Build Your Own Navy-Radicalized!
For something fun, here is a little game created by David Axe, and presented to us by frequent commenter Heretic, whose chart I am borrowing with a few radical adjustments. Within the points I have also added motherships, arsenal ships, corvettes, and offshore patrol vessels, which though not realistic as yet, such craft will be more desired as the price for large warships, or even their need, becomes out of reach for even the superpowers.
Here is Axe’s original post for reference. I think I will stick with his original estimate that the USN will average $14 billion annually for now.
So here are your choices and your $14 billion, good luck! I’ll post my own later. Thanks again Heretic for lighting a fire!
*****
1 point = $0.1 billion dollars
90 points : CVN-21 Ford-class aircraft carrier
30 points : LHA-6 America-class assault ship
30 points : SSGN (new-build stretched Virginias?)
15 points : LPD-17 San Antonio-class assault ship
50 points : DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer
20 points : DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
20 points : SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine
5 points : Type 212 SSP (shallow water)
5 points : Type 214 SSP (deep water)
6 points : LCS
5 points : T-AKE Lewis and Clark-class logistics ship
2 points : JHSV
Those of you who feel bolder:
10 points : Light Helicopter Assault (Mistral, Dokdo)
10 points : Arsenal ship (commercial off the shelf hull. 500-1000 missiles)
7 points : Aegis mothership (commercial off the shelf hull)
4 points : Mothership (Commercial of the shelf auxiliary warship)
3 points : Danish Absalon Flexible Support Ship
3 points : Corvette (high-end missile)
2 points : OPV (off shore patrol vessel)
2 points : Mine Warfare ships
Any chance you could add a point value for SSGNs? Although the current set were rather expensive to retrofit from the Ohio Class (reportedly $700M per vessel, all costs), it would be an alternative to the arsenal ship and less vulnerable (at reduced capacity and significantly increased cost). Given the price of the Virginia class vessels, new Ohio II SSGN would probably cost in the range of $3bn a piece (given that much of the development/design costs were covered in the SSGN conversion program), but have some significant capabilities not matched elsewhere in the fleet.
Excellent idea CBD! Consider it done.
BREAKING NEWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Navy’s first littoral combat ship, Freedom, will add 20 sailors to its crew when it makes its trial deployment next year, making for a total complement of about 95 people, as opposed to the crew of 75 the ship was originally designed to carry.
Read the rest of the article here
(sorry if this sounds slightly O/T)
Since DEW and railguns are still not operational can be the ships fitted for but not with railguns and directed energy weapons???
If you want to build a really cost-efficient navy, you’ll have to import ships like Spain’s F-100 Álvaro de Bazán class AEGIS frigate which is a better bang/buck than LCS.
LCS and DDG-1000 are both money pits. The LCS is made almost entirely out of aluminum, which we all know is every damage control team’s favorite material. It’s also an overpriced replacement for the FFG-7 class.
The DDG-1000 will end up being like the F-22: escalating R&D costs to the point that it will get canceled.
Hey thanks Scott!
Scott, I also added the Danish Absalon to the list above in case you’d like to play along.
elgatoso-If you are referring to the LCS, such craft are probably too small to take the power supply needed for electric weapons. Of course the DDG-1000 is well suited, if you can afford it!
Dick-I agree completely! Told someone else I’d love to be able to shop for the US Military overseas, running through Europe and later over to Asia, especially Korea.
Mike and others, another O/T posting.
It just got worse for the poor RAF – say goodbye to a proud, effective service. They are expected to be cutting one-quarter of their personnel and also retiring all Harriers & Tornadoes early. Five of nineteen flight bases are expected to be closed. This is forecast to occur starting in 2010. This is from The Sunday Times (which does raise questions about its accuracy).
RAF plans huge cuts in planes and bases
Air Force chiefs are preparing to cut 10,000 staff — a quarter of their manpower — and close up to five large air bases.
The plans will reduce the RAF’s strength to 31,000 personnel over the next five years, little more than half the level during the recent Iraq conflict and seriously diminishing its capability of fighting another conventional war.
It also intends to retire the majority of its Harrier and Tornado jets early, leaving it with about 80 fewer aircraft by 2025. The cuts are part of a package prepared for the 2010 annual spending round.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917297.ece
DE that is shocking news, but we should have seen it coming. Is this to pay for Afghanistan or the 2 RN carriers, or both?
India would probably take the Harriers off their hands.
