think our chances with our current assets - even with the (very vulnerable in my opinion ) net centric advances - our chances are not good if we actually had to execute the mission outlined in the

Navy Matters: Missile Escort (navy-matters.blogspot.com) scenario.

I'm doing some mental rough order of PH/PK plus survivability of manned assets against a defended target and its not looking so good for the visiting team (thats us by the way).

The numbers would be so bad we might as well call it a Doolittle raid.

Because there are going to be a lot of vacant seats in the ready room.

And it is a lot harder to put replacements in those seats then circa WW2

I have to somewhat agree maybe its time to turn the way we have been fighting the last 75 years on its head.

Perhaps the Flat Tops should protect the shooters. Assuming we actually have something to shoot besides old school tomahawks

Remember we lost roughly 100 carrier based aircraft in the battle of midway. Or about 44 percent of the total embarked. That's an average of about 75 aircraft per deck on three carriers.

Today our CVN's carry about 45 or so strike fighter/ ew aircraft.

Vice carrying roughly 75 per CV in World War two.

So in context if you are to apply the math the three carriers at midway carried roughly 225 total aircraft and lost roughly 100 or about 45 percent of the planes.

4 Aircraft carriers suffering similar losses today would be carrying about 180 aircraft and would expect to loose roughly 80 aircraft.

Yes Midway was a fight between Aircraft Carriers not an denied access strike that we are likley to face. But really what is the difference.

If we are going to be the away team say against China, they have less need for aircraft carriers as they have ready made island and mainland runways.

We are just going to be going against an adversary that has larger force generation capabilities than we do.

So if you make me the decision maker for the day and tell me I am likely going to loose 45 percent of my aircraft to take out a critically strategic target with conventional means as my Tomahawk and other surface to surface missiles are not op to the task,

I might have to make that decision.

Well I shouldn't have to make that decision. Cause we can do better.

But more concerning is how are we going to fight our way into a roughly 1000 mile range. The OPFOR is not going to leave the door open.

So what am I going to do to keep the U.S Navy and partners from getting close enough to launch.

well mines (which we are um suboptimal at), subs (also suboptimal unless we are talking another sub doing it ) and missiles (give us a B- and getting worse).

And small disposable fast attack craft that can get into my vulnerability circle and get out quick after launching a couple of Anti Ship cruise missiles.

I mention the word disposable as OPFOR really doesn't care if they survive.

If a crappy missile boat can hit one of out DDG's. Flatops or large decks it has probably paid back the investment in the entire class of those ships that OPFOR built.

So while we have been flailing around with LCS, Navy's 'Cheap' Littoral Combat Ships Cost Nearly As Much To Run As Guided Missile Destroyers (thedrive.com)

Zumwalt and abortive attempts to build the next generation CG to replace those that have clearly ben rolled up hard and packed away wet Vella Gulf crew remains onboard while ship is stricken with more mechanical problems (navytimes.com).

While at the same time trying to throw away capability that works US Navy Mark VI Patrol Boats Receive Reprieve - Naval News

what have other countries been doing.

well they are re-thinking how they fight. Like say putting ASCM's on an LPD. Nor strapping them on but actually integrating them. Makes sense right. Taiwan launches new naval vessel | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News

So lets go through a quick roundup of some what would appear successful acquisitions programs, these are in the last 6 months to a year by the way.

China

China expects to launch its third aircraft carrier this year - Naval Post

China’s New Type 075 Amphibious Assault Ship starts the second round of sea trials - Naval Post

France:

[Video] Pierre Éric Pommellet's message on board the Alsace | Naval Group (naval-group.com)

French frigate Alsace - Wikipedia

Taiwan

Taiwan shipbuilder CSBC launches the 1st indigenous LPD - Naval Post

Taiwanese Navy launches first Tuo Chiang-class corvette - Naval Post

Japan:

Mogami-class frigate - Wikipedia