The Ship Model Forum

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="Busto963"]Yes, but the idea of operating VSTOL (and even STOL) aircraft from auxiliary carriers (modestly modified bulk carriers, or more recently containerships) has been around for many decades, and was even a feature touted by Hawker Siddeley when marketing the Harrier.[/quote]While this is probably true and very feasible in a very limited fashion, such as a situation where all of the real aircraft carriers are unavailable, safe storage of ordnance is a paramount concern. Hiding the aircraft between a wall of connex boxes is pretty cool, but storing the ordnance for the aircraft is a logistical concern. Unless you are willing to let it be vulnerable to attack by being stored topside in connex boxes, there would have to be well protected magazines inside the ship.[/quote]
You are overstating the danger.

[list]1. An Auxiliary CV is not a ship you would send into the Straits of Hormuz; it is an “economy of force” ship, designed for sea control operations (maritime patrol), and putting a flight of four (4) aircraft over a low threat air environment.

2. Army and USMC units operate out of Forward Arming and Refueling Points (FARP) all the time; laden with aircraft, fuel, ammunition, and other hazardous materials. This is not to mention the amount of hazardous munitions and other crap on the deck of a deployed CVN. Here is FARP in Taji, Iraq: behind the soldiers is the start of a 60,000 gallon fuel bladder system:
[attachment=1]militarynews2011022401a.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]FARP militarynews2011022401b.jpg[/attachment]
3. F35Bs, harriers, tactical helicopters are designed to operate out of FARPs as well as ships! Surely if the Army and USMC can operate in the mud and sand, we can figure out a way to rig shelters, repair, and ammunition storage on a ship. There are a number of shelter systems based upon ISO shipping containers that are armored and can be used.[/list]

[quote="navydavesof"]However, do you envision this kind of carrier being limited to surging only when necessary for short periods of time? As a stop-gap emergency measure that would be feasible, but if you intend for such a ship to be able to stay on station for long periods of time, performing many dozens or hundreds of sorties during a deployment, the ship would need an enclosed hanger to perform needed maintenance on its aircraft.[/quote]
ACV is not an emergency warship.

It is an economy of force warship operating economy of force aircraft.

It is perfectly suited for those missions where you do not need a $9 billion CVN, a $3.6 billion LHA, or any other multi-billion dollar warship. The coast of Somalia, or counter-drug missions in the Caribbean are examples of this mission.

I have no issue with having the ultimate warships, but let us also be clear that the majority of our missions are far less glamorous and low-end systems will work just as fine.

[quote="navydavesof"]I have discussed the DDH concept with you guys a number of times. What do you think about utilizing a few different things? What I have in mind is that the ship could be a bit longer, have 2 spaces forward for Mk71 guns, a significant boat hanger amidships, and a 4 H-60 capability in the hangers.

The DDH would have access to a good bow-mounted and towed sonar suite, a heavy gunnery capability, internal Mk32 torpedo tubes, 64 or more cell VLS capability, and a hanger capable of maintaining 4 H-60 helos (or 4 Firescouts and 2 H-60 helos) if necessary.

This would be followed by a through-deck cruiser as illustrated in the Naval Instrument Proceedings.[/quote]

Which hull as a base? In the Spruance thread I showed the raw math would allow for two Mk 71 fwd. In that case, my first inclination is to place the boats aft of what would be a proposed Hayler helo hangar and deck. That would make a two deck high space between the aft end of the helo hangar and the transom, essentially taking up the fantail. Of course, that layout does not provide for a 64 cell vls.

DDG-51? How would that layout go? (I'm hacking kit parts looking at a helo hangar at the aft base of the after stack, that may be a start for the expanded helo hangar)

A-10s have weak engines - an upgrade there would certainly be in line for a Naval version, and could help reduce the TO run requirement

I have discussed the DDH concept with you guys a number of times. What do you think about utilizing a few different things? What I have in mind is that the ship could be a bit longer, have 2 spaces forward for Mk71 guns, a significant boat hanger amidships, and a 4 H-60 capability in the hangers.

