An 800-ship Navy for the 1980s Maritime Strategy

[Yellow Palace]

I mentioned in this thread two and a half years ago (how time flies!) that the US Joint Chiefs really wanted an 800-Ship Navy in the 1980s, and that the 600-Ship Navy was a politically-achievable goal to turn around the declining trend of the 1970s.

Recent discussion around the proposed 'battleships' for the US Navy, and the likely number of such very large ships designed around command facilities, offensive armament, and powerful air defences put me in mind of the discussions around Strike Cruisers, Surface Action Groups, and the need to operate inside Soviet anti-access/area denial bubbles in the Barents Sea and northwest Pacific.

It's not unreasonable to take the 600-Ship Navy apart, understand how it was put together, and then use that to make a guess at the 'real' requirement behind the 800-Ship Navy.

One of the key points I highlighted in the above-linked thread was that the Joint Chiefs really wanted 22 carriers and 7 Marine Amphibious Forces to cover all contingencies, but that a battleship-centred surface action group could substitute for a carrier in lesser theatres of conflict.

First, pulling it all apart. The 600-Ship Navy was built around a combatant force of:

• 15 carrier battle groups, each with one CV(N), two CG(N), two DDG-51, two DD-963, and an AOE. In one group, an additional DDG-51 would substitute for a CG.
• 4 surface action groups, each with one CG and three DDG-51
• 10 underway replenishment groups, with three AOs, 1.5 AEs, and one AFS, escorted by one DDG-51 and three FFG-7.
• 7 convoy escort groups, each comprising one DD-963 and nine FFG-7s
• 4 amphibious task groups, each with 3 aviation ships (LPH/LHA/LHD), three LPDs, and a complex mix of LSDs and LSTs dictated by the fact that there were only 20 LSTs. These were escorted by two DDG-51s, one of the DDG-993s, and two FFG-7s
• Two MAF command elements afloat in an LCC escorted by a DDG-51, along with a smattering of other amphibious assets amounting to another battalion's lift for the nominal division.
• 100 fleet submarines
• A random assortment of 100 or so minor war vessels and non-combatant support ships

---

Building all of this back up for the 'dream' fleet, my supposition is that it would look something like this:

16 Carrier battle groups.

This is dictated by industrial considerations, which really limit the US to a CVN every three years, and therefore a force of 16 ships with a life of 50 years. Historically, the 'desired' strength of a carrier's escort had been two cruisers, four fleet escorts (DLGs), and four destroyers. In this scenario, with the goal to operate in strength up-threat, I imagine that the 'cruiser' is replaced by something I'm calling a Capital Surface Warship. For reasons I'll come on to, this thing wants to be a powerful air defence ship and have significant strike capability. The 'frigate' niche will be filled by the remaining CGNs, the CG-47s, and such additional DDG-51s as are needed to bring the total force up to size. Then we need an ASW-specialist unit, which I imagine will look a lot like the DDG(Y) discussed in this thread.

6 Surface Action Groups

Composition of these is probably broadly similar to the OTL groups. There obviously aren't enough battleships to go around, but we can centre four of them around them in the first place, and maybe a couple more around recommissioned DES MOINES class cruisers if we really have to. And it's the ability to be a powerful centre to a SAG which partly defines the capabilities of a Capital Surface Warship. It might be envisaged as a Strike Cruiser, or a BBG(X), if you like. It's certainly something that can pull up alongside a KIROV and not be thought the inferior partner. Otherwise, add three DDG(Y)s, which were envisaged as suitable for task group work.

7 Amphibious Task Groups and 3 Amphibious Task Force H.Q.s
This gets a bit handwavey, but the OTL '1 MAF + 1 MAB' force - i.e. 4 MAB plus 1 MAF HQ - force supported a 4 MAF Marine Corps. Here, we need a 7 MAF Marine Corps, so I assume lift for 7 MAF plus 3 MAF HQ given the increased force size. Composition here is broadly as the 600-Ship Navy plan, with DDG(Y)s making up the numbers as there aren't enough DDG-993s to go around.

12 Underway Replenishment Groups, 8 Convoy Escort Groups, 116 submarines, and ancillary support vessels

Quantities of these are obtained by scaling up the numbers from the 600-Ship Navy plan. Composition doesn't really change apart from a 16% (i.e. the step from 22 to 19) increase.

