I agree that the Navy should order several additional ESBs to increase the capability of the Marine Littoral Regiments. The ESBs can land the Marines on the beaches with the MV-22s and CH-53Js and CH-53Ks. With a significant number of BAES ADLs on the mission deck and containerized launchers on the flight, they could add significant depth to the supply of missiles for defensive and offensive purposes, as well as the capabillity of dozens of HIMARS for launching GMLRS and PrSMs as well as many Rogue Fires launchers for NSMs so the ESBs can be turned into a form of arsenal ships.
USMC 1974-78. In 1976 I was in the group of the first Marines to deploy on the new USS Tarawa (LHA-1). We thought that was like a cruise ship over the LPH's, LPD's, LSD's, and LST's of the day. Now I understand that the LHD's are even larger than they LHA's? One concern that I have is these large "Gators" and the Super Carriers. I know that CVN's are pretty well protected against ASW but not sure about an amphib group. WIth more smaller vessels, you can lose one and not be affected too badly. You lose an LHD to a modern torpedo and that is a huge loss. Same with Carriers. With the F-35 coming into play, would the U.S. not be better off with more smaller carriers? Do something similar to the Brit's. A ski jump instead of a costly catapult system which has a high degree of maintenance? If a Cat breaks down, your launch capability is reduced. The ASW and transport could be handled by a CH-53 or the UH-60. I am still undecided on the Osprey. I think IMHO leaner and meaner is the way to go.
take a OSV add a single LCAC and have a small LPD..... then Articulated Tug Barge it, slam a causeway on the beach so a EPF can resupply or push a fuel barge to resupply the land but also any passing ships.
I think the Landing Craft Medium is going to be a disaster. The WW2 era Landing Craft Infantry Large (LCI-L) was not well liked and was ditched in the 50s. The problem was that they are flat bottom ships and are difficult to un-beach. The ships were not good at sea due to the flat bottom and were very slow to beached and un-beach because they required setting rear anchors and using spil winches to pull the ship backwards.
I like these ESBs the Navy came out with. However I believe they can benefit from much more powerful engines. A 15 knot top speed would take them forever to where they need to go.
When do we up-arm the USCG cutters? They already need to do ASW (druggie subs), and they will have to deal with drones in the future as the DDG's did recently . . . particularly is they are performing Escort. Cost of arming auxiliaries and up-gunning Coast Guard vessels should be related. A basic Auxiliary Combat System should be defined. Minimally it has to have sensors (air/surface/[subsurface]), a sensor-weapons fusion system (combat management system), a man-machine interface for display/input (command & decision system). The system must be simple, basic, expandable, as cost effective as we can make it, and can be installed on anything moving, or not. 1. Auxiliary Combat System (Standard) a. CMS i. Computer Processor/Workstations by functional area in a network environment 1. AAW Module (abbreviated) 2. ASuW Module (abbreviated) 3. ESM/ECM Module if applicable 4. ASW Module if applicable like an MIUWU TSQ-108 van b. Communications & Datalink Equipment in standard racks and antennas c. Mk12A w/Mode 5/S IFF system if not already present d. Each weapon system requires: i. Deck space (hardware) 1. Mk15 CIWS or equivalent 2. SeaRAM 3. Hellfire/Spike NLOS/JAGM 4. Guns (various) w/guided programmable ammo 5. Expansion nodes for exotic equipment as required ii. Equipment room space iii. Power & Cooling requirement iv. Cable set standard by platform e. Digital infrastructure (CANES compliant): i. COTS Parts ii. Standard Connectors iii. Fiber Optic Cables (Hardened/Guarded & Redundant) I would start with the latest Aegis Open Architecture COTS equipment set for a plug and play configuration. There should be a single and standard Baseline load with modifications kept to those that are platform specific based upon cable lengths, or multiple weapon locations present/needed. Each community/platform group/organization should have technical representatives present. Keep it simple or you own the last “S”. Build a Land Based Test Platform with a standard representative MACK with all sensor antennas present, and test/certify the configuration. I would put the LBTS at a major harbor near a Naval Base and the system double as a training platform. Upgrades should include a sensor integration expansion rack for added EO/IR sensors/designators, and Guided Rocket Launchers that could employ 2.5” or 5” Guided Rockets.
These ships are large and undefended. Without significant additional weapons and sensors they wont last a week in a hot war with China . This whole EABO concept seems suicidal to me.
Im guessing these would be used after a beach front is secured and air superiority is achieved at least in the immediate area. Maybe these are designed for what happens after the land war starts.
