Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[Josh_TN]

Has anyone ever tried backing an LST onto a beach backwards before? I presume whatever propulsion pods are used are reasonably far forward under the keel to prevent fouling in shallow water?

There was a 1948 BuShips design for a 20-knot LST which was intended to do exactly that. The propellers were a the bow, and judging by the sketch, the rudders look retractable.

The ships that the USN is proposing exist as commercial ferries. What they are shooting for is hardly technically challenging. It's the base concept that seems unworkable. Stern ferries* are a proven concept in terms of just delivering equipment in an uncontested environment.

*This phrase may be redundant....

 

[Firefinder]

Has anyone ever tried backing an LST onto a beach backwards before? I presume whatever propulsion pods are used are reasonably far forward under the keel to prevent fouling in shallow water?

There was a 1948 BuShips design for a 20-knot LST which was intended to do exactly that. The propellers were a the bow, and judging by the sketch, the rudders look retractable.

The ships that the USN is proposing exist as commercial ferries. What they are shooting for is hardly technically challenging. It's the base concept that seems unworkable. Stern ferries* are a proven concept in terms of just delivering equipment in an uncontested environment.

*This phrase may be redundant....

The big problem I see is that those Ferrys general unload on PRE-PREPARED landing ramps.

Not on the rough beaches as it was.

The general concept is sound, no doubt on that.

The question is can this thing ground itself without breaking something importantly expansive.

 

[Josh_TN]

"Ferry" was perhaps the wrong word. There are videos of this exact ship type landing on beaches; they are specifically made for that purpose. But in civilian use they generally aren't referred to as landing ships.

 

[TomS]

"Ferry" was perhaps the wrong word. There are videos of this exact ship type landing on beaches; they are specifically made for that purpose. But in civilian use they generally aren't referred to as landing ships.

Those are pretty much exactly the ships that the Marines are interested in -- the stern landing vessel design that caught their eye is this one from Sea Transport, which seems to be a scaled up version of the stern-first landing craft that I see videos of.

Military Vessels | Naval Architects, Consultants & Surveyors

SEATRANSPORT provides military vessel designs for naval operations worldwide. SEATRANSPORT vessels operate in the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Thai Navy and the Indian Navy.

www.seatransport.com

 

[TomS]

Interestingly, I came across Damen's series of landing ships. More traditional LST configuration, but the LST 100 is very similar in capability. Be interesting to compare costs.

LST 100 - Landing Ship Transport | Damen

Damen Landing Ship Transport 100 provides access and support to shallow and small harbours and provides military clients with amphibious capability.

products.damen.com

 

[bobbymike]

CNO: Hypersonic Weapons at Sea to Premiere on Zumwalt Destroyers in 2025 - USNI News

The Navy is set to debut its first at-sea hypersonic missiles aboard one of the service’s three Zumwalt-class destroyers in four years, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said on Tuesday. Rather than have the Navy’s first weapons capable of traveling Mach 5 of faster fire from...

news.usni.org

 

[bring_it_on]

Let's see if the FY-22 budget includes these modifications. Difficult to see how they can get to an operational capability by 2025 if they don't start work in FY-22. Given the larger Virginia SSN fleet, it would have made sense to speed up that integration first than just 3 surface ships but at least they appear to be making progress.

 

[Josh_TN]

That seems so pointless.

 

[Firefinder]

Let's see if the FY-22 budget includes these modifications. Difficult to see how they can get to an operational capability by 2025 if they don't start work in FY-22. Given the larger Virginia SSN fleet, it would have made sense to speed up that integration first than just 3 surface ships but at least they appear to be making progress.

That seems so pointless.

I have a feeling that the Navy sees the Zumwalts as kinda...

Epandable in a way.

Say Hypersonic missile tests goes wrong amazingly and damage the ship. Which is not unlikely.

Not that bad since the Zumwalts are unlikely to be out on the line as it was like a Burke, Tico, or even a Virginia will outside of WAR.

