2024 fleet plan was announced recently, it differs somewhat from the 2023 plan in that it calls for an additional aircraft carrier, fewer Virginia-class submarines with Virginia-payload modules (but more SSNs in total), and a few more DDGs, as well as an additional LHA and LPD(X)
What do you think of the 3 plans put forward? Is the navy missing something you think they will need?
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-10/59508-shipbuilding.pdf
Good morning sirs
Isn't it like 3am in india right now?
You're honestly making me support Russia with this nonsense
Armatard sucks donkey dicks
The fuck is a "large payload submarine?" The only thing that would make sense is the SSGN Ohio conversions but this chart says it's for new purchases and I thought the replacement plan for the SSGNs was simply more Virginias with the payload module, are they doing something else?
It has been floated that they'll finish the Columbia-class construction with 4 to 6 SSGNs like they did on the early Ohio-class that got converted.
The only thing that sticks out is the Virginia-class and SSN(X) stuff.
23/33/27 vs 11/11/11
0/16/0 vs 10/37/12
31/17/33 vs 33/18/35
so they 100% are cutting down the Virginia-class VPM order, I wonder why, we'd been hearing for years that the VPM would be what makes the Virginia-class Block V boats still relevant, now the navy is only planning on 11 of them and another 10-30 non-VPM equipped boats?
What happened?
Virginias are what Aus would be getting under AUKUS - is this plan an adjustment to accomodate the used and then new Virginias which would be sent to Australia? Finalising AUKUS has been a real political tug of war in the US and this might be trying to ease the tension
They are getting 3 with an additional 2 if they feel they need them.
That doesn't explain axing the VPM order by 2/3rds.
I decided to actually read some of the document since you fags seem committed to not reading it
Tl;dr they want to focus on Columbia and SSN(X) partially because the industrial base for submarine construction is limited
Also: congress is being fags about AUKUS throughout this, and also bitching that the navy cannot into cost assessments
>and also bitching that the navy cannot into cost assessments
This is true though
>bitching that the navy cannot into cost assessments
Leave that to the bean counters. More boats and more ships are always better.
What's missing? Wing in ground effect capital ships.
> also bitching that the navy cannot into cost assessments
[Tillman intensifies]
Can you imagine if Pitchfork was alive today? Picture the maximum aircraft carriers he'd demand the navy design. The smallest would be half a kilometer long and displace a quarter megaton.
want more torpedoes in the water.
> want more torpedoes
Should do wonders as the Chinese ASROCs are raining on them.
Alternative 3 should be funded.
Alternative 1 is what will be funded.
>7 aircraft carriers
Plan 3 is the only way . You can't be the global power unless you have a carrier group for each sea .
The difference isn't the total number so much as it's how quickly we build them.
Plan 1 and 2 have aircraft carriers built on the normal (as of now) 5 year cadence.
Plan 3 switches aircraft carriers to a 4 year construction cadence.
Assuming a 50-year lifespan, that means a total force of 10 carriers vs. 12 carriers.
They're doing studies to determine the feasibility of a 55-year lifespan
carriers are shit for peer-on-peer fights unless we plan on magically upgrading the range of F-35s overnight.
we need more destroyers with less crew requirements and more VLS cells. carriers are only for punching down against turdies who can’t mass AShM or only good for supporting ground ops once the PLAN has been turned into reefs in South China Sea.
t. Age of Empires vet
Alternative 3 allows for 18 Flight III Burkes, 46 DDG(X)s, 16 Constellation-class FFGs and 42 Flight II FFGs.
DDG(X) is 128 VLS cells with potential for more, Flight I constellation-class is 32 VLS, and Flight III burkes are 96 VLS cells.
The construction of Fords is just barely paced to keep up with the decommissioning of Nimitizeses
Except Ford herself actually replaced Big E
So we're going to be reduced from 11 fleet carriers to 10 in... 2061?
> to 10?
Has long been the plan, but Congress and Reality keeps nudging it up:
> 1993 President George Bush launched plans to cut the force from a high of 15 to 12 carriers, and Clinton said during the campaign that he would go even further, down to 10 carriers.