Mike,
India flies both Harriers and Tornadoes. From the news report (if the numbers are real), that would be about 80 aircraft. I have to believe that some of them still have some years of flight time left to them. Besides that, those airframes unsuited to further flight operations and all of the spare parts inventory might prove to be a windfall opportunity for the continued utilization of Harriers and Tornadoes in Indian service.
Hello D. E. Reddick,
India flies neither the Harrier nor the Tornado.
It does fly the Sea Harrier though.
tangosix.
“The Navy’s first littoral combat ship, Freedom, will add 20 sailors to its crew when it makes its trial deployment next year, making for a total complement of about 95 people, as opposed to the crew of 75 the ship was originally designed to carry.”
The extra 20 people are going to feel like second class citizens having to leave their cubicle, go outside, enter the ship, go down a corridor, and into another berthing area in order to get a shower or brush their teeth.
Good thing it’s not a cold climate.
Thats right tangosix. I imagine the RAF Harriers are carrier ready, or could be quickly fitted for this role. The Indians might be desperate enough now to take them!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-plight-A-carrier-running-out-of-jets-fighters-without-their-carrier/articleshow/5220411.cms
But a large selling point for the LCS was its automation, right? So with all the extra expense and complication put into making this the most high tech frigate ever, they still need extra crew. Why not make allowance for the extra crew in the first place, and reduce the building cost from the beginning? Oh, right. Too sensible and non-exquisite.
Tangosix,
My mistake – thanks for the correction! It’s the Jaguar, rather than the Tornado that the IAF flies.
Hello Mike Burleson,
yes,the Royal Air Force Harrier G.R. Mk.7/9s already operate from the Invincible class carriers,Royal Navy Sea Harrier F.A. Mk.2s were withdrawn some years ago:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/harrier_20081016163816.jpg
Recent rumours suggested the Indians wanted to buy the remaining Sea Harriers,they are nearly new and excellent fighters.
One of many strange things about this story is the fact that the Harriers and Tornados are due to have been retired by 2025 anyway!
They are being replaced by the Typhoon and F35.
In recent weeks we have had two other nonsensical defence stories.
First the one about the F35 engine and then the one about the Royal Navy losing an aircraft carrier.
The problem is that journalists often don’t know much about defence and write misleading stories through simple ignorance.
These stories then fly around the internet like wildfire causing a great deal of confusion.
tangosix.
I get 14B are 140 points at 50 years are 7000 points .My fleet is :
8 CVN-21 ,3 CVN are UAV(X-47 and Avenger) aircraft carrier.Thw rest of the aircraft-carrier have F-35 and Growler.720 points
75 SSN-774 ,half will be used like hunter-killers and half like escort for fleet.1400 points
25 SSGN 750 points
20 DD-51 Aegis,with all electric drive.400 points
10 DDG-1000 nuclear powered for molten salt reactor and electric drive with railgun and DEW 500 points
10 LHA-America 300 points
40 Dodko-Mistral 400 points
35 LPD-17 720 points
20 Aegis mothership 140 points
50 Absalon 150 points
50 Arsenal Ship 500 points
30 motherships 120 points
60 T-AKE 300 points
50 JHSV 100 points
50 Corvettes (high-end missile) like Visby or Skjold 200 points
5 LCS 30 points IF they work like are supost to do I buy 55
I still have 95 points for OPV and mine-hunters just in case
Mike and others, OK – now things are getting to be radically strange! If true, then things in Great Britain’s MoD are far worse than any of us on the western side of The Pond might have previously imagined! The following is from The Observer:
MoD may sell aircraft carrier to India to limit cuts
One of Britain’s new £2bn aircraft carriers could be sold off under cost-cutting plans being considered by the Ministry of Defence. India has lodged a firm expression of interest, the Observer has learned.
The sale of one of the two 65,000-tonne vessels would leave the Royal Navy with a single carrier and could force Britain to borrow from the French fleet, which itself has only one carrier and is reluctant to build more. Last summer the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, proposed to Gordon Brown that the two navies co-ordinate maintenance and refitting so that one was at sea at all times.
According to senior defence sources, Whitehall officials are examining the feasibility of a sale as part of the strategic defence review that will start early next year and is expected to result in savage cuts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/15/mod-may-sell-carrier
D.E.-No way! In preparing the Carrier Alternative Weekly post for Thursday, here is what I wrote Saturday morning:
It seemed like a sensible notion, but I had no idea they would seriously consider it! You’re right. Radically strange!
