What is the right balance of Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault ships?

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:41:32 -0400

They have different missions and capabilities, but they are the two largest and most formidable elements of the US Navy. Should there be an equal number of each or some other balance?

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/us-navy-builds-largest-ever-amphibious-assault-ship-for-f-35-fighters/

US Navy Builds Largest-Ever Amphibious Assault Ship for F-35 Fighters

The America-class will be the size of other countries' aircraft carriers.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 30 at 2015 4:00 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:00:25 -0400

How many ARGs do we have per Carrier Group? Or in reality, how many active MEUs do we want?

If I recall correctly we have 25 Infantry Battalions supporting 7 MEUs on a rotating schedule, which means that we can never really use more than 4~ ARGs (active) at a time. Assume there will be a few drydocked, so that should "create" the math.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jul 30 at 2015 4:33 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:33:05 -0400

The problem with this question is this: at what point do you stop calling it an amphib and start calling it a carrier. An amphibious assault ship implies that the ship can be close enough to the shore to unleash the Marines without them being sitting ducks in the water for an extended period of time. Bigger ships are going to have a deeper draft. Deeper draft means staying further from the shore. Further from the shore means those Marines are a target for a longer period of time.
That being said, I think that there should be a two to one ratio of amphibs to carriers. If I was the leader of a nation, I would not want the United States to park a carrier, and two amphibs off my coast. That would be magnified by the carrier battle group. That would be the only thing worse would be seeing an entire carrier battle group parked off the coast.
I think that having two amphibs that can (as stated above) move close to the coast and discharge Marines almost on top of the beach head while aircraft from the carrier and two amphibs provide close air support would be a better idea than having an over abundance of air power with fewer boots on the ground. That is really the key. It is not really about Amphibious Assault Ships versus Carriers, it is really how much air power can we project while still having an effective efficient fighting force on the ground.
In a perfect world, you would have an equal number of each with the Carrier Air Wings "softening up" the landing site and then transitioning to Close Air Support while the Amphibs deploy the marines, provide Cobra Air Support and MEDEVAC of the wounded. How would you feel if you were the opposition force? You have your forces dug in, just waiting for juicy Marines to show up so you can kill Americans. Then it all turns to shit when Hornets and lightning and cobras oh my start dumping ordinance on your positions like you insulted their mothers. Then there is a break in the bombardment. You peak your head up only to find out that the beach head is infested with U.S. Marines. As you start get ready to fire and wipe out some Marines, those damned gunship pop up again. Now you have to keep your head down or have it removed. All because two carriers and two amphibs working in harmony just delivered a giant pain in the ass to your door step.
We don't live in a perfect world so tactics need to replace numbers. Fortunately we have the best trained fighter pilots in the world. So rule one establish Air Superiority this is done using the USAF and the USN. Rule two establish a landing zone. This is where the Navy and Marines step it up. This is where the two amphibious assault ships to one carrier comes in to play. Strike aircraft from the carrier soften it up, Marines land on the beach. Once you have that established, you start moving inland where you meet up with the Army guys who drove in from a neighboring country, or were dropped in behind the enemy. But that is another story for another posting.

So after blowing it up, My final answer is in a perfect world a one to one ratio would be best. In the real world two Amphibious Assault Ships for every one carrier.

Response by PO1 Scott Cottrell made Jul 30 at 2015 4:45 PM

PO1 Scott Cottrell — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:45:11 -0400

So the new LHA's are bigger than LHD's. Amphibious Ready Groups have not near the fire power of a Carrier Battle group, I was always on Amphib's, VTC-11 (cruises on LHA-3, Gulf war on LHA-1 and LPH-11) and Plank owner on LHD-4. After my last cruise on Boxer LHD-4 (1997), they finally stated that they would be escorted by a DDG on cruises. Prior to that the aircraft from the LHA or LHD were the only real offensive weapons the ARG had.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 31 at 2015 1:21 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:21:58 -0400

The right balance will change with the threat as well as what you are trying to accomplish in terms of your national objectives. Our military is not going to fight another WWII style engagement any time in the near future. Our greatest economic threat is China and Iran is pretty much the entire world's greatest security threat.

With China developing its blue water capabilities, I see greater need of ships that can interdict China in the Pacific. So in that theater, I don't see as much need for Amphibs as I do in the littoral regions around the Middle East and Africa, where we aren't going to run into as many blue water Navy combat vessels.