How would a 10-carrier fleet look like?
My understanding is that forward-deploying means 2 carriers can generate 1 on station in Japan
It would seem to me that 10 carriers means 2 operational in Japan, 2 in downtime; 2 US-based operational, 2 downtime, and 2 in extended refit
Likely this means 3 operational in the Pacific and 1 in the Atlantic?
Seems... thin.
Or even 4 in the Pacific and letting QE, POW and CDG sort out the European theatre all by themselves
Thank you
Wow that's a significant net increase in hulls
Probably rely on LHAs with a burke and 2 or 3 constellation-class frigates to make up a pseudo CSG to handle lighter shit in the Atlantic.
It's a valid question to ask how well the Russian Navy and naval strike capabilities will have regenerated by 2053
There’s no universe in which the Russia navy is a significant threat. I rate the German navy higher. We can’t ignore them but they’re a marginal threat at best
30 years on a war budget and a serious no-fraud approach could give them a modern submarine navy that can challenge the Europeans, I think
>Russia
>No Fraud
Pick one
Lol no. They can contest the arctic and harass the Baltic but that’s going to be the extent of their projection
lol
Russian subs are 100% gonna try to harass North Atlantic shipping
>Try
is the operative word here
>ATTACK CARRIER SQUADRON 1 - 2nd Fleet
-LHA-6
-DDG-51 (Flight III)
-FFG-62
-FFG-62
-FFG-62
-SSN-774
>ATTACK CARRIER SQUADRON 2 - 5th Fleet
-LHA-7
-DDG-51 (Flight III)
-FFG-62
-FFG-62
-FFG-62
-SSN-774
Would be so kino, I like that idea
Yup, that's about what I envisioned
I love light(ning) carriers
does a squared bow really make that much of a difference?
JS Izumo and JS Kaga are undergoing modifications to square their bows more similarly to the America/Wasp boats the americans use and the japanese are spending a LOT of money for what (on the surface) looks like a pretty minor difference.
I can't find an overhead view of the new bow shape, but here is a front-on view compared to the previous bow shape.
I'm not against this idea for Europe and keeping the "real" CSGs for homeland defense and pacific operations
Marines might need it more in the Pacific though
Might need what? We're talking about 3 or 4 of the ~10-12 LHAs available being tasked for Atlantic duties. That still leaves the bulk for the pacific fleet, and the LPDs will be heavily tilted in favor of the pacific fleet as well.
If the pacific theater needs more than 4 CSGs, 8 LHAs, and 10-12 LPDs, we've fucked up massively and a MEU or two from the atlantic fleet isn't going to change things.
Lightning carriers are about providing 2 squadrons of F-35B's to support MEU operations
Just to clarify, LHA-6 and LHA-7 are the only LHA's without a welldeck, optimized for marine aviation
>the LPDs
Navy has halted funding any new LPDs after LPD-32
>scrapping both LSD's classes without enough ships to replace them
yep, that's the Navy, and the Marines are NOT happy about that btw
With Russia shitting themselves it may be that Europe is no longer seen as a needing so much attention anymore. Europe's a big boy now, they can handle themselves.
Yes since they only plan to build 10 GRF-class carriers
Though the Navy is doing a study to determine the feasibility of being able to do 55-year lifespan instead of the originally intended 50-years. Though it may only be done for the two final Nimitz-class ships, which were themselves modernized compared to the earlier Nimitz-class ships.
So CVN-76 comissioned in 2003 would retire around 2058 and CVN-77 would retire around 2064
Which would likely give us the 11 you're talking about.
What a midwit take. Do you know what dramatically improves fleet awareness and lethality? Airplanes
Technically airborne sensors in general, not necessarily a plane.
See the MQ-8C as an example. UAV helicopter with a radar on it. Massively improves radar coverage for the fleet without sending a pilot up, and can stay up there for 12-15 hours.
So you're shitting on the F-35 in favour of the... MQ-8C?
Do you really think anyone that replies to your post is not only the exact same person you replied to but is also continuing the conversation in EXACTLY the same way as well?