Add in the fact that it all around easier, and cheaper, to make a surface launch missile to work then sub-surface you can start to see the logic. Plus it goes how it usually done, surface version of the weapons first then subsurface next. Since we have 3 ships that basically doing nothing well why use them for dangerous tests so we can keep the workhorse ships working.

Also the Navy REALLY WANTS the Zumwalts, either as is with SPY6 added or a waterdown version as a proper more then 3 ship class. So I can see how this can be use as a Springboard to cut the red tape and get them being built again.

Sure they will not be ready to start building til 2025 but that is far better then starting in 2030 that you have to deal with on a brand new design...

 

[Josh_TN]

I feel like it’s pointless to spend money on those three ships and equally pointless to mount hypersonics on an escort vessel when the *minimum* range is probably measured in hundreds of miles. You can throw that oversized launch tube on an auxiliary rather than waste time and money gutting a Zummy.

 

[Moose]

Let's see if the FY-22 budget includes these modifications. Difficult to see how they can get to an operational capability by 2025 if they don't start work in FY-22. Given the larger Virginia SSN fleet, it would have made sense to speed up that integration first than just 3 surface ships but at least they appear to be making progress.

The article indicates in the direction of FY22 funding, we just gotta see. As to why the Zs:

1. Congress mandated that the Navy look at arming the Zs with hypersonics.
2. Using the Zs to help test and develop systems for the next Combatant class is smart. Some may be of the opinion that such weapons are wasted on future Combatants, but the Navy and Legislature are not.
3. Sub integration is not the same as surface ship integration, even if the VPT serves as the progenitor of the new large surface tubes. Whatever speed the MACs for the subs roll out, the skimmers will need their own program.
4. Demands on the sub force are very high, cutting a boat or boats out to do the first round of hypersonic testing is more of a resource bite than using the currently-under-utilized Zs.
5. Depending on thee scope and quality of this refit, the DDG-1000 class could come out as quite useful ships indeed.

 

[bring_it_on]

I agree with some of this. We also don't seem to have fully committed to buying 3 attack submarines a year which would mean that the fleet recovery for SSN's would take quite a while, so adding yet another weapon type, mission, and taking a portion of the fleet away for testing or retrofit doesn't seem very smart. If the 3 Z's are modified you can have at least one deployed at all times until the LSC becomes ready in the mid 2030's.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

CNO: Hypersonic Weapons at Sea to Premiere on Zumwalt Destroyers in 2025 - USNI News

The Navy is set to debut its first at-sea hypersonic missiles aboard one of the service’s three Zumwalt-class destroyers in four years, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said on Tuesday. Rather than have the Navy’s first weapons capable of traveling Mach 5 of faster fire from...

news.usni.org

According to that article, it seems that adapting the MACs (Multiple All-up-round Canisters) for LRHW(Long Range Hypersonic Weapon) is based upon work already for the Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM). It's interesting to see that the work done for Prompt Global Strike might bear fruit after all.

 

[TomS]

I feel like it’s pointless to spend money on those three ships and equally pointless to mount hypersonics on an escort vessel when the *minimum* range is probably measured in hundreds of miles. You can throw that oversized launch tube on an auxiliary rather than waste time and money gutting a Zummy.

Treating the Zumwalt's as "escort vessels" is misleading, IMO. They could be escorts, swapped in for DDG-51s or some such. But that would be losing a lot of their potential (and not matching the Burkes for area air and missile defense) . The idea behind making them hypersonic strike platforms would be to take them out of being over-priced and underperforming escorts to being independently operating semi-capital ships -- something more akin to a strike cruiser, if you will. Putting expensive and low-density weapons like strategic hypersonic strike missiles on an auxiliary is risky. Such a platform becomes a potential high-value target -- it either needs to be able to self-defend, or it needs an escort itself. The Zs are already capable of useful self-defense and independent operations.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I feel like it’s pointless to spend money on those three ships and equally pointless to mount hypersonics on an escort vessel when the *minimum* range is probably measured in hundreds of miles. You can throw that oversized launch tube on an auxiliary rather than waste time and money gutting a Zummy.

