(06-15-2021 12:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Gulf of Mexico is wide open and deep. Subs up from Venezuela could do tremendous damage quickly to bases in the South. That is VERY close to home.

This isn't Periscope Down. Those are 50 year old diesel subs and wouldn't get close enough to pose a real threat.

(06-15-2021 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I believe that I am the senior retired Navy officer on here, and as such I feel compelled from time to time to comment on Navy news events. This time, I am afraid to announce three whoppers, none of them good.

1. The Navy is sending a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) into the South China Sea, and area which China claims as its territorial waters. China has in the past attacked US aircraft and seized unmanned vessels in the area. Looks like potentially a high-risk area, right? So what comprises this CSG that the Navy is sending—1 aircraft carrier (USS Ronald Reagan, Nimitz class), 1 cruiser (USS Shiloh, Ticonderoga class), and 1 destroyer (USS Halsey, Burke class). Basically, we are inviting China to provoke an incident by sending such a small force into perhaps the highest risk area in the world. I have previously discussed my proposed Navy fleet that I would build for about the same money as the Navy’s proposed shipbuilding plan, but using ADM Elmo Zumwalt’s high/low mix philosophy to build a few top-of-the line ships and fill out the numbers with cheaper single-purpose ships. Based on my fleet proposal, the carrier task force (CTF) that I would send on an operation like this would consist, at a minimum, of

a. 1 nuclear carrier (Nimitz class),
b. 1 conventional carrier (modernized Kitty Hawk class),
c. 1 cruiser (larger and more capable replacement for Ticonderoga),
d. 2 AAW destroyers (could be Nimitzes),
e. 3 general purpose (GP) escorts (something like the Navy’s FFG(X) but a more generalized weapons and sensor suite like the FREMM that it is based on), and
f. 4 ASW frigates (anti-sub specialists).

I will frankly be surprised if China does not provoke some sort of incident.

2. The Navy has finally decided to study the multiple problems with the woefully inadequate Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). To lead the study the Navy has chosen a Naval Reserve officer who has multiple engineering degrees, but who has not been to sea since 2000, and has been spending his Naval Reserve time since then pushing papers in the administration of the Naval Reserve program. This token step appears to be the Navy’s surrender and admission that after $30B the LCSs need to go away ASAP.

3. The Secretary of the Navy (SecNav) has issued new guidance, available at https://www.scribd.com/document/51137054...-pom-23-1, that says, among other things:

a. The Navy cannot afford to develop simultaneously new air, surface, and submarine assets, and directs that only one be pursued and that development stop on the other two.
b. The Navy cannot afford to maintain its current shore infrastructure and directs a facility footprint reduction of 1 percent per year for the next 10 years (I might actually be able to get onboard with this one if it were confined to the DC metro area)
c. Defund the sea-launched cruise missile project—the one place were we are seriously behind both Russia and China.
d. Renewed and greater emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

I would strongly suggest that if you are under the age of 50, you need to start learning Chinese and Russian immediately, and probably need to do so if you are older, because the Navy we are building will not be able to protect you from either one.

What's on the water does not take into account that which is under the waves. Having served on a carrier task force. We didn't go anywhere without a Boomer being in close proximity.

Sent from my LG-H932 using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-15-2021 02:00 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  What's in the water does not take into account that which is under the waves. Having served on a carrier task force. We didn't go anywhere without a Boomer being in close proximity.
Sent from my LG-H932 using CSNbbs mobile app

A Boomer or an attack boat?

Boomers usually hide, but every carrier usually has an attack boat or two in company.

(06-15-2021 10:54 AM)Todor Wrote:  When we're spending money dont have to send a fleet of ships half way around the world to China's doorstep, into waters we know are contested, to try to taunt or scare them, and saying they are the ones who would be doing the provoking is a stretch.

We're a bankrupt country. Things like this are a big part of the reason why.

So you think it's a great idea for us to sit back and let China have the South China Sea including the most traveled trade passage in the world, the Straights of Malacca?

(06-15-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Whats to figure out? If the idea is to grow the Navy, we are stuck with the LCS for a while. The LCS needs to get fixed because, as crappy as it is, its 35 hulls that we cant afford to get rid of because it represents a decade of shipbuilding we cant get back. Its clearly a failure because the concept behind its development is no longer very applicable and because the LCS has turned out to not be very good at doing the job it was built to do (much less performing a blue water job it was NOT designed to do). Dump the modules (they are expensive and dont work anyway). Fix the engines. Slap 24 to 32 VLS cells on the thing and use it as a forward deployed low end escort. If you forward deploy it, it hopefully requires less wear and tear on its questionable propulsion train. It can be a serviceable missile carrying platform for the short term. Get to work on its replacement. Its going to take a decade and one hell of a ship building pace to replace those 35 LCS hulls---along with the hulls that were already expected to be aging out (mostly Arleigh Burkes and Ticon's). I like your low-high idea---mainly because its the only way to build a bigger Navy and not break the bank.

