Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USS Bonhomme Richard

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Merkava188
    replied
    I say get the BHR back into service we're going to need every ship we got given the threat posed by Russia and China. Let's not forget that the Enterprise and Forestall sustained the same amount of damage and were returned to active duty.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    First the USS Miami, now this... Not good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Now arson is a possible cause of the fire.

    https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-says.html/amp

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    A little update.

    https://news.usni.org/2020/08/04/nav...nce-of-caution

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Where I'm coming from is that with increasing costs of a Standard CV and it's Air Wing, there now is an afordable middle ground (thanks to new tech) that can be filled by something of the nature of a 'CVL'. In a situation where we may need to deploy the assets to put "boots on the ground" 'over a distance coastline shore', there would be value in a vessel of support that is mostly focused on providing added aerial support assets, in form of Helios/STOL=F-35/UAVs/Etc. The point here being that rather than risk bringing a larger and more expensive Standard Attack/Heavy CV with it's Air Wing of 80-100 larger and heavier aircraft, this standard CV could stand off at say 100-200 miles from "shore"(Operations) while a smaller/lighter/less expensive vessel provides the platform for close-in CAS missions.

    Those CAS missions being:
    1) Local Combat Air Patrol (CAP)
    2) Local/Close Combat Air Support (CAS) = bombardment and attacks supporting troop tactical operations
    3) Local/Close Air Special Support/Services (ASSS) = Mine sweeping, 'commando' insertion, special agent insertion, Recon, other special operations support(SOS), etc.

    I'm not convinced that current designs of LCS are up to the full range of needed rolls.

    Limited numbers of FFGs, DDGs, and CGs are better deployed in support and protection of CV Attack/Battle Groups; when not used for convoy escort/protection purposes.

    I envision a class of about 6-9 vessels in this CVL role; where given usual 'rule of thumb' on deployment 1/3 is in actual deploy, 1/3 is either coming off of or going on-to station/deploy, and another third is either in extended refit~and/or Reserve(training, etc.). With an ultimate force of 9(nine)(or plus = 10~11) vessels, we see about 3(three) at any time at sea and either deployed or involved in training, a further 3(three) that could be hasty called to active duty, and the final third in refit/repair/etc.

    This class of vessel could provide a flight deck capable of supporting about 40-60 'aircraft' (or plus)* while performing;

    1) Amphibious Operations Aerial Support Sercives
    2) Convoy Escort Support Services
    3) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Services
    4) CV Landing and Take-off Training Services
    5) Special Operations Flight Deck Support Services
    6) Misc. ~~~~~

    In short, I can see where using more modern tech resources, about 9 CVLs* and about 9-12 CVs would give the USA/USN a wider range of options and capabilities that now exists with current ship types/mix.

    *(Those CVLs augment and/or replace other LH/LP type vessels in the Amphib Lift/Assault roles. They provide a mix of crewed and un-crewed aircraft of assort types/capabilities).
    the technology enabling LHA/Ds to be used as lightening carriers isn't really all that new, and the concept could have been done with a harrier carrier.
    yeah i agree there might be a time when a CVL option might be better than a CVN for combat operations, but what you described is far from a show the flag mission/operation

    as long as we replace the CGs in an efficient time frame we have plenty of DDGs and CGs to protect the big decks.

    the FFGs can help with fleet escort duties, but i think they'd be better used for independent operations and escorting convoys in time of war, or adding more VLS to SAGs

    the number of 'needed' roles for an LCS returns to a fairly limited number of roles with the return of a legitimate frigate to the US fleet...much of the criticism of the LCS basically boiled down to them not being frigates and thus incapable of filling the role of a frigate, which is a gap the USN allowed to develop for way too long. after all the phase 3 survivability and lethality upgrade for them is intended to basically turn them in to a light frigate with like 4-8 VLS, a laserSEARAM, 8 ASM, deck gun, and secondary guns.
    Last edited by General_Jacke; 11 Aug 20, 10:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    As long as some excited Congress committee does not use it as an excuse to cut down on the number of CVA's I am good with your proposal. I think it would be nice if they were named after old Carriers as well.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post

    just curious why you think we'd be using an amphib for show the flag missions, when that was a mission specifically held in mind for the LCS and now the new FFGs to free up the DDGs and CGs that have primarily doing them....why would we multiply the commitment of ships, and manpower by 5 or 6 times for a show the flag mission in the future, in your opinion?

    i do agree that hopefully they'll be able to learn some lessons to make future amphibs and maybe even future Fords more survivable...something good has to come out of this.
    Where I'm coming from is that with increasing costs of a Standard CV and it's Air Wing, there now is an afordable middle ground (thanks to new tech) that can be filled by something of the nature of a 'CVL'. In a situation where we may need to deploy the assets to put "boots on the ground" 'over a distance coastline shore', there would be value in a vessel of support that is mostly focused on providing added aerial support assets, in form of Helios/STOL=F-35/UAVs/Etc. The point here being that rather than risk bringing a larger and more expensive Standard Attack/Heavy CV with it's Air Wing of 80-100 larger and heavier aircraft, this standard CV could stand off at say 100-200 miles from "shore"(Operations) while a smaller/lighter/less expensive vessel provides the platform for close-in CAS missions.

    Those CAS missions being:
    1) Local Combat Air Patrol (CAP)
    2) Local/Close Combat Air Support (CAS) = bombardment and attacks supporting troop tactical operations
    3) Local/Close Air Special Support/Services (ASSS) = Mine sweeping, 'commando' insertion, special agent insertion, Recon, other special operations support(SOS), etc.