Putting it all together, the top line is then:

• 355 combatants
  • 16 CV/CVN
  • 38 Capital Surface Warship
  • 6 CGN (existing)
  • 23 CG-47 (existing)
  • 53 DDG-51
  • 4 DDG-993
  • 56 DDG(Y)
  • 37 DD-963
  • 122 FFG-7 or successor frigates
  • 116 attack submarines
• 126 amphibious ships
  • 24 LPH/LHA/LHD
  • 24 LPD
  • 42 LSD
  • 20 LST
  • 3 command ships
  • 13 attack cargo ships
• 82 replenishment ships
  • 16 AOE
  • 36 AO
  • 18 AE
  • 12 AFS
• 36 mine warfare ships
• 31 depot & repair ships
• 44 ocean surveillance, salvage, and rescue ships

This comes to a total of 790 ships, not including SSBNs - which compares to the 600-Ship plan's 592, not including SSBNs. It's necessarily speculative - hence the forum - but I'd guess that the Joint Chiefs were thinking at least somewhat along these lines for their 'dream fleet'. And while the numbers are ludicrous, there's only actually one totally imaginary ship (the CSW) in there, and one paper-but-real (the DDG(Y)).

 

[Rule of cool]

The Marines are bandits for units starting with M. Are the 4 Amphibious Task Groups in the 600 ship Navy based around a Battalion or Brigade? Therefore are the 2 afloat MAF command elements commanding a Brigade or a Division?

 

[yeetmahboi]

What about this monstrosity

Well, this was the wishlist in 1958.



Naturally, by the time 1970 actually rolled around the US Navy was short in just about every category except Polaris submarines.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The Marines are bandits for units starting with M.

I guess it reminds people that they're MARINES! Themselves? Their allies? Their enemies? That's unclear.

Are the 4 Amphibious Task Groups in the 600 ship Navy based around a Battalion or Brigade? Therefore are the 2 afloat MAF command elements commanding a Brigade or a Division?

A Marine Amphibious Force is a division plus supporting elements, and is lifted by an Amphibious Task Force.

A Marine Amphibious Brigade is a brigade plus supporting elements, and is lifted by an Ambulance Task Group.

A Marine Amphibious Unit is a battalion plus supporting elements, and is lifted by an Amphibious Task Unit.

At some point, Amphibious became Expeditionary, but the structure remained.

Similarly, a Carrier Task Group is historically built around a single aircraft carrier, and a Carrier Task Force around several aircraft carriers.

 

[Yellow Palace]

What about this monstrosity

In some respects more restrained, in others more ambitious. Designed for a different strategic context, of course.

 

[Rule of cool]

So the 600 ship Navy was to land 4 Brigades and an 800 ship Navy land 7 Brigades. Wow!

FWIW III MEF in Vietnam had 2 divisions and 1 air wing.

 

[Yellow Palace]

So the 600 ship Navy was to land 4 Brigades

Correct – landing 4 brigades from 4 divisions of Marines.

800 ship Navy land 7 Brigades

That's my assumption based on the Joint Chiefs assessment of needing 7 divisions of Marines for the worst-case war plan.

 

[Rule of cool]

Correct – landing 4 brigades from 4 divisions of Marines.

That's my assumption based on the Joint Chiefs assessment of needing 7 divisions of Marines for the worst-case war plan.

IIUC even in the 60s, when 2 divisions were in combat in Vietnam the USMC only had 3 active and 1 reserve division. Presumably the reserve division would have to be bought to active status and a new reserve division stood up?

With the 2 LCC backing up the 4 amphibious task groups the USN could land 2 divisions each consisting of 2 Brigades (in the ATGs) and a battalion (in the LCC element). I imagine when combined the Aviation Elements of 2 ATGs and the LCC equates to a more or less full Marine Air Wing.

I also note that the 600 ship Navy has a requirement for 41 Spruance class destroyers, IIUC 31 Spruance and 4 Kidd class were built, so that got reasonably close.

What about the CG(N)s? I like them, but I understand the powerful logic behind cancelling the Strike Cruiser. You can't have a nuclear cruiser without the very latest combat system, but when you combine the cost of nuclear with the cost of AGEIS you get something un-affordable in numbers.