Treating the Zumwalt's as "escort vessels" is misleading, IMO. They could be escorts, swapped in for DDG-51s or some such. But that would be losing a lot of their potential (and not matching the Burkes for area air and missile defense) . The idea behind making them hypersonic strike platforms would be to take them out of being over-priced and underperforming escorts to being independently operating semi-capital ships -- something more akin to a strike cruiser, if you will. Putting expensive and low-density weapons like strategic hypersonic strike missiles on an auxiliary is risky. Such a platform becomes a potential high-value target -- it either needs to be able to self-defend, or it needs an escort itself. The Zs are already capable of useful self-defense and independent operations.

A CG(X) variant with VLS tubes for for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor could probably have been adapted to perform this role.

The Zumwalts are probably the next best thing, given that they are the only survivors of the SC-21 program.

 

[bobbymike]

Gilday: Unmanned Systems, Hypersonic and Laser Weapons Will Maximize Navy’s Range and Security in the Pacific - Seapower

Gilday: Unmanned Systems, Hypersonic and Laser Weapons Will Maximize Navy’s Range and Security in the Pacific Front Page

seapowermagazine.org

 

[aonestudio]

Japan's MoD New Aegis-Equipped Missile Defense Ships May Be Multihulls - Naval News

Japan's Ministry of Defense (MoD) is planning a multihull as one of the proposed designs for the Aegis system equipped ship.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Four Ways a China-U.S. War at Sea Could Play Out

Taiwan is the most likely flashpoint, but combat could stretch out as far as the Indian Ocean.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[jsport]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Huntington Ingalls bullish on unmanned growth

America’s largest military shipbuilder, Huntington Ingalls Industries, is known for for aircraft carriers and big deck amphibious ships, but its corporate strategy is sighted in on much smaller platforms.

www.defensenews.com

 

[jsport]

The Military's New Weapon Against China and Russia: the Coast Guard?

To combat increasing threats from China and Russia, the Coast Guard will operate far from America's coasts in a big change in strategy.

www.19fortyfive.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

How Will Your Division Replace its Equipment?

How many ships can a US Army division afford to lose when crossing the Pacific? You know, the ships that will carry their equipment and muni...

cdrsalamander.blogspot.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Reed prioritizing China deterrence fund, comms and unmanned ships

Securing Pacific Deterrence Initiative funding to deter China militarily will “remain a priority” of Senate Armed Sources Committee Chair Jack Reed for the upcoming defense policy bill, the panel’s chairman said Tuesday.

www.defensenews.com

 

[DWG]

Hypersonic Weapons at Sea to Premiere on Zumwalt-class Destroyers in 2025 - Naval News

The U.S. Navy is set to debut its first at-sea hypersonic missiles aboard one of the service’s three Zumwalt-class destroyers in four years, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said on 27 April 2021.

www.navalnews.com

It looks like the first USN deployment of hypersonics has shifted from either the Ohio SSGNs or their Virginia Block 5 successors to the Zumwalts, with the possibility that one of the 155mm turrets will be replaced with one or two Multiple All-up-round Canisters - which hold 7 Tomahawks on the Ohio SSGNs - modified to hold a TBD number of boosters for the Common Boost Glide Vehicle.

ETA the Navy Times version, which suggests three missiles per payload module.

What should become of the Zumwalt class? The US Navy has some big ideas.