-------------------------------------------

As an aside, IF we engage Iran, we can expect the retaliation to hit here at home. Iran will arm terrorists and pay them to attack us. It's what they do in Israel, and it's pretty much their SOP. It may be a Nuke that they smuggle in, OR it could simply be a dirty bomb that will dirty up one of our cities and prevent us from using it for the next 10,000 years. They will of course deny involvement, but you know they are behind it. I really don't know what we are going to do about the Iranians. They want to erase Israel and even as we were negotiating peace with them, they were busy chanting "Death to America."

I would like to think that the Iranians aren't that stupid, but then again, they blame us for the sanctions, they are laughing at us over the deal Obama made with them, and they truly would be happy to see America in flames. I believe that Iran's leadership is crazy enough and WILL use nukes, either directly or by proxy (more than likely by proxy) at some point in the future. Their leadership wants to engage the West in war, and they believe that Jin (angels) will ride on top their nuclear missiles and guide their warheads down on our cities.

Just when we had Iran at their knees with the sanctions, Obama gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing in return. They have already gone back on some of their promises and are denying inspectors from the U.S. and Canada. I trust when we vote next year that you will remember WHO traded a deserter for several high level Taliban operatives, WHO got SEAL Team 6 killed, WHO allowed Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate DHS, WHO got our Ambassador killed at Benghazi AND lied about it, and WHO negotiated this GREAT DEAL with the Iranians and paid them BILLIONS which they ARE using to arm themselves with. Iran just negotiated with Russia to buy 100 tanker planes. This gives them the ability to attack Israel, which depends on our tankers to refuel them. With this Administration, our Ally Israel can not count on us to be there for them. We just threw them under the bus.

Next election, remember these things when you go to vote.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 31 at 2015 2:36 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:36:10 -0400

My question is with the imperialism of China with the South China Sea, the Russian aggression in the Ukraine, and the wars in the ME, is the Navy able to project enough power in the hot spots?

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Jul 31 at 2015 6:34 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:34:39 -0400

Simple... Ask the Marines how many MEF's they need. Take THAT number and add two more for refit / shipyard.

As for carriers... when we can keep 8 at sea with 180 day or less deployments, THEN we have enough. Where'd I get 8? Two in waters west of the Horn of Africa, one in the Med, one in the Indian Ocean, one in the Atlantic and three in the Pacific.

Oh, yeah. Bring back the nuke cruisers, too. Two per carrier. Whole deal can't cost more than $100 billion! Chump change! (Ask the USAF how much THEY need to update their nukes...)

And an AC Cobra replica for all E-5's and above. Yeah. That's the ticket... Make mine a 427. Blue with white stripes...

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Jul 31 at 2015 9:57 PM

Sgt Ken Prescott — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:57:55 -0400

More of both than we currrently have, for starters.

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Jul 31 at 2015 10:07 PM

Sgt Ken Prescott — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:07:43 -0400

I'd start with a baseline of 13 carriers, and seriously consider ramping up to 15 by 2025, and 20 by 2035. This is a pretty modest plus-up (6 in the coming decade, tapering down to 5 in the next). Basically, we need to build enough carriers to replace hulls that will be hitting retirement in the coming decade PLUS enough to meet the 15-hull target, and then go to 1 carrier every other year. Build them for a 40-year service life, that means every other year we authorize and lay down another carrier.

Why so many? Because I really think that modern land-based TACAIR (operating from fixed land bases in-theater) is as dead as the leisure suit; that is an inevitable consequence of cheap PGMs. One large aircraft loaded with 160 SDBs can hit every aimpoint worth hitting on an airbase. Think on that a moment. What used to require a nuclear weapon to achieve (total destruction of military capability at a major airbase) can now be done with 40 tons of PGMs.

We're going to need TACAIR in theater, but the bases are going to have to be mobile--i.e., "carrier-based TACAIR" will be from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Land-based air is going to be strategic bombers, based in CONUS, and under a VERY robust aerospace defensive shield.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 2 at 2015 2:49 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 02:49:51 -0400

We could have all the carriers and amphibs in the world, but where will we get the Sailors to man them?

Oh, I know! Pull this old Squid (me) out of moth balls! :)