 

[Yellow Palace]

IIUC even in the 60s, when 2 divisions were in combat in Vietnam the USMC only had 3 active and 1 reserve division. Presumably the reserve division would have to be bought to active status and a new reserve division stood up?

That's fully mobilised, so 3 active and 1 reserve is entirely in keeping.

I also note that the 600 ship Navy has a requirement for 41 Spruance class destroyers, IIUC 31 Spruance and 4 Kidd class were built, so that got reasonably close.

I'm not quite sure where they got that from, as it's explicitly broken out as 37 Spruance and 4 Kidd class.

What about the CG(N)s? I like them, but I understand the powerful logic behind cancelling the Strike Cruiser. You can't have a nuclear cruiser without the very latest combat system, but when you combine the cost of nuclear with the cost of AGEIS you get something un-affordable in numbers.

The six existing CGNs for retention – the two Californias and four Virginias – are counted alongside 23 CG-47s to get a total of 29 cruisers in the 600-ship plan.

Something along the lines of the Strike Cruiser is the logical fit into my hypothetical Capital Surface Warship. It needs to tick a few boxes:

• Command facilities – either AAW flag for a task force, or leading a smaller formation – which the former DLG(N)s and the Ticonderogas didn't have.
• Long-range strike with Tomahawk missiles to augment carrierborne aircraft, and to be a credible threat as part of a SAG.
• An AAW combat system that justifies such a large, expensive ship – baseline Aegis at the very least.
• Being a 'proper cruiser', not a mere overgrown destroyer, for both PR purposes and to soothe the egos of surface warfare types. Which does seem to have been part of the motivation for both the Strike Cruiser and the battleship reactivation.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm not quite sure where they got that from, as it's explicitly broken out as 37 Spruance and 4 Kidd class.

The 600 shp goal was 37 & 4, but IIUC in reality the numbers built were 31 & 4?

 

[Yellow Palace]

The 600 shp goal was 37 & 4, but IIUC in reality the numbers built were 31 & 4?

It looks like they envisaged ordering six new destroyers – implicitly Spruance-class – in 1985 for delivery in 1989, before Burke-class construction got going. Which feels like a weird choice to me, but I guess they needed the ships in the mix in that timeframe.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's not unreasonable to take the 600-Ship Navy apart, understand how it was put together, and then use that to make a guess at the 'real' requirement behind the 800-Ship Navy.

One of the key points I highlighted in the above-linked thread was that the Joint Chiefs really wanted 22 carriers and 7 Marine Amphibious Forces to cover all contingencies, but that a battleship-centred surface action group could substitute for a carrier in lesser theatres of conflict.

Wowza that's a huge force!

16 Carrier battle groups.

This is dictated by industrial considerations, which really limit the US to a CVN every three years, and therefore a force of 16 ships with a life of 50 years. Historically, the 'desired' strength of a carrier's escort had been two cruisers, four fleet escorts (DLGs), and four destroyers. In this scenario, with the goal to operate in strength up-threat, I imagine that the 'cruiser' is replaced by something I'm calling a Capital Surface Warship. For reasons I'll come on to, this thing wants to be a powerful air defence ship and have significant strike capability. The 'frigate' niche will be filled by the remaining CGNs, the CG-47s, and such additional DDG-51s as are needed to bring the total force up to size. Then we need an ASW-specialist unit, which I imagine will look a lot like the DDG(Y) discussed in this thread.

I think that would be quite a struggle to build.

That's +7x Nimitz classes!

Remind me, what's the DDG(Y)? An early Zumwalt predecessor/Sprucan successor?

6 Surface Action Groups

Composition of these is probably broadly similar to the OTL groups. There obviously aren't enough battleships to go around, but we can centre four of them around them in the first place, and maybe a couple more around recommissioned DES MOINES class cruisers if we really have to. And it's the ability to be a powerful centre to a SAG which partly defines the capabilities of a Capital Surface Warship. It might be envisaged as a Strike Cruiser, or a BBG(X), if you like. It's certainly something that can pull up alongside a KIROV and not be thought the inferior partner. Otherwise, add three DDG(Y)s, which were envisaged as suitable for task group work.

I'm not totally sold on this one.