The Navy is looking at the possibility of designing a new hypersonic missile launcher to install as a payload module on its three stealth destroyers.

www.navytimes.com

 

[Josh_TN]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

 

[bobbymike]

Geurts: Navy Needs Large-Scale Innovation to Deter Adversaries - USNI News

The Navy needs to pursue large-scale innovation and experimentation across the service to deter U.S. adversaries, according to the department’s number-two civilian. James Geurts, who is currently performing the duties of the undersecretary of the Navy and previously was the service’s acquisition...

news.usni.org

 

[sferrin]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

 

[Josh_TN]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

 

[jsport]

Geurts: Navy Needs Large-Scale Innovation to Deter Adversaries - USNI News

The Navy needs to pursue large-scale innovation and experimentation across the service to deter U.S. adversaries, according to the department’s number-two civilian. James Geurts, who is currently performing the duties of the undersecretary of the Navy and previously was the service’s acquisition...

news.usni.org

1. Layers of close unmanned attritiable minis
2. Minimum manned/optionally manned smalls
3. Large San Antonio size LSCombatant at 1000miles out, unless supporting air/land raids

*most current ships kept out of major fights in the Pac unless absolutely needed as they are barnacle bait against which will be overwhelming PLAN firepower.

 

[sferrin]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

 

[TomS]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

It looks like this is going to be more involved than that. The missiles being discussed are not going to fit in the Mk 57, which is why the discussion is about removing the AGS turrets and magazines and replacing with something very much like the SSGN MACs.

Now, I think that's worthwhile, because it's better than any other option for putting those missiles on surface ships in a survivable way (and the sub force is already sufficiently tasked even before the SSGNs time out in a few years). But it's not going to be super cheap either.

 

[DWG]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

It's not just dropping a new missile in the Zumwalt's oversized VLS. The Common Boost Glide Vehicle needs something bigger still, so they need to pull one of the (useless) 155mm AGS turrets and its ammo-handling system and replace it with a variant of the Multiple All Up Round Canister rejigged to just three launch tubes.

Not cheap, but not necessarily massively expensive and they may win back much of the cost in cheaper testing than using an Ohio SSGN or a Virginia Block V.

 

[sferrin]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

It looks like this is going to be more involved than that. The missiles being discussed are not going to fit in the Mk 57, which is why the discussion is about removing the AGS turrets and magazines and replacing with something very much like the SSGN MACs.

Now, I think that's worthwhile, because it's better than any other option for putting those missiles on surface ships in a survivable way (and the sub force is already sufficiently tasked even before the SSGNs time out in a few years). But it's not going to be super cheap either.

If only.

 

[jsport]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

It looks like this is going to be more involved than that. The missiles being discussed are not going to fit in the Mk 57, which is why the discussion is about removing the AGS turrets and magazines and replacing with something very much like the SSGN MACs.

Now, I think that's worthwhile, because it's better than any other option for putting those missiles on surface ships in a survivable way (and the sub force is already sufficiently tasked even before the SSGNs time out in a few years). But it's not going to be super cheap either.

View attachment 657632

If only.

"future payload" may be the lower end VLS demand of the future...thus a Larger Large Surface Combatant (LSC). Future survival requires serious standoff and therefore larger rocket engines, especially if hypersonic/hypersonic defense. Smaller ships will simply not carry enough to survive.

A Marshal Island during WWII was bombarded for 2 mths before the Marines hit the shore.. Future bombardments my require much more..... Where are those types of effects going to come from?

 

[Firefinder]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

It looks like this is going to be more involved than that. The missiles being discussed are not going to fit in the Mk 57, which is why the discussion is about removing the AGS turrets and magazines and replacing with something very much like the SSGN MACs.

Now, I think that's worthwhile, because it's better than any other option for putting those missiles on surface ships in a survivable way (and the sub force is already sufficiently tasked even before the SSGNs time out in a few years). But it's not going to be super cheap either.

View attachment 657632

If only.

"future payload" may be the lower end VLS demand of the future...thus a Larger Large Surface Combatant (LSC). Future survival requires serious standoff and therefore larger rocket engines, especially if hypersonic/hypersonic defense. Smaller ships will simply not carry enough to survive.

A Marshal Island during WWII was bombarded for 2 mths before the Marines hit the shore.. Future bombardments my require much more..... Where are those types of effects going to come from?