Heretic, we seem to be getting ourselves deeper off track!
Fun game. Challenging and there are hard-to-swallow choices to be made for the sake of numbers and cost, but here is List A:
5 Ford CVN-21 carriers
9 LHA-6 Ameria-class assault ships
23 SSGN (stretched Virginias/converted Ohios)
20 LPD-17 San Antonio-class assault ships
40 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
40 SSN-774 Virgina-class attack subs
20 Type 212 SSP
30 LCS
40 T-AKE Lewis & Clark-class logistics ships
20 JHSVs
04 Arsenal ships
55 Danish Absalon F.S.S.
55 Corvettes
————–
361 ships, 4200 total points, $420 billion spent over 30 years, assuming we’re going by the same sort of rules that Axe’s game went by. A possible variation if you are strongly anti-corvette is to drop all of them and devote that $$$ elsewhere, say to the LCS. You end up with 85 LCS platforms and a total Navy size of 306 ships.
————– ————– ————–
List B: What if you totally dropped “Big Air” from the equation and, instead, emphasized “Medium Air”?
17 LHA-6 America-class assault ships
15 SSGN New Build Virginias/Ohios
20 LPD-17 SA-class Assault Ships
40 Arleigh Burke’s
55 SSN-774 Virginia-class subs
21 Type-212 SSP’s
34 LCS
45 T-AKE Lewis and Clark-class logistics ships
25 JHSV
05 Arsenal Ships
13 Motherships
55 Danish Absalons
55 Corvettes
12 Mine Warfare Ships
————–
412 ships possible spending the same $420B as before. Again, if corvette-style boats give you GERD, and you want to whack them and buy LCS platforms, the total on LCS would be 89 with an overall Navy of 357 ships.
I mainly wanted to see what was possible with the money moreso than “constructing” perfectly balanced battlegroups. Besides, in an age when the Navy is constantly shrinking & has to send Arleigh Burkes to chase pirates, who gets to define “perfectly balanced”?
If you give me the additional 50-55% some say is necessary to “properly” reconstitute the fleet (about $22B/yr in shipbuilding budgets) then I would have vastly different recommendations. As it is, give me a debit card moreso than a charge card…this is what I came up with.
This thread looks like its stale but I’ll post my concept anyway.
I dont like the virgin birth Navy idea so I included the current ships that will be in commission through 2039. For simplicity I counted the ships currently commissioned as funded and those building or contracted as unfunded.
CVN: 5 Nimitz in commission in 2039, Build 2 CVN-21
LHA-6: build 8
LHD: 2 in commission in 2039, Build 6 LHA-6 with well deck
SSGN: would build 8 as BM subs and 0 as GM subs
LPD-17: build 15
DDG-1000: wouldn’t build any but screwed on that so I allowed 3
which I think is the minimum for them to be useful.
DDG-51: 17 in commission in 2039, build 43
SSN-774: build 61
LCS: build 63
TAKE or derivatives: build 45
JHSV:build 28
PC: would build 42 +-400 ton ships, budget $75 mill. or .75 points each. Based on upgrading weapons/ sensors on a Sentry class derivative.
points:
2*90 = 180
8*30 = 240
6*30 = 180
8*30 = 240
15*15 = 225
3*50 = 150
43*20 = 860
61*20 =1220
63*6 = 378
45*5 = 225
28*2 = 56
42*.75= 32
324 new ships, 24 existing ships, 3986 points, 214 points remaining for sundry auxiliaries or to add to the list above. At an average of 5 points per that would allow 43 more sundry ships or a 391 ship Navy. 295 of them would be combatants. They would allow for 550+ ship borne aircraft on the oceans at any one time.
The key to this scheme vs. the Navy’s current procedure is the LHA-6(sans welldeck) would become the presence ship, the CVN’s would stop patrolling and would be used as a force in waiting. In a situation where Naval aviation force projection was required the CVN(s) would move into the battle group already forward with the LHA-6. The LHA-6 would then focus on force protection for the battle group. The CVN(s) would focus on taking the fight to the opponent. All of which hinges on the success of the F-35B.
Your approach is a sensible one – taking the in-place Navy through 2039 and doing a “what if” spin on that. I considered that but let laziness win the coin toss on that one :)
The air options really hinge on a line that (to me) otherwise cries out for cancellation – the F-35. We’ve put ourselves in a hole by shuttering so many other lines to get everything down to just the Super Hornet that when we retire it as well, we’re in a pickle if the follow-on F-35B and “C” jets are a relative failure…then what??