I agree that the Navy should order several additional ESBs to increase the capability of the Marine Littoral Regiments. The ESBs can land the Marines on the beaches with the MV-22s and CH-53Js and CH-53Ks. With a significant number of BAES ADLs on the mission deck and containerized launchers on the flight, they could add significant depth to the supply of missiles for defensive and offensive purposes, as well as the capabillity of dozens of HIMARS for launching GMLRS and PrSMs as well as many Rogue Fires launchers for NSMs so the ESBs can be turned into a form of arsenal ships.
USMC 1974-78. In 1976 I was in the group of the first Marines to deploy on the new USS Tarawa (LHA-1). We thought that was like a cruise ship over the LPH's, LPD's, LSD's, and LST's of the day. Now I understand that the LHD's are even larger than they LHA's? One concern that I have is these large "Gators" and the Super Carriers. I know that CVN's are pretty well protected against ASW but not sure about an amphib group. WIth more smaller vessels, you can lose one and not be affected too badly. You lose an LHD to a modern torpedo and that is a huge loss. Same with Carriers. With the F-35 coming into play, would the U.S. not be better off with more smaller carriers? Do something similar to the Brit's. A ski jump instead of a costly catapult system which has a high degree of maintenance? If a Cat breaks down, your launch capability is reduced. The ASW and transport could be handled by a CH-53 or the UH-60. I am still undecided on the Osprey. I think IMHO leaner and meaner is the way to go.
and give them all lots and lots of drones,
all kinds, lots and lots
And that new USMC surveillance boat too.
take a OSV add a single LCAC and have a small LPD..... then Articulated Tug Barge it, slam a causeway on the beach so a EPF can resupply or push a fuel barge to resupply the land but also any passing ships.
I think the Landing Craft Medium is going to be a disaster. The WW2 era Landing Craft Infantry Large (LCI-L) was not well liked and was ditched in the 50s. The problem was that they are flat bottom ships and are difficult to un-beach. The ships were not good at sea due to the flat bottom and were very slow to beached and un-beach because they required setting rear anchors and using spil winches to pull the ship backwards.
I like these ESBs the Navy came out with. However I believe they can benefit from much more powerful engines. A 15 knot top speed would take them forever to where they need to go.
Just "Wing It" type of ships to make it work. Why not? I dig it
When do we up-arm the USCG cutters? They already need to do ASW (druggie subs), and they will have to deal with drones in the future as the DDG's did recently . . . particularly is they are performing Escort.
Cost of arming auxiliaries and up-gunning Coast Guard vessels should be related.
A basic Auxiliary Combat System should be defined. Minimally it has to have sensors (air/surface/[subsurface]), a sensor-weapons fusion system (combat management system), a man-machine interface for display/input (command & decision system). The system must be simple, basic, expandable, as cost effective as we can make it, and can be installed on anything moving, or not.
1. Auxiliary Combat System (Standard)
a. CMS
i. Computer Processor/Workstations by functional area in a network environment
1. AAW Module (abbreviated)
2. ASuW Module (abbreviated)
3. ESM/ECM Module if applicable
4. ASW Module if applicable like an MIUWU TSQ-108 van
b. Communications & Datalink Equipment in standard racks and antennas
c. Mk12A w/Mode 5/S IFF system if not already present
d. Each weapon system requires:
i. Deck space (hardware)
1. Mk15 CIWS or equivalent
2. SeaRAM
3. Hellfire/Spike NLOS/JAGM
4. Guns (various) w/guided programmable ammo
5. Expansion nodes for exotic equipment as required
ii. Equipment room space
iii. Power & Cooling requirement
iv. Cable set standard by platform
e. Digital infrastructure (CANES compliant):
i. COTS Parts
ii. Standard Connectors
iii. Fiber Optic Cables (Hardened/Guarded & Redundant)
I would start with the latest Aegis Open Architecture COTS equipment set for a plug and play configuration. There should be a single and standard Baseline load with modifications kept to those that are platform specific based upon cable lengths, or multiple weapon locations present/needed. Each community/platform group/organization should have technical representatives present. Keep it simple or you own the last “S”.
Build a Land Based Test Platform with a standard representative MACK with all sensor antennas present, and test/certify the configuration. I would put the LBTS at a major harbor near a Naval Base and the system double as a training platform.
Upgrades should include a sensor integration expansion rack for added EO/IR sensors/designators, and Guided Rocket Launchers that could employ 2.5” or 5” Guided Rockets.
That drug sub was not a sub as it could not dive and stay under water. USCG Cutters do not have ASW capability.
@@JeepWrangler1957 Do you think they catch the subs that can submerge?
LCM with 200 troops?
Not viable
These ships are large and undefended. Without significant additional weapons and sensors they wont last a week in a hot war with China .
This whole EABO concept seems suicidal to me.
Im guessing these would be used after a beach front is secured and air superiority is achieved at least in the immediate area. Maybe these are designed for what happens after the land war starts.
The ESD/ESB is too slow. We can do better than the ESD/ESB.