The DDH would have access to a good bow-mounted and towed sonar suite, a heavy gunnery capability, internal Mk32 torpedo tubes, 64 or more cell VLS capability, and a hanger capable of maintaining 4 H-60 helos (or 4 Firescouts and 2 H-60 helos) if necessary.

This would be followed by a through-deck cruiser as illustrated in the Naval Instrument Proceedings.

[quote="Busto963"]Yes, but the idea of operating VSTOL (and even STOL) aircraft from auxiliary carriers (modestly modified bulk carriers, or more recently containerships) has been around for many decades, and was even a feature touted by Hawker Siddeley when marketing the Harrier.[/quote]While this is probably true and very feasible in a very limited fashion, such as a situation where all of the real aircraft carriers are unavailable, safe storage of ordnance is a paramount concern. Hiding the aircraft between a wall of connex boxes is pretty cool, but storing the ordnance for the aircraft is a logistical concern. Unless you are willing to let it be vulnerable to attack by being stored topside in connex boxes, there would have to be well protected magazines inside the ship. Significant maintenance would need to be performed inside a hanger bay and not on the topside deck of the carrier.

However, do you envision this kind of carrier being limited to surging only when necessary for short periods of time? As a stop-gap emergency measure that would be feasible, but if you intend for such a ship to be able to stay on station for long periods of time, performing many dozens or hundreds of sorties during a deployment, the ship would need an enclosed hanger to perform needed maintenance on its aircraft.

[quote]Disagree. Effective Auxiliary aircraft carriers could service the low sortie rate missions required by a low intensity conflict in many areas of the world. Outside a major regional war, you do not need high sortie rates, nor high performance jet aircraft. Something along the lines of an prop driven A-1 sky raider would be better in every respect than any helicopter in performance, economy, reliability, survivability, etc.; save for the vertical take-off/hover capability.[/quote]Would the F-35 fit this bill to you?

[quote]You do not need anything more sophisticated than a WWII era escort carrier, many of which were converted from merchant hulls![/quote]While this is true they also blew up like bombs when they were hit, because they did not have protected magazines. CVEs were a stop-gap measure. My grandfather was on the USS [i]Core [/i](CVE-13), and he said they called them "Carrier Vessel Expendable" because they realized that they were very vulnerable, totally unarmorered.

[quote]This could be a lower end carrier option. What I am proposing something a lot less ambitious – a true ACV, modest in cost and capability, but more than sufficient for operating a flight of 2-4 light attack aircraft, and servicing Airborne Forward Air Controller (FAC) aircraft. A squadron of twelve aircraft would be more than sufficient to dominate the East Coast of Africa, chop up pirates, and provide CAS for SOF/troops ashore.[/quote]Interesting!

[quote]LHA-6 carries a sticker price in the range of $3.6 Billion, and there are many modifications required to turn her into a STOL carrier and that is without CATOBAR systems.[/quote]The Navy's idea is that the LHA-6s would operate V/STOL F-35s and would not require catapults or arrester gear. It would literally be an airwing swap.

[quote] Example, the massive vehicle deck is less compartmented than many merchant hull designs, and would have to be extensively subdivided.[/quote]Why? The Navy is okay with how it's constructed. Why would it have to be fitted to merchant vessel standards?

[quote] After reviewing a document quoting the cost of the proposed Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) MPF(F) ships at $1.7 Billion dollars for a ship built to merchant hull standards (!) and other insanity, I have real questions about the Navy’s ability to execute an LHA to CV conversion economically.It is not clear what trade offs there will be compared to a CVN in terms of flight operations. There are a lot of hidden, but critical considerations to the last point.[/quote]I am pretty sure that we can soundly conclude that any LHA conversions to a CV(X) would yield a far inferior product in comparison to a CVN. The F-35 seems promising, but it is still far inferior to the F-14 or even the F/A-18.

[quote]I just cannot see the wisdom of using F-16/F-18s to bore holes in the sky trying to find a bunch of uneducated, 114 lb, terrorists with a single spare magazine for their AKs.[/quote]I understand 100%! [b][i]Battleships![/i][/b] :big_grin: But really when you're doing fire support that is inside the range of propeller driven aircraft and A-10s, smart artillery is an awfully effective thing to have. In conversations I have had with BAE, they say that adapting the Excalibur technology to an 8" caliber round would not be a problem, and it would be easier to make them extended range than the development of the 155mm LRLAP.