Not only am I not the person you originally replied to, my ONLY point was that you don't need to use a plane to have airborne sensors providing a wider coverage for your fleet. That's it, end of statement, you can take whatever else you want from it, but that's all I said or meant.
You don’t NEED a plane, no. But a plane is better than a helicopter in every way that matters, when it comes to things like sensors.
There’s a REASON why everyone laughed at the bongs when they said they were going to use a helicopter as AWACS instead of a fixed wing.
Yeah I'm sure that's why the USN is buying the MQ-8C, because they're never going to use it.
> By January 2023, the U.S. Navy had procured 38 MQ-8Cs
oh wait...
>everyone laughed at the bongs when they said they were going to use a helicopter as AWACS
no, it's an understandable tradeoff
Similarly, the USN bought 10 carriers and a motherfuckload of F-35s BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE USEFUL THAN YOUR SHITTY MQ-8 MORONITY
> it's an understandable tradeoff
Not when a helicopter is fundamentally inferior in every way than a fixed-wing
loiter time as well
Absolutely goddamn not.
To expand, helicopters have shit loiter times, whereas something like an E2 can stay on station for quite a while.
MQ-8C can loiter for ~15 hours.
E-2 has an on-station time of like 5 hours without refueling.
Obviously an E-2 is a MUCH more capable platform, but it also requires a CATOBAR carrier to launch. The MQ-8C is meant for the LCS boats and the new Constellation-class, boats that don't have (on their own) the ability to have over-the-horizon radar coverage. the MQ-8C is a cheap way to give that capabilty to these smaller ships.
No one is saying you should replace the E-2 with a helicopter.
Clearly, the answer is a tiltrotor.
>helicopters have shit loiter times
Merlin AEW only loses by about an hour or two, it has a fair whack of endurance.
we need to just build a bunch of SSGN's and keep them coming. Fuck anything else. If you want a White Fleet to go around ports of call and catch STDs, fine, but you get only one.
Wait i thought LPD(X) was LPD-17 Flight 2?
They're referred to as "LPD-17 replacements" later in the document.
forgot pic
What's the "Medium Landing Ship"?
The navy previously called them "light amphibious warships"
The FY23 budget delayed procurement of the LAW (light amphibious warships) until FY25, and in the meantime, they've gone through some design revamps and been renamed as LSMs (Landing Ship Medium)
It would be useful to compare this with the current fleet and see how much of the fleet would be recapitalised by the end of this plan
>plan on keeping zumwalts through 2053
What are they up to....
'sonics
They're replacing the guns with hypersonic missiles, they'll at least have niche usage as the only surface combatants with hypersonic missiles until the DDG(X) commissions sometime around 2040.
The Zummies are fantastic test ships with a lot of spare electrical power and internal volume. You can slap vaguely experimental systems into them all day before deciding if its worth sticking them on something more mainstream. In the short term they'll get large hypersonics
and be a significant strike platform for the navy in the pacific
but we'll see them used more and more for other stuff over time. AGS will probably get entirely ripped out and the Navy will have some fun with all of new free space on their 15,000 ton ship which has the electrical power to power a small city.
Was the Zumwalt development budget worth it for 3 test platform ships? No, but you can be damn well sure the Navy is going to claw back anything they can from the three ships they got.
Yeah and honestly they're way too expensive and valuable to risk in NGS anymore and at least armed with hypersonics they can still fight when needed while being more survivable by staying far away thanks to their range and stealth too
>invaluable test platform
>efficient and stealthy hypersonic missile lodger
They might redeem themselves soon enough
>AGS will be stripped out from all 3 ships without even firing one godamn time at sea
I know they only have 90 rounds of ammo total for the guns but still
> The 2015 budget provided $113 million to buy 150 LRLAP rounds and associated items, and those rounds will be used for the tests.
>since they are retiring more than 1 Tico every year
What are the Ticos providing that we really NEED?
>150 LRLAP rounds
And they will be 100% useless once the last AGS is removed from the last Zumwalt
Just one firing at sea would be so cool, when's the last time a US warship has fired an 8" gun
Did they never use those rounds in testing? They had scheduled 2015/16 weapon tests that would've used most if not all of those 150 purchased rounds.