To be fair the ww2 bombardments were very much a, to whom it may concern, deal. With most of the projectiles fire from the battleships outright not hitting anything but empty jungles doing no useful effects.

Modern weapons even without GPS is a, with your particular name on it, deal. A modern weapon has a better then 90 percent chance of ruining you day.

Basically Quality replacing Quantity.

And the US prefers to have both when it cans, see the PGM spamming once it was shown how much better a F16 with four JDAMs was better then a fully loaded B52. Then we made the B52 able to carry all JDAMS to just be able to ERASE cities. I believe just a handful of planes out right delete over half of an Iraq city (want to say Mosul) using nothing but JDAMS. A Trick that took over 50 fifty Strategic bombers to do in WW2.

I can see the Hypersonics taking out the AA emplacements and radars before the TOMAHAWK SPAMMING happens, which then be followed up by Air Strikes and the landing for the encore.

Modern Warfare allows you to do FAR more with far less then war fifty years ago.

 

[jsport]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

It looks like this is going to be more involved than that. The missiles being discussed are not going to fit in the Mk 57, which is why the discussion is about removing the AGS turrets and magazines and replacing with something very much like the SSGN MACs.

Now, I think that's worthwhile, because it's better than any other option for putting those missiles on surface ships in a survivable way (and the sub force is already sufficiently tasked even before the SSGNs time out in a few years). But it's not going to be super cheap either.

View attachment 657632

If only.

"future payload" may be the lower end VLS demand of the future...thus a Larger Large Surface Combatant (LSC). Future survival requires serious standoff and therefore larger rocket engines, especially if hypersonic/hypersonic defense. Smaller ships will simply not carry enough to survive.

A Marshal Island during WWII was bombarded for 2 mths before the Marines hit the shore.. Future bombardments my require much more..... Where are those types of effects going to come from?

To be fair the ww2 bombardments were very much a, to whom it may concern, deal. With most of the projectiles fire from the battleships outright not hitting anything but empty jungles doing no useful effects.

Modern weapons even without GPS is a, with your particular name on it, deal. A modern weapon has a better then 90 percent chance of ruining you day.

Basically Quality replacing Quantity.

And the US prefers to have both when it cans, see the PGM spamming once it was shown how much better a F16 with four JDAMs was better then a fully loaded B52. Then we made the B52 able to carry all JDAMS to just be able to ERASE cities. I believe just a handful of planes out right delete over half of an Iraq city (want to say Mosul) using nothing but JDAMS. A Trick that took over 50 fifty Strategic bombers to do in WW2.

I can see the Hypersonics taking out the AA emplacements and radars before the TOMAHAWK SPAMMING happens, which then be followed up by Air Strikes and the landing for the encore.

Modern Warfare allows you to do FAR more with far less then war fifty years ago.

agreed, however the cost of these munitions renders their magazines potentially too shallow. GPS guided may have too become even cheap for these magazines to meet the demand. Large long and Dug in deep are going to require large and long bombardments precise or not.

 

[Firefinder]

Seems like a waste of effort to me, but there it is.

Why?

I don’t think it is a good use of those hulls and assume it will be a very expensive modification.

Dropping a missile into a VLS is hardly going to break the bank. And what would be a better use of them, if not to take advantage of their larger cells?

It looks like this is going to be more involved than that. The missiles being discussed are not going to fit in the Mk 57, which is why the discussion is about removing the AGS turrets and magazines and replacing with something very much like the SSGN MACs.

Now, I think that's worthwhile, because it's better than any other option for putting those missiles on surface ships in a survivable way (and the sub force is already sufficiently tasked even before the SSGNs time out in a few years). But it's not going to be super cheap either.

View attachment 657632

If only.

"future payload" may be the lower end VLS demand of the future...thus a Larger Large Surface Combatant (LSC). Future survival requires serious standoff and therefore larger rocket engines, especially if hypersonic/hypersonic defense. Smaller ships will simply not carry enough to survive.