[attachment=2]WNUS_8-55_mk71_Guided_pic.jpg[/attachment]

With smart munitions, you don't have to worry about defilated targets. The rounds will change direction in the air and hit the far side of a hill or mountain. Sixteen-inch/13"/11" discarding sabot extended range Excalibur-type rounds would be able to reach all kinds of targets.

[attachment=0]11inchER.jpg[/attachment]
In conversations with BAE, they have established that since the 11" DSR already exists and has been tested, adapting its body to accommodate and Excalibur package and unitary warhead would be an easy feat.

[attachment=1]XM982_Excalibur_inert.jpg[/attachment]

I would still love to see a carrier based A-10. However, since it requires 4,000 feet of runway to get off the ground, I think that such an aircraft would need to have catapult assistance to get off a carrier of any size. A Midway-type CV would most likely be the smallest vessel that would be able to accommodate such aircraft in useful numbers and a power plant significant enough to accommodate any type of catapult system from steam to EMALs.

I would LOVE to see someone's interpretation of a modern [i]Midway[/i]!

[quote="Cliffy B"]Speaking of Predator there was a proposal by its maker to build a carrier capable version of the MQ-9 Reaper dubbed the "Mariner". It was entered in the BAMS competition but lost out the longer range Global Hawk, the MQ-4C Triton. Some of them for organic surveillance and interdiction for the CVBGs when they're outside of the Triton zones would complement the system nicely and would be a nice first step towards integrating UCAVs aboard the CVNs.

Source: Global Security[/quote]
Old hat.

General Atomics next generation drone offered for naval use was the Avenger (originally Predator "C") with stealth:[attachment=0]Predator-c-avenger.jpg[/attachment]

Speaking of Predator there was a proposal by its maker to build a carrier capable version of the MQ-9 Reaper dubbed the "Mariner". It was entered in the BAMS competition but lost out the longer range Global Hawk, the MQ-4C Triton. Some of them for organic surveillance and interdiction for the CVBGs when they're outside of the Triton zones would complement the system nicely and would be a nice first step towards integrating UCAVs aboard the CVNs.

[img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/images/bams-ov-2.jpg[/img]
Source: Global Security

Predator does a nice job giving terror boys the hot foot. Hellfire missiles do a good job dispatching them to Hell.

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="Busto963"]In low threat areas an auxiliary aircraft carrier could work just fine. …
I would take the saved money and buy enough aircraft to fill out our carrier air wings (F-35, X-47B, etc.) without relying on the USMC to contribute squadrons. This isn't a swipe at the Corps, it is a ding on how hollow the fleet has become.[/quote]
I think that situation was strictly to transport the aircraft to the Falklands conflict and not operate them. Those aircraft were then handed off to the two carriers in the area.[/quote]
Yes, but the idea of operating VSTOL (and even STOL) aircraft from auxiliary carriers (modestly modified bulk carriers, or more recently containerships) has been around for many decades, and was even a feature touted by Hawker Siddeley when marketing the Harrier.
[quote="navydavesof"]Configured in anything but that of an aircraft carrier (flight deck, hanger, magazines, extensive fire fighting gear, sensors, deck vehicles to move the aircraft, etc) a containership like that would not be able to operate aircraft. They could transport them just fine, but they could not perform combat operations .[/quote]
Disagree. Effective Auxiliary aircraft carriers could service the low sortie rate missions required by a low intensity conflict in many areas of the world. Outside a major regional war, you do not need high sortie rates, nor high performance jet aircraft. Something along the lines of an prop driven A-1 sky raider would be better in every respect than any helicopter in performance, economy, reliability, survivability, etc.; save for the vertical take-off/hover capability. You do not need anything more sophisticated than a WWII era escort carrier, many of which were converted from merchant hulls! The U.S. Army operated observation aircraft off of 347 foot LSTS using the “Brodie System in WWII!”[attachment=1]brodie-rig.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]1016090602.jpg[/attachment]
[quote="navydavesof"]However, to make a merchant ship carrying aircraft workable, it sounds like we just need to build smaller, lighter, conventional aircraft carriers. Perhaps something along the lines of the … USS [i]America [/i](LHA-6) as an option to build if we cannot afford to continue building big CVNs.[/quote]
This could be a lower end carrier option. What I am proposing something a lot less ambitious – a true ACV, modest in cost and capability, but more than sufficient for operating a flight of 2-4 light attack aircraft, and servicing Airborne Forward Air Controller (FAC) aircraft. A squadron of twelve aircraft would be more than sufficient to dominate the East Coast of Africa, chop up pirates, and provide CAS for SOF/troops ashore.