Oh wow true, so they might not even have any inventory left
> What are the Ticos providing that we really NEED?
VLS cells and better suited for fleet C2
VLS cells aren't a valid argument, it's 26 more than a Burke, and that's not exactly a world-changing magazine depth difference.
Also Ticos can't use the latest missiles in those cells, yes they can use Mod 1 ESSMs and SM-2 IIIB, but these are 1 generation old by now, and I don't see Ticos being upgraded to carry the modern versions.
C2 is somewhat valid, but the systems installed in Ticos are old enough that even that isn't SUPER valid anymore and waiting 10-20 years for DDG(X) to properly replace ticos for C2 isn't going to be a MASSIVE problem.
>it's 26 more than a Burke, and that's not exactly a world-changing magazine depth difference.
that's 104 ESSM
Not if it gets hit. Distributed leathitly is the name of the game now.
>Not if it gets hit
yeah having 104 extra ESSM is handy when it comes to not getting hit
hope you're fine with Block 1 ESSM since Block 2 certainly wont be backported to Ticos.
I think you're misunderstanding me, I don't think we should keep the Ticos in service forever, just that more VLS is more gooder so future surface combatants should have Tico level toobs or more (and be nuclear powered for the giant lasers)
DDG(X) does exactly that, in the meantime we get Flight III Burkes and new guided missile frigates for extra VLS cells in the short term.
They're also building those unmanned/minimally crewed surface vessels that carry 32 VLS tubes for land-attack or anti-ship. By moving some of the strike capability off the larger vessels, more VLS cells could potentially be allocated for defensive missiles.
>unmanned/minimally crewed surface vessels that carry 32 VLS tubes
source?
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R45757.pdf
Thanks
250 million dollars per USV, hm
not great not terrible
The biggest benefit is the shipyards that can pump them out are a LOT more numerous and we can ramp up production drastically if we needed to compared to say a burke or even constellation-class.
The problem is likely to be missiles
Modern war is going to be a come-as-you-are affair, but if you are talking about anything approaching the length of WW2, then consider that the resources available to the US stretch across the world westwards from Incheon to Odessa.
pretty damn cheap for 16-32 VLS'
That’s what, F-22 costs?
Program costs were around 360mil per airframe, split pretty evenly between R&D and the Airframe itself.
So, it's an unmanned LCS, but slightly cheaper and with some actual firepower.
And no crew requirements in a personnel strapped military.
ya and with cost going from 315 to 240 before it even gets to 10 units...... could get to spammable levels
And because they’re “affordable” and unmanned they’re attritable. You can absolutely throw these into engagements you know they won’t survive, or at the very least much riskier engagements and actually unironically “trade” them. It’s not as big an advantage as it is for aircraft but the crew loses for even a modest ship being sunk can be really quite chilling
Would be interesting to see what this looks like 4 years later.
>sweep payload
are mines even still moored?
Yes. Though nowadays it’s less “spiky ball of boom” and more “moored torpedo”
Though there are still lots of older mines floating around the world.
Are sweeps still effective on these?
I for one welcome our new unmanned navy.
How ironic that we might get StreetFighter after all.
>modern naval combat is David Weber's gay missile pods
Reject modernity,
Return to nuclear-powered destroyer leaders
Wrong pic.
It was always a terrible idea. The absurdly-long-ranged VGS might have been interesting, but once that program died, the AGS just didn't make much sense. It didn't help that the ZumZum was conceived as a NGFS platform to meet post-Desert Storm Congressional requirements to replace the Iowa class with something for the Marines' sake.
Well this is new purchases rather than total at the end of the date but we currently have
9 LHA's
12 LPD's
73 DDG's
0 FFGs
52 Attack subs
14 Ballistic subs
11 CVN's
But fuck if i know what they plan to retire and when
>what they plan to retire and when
By the end of 30 years? Everything that's in the water now will be retired. That 30 year build plan is what the Navy will be by then. The Scrape Rate > Build Rate forever.
