US Navy should invest and develope Arsenal ships or convert double hull merchant ships into missle tankers capable of carrying 400 plus missles so they would have a deep deep magazine. With Navy NFIC-CA these would be the solution to Great Power Projection. It would checkmate alot of adversaries.
A brand new double hull Suez Max tanker (Suez-Max is 160,000 tons) cost about fifty to sixty million dollars. A vessel this big is very hard to sink first because of the double hull and second all the ballast tanks built into it. A vessel this big could be used as a arsenal ship carrying at least a thousand missiles and auxiliary generators to generate enough electric to power lasers, and rail guns. You could also carrier F-35's for the Marines. It's not sexy, but it's very cheap fast to build and very adaptable. These vessels could basically be used to remotely fire their weapons on demand from a more expensive vessel with the necessary sensors on station. As the weapons are expended another vessel fully loaded can be dispatched from a safe staging area to take the place of it's brother arsenal ship.
Bryan Clark seems to ignore the functionality of the Marine Air Ground Task Force. The MAGTF with the Amphibious Ready Group perform the mission of, and can respond to many mission sets not requiring a full Carrier Strike Group. THAT analysis is obviously mission from his analysis. Every comment he made to the question heading in that direction was met with a peer-to-peer analysis. The vast majority of the deployments do not fall in that category, and Human Assistance /Disaster Relief Operations do not require that CVN type of platform, though it can fill that role rather nicely. Once again the MAGTF embarked on a USS America (LHA-6) Class Large Deck Amphibious Assault ship using F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters can accomplish most tasks that previously required a full Carrier Strike Group. This amphibious task force not only meets most of our mission tasks assigned during most any given assignments today, it is far more suitable for HA/DR, and non peer-to-peer operations, at a much reduced cost.
I'm afraid that the historic role of Marines, meaning charging the contested beaches, is not gonna happen.. I know your comment is 2 year old but recently Marines have done just that.. Massive amphibious attack on defended beach is a thing of a past... They even removed Abrams from their inventory..
I remember reading that the Navy purchased 300 stealth unmanned smaller sized air craft mfg by Grumman what happened to those this was several years ago seems odd like it never happened
As far as undersea domain is concerned I think the Navy is going down the path of developing an array of different UUVs with different sizes and roles..
The US needs to revisit the cheap simple Arsenal Ship Concept perhaps with thousands of cruise missiles for offensive warfare rather than aircraft bomb trucks.
Good point, the carrier should be after the heated exchange has happened and the sky's and sea's are hopefully safer for the carrier group to enter into the fray. If you have long range unmanned air wing as mentions then that would bring it into the front line but then again China would know this and pursue it out into the neither-lands. Whatever happens a sinking of a carrier must signal to the attacker that the game is real and the gloves come off. Or would it be better to let the carrier go down without a response being mandatory and strike with vengeance at a later time with hopefully their guard down? I hope these questions are asked at the grownups table.
The US must invest, and perfect laser and rail gun technology to bring down the cost of air defense and long range gun support. We must be number one it these and always ahead of potential enemies. Being able to reliably shoot down one to two million dollar missiles with a one to two dollar shot from a laser from two miles out. Or shooting those same missiles down with a twenty five thousand dollar rail gun shell out to fifty miles. Having aircraft carriers designed to carry stealthy drone fighters, bombers and tanker that will out range and out fly current carrier aircraft. These would be less expensive and smaller then current carrier aircraft therefore making it possible to carry more on a smaller aircraft carrier. This would also make it possible to have more carriers.
When asked about Elizabeth class carriers and their cost capabilities.. he dismissed it because that may reduce their budget and upset the carrier manufacturers ✌
How do you get the revenue out of Americans as the Education level decreases and the Homeless community increases? Sending jobs overseas drains your revenue stream.
The core reason behind this discussion is the need for the US to take the fight to another super power. I would fundamentally challenge the need for that, why does the US need to be within a 1000 miles off the coast of east Asia? You don’t see China asking to be in the Gulf of Mexico?
Simple geopolitical domination. It doesnt need to be there to benefit it's people but its interests. Same as why the british did it 200 years ago, and other colonies. Why do we need to have children when the world has plenty to adopt? All comes down to selfish reasons. And men with billions of dollars have more say then you and I. Not to mention it brings in tons of funds for weapons development.
US Navy should invest and develope Arsenal ships or convert double hull merchant ships into missle tankers capable of carrying 400 plus missles so they would have a deep deep magazine. With Navy NFIC-CA these would be the solution to Great Power Projection. It would checkmate alot of adversaries.
