"Take Greater Advantage of the JHSV?" Topic

The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) was intended for use as a high speed ferry, transporting Marines and cargo across vast ocean spaces. It has a flight deck for helicopter operations and an offload ramp for vehicles. However, it is not a high-survivability vessel like an amphib or combatant.

Should the U.S. support the JHSV with modules, so that it can undertake low-threat/permissive-environment missions, such as theater security cooperation, building partner capacity, peacekeeping, counter-piracy. counter-illicit trafficking, reconnaisance, mine-hunting, and non-combat evacuations?

Lets buy lots of everything that looks cool. It's only money.

Why does every surface vessel now look like a super-high-end plumbing fixture?

Put some greebles on that motherer.

If it is low threat why do you need a military vessel?

"If it is low threat why do you need a military vessel?"
Because not everything the military does is in a high-threat environment, but at the same time you want something you own, not something that has to be chartered.

I rode something very similar back in 2001, being ferried back and forth from Okinawa to ROK for Ulchi Focus Lens (an exercise). We also had Marines take it somewhere for MEDCAP/DENCAP missions (humanitarian assistance); Bangladesh if I recall correctly.

V/R,
Jack

Absolutely not. It is designed for a specific purpose. Move away from that purpose and it becomes a complete dog

But pretty much everything in the military is designed for a specific purpose, and not good for much else. That's why things are task organized, to get the right people and gear for the job.

See the recent discussions regarding F-35s dogfighting, or ongoing stuff like combat troops used for nation building, for complaints/misunderstandings when the military doesn't/can't/isn't recognized as task organizing.

V/R,
Jack

Fine until your low-threat parameters become high threat in a matter of hours.

I don't think there is a dedicated international disaster response force (non-military) that would justify multiple units.

For those like me who were unaware of this –

link

MB,

"Fine until your low-threat parameters become high threat in a matter of hours."
Yeah man, that's true, but you could say that about pretty much anything. You have to realize that 99% of military operations are not combat operations, meaning the participants are not 'gunned up.'

The US military has literally thousands of people in foreign countries every day, conducting liaison with host nation military/security, building bridges, assisting hospitals, conducting training, hosting training, conducting various aspects of logistics, etc…

They are unarmed, there is no QRF, they got there and will leave there by commercial air, or unescorted military air (a single C-17, for instance), or an HSV. In III MEF we used the HSV to move people constantly for exercises all over the Pacific, as well as humanitarian relief efforts.

Yes, the threat picture can change, but you can't send warships everywhere, there aren't enough of them. If you think an HSV is expensive, try building more Wasp-class big decks. And if any of you think those things are 'high survivable' (from above: "…it is not a high-survivability vessel like an amphib or combatant.") then we really need to re-visit what high-survivable means.

So, the HSV is actually a great piece of gear to take care of a great many things for the US military, and it is cheaper to build and maintain, and is better suited, than any of our warships.

"I don't think there is a dedicated international disaster response force (non-military) that would justify multiple units."
I don't understand what you're getting at.

V/R,
Jack

Weren't "modules" the heart of the LCS and didn't that change to not so many modules? If so then that idea seems to have been flown and failed.

"But pretty much everything in the military is designed for a specific purpose, and not good for much else."

True, but this ship takes that to extremes. Its designed essentially for a particular mission profile on a particular course. So probably one of the most single tricked equines in the business

David,

I don't get your thinking man. The military is full of:

-Tanks that are good for only going and killing enemy vehicles and infantry, and then pretty much only in certain scenarios (mostly conventional war, with asymmetric thrown in every now and again, but only in very specific circumstances), is very expensive to crew, maintain, and deploy.

-Attack helicopters that fit the above description.

-Fighter, attack, and bomber aircraft that fit the above description.

-Nuclear submarines, both attack and boomers, that fit the above description.

-Cruisers and battleships that fit the above descriptions.

There are many more examples I could give, which would combine with the stuff listed above to cumulatively not get used as often in 'real-world' operations as the HSV. I absolutely understand why we have all those things, and I absolutely agree that we need them, but to think (I'll be very specific here) that the Blue Ridge, Germantown, Fort McHenry, Belleau Wood, or Essex are better options for the types of missions the HSV can/is used for, is totally off base both in terms of capability, suitability, and economics.

So, I must heartily disagree with the 'most single-tricked equine in the business' comment. If we think a battalion of tanks, a squadron of aircraft, or a task force of ships and subs would be more useful in day-to day, run of the mill military operations, we're not understanding what the military really does day to day. The HSV is a helluva lot cheaper to build, maintain, and deploy, is operationally available more, and (within specific tasks I've outlined) more capable than any of the ships I listed above, each of which I've actually ridden to a foreign land.

The only way the military/gov't could mess up the HSV is by trying to make it some sort of crossover, i.e., make it more LHD than HSV. And, I will admit, we've seen that scenario occur too many times, usually because someone that doesn't know what they're doing decides we want 'this' piece of gear to have the capability of 'that' piece of gear.

What I'm saying is, we should not build an HSV to 'LHD-lite' standards to carry out LHD-type forced entry operations; I'm saying build an HSV with HSV capabilities to carry out HSV missions, leaving the LHD missions to the LHDs.

Sorry for the ramble; I'm just a firm believer in the HSV after having floated on it. For what we needed it to do, it beat the hell out of using an LCC/LSD/LHD.

V/R,
Jack

Sure, let's add some modular systems. But let's just standardize on the STANFLEX system the Danes have, instead of waiting around for the LCS modules to finally get designed and built.

Gives you 76mm gun, ESSM, Mine Warfare, even some Coast Guard type stuff for tracking pollution.

Absolutely not. It is designed for a specific purpose. Move away from that purpose and it becomes a complete dog

It's already a dog since they added the helo deck to it.

This is why the US bought two of them, then developed them. It is also a good template for the type of mission the ship is best suited for.

Since it is being crewed by civilian mariners there is no way they will try to turn it into a gunship, ASW platform or make an amphib out of it.

I can easily see the role expanding to include SAR, humanitarian relief, tracking etc… Historically as the Navy turns ships over, MSC has been very aggressive at expanding their role.

@BigDan: We're already using them as amphibs. They haul a battalion of Marines about twice as fast as the existing gator-freighters, and have roll-on/roll-off layouts to not need a particularly developed harbor.

Junior High School Varsity