Well our carriers have a 50 year lifespan, Burkes are 35 years, Virginias are 33 years, Ohio and Columbia are somewhere around 45-50 years
So no, 30 years is not enough time for EVERYTHING currently in the water to be replaced.
>our carriers have a 50 year lifespan
By necessity because the replacement rate is not keeping up. CVNs aren't supposed to last that long, due to wear and technological obsolesce. But when retirement approaches Congress flinches and appropriates money for new paint to try and stretch out the inevitable.
See: Nimitz, which was supposed to be retired years ago.
> But Wikipedia says....
No. Don't do that. Read Proceedings and take notes.
>CVNs aren't supposed to last that long
According to whom? You?
Since USS Kitty Hawk (48 years) most carriers had careers nearer to fifty than forty years
Nigga what when built Nimitz class had a 50 year life.
actually sweaty, you're wrong because I don't want you to be right.
Y'all Americans should name a carrier USS Trump for maximum butthurt
there are other presidents that would come first, but they probably will eventually
>yall
Youse 'murricans oughta name a carrier USS Trump?
F/A-XX yearly budget is classified, but holy fuck this thing is expensive
Not sure why we even need SSN(X) when the Virginias should be good enough for decades
The older Virginias are getting long in the tooth, but AFAIK the navy has plans for Block VII Virginia-class boats in service well into the 2080s.
SSN(X) will be needed soon enough, but the Virginia-class will be around for a LONG time.
I just view DDG(X) as way more important and pressing, since they are retiring more than 1 Tico every year, they are not retiring any Virginia's yet
SSN(X)'s bigger problem is our sub industry is falling behind our needs, so we need a major capital injection into our sub infrastructure, so prioritizing SSN(X) early reflects that need.
DDG(X) on the other hand isn't as necessary, we have Flight III burkes with new AESA radar and plenty of VLS cells, the only thing DDG(X) adds is an additional ~32 VLS cells a slightly larger AESA radar array, and the power capacity for more upgrades down the line.
And for pure surface combatants with VLS cells we have the FFG-62's coming soon which will provide a "cheap" surface combatant with 90% of the burke capabilities at half the cost.
Realistically what do you think the Ticos provide that can't be addressed with Flight III burkes?
>our sub industry is falling behind our needs, so we need a major capital injection into our sub infrastructure, so prioritizing SSN(X) early reflects that need.
lmao I guess that's where that buildsubmarines marketing campaign is coming from
No they won't
ASW drones are the next big threat
Wait, so the Navy is replacing LHDs with LHAs? I remember seeing the proposed America class and thought it was dumb to have an LHA without a well deck.
>served on LHD5
All America-class LHAs after the first two have well-decks.
LHA-6 and LHA-7 are Flight 0
LHA-8 on are Flight 1
CG bros... it's over...
Yup, pic-related is a pending schedule, but if approved would see all Ticos retired within 4-5 years.
Burkes are cruisers
They're missing the space for an admiral and staff as well as the expanded command space for fleet operations.
Why doesn't the Navy order a fourth flight of Burkes stretched to accommodate the extra berthing, CIC space and magazine depth of a Tico? Give the Burkes a modern DL treatment
A cruiser doesn't necessarily have to host an admiral
No, but the Ticos have that capability and the Burkes don't.
> Ticonderogas were to complement the much larger and more capable Strike Cruiser (CSGN) comprising the high end, which were expected to act as flagships. However, with the cancelation of the Strike Cruiser as well as the scaled-down CGN-42 (Virginia-class cruiser hull) alternative, requirements were transferred to the DDG-47. Flagship capabilities were added to the Ticonderoga-class, and it was eventually re-designated as guided-missile cruisers, CG-47, to reflect these additional capabilities. The Ticonderoga-class cruiser went on to form the high end of the fleet, with the later introduction of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer forming the low end.
> Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers equipped with the Air and Missile Defense Radar provide enhanced coverage, but putting the radar on standard destroyer hulls does not allow enough room for extra staff and command and control facilities for the air warfare commander. Destroyers can be used tactically for air defense, but they augment cruisers that provide command and control in a carrier group
They could always redesignate the Zumwalts as cruisers
They would need to fit them with room for fleet command facilities and communications to ships with more sensors since the Zumwalt sensors aren't anything amazing.