LHA-6 carries a sticker price in the range of $3.6 Billion, and there are many modifications required to turn her into a STOL carrier and that is without CATOBAR systems. Example, the massive vehicle deck is less compartmented than many merchant hull designs, and would have to be extensively subdivided. After reviewing a document quoting the cost of the proposed Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) MPF(F) ships at $1.7 Billion dollars for a ship built to merchant hull standards (!) and other insanity, I have real questions about the Navy’s ability to execute an LHA to CV conversion economically.It is not clear what trade offs there will be compared to a CVN in terms of flight operations. There are a lot of hidden, but critical considerations to the last point.

I just cannot see the wisdom of using F-16/F-18s to bore holes in the sky trying to find a bunch of uneducated, 114 lb, terrorists with a single spare magazine for their AKs.

[quote="Busto963"]In low threat areas an auxiliary aircraft carrier could work just fine. Here is one example:
[attachment=1]AtlanticConveyor1-1.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]CONVEYOR-FALKLANDS_1982-1.jpg
I would take the saved money and buy enough aircraft to fill out our carrier air wings (F-35, X-47B, etc.) without relying on the USMC to contribute squadrons. This isn't a swipe at the Corps, it is a ding on how hollow the fleet has become.[/quote]
I think that situation was strictly to transport the aircraft to the Falklands conflict and not operate them. Those aircraft were then handed off to the two carriers in the area.

Configured in anything but that of an aircraft carrier (flight deck, hanger, magazines, extensive fire fighting gear, sensors, deck vehicles to move the aircraft, etc) a containership like that would not be able to operate aircraft. They could transport them just fine, but they could not perform combat operations.

However, to make a merchant ship carrying aircraft workable, it sounds like we just need to build smaller, lighter, conventional aircraft carriers. Perhaps something along the lines of the Midway or an Essex variant would be in order? Undersecretary of the navy Robert O. Work enumerated the USS [i]America [/i](LHA-6) as an option to build if we cannot afford to continue building big CVNs. A self defense package would be pretty easy to go about, too.

[img]http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/america.jpg[/img]
[quote="Busto963"]For aircraft: need something like a A-1 skyraider - the gold standard would of course be a carrier capable aircraft along the lines of an A-10. Ideal for "brush wars" and CAS.[/quote]That sounds like the deal to me.

[quote="navydavesof"]I am surprised no one has said anything about this guy:

The fact remains though that a through-deck cruiser could act as a stand-in for an aircraft carrier in lower threat areas at a very small fraction of the cost.[/quote]
In low threat areas an auxiliary aircraft carrier could work just fine. Here is one example:
[attachment=1]AtlanticConveyor1-1.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]CONVEYOR-FALKLANDS_1982-1.jpg[/attachment]
I would take the saved money and buy enough aircraft to fill out our carrier air wings (F-35, X-47B, etc.) without relying on the USMC to contribute squadrons. This isn't a swipe at the Corps, it is a ding on how hollow the fleet has become.

For aircraft: need something like a A-1 skyraider - the gold standard would of course be a carrier capable aircraft along the lines of an A-10. Ideal for "brush wars" and CAS.

[quote="Busto963"]My sense is that if we were to modernize/build an Iowa, she ought not be twisted into a hybrid ship, particularly, not a hybrid amphib, even one dedicated to vertical envelopment...
Think of what you could do by deleting a San Antonio Class LPD, and buying a a modern 20,000 ton merchant hull for $60 million, adding an extra $100 million for flight deck modifications, etc.; and spending the balance on your Iowa.[/quote]In that case, I know what I would give a new construction Iowa. What would mission would you give the new construction Iowa? What armament would you give her to accomplish those missions?