    I'm not convinced that current designs of LCS are up to the full range of needed rolls.

    Limited numbers of FFGs, DDGs, and CGs are better deployed in support and protection of CV Attack/Battle Groups; when not used for convoy escort/protection purposes.

    I envision a class of about 6-9 vessels in this CVL role; where given usual 'rule of thumb' on deployment 1/3 is in actual deploy, 1/3 is either coming off of or going on-to station/deploy, and another third is either in extended refit~and/or Reserve(training, etc.). With an ultimate force of 9(nine)(or plus = 10~11) vessels, we see about 3(three) at any time at sea and either deployed or involved in training, a further 3(three) that could be hasty called to active duty, and the final third in refit/repair/etc.

    This class of vessel could provide a flight deck capable of supporting about 40-60 'aircraft' (or plus)* while performing;

    1) Amphibious Operations Aerial Support Sercives
    2) Convoy Escort Support Services
    3) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Services
    4) CV Landing and Take-off Training Services
    5) Special Operations Flight Deck Support Services
    6) Misc. ~~~~~

    In short, I can see where using more modern tech resources, about 9 CVLs* and about 9-12 CVs would give the USA/USN a wider range of options and capabilities that now exists with current ship types/mix.

    *(Those CVLs augment and/or replace other LH/LP type vessels in the Amphib Lift/Assault roles. They provide a mix of crewed and un-crewed aircraft of assort types/capabilities).

    Leave a comment:


  • General_Jacke
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Looks like an expect-able consequence of combat and effective hits by enemy ordnance.

    IIRC, no ships of this type/classes ~ amphibious with flight deck, have been attacked and damaged in recent decades. There were hints of what to expect during the Falklands War, nearly four decades ago. With advances in weaponry since then, especially cruise missiles and similar projectiles/platforms that could be used against ships of this type, one positive take-away might be some gauge on what to expect in combat situations where the "enemy gets through" and how to redesign and upgrade ships of this sort to better absorb damage and deal with being hit.

    Highly probable that in the future it will be amphib~small "carriers" doing show the flag and intervention operations that will put them on the front line of response/attack from opponents/enemies. Hopefully future designs (and upgrades) might learn from this experience on how to improve on containment and counter, damage control, to fire producing hits. Maybe less aluminum in ships structure?
    just curious why you think we'd be using an amphib for show the flag missions, when that was a mission specifically held in mind for the LCS and now the new FFGs to free up the DDGs and CGs that have primarily doing them....why would we multiply the commitment of ships, and manpower by 5 or 6 times for a show the flag mission in the future, in your opinion?

    i do agree that hopefully they'll be able to learn some lessons to make future amphibs and maybe even future Fords more survivable...something good has to come out of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Looks like an expect-able consequence of combat and effective hits by enemy ordnance.

    IIRC, no ships of this type/classes ~ amphibious with flight deck, have been attacked and damaged in recent decades. There were hints of what to expect during the Falklands War, nearly four decades ago. With advances in weaponry since then, especially cruise missiles and similar projectiles/platforms that could be used against ships of this type, one positive take-away might be some gauge on what to expect in combat situations where the "enemy gets through" and how to redesign and upgrade ships of this sort to better absorb damage and deal with being hit.

    Highly probable that in the future it will be amphib~small "carriers" doing show the flag and intervention operations that will put them on the front line of response/attack from opponents/enemies. Hopefully future designs (and upgrades) might learn from this experience on how to improve on containment and counter, damage control, to fire producing hits. Maybe less aluminum in ships structure?

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    This looks real bad.

    d59f-ixkvvue2367163.jpg4a48-ixkvvue2367395.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    It’s salvageable, but it’s age and tight port schedules for the rest of the navy will dictate the outcome I feel.
    Personally I’d be interested to invest it as a one off light carrier in order to become a operational test bed for emerging technologies in UAVs and remote helicopters... the US navy has at least 50 years of experience in the later.
    This has some merit given the trend in UAV and F-35 sort of air resources. What is needed is a mid-point level vessel with flight deck that can provide air support = CAP, CAS, RECON, Troop lift, and other support to over the shore operations or other "Power Projection" in coastal and close-in waters where one might not want to risk the larger CVs ~ which could stand-off 100-200 miles off shore to support.

    While multi-role vessels like LHDs have value and use in something of Marine Expedition use upon foreign shores; A middle-level combat flight deck vessel focused mostly on the local air support roles and needs would seem a desired asset and force multiplier. More modern tech with it's automation and advanced equipment reducing the size ship crew load makes such more competitive than in decades past. Also spares the need, use, and risk of the larger CVs when such are becoming few, at more danger of harm, and more expensive to operate.

    This should lead to more of the flight deck and hanger features and a smaller and limited interior dock/deck component.

    If BH's hull remains sound, then worth consideration of using as a base for something newer and more tailored to expected mid-21st century amphibious needs.
    Last edited by G David Bock; 28 Jul 20, 19:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    It would be more useful than the Zumwalts...not that that's saying much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    It’s salvageable, but it’s age and tight port schedules for the rest of the navy will dictate the outcome I feel.
    Personally I’d be interested to invest it as a one off light carrier in order to become a operational test bed for emerging technologies in UAVs and remote helicopters... the US navy has at least 50 years of experience in the later.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    I agree. Sounds like we're just going to be short a jeep carrier.....period.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    It sounds like it's a write-off, but what do I know...

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X