The Navy currently has a gaping hole in its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability, or lack thereof. The LCS was supposed to plug that hole, but the ASW module turned out to bee too heavy, the dipping sonar didn't work properly, and the engines made too much noise and drowned out the sonar picture. We could start with a simple ASW frigate that we could turn out a bunch in a hurry. Going back to something based on the Knoxes or Perrys wouldn't be the worst idea in the world, and we could presumably start pumping those in a hurry. The big problem would be lack of shipyard capacity, but a Navy that was buying ships in numbers could jump start tat industry in a hurry. There are a bunch of foreign platforms that we could adopt and license build here too--the French-Italian ASW FREMM, the UK Type 26, the new Dutch-Belgian ASW frigate, even the Indian Kamorta.

Actually, I think the guidance to focus on developing only one new platform could be a blessing in disguise if handled properly. Go with an off-the-shelf ASW frigate for the new surface ship, go with a cheaper SSN like the French Barracuda, build more proved and tested Ohios instead of developing the far more expensive Columbia for SSBNs/SSGNs, and focus development efforts on a stealthy fighter/attack aircraft with longer legs that the current crop.

(06-15-2021 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Whats to figure out? If the idea is to grow the Navy, we are stuck with the LCS for a while. The LCS needs to get fixed because, as crappy as it is, its 35 hulls that we cant afford to get rid of because it represents a decade of shipbuilding we cant get back. Its clearly a failure because the concept behind its development is no longer very applicable and because the LCS has turned out to not be very good at doing the job it was built to do (much less performing a blue water job it was NOT designed to do). Dump the modules (they are expensive and dont work anyway). Fix the engines. Slap 24 to 32 VLS cells on the thing and use it as a forward deployed low end escort. If you forward deploy it, it hopefully requires less wear and tear on its questionable propulsion train. It can be a serviceable missile carrying platform for the short term. Get to work on its replacement. Its going to take a decade and one hell of a ship building pace to replace those 35 LCS hulls---along with the hulls that were already expected to be aging out (mostly Arleigh Burkes and Ticon's). I like your low-high idea---mainly because its the only way to build a bigger Navy and not break the bank.

The Navy currently has a gaping hole in its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability, or lack thereof. The LCS was supposed to plug that hole, but the ASW module turned out to bee too heavy, the dipping sonar didn't work properly, and the engines made too much noise and drowned out the sonar picture. We could start with a simple ASW frigate that we could turn out a bunch in a hurry. Going back to something based on the Knoxes or Perrys wouldn't be the worst idea in the world, and we could presumably start pumping those in a hurry. The big problem would be lack of shipyard capacity, but a Navy that was buying ships in numbers could jump start tat industry in a hurry. There are a bunch of foreign platforms that we could adopt and license build here too--the French-Italian ASW FREMM, the UK Type 26, the new Dutch-Belgian ASW frigate, even the Indian Kamorta.

Actually, I think the guidance to focus on developing only one new platform could be a blessing in disguise if handled properly. Go with an off-the-shelf ASW frigate for the new surface ship, go with a cheaper SSN like the French Barracuda, build more proved and tested Ohios instead of developing the far more expensive Columbia for SSBNs/SSGNs, and focus development efforts on a stealthy fighter/attack aircraft with longer legs that the current crop.

Actually I think they are moving ahead with an extended FREMM for the new Frigate.

(06-15-2021 02:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:54 AM)Todor Wrote:  When we're spending money dont have to send a fleet of ships half way around the world to China's doorstep, into waters we know are contested, to try to taunt or scare them, and saying they are the ones who would be doing the provoking is a stretch.

We're a bankrupt country. Things like this are a big part of the reason why.

So you think it's a great idea for us to sit back and let China have the South China Sea including the most traveled trade passage in the world, the Straights of Malacca?

Its not a good idea to be bankrupt to stop China from pumping sand into a pile for a radar base in the South China Sea. Its also not a good idea to go to war over China having ships in areas directly adjacent to their territory.

The Straits of Malacca are the most traveled trade passage in the world because China imports and exports so much. It barely carries any US imports or exports. Perhaps the countries that depend on that trade route for their economic interests can help.

(06-15-2021 02:42 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Actually I think they are moving ahead with an extended FREMM for the new Frigate.

Yes, but they are screwing it up almost beyond recognition. They want to turn it into an anti-air (AAW) platform with the AEGIS/AMDR radar system. My guess is that they see it as a less capable replacement for the Ticos.

So they added 40 feet of length, presumably to get in 16 more vertical launch cells, which is probably a good idea. But AEGIS/AMDR requires apparently a lot more high weight than the EMPAR system that the FREMMs had, so they reduced the 76mm gun (marginally useful) to a 57mm popgun (not useful) and sacrificed a bunch of other stuff to accommodate the AEGIS/AMDR system. Basically they turned a good general purpose ship into a bad AAW ship. And they didn't really do anything to upgrade the ASW capability, which is where the USN currently needs help badly.