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I would give it a reduced CVN/LHD radar suite, nine 16-inch guns firing full bore and reduced caliber extended range rounds able to achieve over 80nm, six to eight 155mm Mk71 guns, four Millennium guns, two SeaRAMs, four RAM mounts, a hanger for 4-6 H-60 series helos, and two to four 9 to 11 meter RHIBs. She would be equipped with at least 32 Mk57 VLS and 128 Mk41 VLS (the Mk57 take up twice as much room as the Mk41). She would be equipped with an improved armor set up. The deck armor is set up perfectly for anti-ship missiles. The side armor and torpedo (underwater) defense system would need to be modified to meet current threats. The side armor and below water-line would need to be modified to resist anti-ship cruise missiles instead of large caliber projectiles.

No problem. I know what I want to equip this ship with. What input do you have?

I am surprised no one has said anything about this guy:

[img]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/barquitos/P-Files/NewCapitalShip1978-2.jpg[/img]
This is the through deck cruiser proposed in the late 1970s.

This seems to be the opitomy of "multi-mission" ships. They're little aircraft carriers built on cruiser hulls with cruiser armament and anti-submarine armament and all kinds of stuff. At the time of the proposal, I am sure this sounded like a great idea. However, in the over 30 years since the article was written, we have come to learn that the USN has become very good at over-reaching with "multi-mission" to such a degree that while USN ships are super "capable", they have too many responsibilities to get proficient at any of them.

The fact remains though that a through-deck cruiser could act as a stand-in for an aircraft carrier in lower threat areas at a very small fraction of the cost. With the innovations in modern aircraft it could operate a significant wing of F-35 and UAVs and EMALS, it makes me wonder what aircraft a smaller carrier like this might be able to accommodate. Because VLS takes up so little deck space and internal volume it might be able to still embark a reasonable VLS battery and a decent area radar suite with a self defense radar system.

The gunnery battery would have to be either the new 76mm suepr rapidfires or the Mk110 57mm guns. The duel 8" gun may very well be too much. However, with 8" RAP rounds achieving over 80nm the ship can be well over the horizon (20 or more miles) and still strike wtih gunnery deep inside the target country. In the case of NSFS it can support troops that are well inland with either a single or double barrel mount. It would be an interesting project and study for a model.

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="JevJanson"]...I admit I'm no expert on the subject, but I have given these designs much thought.[/quote]Wow. Well, that's one way of doing it, but we're kind of trying to consider things that would be feasible in a fiscal/realistic mind set. The 4 or 5 battleships and maybe 2 carriers would be feasible for adding capital ships to the fleet, but building three 300,000 ton carriers? Yikes!

I think it would make for an interesting story if you would be willing to write one. Operating such 300,000 ton uber ships, building the fleet to 14-15 super carriers with 3 ultra carriers and 10 or more battleships would be quite a force.[/quote]
Actually, I am writing a story series based on the near future (2016). If anyone has seen my starting of a What-if carrier on the Carrier Builders Yard in the works in progress section you will know that all of these things are brought around by the start of World War 3. According to the story, within the first few months of opening conflict, three Nimitz class carriers are sunk, Kitty Hawk and Saratoga are damaged beyond use for the next few years, and Enterprise requires 14 months in dry dock because of two destroyed reactors. Because so many carriers are out of the picture, the USN called for a larger and much more easily defended ship.

That's where Project Excalibur comes in. After being studied in the 90s, it was proven feasible to build such ships only in case of war. By 2021, the first two hulls are launched and the third is halfway complete. At the same time, most carrier duties had been transferred to the reserve fleet, comprised of the Essex class carriers and Midway.