They certainly have the displacement and electrical power to support C3 facilities and staff.
I'm not sure if they have internal space available as many of the ships systems were partially automated for reduced manning needs. This means there are large internal areas of the ship taken up by these systems.
>CRUISERS MUST HAVE COMMAND FACILITIES TO BE CRUISERS!!1!
midwit
Turn off capslock, boomer.
NO
Functionally there are no cruisers or destroyers any more, only large warship and small warship. Cruisers don't necessarily need to have command facilities, going by WW2 definitions they were simply a ship made for fighting other surface ships. Some had command facilities, some didn't.
>inferior in every way than a fixed-wing
save for being significantly cheaper
What the fuck is the point of the differentiation?
Cruisers are capital ships and thus should have the facilities to reflect this, destroyers aren't capital ships and thus have never really been given the command facilities for fleet operations. This should change with DDG(X), but at the moment there is no point designating Zumwalts as cruisers without giving them command facilities.
That would mean 12 aircraft carriers. The media spreads FUD over China but they have only 2 aircraft carriers and that's as close as it gets to the USA. If anything, China fears the US Navy.
Carrier three is on shakedown cruise and four had it's keel laying
They're also moving much faster to build a fleet of eight LHDs
Source on carrier 4 keel laying?
China isn't going to square against the entire USN any time soon, which has global commitments in other theatres. They only have to fight a fraction of total USN power in their own backyard. Not to mention that China possesses shipbuilding experience at this point by orders or magnitude greater, meaning losses are more recoverable versus the US losing ships where repairs & maintenance are lacking and backlogs growing.
>No BB's
it's over.
>we will never get nuclear railgun battleships
feels bad man
Why can't the USA do something really memey like a heavy missile cruiser. Or a battleship size missile ship. I don't care how economical or practical or effective it is. It looks cool. Railguns are my only hope of the return of battlecruisers/battleships/heavy cruisers with barrel guns. If you're going to cuck me with 'railguns just aren't practical (yet)' then give me something else.
The only railgun project the US has looked at recently is Japan's which is an entirely different weapon concept, instead of using a railgun for shore bombardment and long range naval artillery, the want to use a 40mm railgun fired projectile for missile defense. So a defensive system.
Please no.....
No one needs dumb artillery anymore, even if it does have stupid 100+ mile range.
Missiles won, you gotta get over it
>Why can't the USA do something really memey
LCS and Zumwalt exist
Serious question that I like to ask then get non answers while people sob and call me a baiting Chang, but can the US ramp ship construction fast enough for any sort of sustained conflict? Stuff is so expensive and lengthy to make these days it seems like a modern naval war would basically just break down to both sides blowing their loads and then sitting there going “well shit” when they realize they can’t build anything fast enough to matter
in a sustained conflict wouldn't both sides attempt to neutralize the enemy's shipbuilding infrastructure anyways? I don't think China can effectively hit the East Coast without ICBMs but the US could Tomahawk the shit out of every Chinese drydock on day one
I just want the USN to keep naming submarines after fish, beyond the 4 Virginias.
I have this idea of a nuclear powered seaplane that can basically operate in cutter mode or plane mode. Idk how feasible it is, but imo replacing a carrier group with 30+ cutter fighters and a few logistical support ships would be cool. It would be very difficult to hit that many small, agile individual targets, and each could operate by itself. Think Vikings in Starcraft 2.
Is it even theoretically feasible, or not?
No
Is there any info for new patrol boats? With the Chinese fishing boats performing shenanigans against the Philippine fishing boats, we need something to deter the gray zone tactics. Pic rel.
?t=481
see
and
Minimally manned mostly automated small/medium-sized ships are the future in that regard for at least the USN.
The smallest "real" combatant in the USNs near future is the Constellation-class FFG-62 guided missile frigates at a bit over 7200 tons, not exactly "small" but that's what the navy calls them.