Mike – let’s see your Navy.
This is a thought provoking exercise and I was enjoying the responses here and on Axe’s so I figured I’d contribute to the fun:
6 : CVN-21 Ford-class aircraft carrier
6 : LHA-6 America-class assault ship
6 : SSGN (new-build stretched Virginias?)
10 : LPD-17 San Antonio-class assault ship
0 : DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer
58 : DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
58 : SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine
25 : Type 212 SSP (shallow water)
10 : Type 214 SSP (deep water)
0 : LCS
10 : T-AKE Lewis and Clark-class logistics ship
10 : JHSV
Those of you who feel bolder:
10 : Light Helicopter Assault (Mistral, Dokdo)
20 : Arsenal ship (commercial off the shelf hull. 500-1000 missiles)
0 : Aegis mothership (commercial off the shelf hull)
0 : Mothership (Commercial of the shelf auxiliary warship)
20 : Danish Absalon Flexible Support Ship
60 : Corvette (high-end missile)
10 : OPV (off shore patrol vessel)
15 : Mine Warfare ships
Obviously a big reduction in big deck CVN presence but in my view the comment about patrolling vs. a theater level asset is dead on. Forward deploy your LHA and littoral forces with an increased sub force and arsenal ships for punch. Leave the ASuW missions to the rotor and fixed wing assets and arsenal ships and optimize your DD51’s for AAW. Lots of low cost subs and corvettes anchored around logistics and light heli assault ships with an arsenal ship or two for long range strike.
4200 points exactly for a total of 334 ships.
Must correct my self.
“Based on upgrading weapons/ sensors on a Sentry class derivative.”
Should read “Based on upgrading weapons/ sensors on a USCG Sentinel class derivative”
Appreciate everyone for their contribution here. Yours truly was distracted by the RN carrier breaking news and personal issues. Well done and thanks for playing!
I also notice no one is sticking with the Navy’s modest, probably unachievable 313 ship plan, despite having the same funds to spend. You guys could teach the bean counters at the Pentagon a few lessons!
How about a much less able but cost effective sub for the F-35B&C. The T-45 Goshawk trainer in a single seat light attack version similar to the land based Hawk 200. Not really a replacement for an F-35B but could give a Harrier or A-4 type aircraft to the LHA’s and QE’s. LHA’s would need to be refitted with angled flight decks and ski-jump and both classes would need to add the portable arrestor gear system the Navy deployed for land based SKYHAWKS to make short field landings. this would of course convert the ships from STOVL to STOBAL carriers. Not a great solution but would retain some fixed wing strike ability or we could make the French very happy and buy RAFALE-M’s.
Steve said “The T-45 Goshawk trainer in a single seat light attack version similar to the land based Hawk 200.”
Great idea! We suggested something similiar for Canada a while back as she seeks to replace aging F-18s:
over 30 years
6 CVN21 @ 90ea (540)
10 LHA6 @ 30ea (300)
48 SSN774 @20ea (960)
20 U212 @5ea (150)
12 SSGN @30ea (360)
40 AB @20ea (800)
16 LPD-17 @15ea (240)
32 T-AKE @5ea (170)
20 JHSV @2ea (40)
80 Corvette @3ea (240)
24 MCM @2ea (48)
68xFrigates (see below) @4ea (272)
really don’t like Absalon for an extensive navy, Absalon much like LHDs are for navies that cannot afford multiple ships, LPH, LPD, RoRo and GP Frigates are for those that can. so if you can draw up a cost for ~68 Americanised ASW FM-400 Frigates (I’m going to guess about 4pts?)
as to India buying our Harriers, they’d have to be stripped enough systems to render them nearly useless to the Indians and in any case theres only so much bite that you can extract from a 55 year old design, they were archaic by the 80s and should have been replaced with a new design, there were enough feasible ones knocking around filing cabinets in Kingston at the time and co-operation with McD would probably have ended up with the Americans replacing their Harriers for something new and could have killed the requirement for a STOVL JCA and in turn could have lead to the creation of something that isn’t nearly useless.
Well done Alex! I was working on mine, but decided to turn it into a post for next week!
By omitting the LCS and playing with the fleet composition, working with what Mike originally presented I could even come up with a 503 ship navy, albeit one very heavy on the corvette/Abasalon options. Funny that with the same funding the real navy is going to eventually have maybe 225 ships.