By the year 2026, all of the Excalibur class carriers are commissioned. Two are deployed to the Pacific and one is kept in the Atlantic to prevent Middle Eastern forces from considering joining the Communist Coalition (Comprised of N. Korea, China, N. Japan). By 2030, the presence of such massive vessels have forced the Coalition forces into one last desperate attack to gain control of the Pacific. A battle ensues at Midway, and two more Nimitz class carriers are lost. Ranger is forced to run aground after being torpedoed, and Enterprise is forced to limp home with more reactor damage. Of the casualties, one of the Nimitz class are captured by the Chinese and towed back to Beijing for repairs. But, the Chinese forces are greater than they hoped. They lost two times more ships than the American/German/Russian forces combined. The Excalibur, along with its sister ships Excelsior and Dauntless, begin a massive bombardment of China. During the conflict, Excelsior is damaged and has to be towed home. The damage is so extensive it sinks right in its berth. The final 6 years of the war are the worst. The Chinese perfect Unmanned aircraft, allowing them to not even need someone controlling it from a computer. The aircraft wreck havoc on the US Fleet, and perform a secret strike on Chicago and New York. It is only thanks to the Russians that the Chinese are swiftly dealt with. Not long after the rest of the Coalition capitulates and the war is over.

By the time the conflict is over, the three ships had proven themselves important parts of the fleet, and their captains are awarded for their heroism on undertaking such a massive task set upon them. It wouldn't be until about 2090 that they are all decommissioned, with Excelsior being turned into scrap while the other two are preserved as museum ships. (And massive museums they will be!)

[quote="navydavesof"]Rusty White had a fantastic ship be based on a conversion that was promoted in the 1970s but was discarded by the Carter Administration. Does anyone think something similar to this might appropriate for today's Navy? If so, what kinds of modifications would you make to the ship more appropriate to modern threats and capabilities comments would be greatly welcome....
Anything replaced or added? Elevator movement, sensor alterations, boat movements, secondary battery replacements, etc?

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/whatif/tinian-350-rw/rw-index.html[/quote]

My sense is that if we were to modernize/build an Iowa, she ought not be twisted into a hybrid ship, particularly, not a hybrid amphib, even one dedicated to vertical envelopment.

It would be much better in my mind to put an Iowa to sea *and* modify a merchant hull into a helicpopter assault ship. Our current practice of building $2+ billion dollar amphibious ships is in my opinion, a huge waste of money.

Think of what you could do by deleting a San Antonio Class LPD, and buying a a modern 20,000 ton merchant hull for $60 million, adding an extra $100 million for flight deck modifications, etc.; and spending the balance on your Iowa.

Rusty White had a fantastic ship be based on a conversion that was promoted in the 1970s but was discarded by the Carter Administration. Does anyone think something similar to this might appropriate for today's Navy? If so, what kinds of modifications would you make to the ship more appropriate to modern threats and capabilities comments would be greatly welcome.

[img]http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/whatif/tinian-350-rw/tinian-01.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/whatif/tinian-350-rw/tinian-02.jpg[/img]

Anything replaced or added? Elevator movement, sensor alterations, boat movements, secondary battery replacements, etc?

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/whatif/tinian-350-rw/rw-index.html

[quote="JevJanson"]...I admit I'm no expert on the subject, but I have given these designs much thought.[/quote]Wow. Well, that's one way of doing it, but we're kind of trying to consider things that would be feasible in a fiscal/realistic mind set. The 4 or 5 battleships and maybe 2 carriers would be feasible for adding capital ships to the fleet, but building three 300,000 ton carriers? Yikes!

I think it would make for an interesting story if you would be willing to write one. Operating such 300,000 ton uber ships, building the fleet to 14-15 super carriers with 3 ultra carriers and 10 or more battleships would be quite a force.

I've been considering something like this for some time now. To start, I agree with the idea of recommissioning the Iowas. I'd even go as far as having all battleships but USS Texas recommissioned. Along with that we could reactivate the remaining Forrestals, JFK, Kitty Hawks, Midway, and, finally, the four in the Essex class. Also, keep the Big E in commission. Who knows when we need another nuke powered carrier and don't have the funds to build a new one. Also, I propose the construction of the Montana class battleships and Alaska class battlecruisers, with a few modifications. As per modernizing the Montanas, I suggest the turret 3, and maybe even turret 4 be removed from the design and allow the use of a massive VLS block. Also, the ship should have full aviation facilities for the helicopters. An armored deck with a hangar beneath it would allow the support of 2-3 SH-60s. Along with that go the extra mile and have it powered by a nuke reactor. It would make the ship much more practical. A similar system would be followed with the Alaskas, but without the VLS. It would be more of a command ship.