A brand new double hull Suez Max tanker (Suez-Max is 160,000 tons) cost about fifty to sixty million dollars. A vessel this big is very hard to sink first because of the double hull and second all the ballast tanks built into it. A vessel this big could be used as a arsenal ship carrying at least a thousand missiles and auxiliary generators to generate enough electric to power lasers, and rail guns. You could also carrier F-35's for the Marines. It's not sexy, but it's very cheap fast to build and very adaptable. These vessels could basically be used to remotely fire their weapons on demand from a more expensive vessel with the necessary sensors on station. As the weapons are expended another vessel fully loaded can be dispatched from a safe staging area to take the place of it's brother arsenal ship.
Bryan Clark seems to ignore the functionality of the Marine Air Ground Task Force. The MAGTF with the Amphibious Ready Group perform the mission of, and can respond to many mission sets not requiring a full Carrier Strike Group. THAT analysis is obviously mission from his analysis. Every comment he made to the question heading in that direction was met with a peer-to-peer analysis. The vast majority of the deployments do not fall in that category, and Human Assistance /Disaster Relief Operations do not require that CVN type of platform, though it can fill that role rather nicely.
Once again the MAGTF embarked on a USS America (LHA-6) Class Large Deck Amphibious Assault ship using F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters can accomplish most tasks that previously required a full Carrier Strike Group. This amphibious task force not only meets most of our mission tasks assigned during most any given assignments today, it is far more suitable for HA/DR, and non peer-to-peer operations, at a much reduced cost.
I'm afraid that the historic role of Marines, meaning charging the contested beaches, is not gonna happen.. I know your comment is 2 year old but recently Marines have done just that.. Massive amphibious attack on defended beach is a thing of a past... They even removed Abrams from their inventory..
I remember reading that the Navy purchased 300 stealth unmanned smaller sized air craft mfg by Grumman what happened to those this was several years ago seems odd like it never happened
As far as undersea domain is concerned I think the Navy is going down the path of developing an array of different UUVs with different sizes and roles..
The US needs to revisit the cheap simple Arsenal Ship Concept perhaps with thousands of cruise missiles for offensive warfare rather than aircraft bomb trucks.
Invest in long range prompt strike.
aircraft carrier of the fututr, something akin to the phoenix lights
I need your assistance
Russia's Poseidon underwater nuclear drone can take out a whole carrier group. Asymmetrical.
Good point, the carrier should be after the heated exchange has happened and the sky's and sea's are hopefully safer for the carrier group to enter into the fray. If you have long range unmanned air wing as mentions then that would bring it into the front line but then again China would know this and pursue it out into the neither-lands.
Whatever happens a sinking of a carrier must signal to the attacker that the game is real and the gloves come off. Or would it be better to let the carrier go down without a response being mandatory and strike with vengeance at a later time with hopefully their guard down? I hope these questions are asked at the grownups table.
The US must invest, and perfect laser and rail gun technology to bring down the cost of air defense and long range gun support. We must be number one it these and always ahead of potential enemies. Being able to reliably shoot down one to two million dollar missiles with a one to two dollar shot from a laser from two miles out. Or shooting those same missiles down with a twenty five thousand dollar rail gun shell out to fifty miles. Having aircraft carriers designed to carry stealthy drone fighters, bombers and tanker that will out range and out fly current carrier aircraft. These would be less expensive and smaller then current carrier aircraft therefore making it possible to carry more on a smaller aircraft carrier. This would also make it possible to have more carriers.
Clark is in my family tree i should be in washington running things i tryed to join and they wouldnt let me in
When asked about Elizabeth class carriers and their cost capabilities.. he dismissed it because that may reduce their budget and upset the carrier manufacturers ✌
Hi general please get these forces out of my house
How do you get the revenue out of Americans as the Education level decreases and the Homeless community increases? Sending jobs overseas drains your revenue stream.
The core reason behind this discussion is the need for the US to take the fight to another super power. I would fundamentally challenge the need for that, why does the US need to be within a 1000 miles off the coast of east Asia? You don’t see China asking to be in the Gulf of Mexico?
Simple geopolitical domination. It doesnt need to be there to benefit it's people but its interests. Same as why the british did it 200 years ago, and other colonies. Why do we need to have children when the world has plenty to adopt? All comes down to selfish reasons. And men with billions of dollars have more say then you and I.
Not to mention it brings in tons of funds for weapons development.
USA is the up Holder of individualism and democracy