Maybe CSGs, but that would be a reach.

Yes, there would be 2 of 3 Des Moines-class cruisers fully capable (one had a turret explosion that effectively destroyed a turret, not sure about the USN having a spare Mk16 turret lying around), and they'd only been retired in the mid-1970s. But that also meant that they had a lot more active life burned up than most of the Iowas. It may be time to completely replace the boilers, not just reline them.

7 Amphibious Task Groups and 3 Amphibious Task Force H.Q.s

This gets a bit handwavey, but the OTL '1 MAF + 1 MAB' force - i.e. 4 MAB plus 1 MAF HQ - force supported a 4 MAF Marine Corps. Here, we need a 7 MAF Marine Corps, so I assume lift for 7 MAF plus 3 MAF HQ given the increased force size. Composition here is broadly as the 600-Ship Navy plan, with DDG(Y)s making up the numbers as there aren't enough DDG-993s to go around.

That means 7 Marine divisions, basically doubling the size of the Corps. (3 active plus 1 reserve divisions going up to 6 active plus 1 reserve division)

IIRC the size of the Corps is defined in law, so that would have to change.

116 submarines

Attack subs, right?

This would be +26x 688s. (Production of 688s started in the 1970s.) Or maybe something like the APHNAS SSGN, depending.

• 126 amphibious ships
  • 24 LPH/LHA/LHD
  • 24 LPD
  • 42 LSD
  • 20 LST
  • 3 command ships
  • 13 attack cargo ships
• 82 replenishment ships
  • 16 AOE
  • 36 AO
  • 18 AE
  • 12 AFS
• 36 mine warfare ships
• 31 depot & repair ships
• 44 ocean surveillance, salvage, and rescue ships

I think this chunk would be doable, as it's not really coming from the warship yards.

And while the numbers are ludicrous, there's only actually one totally imaginary ship (the CSW) in there, and one paper-but-real (the DDG(Y)).

You're talking about ~32-38x CSWs.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Remind me, what's the DDG(Y)? An early Zumwalt predecessor/Sprucan successor?

Broadly a Sprucan successor comtemporary with Burke.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Wowza that's a huge force!

Yep. I don't claim it's a reasonable near-term objective, but I wanted to see what it looked like.

Maybe CSGs, but that would be a reach.

The argument is that if you don't do the SAGs, you need more carriers, which is a big industrial constraint. Getting 22 carriers also means going from ~800 ships to ~850 ships, and getting the 800-ship fleet was one of the objectives of the exercise.

IIRC the size of the Corps is defined in law, so that would have to change.

Laws are changeable. Something like this would need serious political backing so it's not the principal obstacle.

Attack subs, right?

Yes, strategic missile submarines aren't included in this estimate. But I'd guess the kind of United States that goes down this route would want to something in the region of 27-30 Ohios.

You're talking about ~32-38x CSWs.

It's probably the biggest stretch, but the idea of a big surface combatant kept coming up and I wanted to see how it fitted into a force structure.

Broadly a Sprucan successor comtemporary with Burke.

The CBO quite liked the idea. Broadly speaking, 155mm gun, helicopter, towed array, and cruise missiles, but no Aegis. It would be 80% the size of a Burke and 75% of the cost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The argument is that if you don't do the SAGs, you need more carriers, which is a big industrial constraint. Getting 22 carriers also means going from ~800 ships to ~850 ships, and getting the 800-ship fleet was one of the objectives of the exercise.

Ah, fair point. All the extra escorts would be a pain in the budget.

Yes, strategic missile submarines aren't included in this estimate. But I'd guess the kind of United States that goes down this route would want to something in the region of 27-30 Ohios.

IIRC the original plan was 24x Ohios instead of 18.

The CBO quite liked the idea. Broadly speaking, 155mm gun, helicopter, towed array, and cruise missiles, but no Aegis. It would be 80% the size of a Burke and 75% of the cost.

Interesting. 155mm, not 8" MCLWG? on ~8000 tons?

 

[Yellow Palace]

IIRC the original plan was 24x Ohios instead of 18.

It was indeed, and I assume that was the idea under the 600-ship plan. With greater funding, I further assume that something approaching a 1-for-1 replacement of the Poseidon boats would be desired

Interesting. 155mm, not 8" MCLWG? on ~8000 tons?