Secondly, I propose an entirely new design. The CGN-78 Program, as I call it. It would call for nuclear powered, stealth capable cruisers able to incorperate both VLS and conventional naval artillery into it. The ships would be about 15-20,000 tons each, coming in at a size of 750-800 feet in length. Basically a heavy combat unit capable of escorting carriers and battleships. The ship would have a standard armament of two forward 8" guns and on the rear a 64 cell VLS housing. Aviation facilities would be about 3/4 rearward, as on most cruisers today. RAM/Phalanx systems would be installed on the sides and rear of the ship, pretaining to three Phalanx and two RAM units in total.

Third of all, we need mobile airstrips. No, not aircraft carriers that can handle Air Force units also. This is something that can count for 2-3 carriers in one. Introducing, USS Excalibur, CVN-91. Length-2400 feet/ width-300 feet/ weight- 300,000 tons/ aircraft........... 250-350, depending on size of aircraft. These ships wouldn't have to be too fast, as they could support longer-ranged aircraft so the need for fast deployment is reduced. Maybe a max. speed of 20 knots, with normal being around 10-15 knots. We'd only need 2-3 of these ships, as their sheer size accounts for 10 other ships. With this size, considerable increases in defensive weaponry can be made. It could mount twin 8" turrets on it's sponsons, and have a 64 cell VLS unit installed behind the Island. So, not only could it provide massive air support, it could make attacks on enemy vessels and defend itself if needed. Sounds like the Lexington class on steroids, huh.

Speaking of the Lexington class, here is my final proposal. A class of 30 ships. Escort carriers, with a few modernizations. After studying the designs of many WWII vessels, it is clear to me that new-built SCB-125 Essexes would be handy, and even downright practical. With our forward deployed carriers being strained on their duties responding to every little crisis, it would be handy to have smaller, more generalized carriers to deal with the smaller incidents. Sure, they wouldn't normally stand up to standard aircraft usage stock-built. But, with some work, they could possibly be utilized to carry at the least F-18s. Maybe even some old F-14s, if we could reactivate them.

My proposal would help us a long ways to building up this 500 ship fleet. This fleet mentioned above would add at least 50 ships, maybe more as needed.

Oh, yeah. And scrap that DDX-1000 program. It's a waste of money to all involved... Well, that's my two cents on the situation. I admit I'm no expert on the subject, but I have given these designs much thought.

[quote="SumGui"]I can live with that - but my concern is that this vessel must be inexpensive, and the modifications needed to the basic Spruance hull design concern me. The straight sides of the hull are a challenge to reduced RCS, as well as her being designed for the large aluminum blockhouses for superstructure. Her design was volume driven, so adapting it to modern needs may be prohibitively expensive. That being said, it is a very versatile hull which clearly can be adapted easily to various weapon fits.[/quote]These are interesting points. I was thinking about starting at the bilge keels and building up and out at a 15 degree angle forming a facade on the outside of the ship. The interior of the Spruance hull design would remain unaffected, but there would now be a facade on the exterior that forms a gap away from the hull. This would also form a decapping/predetonation plate for any incoming IR seeking ASCMs or floating mines. This would allow the detonation of the weapon a buffer between the exterior hull and the people tank. As for the super structure I would imagine a narrower steel super structure inside the original super structure lines and either an aluminum or composite facade forming the 15 degree RCS reduction exterior.

I still visualize this ship as being armed with:
2 x Mk71 8"/60caliber guns
64 x Mk41 VLS
2 x RAM
2 - 4 x Mellinnium guns

With an electronics package like that of the San Antonio-class. So, it's a question of an exposed SPS-48 or one inside the enclosure like on the LPD-17s. The enclosure reduces its range and resolution at range quite a bit. However, it might be acceptable to have reduced resolution, because the ship would not be addressing any targets outside of ESSM range. The 250+nm range of the SPS-48 might not be necessary, but a reduced range of say 150nm might be just fine.