Alex hit the nail on the head with there needing to be a frigate option. We’re “just” playing a game here, but too bad the people who get to spend the real money think frigate is a 4-letter word.
Strategic Deterrent
6 SSBN(X) @ 60ea (360)
Big-deck CTOL Carriers
5 CV(X) @ 45ea (225) (e.g. French PA2)
4.8 CVN-21 @ 90ea (432) (build 1 ever 6.25 years for a steady state of 8 CVNs)
Amphibious ships
2 LHA(R) @ 30ea (60)
4 LPD-17 @ 15ea (60)
7 LHD(L) @ 17ea (119) (20-30,000 tonne LHD. e.g. Mistral, Juan Carlos)
21 LPD(L) @ 5ea (105) (12-16,000 tonne LPD. e.g. Galacia, Rotterdam, RN Bay)
7 LKA(X) @2.5ea (17.5) (modern Charleston class with stern mating for LCACs/LCUs)
Submarines
43 SSN-774
Surface Combatants
2 DDG-1000 @ 50ea (100)
13 CG(X) @ 42ea (546) (based on DDG-1000 design with BMD/AAW focus)
8 DDG-51 @ 20ea (160) (legacy construction while DDG(X) is designed)
20 DDG(X) @ 25ea (500)
29 FFG(X) @ 9ea (261) (6-7000 t multi-mission frigate. AAW. ASW. ASuW. MIW. no BMD)
5 Arsenal Ship @ 10ea (50) (500 VLS cells)
Specialized/Auxiliary
5 LCS @ 6ea (30) (focused on MIW)
7 JHSV @ 2ea (14)
15 T-AKE @ 5ea (75)
15 T-AO @ 5ea (75)
3 LMSR @ 5ea (15)
4 T-AOE(X) @ 11ea (44)
2 LLC @ 20ea (40)
2 AS @ 13.5ea (27)
2 T-AH @ 10ea (20)
4 T-ARS @ 2ea (8)
4 T-ATF @ 1ea (4)
5 T-AGOS @ 1ea (5)
Total ships: 244 @ 4212.5 ($1.25 billion over budget)
Organization
8 CVNBGs with 1 CVN, 1 SSN, 1 CG(X), 1 DDG(X), 1 FFG(X), 1 T-AO/T-AOE(X), 1 T-AKE
5 CVGBs with 1 CV(X), 1 SSN, 1 CG(X), 1 Arsenal Ship, 1 DDG(X), 1 FFG(X), 1 T-AO/T-AOE(X), 1 T-AKE
2 ESGs with 1 LHA(R), 2 LPD-17s, 1 DDG-1000, 2 DDG-51s, 1 FFG(X)
7 ESG(X)s with 1 LHD(L), 3 LPD(L), 1 LKA(X), 1 DDG-51/DDG(X), 2 FFG(X)
Comments
By buying a new class of CV(X), we increase the number of carrier battlegroups to 13. The smaller CV(X)s aren’t as capable as CVNs, so an arsenal ship is paired with them. Arsenal ships will be used early in conflicts to degrade A2/AD networks through massed strikes.
2 ESGs retain the current, planned composition since the ships are already in the pipeline.
The remaining 7 ESG(X)s follow a new composition using smaller, but more numerous amphibious ships. The 5 ship ESG(X) retains roughly similar lift capability but at a lower cost. A major difference is in the ACE composition. The LHD(L) will be too small to carry V-22s and F-35Bs, so these ESGs will rely on CVBGs/CVNBGs for fixed wing air support. The F-35B and V-22 programs will be cancelled and existing MV-22s will be tranferred to USSOCOM. The new ACE composition will be 8 CH-53Ks, 12 H-60s, 6 AH-1Zs. The LHD(L) will carry the 8 CH-53ks, and each LPD(L) will carry 4 H-60s and 2 AH-1Zs. This structure improves the overall lift capability of the ARG at the expense of speed and range afforded by the V-22s.
One benefit to having 5 ships per ARG is that they can be decomposed into more numerous, single- or two-ship deployments for GFS, COIN and LIC missions.
I see a number of problems with my composition. First is only buying 6 SSBN(X)s. The stated requirement is 12, but buying that many would force too many cuts elsewhere.
Second, I was not able to fit in an SSGN(X) or purchase enough SSNs.
Third, I did not significantly improve the number of MIW and ASW ships. The cruisers, destroyers and frigates should all have ASW and MIW capabilities, and the amphibious ships can perform MIW with modules and support ASW activities with aviation, but I still feel this is a weakness.