Apparently so – but 5,000 tons, as against a 3-inch gun and 6,000 tons for the DDG-51 as then envisaged.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It was indeed, and I assume that was the idea under the 600-ship plan. With greater funding, I further assume that something approaching a 1-for-1 replacement of the Poseidon boats would be desired

31 boats? No, I doubt that. Remember the Ohios have 50% greater missile capacity per ship, so 21 Ohios would be the same number of tubes (close enough).

Apparently so – but 5,000 tons, as against a 3-inch gun and 6,000 tons for the DDG-51 as then envisaged.

Odd, considering that Sprucans were 8000 tons.

 

[Yellow Palace]

31 boats? No, I doubt that. Remember the Ohios have 50% greater missile capacity per ship, so 21 Ohios would be the same number of tubes (close enough).

That's probably an upper bound. My best guess is 27, which gets to 648 tubes vice 656 in the '41 For Freedom'.

It's also possible that some of the earlier boats get SSGN conversions, which was discussed in this timeframe.

Odd, considering that Sprucans were 8000 tons.

That's the number in the CBO report. I suspect that there's some shenanigans with lightship vs. standard displacement going on.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's probably an upper bound. My best guess is 27, which gets to 648 tubes vice 656 in the '41 For Freedom'.

Okay, that's logical.

I'm not sure that there was a desire for 1-for-1 tube replacement including the short-ranged Polaris missiles. I'll buy 1-for-1 replacement of Poseidon tubes, even with the larger overall Navy. ~21 Ohios.

Also, this would clear a few building slips for the extra fast attacks needed.

It's also possible that some of the earlier boats get SSGN conversions, which was discussed in this timeframe.

Not sure about SSGN, but there were several boats converted to SEAL-delivery SSNs. Sarcastically called "slow approaches" instead of "fast attacks" due to the low speeds.

That's the number in the CBO report. I suspect that there's some shenanigans with lightship vs. standard displacement going on.

Could be. I would expect a Sprucan replacement to be about the same displacement.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I'm not sure that there was a desire for 1-for-1 tube replacement including the short-ranged Polaris missiles. I'll buy 1-for-1 replacement of Poseidon tubes, even with the larger overall Navy. ~21 Ohios.

I think a figure less than 24 is hard to defend as a target, given that 24 was the planning figure with a smaller fleet. Ultimately of course neither goal would be reached so it's a little academic.

Long term, it's 4-5 boats a year, which was certainly achievable. The question is how fast you want to build up to these numbers.

Not sure about SSGN

Yeah, I see those being the subject of some infighting between the submarine and surface fleets.

there were several boats converted to SEAL-delivery SSN

Two of 'em... corresponding to a historical requirement for one per amphibious division. This timeline might see a third. Or not.

FWIW, I have a totally unsubstantiated belief that without a Peace Dividend, the RICHARD B. RUSSELL would have got a refit along the lines of the PARCHE. But I have a soft spot for submarines in places they didn't go doing things that never happened.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think a figure less than 24 is hard to defend as a target, given that 24 was the planning figure with a smaller fleet. Ultimately of course neither goal would be reached so it's a little academic.

Oh, they'd probably still say that 24 was the target, but I think we'd get to 21 built.

Yeah, I see those being the subject of some infighting between the submarine and surface fleets.

Not even that, it's the need to launch Tomahawks.

The adapter to fit 74" tubes won't hold 7x21" I don't think (IIRC the tubes are actually 25" inside diameter), so you'd need to make a 5-round unit instead.

Two of 'em... corresponding to a historical requirement for one per amphibious division. This timeline might see a third. Or not.

I think we might even see 6, what with 6 active Marine Divisions.

FWIW, I have a totally unsubstantiated belief that without a Peace Dividend, the RICHARD B. RUSSELL would have got a refit along the lines of the PARCHE. But I have a soft spot for submarines in places they didn't go doing things that never happened.

Maybe? It might be better to design it in during construction like the Jimmy Carter. The Plug process for Parche took 4 years!

 

[Rule of cool]

Would the US be physically able to build enough ships for an 800 ship Navy? IIUC the USN peaked at 597 ships in 1989, but that was with ~50 3T cruisers/destroyers built in the 60s that were approaching block obsolescence in 1989.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would the US be physically able to build enough ships for an 800 ship Navy?