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="Busto963"]Commercial industry adopted articulated boom cranes with active heave compensation long ago to deal with heavy, dynamic loads at sea and do them with [i]safety.[/i] The U.S. Navy needs 120-150 ton cranes of that design as a minimum if it wants the capability to transport and support small craft in littoral and amphibious operations. [/quote]So, would you want this be included into a new LSD, one that replaces the current capabilities being lost by decommissioning ships and includes the heavy lift capability? [/quote]
Absolutely.

The fleet is short of lift capacity, and that is based upon 2003, pre-Iraq war requirements. Since then, the Army and USMC have gone from HMMWV to MRAPs, and heavy trucks like HEMETT, LAVs, etc. have all been up armored, meaning that the actual sea lift capacity shortfall is actually far worse. Everyone assumes that all these heavy vehicles like MRAPS will all go back into storage. This is silly, IEDS are not going away, and will be a threat even in “peace keeping” missions. Ergo, our actual requirement is to carry vehicles that are often tons heavier than the unarmed base version, and our sea lift requirements are based upon unrealistic data. We are faced with the untenable options of deploying with less cargo (fewer vehicles, less ammunition/food/parts), or deploying with vehicles with less armor protection than we have established for current operations. This is totally unacceptable. I also find it ridiculous that current ships cannot pick up a combat loaded M-1 tank for transhipment from a MSC or commercial hull.
:Mad_5:
This shortfall will have to be made up using contracted merchant hulls, or MSC ships. Merchant hulls are generally reliant on container terminal cranes for offloading. Many MPS ships do not have cranes either (they also are not combat loaded, but that is another problem). In any event, when the shooting starts, you cannot have too many cranes to offload cargo.

Cranes also give the fleet an integral ability to re-arm to refit independent of ports.

Finally, large cranes let you transform a cargo ship into a tender for minesweeping, VBSS operations, antipiracy, support Special Operations, and of course, carry cargo and landing craft for amphibious operations. Think of a carrier, or amphib group that can bring Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit (MIUWU), or a fully equipped Sea Bee battalion + landing craft with it.

Look at what SOCOM is doing with the USS Ponce, and think how much more effective she would be if she could actually carry, deploy, repair, and recover an entire Special Boat Unit (with MK Vs or larger craft), or mine sweepers.
[quote="navydavesof"]Perhaps even put a gun like the AGS(L) up front so it can provide calls for fire instead of pulling in another ship? Keep in mind a naval gun like that does not consume very much internal space. Only abotu 15' would have to be added to the ship's length to provide an internal magazine with about 500 rounds of conventional ammunition.

The German replinishment ship Berlin is very interesting![/quote]
A 5” or 155mm gun might be quite useful, but I would install it with a mind to ASUW, not NGFS. The ship is after all primarily an oiler/ammunition ship, with dry and refrigerated stores capability. The only reason she should be within gun-howitzer range of shore is to transfer her cargo to troops ashore.

My thoughts are they should be armed with one or two 76mm or 57mm guns, a pair of SeaRAM, and a pair of Mk 38 25mm, or 35mm GDM008 millennium guns.

Now, you could take a “small” (10-25,000 ton) commercial hull that costs roughly $50-60 million, and turn it into a fire support ship. Commercial cargo hulls are getting faster, and commercial building standards often exceed those of their military cousins, so you are not automatically getting a cheaply built ship. If you can mount several large pedestal cranes on the hull, you can probably install gun mounts. Run with that one! :cool_2:

[quote="Busto963"][quote]...LPDs no longer have the large cranes needed to make them effective tenders for small craft. How can we support littoral/special warfare without large active heave compensated cranes in the fleet?[/quote]
Commercial industry adopted articulated boom cranes with active heave compensation long ago to deal with heavy, dynamic loads at sea and do them with [i]safety.[/i] The U.S. Navy needs 120-150 ton cranes of that design as a minimum if it wants the capability to transport and support small craft in littoral and amphibious operations. [/quote]So, would you want this be included into a new LSD, one that replaces the current capabilities being lost by decommissioning ships and includes the heavy lift capability? Perhaps even put a gun like the AGS(L) up front so it can provide calls for fire instead of pulling in another ship? Keep in mind a naval gun like that does not consume very much internal space. Only abotu 15' would have to be added to the ship's length to provide an internal magazine with about 500 rounds of conventional ammunition.

The German replinishment ship Berlin is very interesting!