Future USN Expeditionary Strike Groups!

Well, if you want to go with a straight LPH it would be hard to beat the HMS Ocean. Especially, in bang for the buck category…………………Yet, LHD’s offer why more versatility! While, the RN may currently have enough Amphibious Transports? (i.e. LPD, LSD, etc.) What happens if one is lost or out of Service??? Personally, I would go with a LHD as it could easily fill in for the other Dock Equipped Amphibious Ships.

If you have plenty of capacity A, & are short of capacity B, it doesn’t make sense to spend money increasing capacity A instead of capacity B. The RN has 6 dock landing ships, 4 of which have minimal troop carrying capacity. It has one (yes, one) front-line amphibious ship with helicopter hangarage, and 3 with real troop carrying capacity. Apart from a training ship, that one helicopter carrier is now the RNs oldest amphibious ship. Docks are in plentiful supply. We have ample cargo capacity (the LSDs, plus 6 militarised ro-ros, with limited amphibious capability via Mexeflotes). If one dock is out of use, it’s a minor inconvenience, at worst. The other dock ships can take up the slack. If the LPH is unavailable, we currently have to improvise by using a carrier: it’s a major problem.

The RN does not need more LSDs: the dock in an LHD would be a waste of space & money, for the RN. An encumbrance, not useful. A new LPH, on the other hand, would be welcome. It was identified as a requirement many years ago, and the modification of Ark Royal to enhance her amphibious capability (but still, inferior to Ocean, as well as having less remaining life) was meant to partly fill that gap.

Fast – And, Torps and Mines Don’t Hurt If Yer Rear’s in the Air

New lad jumping in – base your fast group around submerged twin hull design and you’ll have a drop ramp for LCH mounting the well at speed. Large enough build to mount two PBR reactors and you’ll have power enough to mount SEA-based lasers big enough to embarass the 747-based ABL(think of the loiter time in mid-ocean) with the requisite normal gun types port and starboard concealed in the slanted outer Stealth hull. No reason this can’t be the class that mounts advanced propellant guns or EM railguns in this role.

Like your ideas on the aircraft mix, though I’d prefer more strike aircraft of F-35 types, and more CAP replacements for the F-14 role. Reason: the general I’ve heard here seems to understand that helo carriers just aren’t going to cut it as soon as the enemy attacks disagree with the last two or three CNOs. A fast, hard-hitting class gives great commanders to ride out, ride over or run and attack from all directions at once.

Give me some thoughts and we can flesh out the new class and group.

TD6 actual

That is correct..obviously the ship would need to be retooled and the airgroup wouldnt be the same but i think size wise its a good cannidant….its also possible to retool it as an LPH…im mainly looking at this as a future LHX or LHD(R)

Personally, I think a CVF based LHA would be overly large and complex. Remember, such a ship would be even larger than the USN’s forthcoming LHA(R) which is massive for a LHA! Really, I would like to see the reverse……Like Spain’s BPE converted from a LHD to a more Conventional Aircraft Carrier.:D

I am a little lost here………….are you saying they should design a LHA based on CVF’s???:confused:

That is correct..obviously the ship would need to be retooled and the airgroup wouldnt be the same but i think size wise its a good cannidant….its also possible to retool it as an LPH…im mainly looking at this as a future LHX or LHD(R)

I’m not suggesting LHDs are a bad idea per se, or that a CVF based LHD design would be a disaster by any means. I have noticed that some people here and on other forums seem to think LHDs are some kind of wonder solution for expeditionary warfare. They have their place, are amazingly versatile and if you’ve got it, flaunt it! I was just trying to balance things out by pointing out they have their drawbacks too. I don’t think for example HMS Ocean should be replaced by an LHD design, but by another LPH (preferrably 2). Why? We currently have six amphibious transports with docking wells to land the heavy equipment (Tanks, trucks, supplies etc) as well as troops and these ships will have to be stationary whilst doing this. The LPH within the task group is primarily for landing a large number of troops, ie it has the largest concentration of manpower hence the greatest potential for loss of life if attacked, so should be afforded a higher priority (not that any of the landing ships is expendable by any measure) and the best way to protect a ship is to keep it moving.

Well, if you want to go with a straight LPH it would be hard to beat the HMS Ocean. Especially, in bang for the buck category…………………Yet, LHD’s offer why more versatility! While, the RN may currently have enough Amphibious Transports? (i.e. LPD, LSD, etc.) What happens if one is lost or out of Service??? Personally, I would go with a LHD as it could easily fill in for the other Dock Equipped Amphibious Ships.