I don't think this would be easy. There's a lot of extra construction that needs to happen (for example, 3x the number of Los Angeles-class need to be built that actually were). Might be doable shipyard-wise, if the shipyards used for the Sturgeon/637-class were made available to build 688s.

IIUC the USN peaked at 597 ships in 1989, but that was with ~50 3T cruisers/destroyers built in the 60s that were approaching block obsolescence in 1989.

Not to mention the Iowas, but there's only 4 of them.

 

[Rule of cool]

Building 50 Burke's in the 90s will only replace the 50 3T cruisers/destroyers in a 600 ship Navy, they'd need to build 67 in the 90s to play its part in an 800 ship Navy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Building 50 Burke's in the 90s will only replace the 50 3T cruisers/destroyers in a 600 ship Navy, they'd need to build 67 in the 90s to play its part in an 800 ship Navy.

Well, in the 1990s, I think we can get away with increasing the production rate. Though I suspect the limiting factor is the reduction gears and radars/Aegis systems.

Side note: I'd want to build some more Ticos as well. Looks like your plan would need 5 more Ticos. (1 new carrier group, 1 carrier group short a cruiser, 2 new SAGs)

 

[Yellow Palace]

Would the US be physically able to build enough ships for an 800 ship Navy? IIUC the USN peaked at 597 ships in 1989, but that was with ~50 3T cruisers/destroyers built in the 60s that were approaching block obsolescence in 1989.

Given long enough, I think so, but it wouldn't be quick.

The 3T ships were planned for replacement in the 600-ship plan so that's already taken into account.

Side note: I'd want to build some more Ticos as well. Looks like your plan would need 5 more Ticos. (1 new carrier group, 1 carrier group short a cruiser, 2 new SAGs)

Ideally yes, but that also depends on how far out you set the force goals – and how quickly you want to hit them. I'm assuming the goal is set circa 1981 as part of the Reagan-era Maritime Strategy.

Do it earlier and some tasty things are on the table, like (as you mentioned!) APHNAS and the Perseus missile. Which I'd really like on my Aegis battlecruiser, but a man has to have fantasies.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Given long enough, I think so, but it wouldn't be quick.

To extend on this, the CBO Building a 600 Ship Navy report has this to say:

The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) study cited earlier investigated the capacity of the industry to support a series of 14-year shipbuilding programs resulting in fleet sizes ranging from 500 to 800 ships. Some conclusions of that study can be
summarized as follows:

• 500-Ship Force. Easily supported by existing shipyards, less than half would be provided a viable workload. Attrition of many small and some large yards would be likely.
• 600-Ship Force. Also easily within the capacity of the existing shipyards. Some shrinkage of the industry would be likely
• 700-Ship Force. Begins to tax the capacity of the present industrial base, as limited by labor and components supply factors under peacetime conditions. Some delays would occur because of the limited number of nuclear-qualified yards.
• 800-Ship Force. Would press the capacity of all existing private and naval shipyards, particularly with regard to labor and components. Would probably need to expand the number of nuclear-qualified building yards.

So it might be feasible by the mid-1990s. When I have time I'll plot out what the building programme has to look like.

Further discussion of DDGY is on the forum here. Given the era, the 155mm gun is probably FMC's Vertical Loading Gun.

 

[Seragina]

It seems there's confusion or it's just me.
The 600-ship fleet is based on cold-war setup and people discussing the historic point of view for its structure.
While the 800-ship fleet is for the near future. I think the goal should be made clear and the points of consideration shifted appropreately.
That said I woulld like to see build-schedule/replacement rate (related to industrial capacity as mention above), readieness level consideration/requirement (how many are in dock or on station at any given time), then the related logistic tail (more conventional ships -> more fuel & personnel growth especialy marines support needed). Only then can I judge whether it's a realistic plan or not.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It seems there's confusion or it's just me.
The 600-ship fleet is based on cold-war setup and people discussing the historic point of view for its structure.
While the 800-ship fleet is for the near future. I think the goal should be made clear and the points of consideration shifted appropreately.
That said I woulld like to see build-schedule/replacement rate (related to industrial capacity as mention above), readieness level consideration/requirement (how many are in dock or on station at any given time), then the related logistic tail (more conventional ships -> more fuel & personnel growth especialy marines support needed). Only then can I judge whether it's a realistic plan or not.