A Marshal Island during WWII was bombarded for 2 mths before the Marines hit the shore.. Future bombardments my require much more..... Where are those types of effects going to come from?

To be fair the ww2 bombardments were very much a, to whom it may concern, deal. With most of the projectiles fire from the battleships outright not hitting anything but empty jungles doing no useful effects.

Modern weapons even without GPS is a, with your particular name on it, deal. A modern weapon has a better then 90 percent chance of ruining you day.

Basically Quality replacing Quantity.

And the US prefers to have both when it cans, see the PGM spamming once it was shown how much better a F16 with four JDAMs was better then a fully loaded B52. Then we made the B52 able to carry all JDAMS to just be able to ERASE cities. I believe just a handful of planes out right delete over half of an Iraq city (want to say Mosul) using nothing but JDAMS. A Trick that took over 50 fifty Strategic bombers to do in WW2.

I can see the Hypersonics taking out the AA emplacements and radars before the TOMAHAWK SPAMMING happens, which then be followed up by Air Strikes and the landing for the encore.

Modern Warfare allows you to do FAR more with far less then war fifty years ago.

agreed, however the cost of these munitions renders their magazines potentially too shallow. GPS guided may have too become even cheap for these magazines to meet the demand. Large long and Dug in deep are going to require large and long bombardments precise or not.

Hmm not really if the last oh...

30 years of war have proven anything.

In going into Iraq both times we took out bunkers ment to protect again nukes and the like with single hits from a Bunker Buster. Then in Afghanist we had to develop a few new weapons to take out the cave systems there.

All of those weapons are very cheap and easy to make so the magizine depth is basically only an issue if you are either out of ammo in total or just have too many weapons types have alot of each. Like have 50 different types of weapons but only have space for 200 in total, you going have to budget on what you need and think you need.

The Hypersonics only need to take out out the SAM Radars, without those it doesn't matter how good the system is, those missiles will become multimillion dollar lawn ornaments and easy targets for the planes.

Then you have the Small Diameter bombs which are cheaper then some dumb bombs and can take out most bunkers. ALso a F35 can carry 8 while stealthed up. That will remove basically most vehicles and structures extremely well.

It is fucking TERRIFING how far we have come in killing each other.

The biggest issue is on the Marines taking the island honestly.

With out organic armor, hell just big gun support, they are going to have a rough time taking on what the bombs, shelling and missiles missed or just cant hit. I honestly expect them to buy that light tank the Army is looking at if Army does finally get one to full that role.

 

[jsport]

A STOVL CGV with below deck hangar could accommodate 22 a/c with the same 192 VLS cells on a 25,000 ton displacement. Some info can be found in an older issue of Norman Polmar's Ships and Aircraft .

A guess at a possible air group might be 10 SV-22 Ospreys, 8 F-35Bs, three AEW H-60s or AEW EV-22s and an HV-22 for plane guard/utility duties depending on whether or not you emphasize ASW patrol or fighter attack F-35s so some mixing and matching is possible.

Such a ship might provide additional air defense and organic air cover for a SAG or URG or perhaps you could have it operate independently. It could also provide more fighter attack planes, using the F-35B, for air cover of an ARG or provide air cover for an escorted convoy. I don't see it operating with a CSG unless you need some extra fighters but the F-35B only has a 450nmi radius compared to the 620 radius of the carrier based F-35C CTOL fighter attack version.

 

[jsport]

Raw Numbers or 'Capability': What Should the U.S. Navy Focus On?

The likeliest victor at sea is the combatant able to mass the most ordnance at the scene of action when battle occurs.

www.19fortyfive.com

 

[GruntFox]

Raw numbers, I'm afraid. The current fleet is literally falling apart because they are not having the RnR and refit time they need. You'll need something along the lines of a 400+ fleet at the minimum for the commitments... but Congress isn't going to be giving the money.