Navy Leaders Want a More Flexible Fleet

National Defense Magazine ^ | 3/1/2010 | Eric Beidel

[U-238]

After fighting two land wars for a decade, the military is putting an emphasis back on the sea and is shifting its focus to the Asia-Pacific region and to a more maritime-weighted mission in the Middle East.

A new defense strategy calls for a more agile force that can rapidly deploy and plug in capabilities as needed. The military must have the ability to project power in contested areas and strike quickly from over the horizon, the strategy says.

For the Navy, this means investing in directed energy, perfecting an electromagnetic railgun, maintaining the existing number of aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious ships, and increasing the cruise missile capacity of future Virginia-class submarines. It means upgrading radars and designing a conventional prompt-strike option for subs, senior Pentagon officials said.

In the near term, the Defense Department has decided to keep all 11 aircraft carriers and their 10 air wings, each of which consists of about 60 aircraft. In the future, a significant portion of the fleet will be forward based in places like Europe, Singapore, Bahrain, the Diego Garcia territory and Japan. Officials announced that they will convert an amphibious assault ship into an “afloat forward staging base” to support mine-sweeping operations in the Persian Gulf.

“We span the globe,” Undersecretary of the Navy Bob Work said in January at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium in Arlington, Va. “We get there quicker,” with smaller assets such as the Joint High Speed Vessel and the Littoral Combat Ship, which can travel at 35 and 40 knots respectively.

The country is on the verge of a golden age in sea power, Work said. The current fleet is like no other in the history of the world, he said.

[KC_Lion]

The Fleet is already so flexible it is like Linguini,

What they need is a more solid fleet.

A Ship that is a Jack of All Trades Is master of None!

[The Working Man]

A Ship that is a Jack of All Trades Is master of None!

---

I agree with you. As I see it what they want are ships that can do all, be all, so that they can’t be blamed for screwing things up by having the wrong type of ship on hand if things go TU.

In many ways it’s a recap of the Air Force Syndrome. When they build a plane that can do it all with all of the bells and whistles it becomes way to expensive to operate and maintain. That same thing happens to the Navy and let’s be honest here a ship is HUGELY expensive to operate and maintain in the first place.

[Pecos]

“We get there quicker,” with smaller assets such as the Joint High Speed Vessel and the Littoral Combat Ship, which can travel at 35 and 40 knots respectively.

Except that they can't because the Navy no longer owns the large fleet of oilers needed for these ships to refuel frequently enough for them to zip across the ocean. And when they get there, they don't have weaponry enough to DO anything.

[catman67]

Not impressed! Iowa class battleships could do 33 knots; as could Essex class sarriers. Fletcher class destroyers could do 35.

[catman67]

Not impressed! Iowa class battleships could do 33 knots; as could Essex class carriers. Fletcher class destroyers could do 35.

[rbg81]

I always wondered about the wisdom of building littoral (coastal) ships. This after a century of emphasis on power for the high seas.

[KC_Lion]

enough for them to zip across the ocean. And when they get there, they don't have weaponry enough to DO anything.

You are 100% correct, the Littoral Combat Program has been a disaster, they are all too expensive, under-gunned, and the ships themselves aren't working right.

The Iowa's and Essex were and still top of the line, its sad to see our ship building capabilities plateau like they have.

Now it takes forever, to build a destroyer, when before they where suppose to be quick, easy, and numerous, now the Navy's ships are either too big and expensive to be used, or too small without proper armament to defend itself.

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings. Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist. The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation. This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

[rickyc]

“A report by the Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation found that neither design was expected to “be survivable in a hostile combat environment” and that neither ship could withstand the Navy’s full ship shock trials.[10]”

I guess I don’t understand the concept.They are to operate close to shore but not expected to survive? WTF?

God help the Marines on board.

[ryan71]

The Navy has more than enough flexibility without taking a wrong turn down thee LCS path.

As the article points out, we need more major combatants. More Arleigh Burkes, more Virginia class subs.

The LCS lacks weapons and is not survivable. It's biggest asset is that it is fast. So? They're designed to be used close to coastal areas where they can been visually confirmed and targeted verses a large combatant 200 miles offshore in a shipping lane.

I think they'd be great in the Caribbean running down drugs but they should have kept the PHM’s for that.