No, this was for the 1980s.

Not the 2030s.

 

[Rule of cool]

No, this was for the 1980s.

Not the 2030s.

I think the plan was for the 1980s but it would take until 2000s or longer to achieve.

 

[Rule of cool]

To extend on this, the CBO Building a 600 Ship Navy report has this to say:

So it might be feasible by the mid-1990s. When I have time I'll plot out what the building programme has to look like.

Further discussion of DDGY is on the forum here. Given the era, the 155mm gun is probably FMC's Vertical Loading Gun.

As I suspected, an 800 ship Navy would stretch US industry. Interesting that a 600 ship Navy is well within the US industry's reach in the 80s and even 700 ships is no great stretch in terms of industry.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I think the plan was for the 1980s but it would take until 2000s or longer to achieve.

If you started building anew and with dedication much earlier then it's well in the realm of possibility.

 

[DWG]

Further discussion of DDGY is on the forum here.

"In AAW, the DDGY would emphasize "back-end" technology and would use an advanced missile fire control system to achieve high firepower at shorter ranges. It would use the advanced SM-2 AAW missile and would have the long-range area AAW capability of that missile. 7/ Although this system would probably be less capable, particularly in a jamming environment, that the one proposed for the DDGX or AEGIS, it should be considerably less expensive than AEGIS and much more capable than any of the pre-AEGIS AAW systems on existing cruisers and destroyers."

"This concept assumes that high firepower is achieved through the use of the ICW and agile beam illuminator technology described in Chapter III. At long range, the multiple target engagement technique could not be used because of power limitations. Long-range engagements do not, however, normally have the time urgency of short-range engagements."

I'm struggling to rationalise "considerably less expensive than AEGIS" and "much more capable than any of the pre-AEGIS AAW systems" (ie NTU?). It sounds like they don't want the cost of SPY-1, but still want to be able to engage at the same long-range as Aegis, if with lower numbers of missiles in the air, but also want the full short-range high rate of fire capability with multiple missiles in the air. So they want a completely new generation of radars, plus combat system (which will have to be able to talk with Aegis to at least some degree), and on the missile front is ICW guidance even compatible with Standard at that point in time? And it all has to be done on the cheap.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think the plan was for the 1980s but it would take until 2000s or longer to achieve.

Parts of it would not. Look at how many shipyards built 637-class (6 yards: EB, NNNS, Pascagoula, Mare Island, Quincy Shipbuilding, BIW/Kittery), compared to how many were building 688s (2: EB and NNNS).

What were those yards doing instead of building subs?

Yes, they'd need to build an additional 27 boats in 10 years. Timeline-wise, the Flight 2s were built in the 1980s and the first Flight 3/688i were also ordered in the 1980s and delivered 6 by December 1990. As is, the USN built 8x Flight 2s and 6x Flight 3s during the 1980s.

There's yard space and IIRC they all still had at least some of the nuclear-trained workers as well. If EB and NNNS could make 14 boats in that time, the other 4 yards could likely make 27 more boats. (not sure what happened to the workforces after the end of 637 production in the mid 1970s, but they did continue to maintain nuclear ships at Mare Island and Kittery at least)

The final SSBNs would likely take until 2000 to be completed, admittedly.


=================

Now, as to carriers: The USN ordered and commissioned 3 Nimitz-class in the 1980s. It would not be easy to squeeze in one more carrier before 1991. But it would be doable. They'd need to lay down Lincoln in ~1982 or so, GW in 84 or 85, and Stennis in 88, as soon as the previous carrier was launched at the latest. As it was, Lincoln and GW were built semi-simultaneously (Lincoln laid down in 84, GW laid down in 86, Lincoln launched in 88, GW launched in 1990). So it'd be physically possible to push out a carrier every 3 years or less.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Could the USN have pursued and materialize a 40ft diameter hull sub under this plan y'all reckon?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could the USN have pursued and materialize a 40ft diameter hull sub under this plan y'all reckon?

Seawolf (or APHNAS) a bit early? It would be more expensive than building more 688s.