I’m not suggesting LHDs are a bad idea per se, or that a CVF based LHD design would be a disaster by any means. I have noticed that some people here and on other forums seem to think LHDs are some kind of wonder solution for expeditionary warfare. They have their place, are amazingly versatile and if you’ve got it, flaunt it! I was just trying to balance things out by pointing out they have their drawbacks too. I don’t think for example HMS Ocean should be replaced by an LHD design, but by another LPH (preferrably 2). Why? We currently have six amphibious transports with docking wells to land the heavy equipment (Tanks, trucks, supplies etc) as well as troops and these ships will have to be stationary whilst doing this. The LPH within the task group is primarily for landing a large number of troops, ie it has the largest concentration of manpower hence the greatest potential for loss of life if attacked, so should be afforded a higher priority (not that any of the landing ships is expendable by any measure) and the best way to protect a ship is to keep it moving.

Like i said im only fooling around with the idea..i still think it might be a viable design and i understand some thing would have to be sacraficed for others but i was more thinkng about the size of the flight deck and the dual command towers

I am a little lost here………….are you saying they should design a LHA based on CVF’s???:confused:

Like i said im only fooling around with the idea..i still think it might be a viable design and i understand some thing would have to be sacraficed for others but i was more thinkng about the size of the flight deck and the dual command towers

And a stern with a dock in means compromises in terms of speed, fuel consumption, etc.

Well, such a units are not intended to replace “true” Carriers Battle Groups like the CVF’s. Yet, they are very powerful and could step in when Large Carriers are not available…………..or when the risk is far less.

CVF as an LHD would be a bad idea. The best way to protect a warship is to keep it moving, and to use the dock you have to stop and flood down, very close to the enemy’s shore. Sitting duck time. Also if you add a doxk then it will consume 5,000tons of the ships displacement, ie internal volume. The capacity of the ship starts to shrink and it carries less. Admittedly on a 60,000ton design that might not sound like much but even on a ship of that size there isn’t much room to spare. Something will have to go to accomodate the dock, along with a vehicle deck forward of it. Then there is the question of troop accomodation, and again something in the existing design will have to go to fit it in. Not impossible by any means, but a huge ship impact by any measure.

And a stern with a dock in means compromises in terms of speed, fuel consumption, etc.

CVF as an LHD would be a bad idea. The best way to protect a warship is to keep it moving, and to use the dock you have to stop and flood down, very close to the enemy’s shore. Sitting duck time. Also if you add a doxk then it will consume 5,000tons of the ships displacement, ie internal volume. The capacity of the ship starts to shrink and it carries less. Admittedly on a 60,000ton design that might not sound like much but even on a ship of that size there isn’t much room to spare. Something will have to go to accomodate the dock, along with a vehicle deck forward of it. Then there is the question of troop accomodation, and again something in the existing design will have to go to fit it in. Not impossible by any means, but a huge ship impact by any measure.

looking good still….they have put to much time and money into the EFV to kill it totally..whats the problem this time?

I remeber talking to one of my old gunny’s along time ago, he said the Marine Corps would basicly piggyback with the Army on the FCS program.. so future MAGTF will be really neat… the FCS, the JLTV(Humvee replacement), M777 Light Weight Expedtionary Howitzars, HIMARS, Future Logitisic Force vehicles, all the air assets we discussed, they have just completed the replacement of all the old Comm Gear and weapons also..we a A4’s lol…but none the less the navy and marine corps expedionary warfare capabilties are more leathal then ever

Future Wasp air group is supposed to be:
12 MV-22
4 CH-53E
4 AH-1Z
3 UH-1Y
2 MH-60S
6 F-35B

LHA(R) is:
12 MV-22
4 CH-53E/K
4 AH-1Z
4 UH-1Y
4 MH-60S
10 F-35B
In pure attack role this could be 20 F-35B and 4 MH-60S

EFV is a bit of trouble -AFAIK they’ve basically started again.

More importnaly these groupings will be the premier ships of global power projection..and not just with the US Navy either…just think of a future ARG/ESG built around a LHA-6 or LHD-8 type ships with an LPD-17 class ship and LSX based off the the LPD-17’s. Im currently fooling around with an idea for making a CVF into an LHD i think CVF would be an outstanding cannaidate for the LHX/LHD(R) program. Not that the desgin that was floating around in Marine Corps Concepts and Programs books were bad either tho.

But not only that think about what they will be able to employ …..the V-22 offsprey, CH-53K, UH-1Y, AH-1Z, and the F-35B JSF alot of fire and lift power there. Then theirs the EFV, LCAC, LCU(R). This isnt even taking into account the MEU’s upcomming gound warfare systems either.