Build all remaining ~22x 688i hulls and produce at least 5+ Seawolves before 1990?

I mean, the last 688i was actually laid down a month after the Seawolf was. 28 November 1989 for Cheyenne and 25 October 1989 for Seawolf.

But now that you point it out, I suspect that SSN-21s would be produced instead of additional 688s, assuming that the underlying technologies were mature.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

FWIW this 800-ship fleet reminds me of the 927-ship fleet that the 1958 USN wanted for the 1970s and the 826-ship fleet that the 1967 USN wanted in 1975 that were discussed on the first page of this thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alt-60s-us-navy.37487/

 

[Yellow Palace]

While the 800-ship fleet is for the near future.

I'm very clear in the opening post that this is an attempt to extrapolate what the USN's force goals would have been circa 1981, based on two observations which are in the thread linked in that post:

• The three US regional Commanders-in-Chief - Europe/Atlantic, Southwest Asia, and Pacific - had a requirement between them for 22 carrier groups and 7 Marine Expeditionary Forces to deliver their war plans simultaneously
• In order to fulfil all wartime missions, the USN assessed that an 800-ship fleet was required

I played with a few options to get there. We can do it with 15 carriers, 4 brigades of amphibious lift, and a huge ASW force - either lots of convoys, or by reintroducing the CVS and building hunter-killer groups. But given the offensive focus in the Maritime Strategy, which came about as a result of a recognition that the Soviet Union did not plan on major convoy interdiction efforts, I feel that such a heavy focus on ASW is unlikely.

The large offensive force built around 22 combatant task groups, with a heavy escort to operate inside what was recognised as a potent Soviet anti-access/area denial bubble - I'm not sure if that terminology was in use, but that's what it was - does fit with the Maritime Strategy. When you start building that fleet, with some regard to industrial limitations (i.e. not skipping straight to 22 carriers) it naturally comes to a total of about 800 ships. The one flight of fancy is a large surface combatant, but even that would likely have been some iteration of the Strike Cruiser that the US Navy had been proposing in the 1970s.

It would not be easy to squeeze in one more carrier before 1991.

FWIW the fastest 600-ship plan called for the force goal being achieved by 1992. The industrial assessment noted above was based on a 14-year plan, i.e. the goal being achieved by 1996.

Could the USN have pursued and materialize a 40ft diameter hull sub under this plan y'all reckon?

They did - the Seawolf-class, which came in at the tail end of the 600-ship plan.

FWIW this 800-ship fleet reminds me of the 927-ship fleet that the 1958 USN wanted for the 1970s and the 826-ship fleet that the 1967 USN wanted in 1975 that were discussed on the first page of this thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alt-60s-us-navy.37487/

That may not be coincidence - just because the funding wasn't there doesn't mean the missions went away!

It's particularly interesting to observe that the 1958 objectives called for 12 strike carriers and 9 ASW carriers... i.e. a total of 21, not counting the training ships. And 20-21 carriers featured in the 1967, 1968 and 1969 plans.

 

[yeetmahboi]

They did - the Seawolf-class, which came in at the tail end of the 600-ship plan.

Yes, but AFAIK the Seawolves were first built very late (1989). Our understanding of the geopolitics situation definitely differs here because I don't regard 1989 onward to be relevant in counter Soviet planning. But the intent is to stop the 688i line ahead of schedule and start building a technologically scaled down APHNAS (used for reference) in the early 80s.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Our understanding of the geopolitics situation definitely differs here because I don't regard 1989 onward to be relevant in counter Soviet planning.

1989 onwards is relevant from the perspective of 1981, because the downfall of the USSR couldn't be planned upon. In reality of course any force goals set in 1981 for the 1990s were never going to be achieved for exactly that reason.

But the intent is to stop the 688i line ahead of schedule and start building a technologically scaled down APHNAS (used for reference) in the early 80s.

APHNAS was cancelled in 1972, along with its associated missile armament, while Seawolf-class design work started in 1983. Restarting APHNAS would be a very strange decision in that context.

With a PoD assumed circa 1981 - i.e. the start of the Reagan administration - you might get Seawolf pulled forward ayear or two, in which case the first of class might be ordered as early as 1987. In OTL, only one Los Angeles-class (CHEYENNE) was ordered after SEAWOLF.