OT, but didn't feel like digging up that old thread.


As a Navy/naval topic, are our Iranian friends still steaming across to pay a visit to Vz?

Or have they managed to meet one of those elusive southern Atlantic icebergs?

(06-15-2021 02:51 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  OT, but didn't feel like digging up that old thread.
As a Navy/naval topic, are our Iranian friends still steaming across to pay a visit to Vz?
Or have they managed to meet one of those elusive southern Atlantic icebergs?

So far still on the way, AFAIK. They did manage to burn up and sink their largest ship (an oiler) a week or two ago, but that was in home waters. Get them so far away, and who knows what might happen.

The Navy's program have been legion. Ultimately, we will need to have better integration with our sister services because the ship budget isn't going to be there to support NAVAIR and/or Marines.

(06-15-2021 01:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 12:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Gulf of Mexico is wide open and deep. Subs up from Venezuela could do tremendous damage quickly to bases in the South. That is VERY close to home.

This isn't Periscope Down. Those are 50 year old diesel subs and wouldn't get close enough to pose a real threat.

Venezuela is one of the most desperate countries on the planet. All an enemy has to do is pay to use their port at any time.

Quote:On Tuesday, in an explosive series of questions fired at him on the Hill, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday was grilled about recommending critical race theory (CRT) activist Ibram X. Kendi’s book “How to Be an Anti-Racist” for every sailor in the U.S. Navy to read.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks (R-IN) conducted a blistering interview at the House hearing, pointing out that the Navy recently completed a one-day stand-down to remove extremism from the ranks, with the Chief of Navy Personnel explaining, “We will not tolerate extremist ideologies that go against our oath to the Constitution.”

Banks pressed, “In my view, Kendi has espoused extremist beliefs that clearly violate the oath to the Constitution that I took when I served in the Navy. Ibram Kendi, by the way, labeled Amy Coney Barrett a ‘white colonizer’ and criticized her for ‘cutting the biological parents of these children out’ because she adopted two children from Haiti. Yes or no, Admiral: Do you personally consider opposition to interracial adoption an extremist belief?”

After Gilday protested, “I said I do not support everything Kendi said in his book,” Banks fired, “I just asked you: Do you consider opposition to interracial adoption an extremist belief? It’s a simple question.”

Banks asked a little later, “Kendi’s book states that capitalism is essentially racist, and Kendi is clear that racism must be eliminated. So yes or no: Do you personally consider advocating for the destruction of American capitalism to be extremist?”

Gilday dodged, “Here’s what I know, Congressman. There’s racism in the United States Navy. I have an obligation —”

Still later, Banks pointed to claims highlighted in a New Yorker article on Kendi, “In college, Kendi wrote that white people are a different breed of humans and are responsible for the AIDS virus. Yes or no: Do you personally consider the conspiracy that white people started AIDS to be an extremist belief?”

Gilday deflected, “Sir, I’d have to understand the context in which the statements were made.”

Banks concluded his questioning with this: “Do you expect that after sailors read this book that says that the United States is racist that we will increase or decrease morale, cohesion, and recruiting rates into the United States Navy?”

Gilday replied, “I think we’ll be a better Navy from having open, honest conversations about racism.”

Link

I worked as a contractor for the Navy for over a decade.

I have always thought that environment was the most inclusive and least discriminatory community I have ever experienced.

Still do.

(06-15-2021 02:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 02:42 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Actually I think they are moving ahead with an extended FREMM for the new Frigate.

Yes, but they are screwing it up almost beyond recognition. They want to turn it into an anti-air (AAW) platform with the AEGIS/AMDR radar system. My guess is that they see it as a less capable replacement for the Ticos.

So they added 40 feet of length, presumably to get in 16 more vertical launch cells, which is probably a good idea. But AEGIS/AMDR requires apparently a lot more high weight than the EMPAR system that the FREMMs had, so they reduced the 76mm gun (marginally useful) to a 57mm popgun (not useful) and sacrificed a bunch of other stuff to accommodate the AEGIS/AMDR system. Basically they turned a good general purpose ship into a bad AAW ship. And they didn't really do anything to upgrade the ASW capability, which is where the USN currently needs help badly.

I have to ask because I truly have never seen a decent answer---whats wrong with the current Ticon's and Burkes. Why cant we just build what works and upgrade the key systems where necessary? We know those platforms work and are durable. Why not just tinker with them to make them easier to upgrade in the future. One reason Toyota's are so reliable is that they basically stick with one design and just keep slowly upgrading and perfecting that one design. Each generation gets incrementally better by improving a known reliable design. I dont get why we feel the need to start from scratch every time. Use what works and continue to incrementally improve it. That way you dont throw away billions building "combat" ships that cant sink an enemy vessel in "combat" or ships designed around a gun system that never becomes operational (not to mention it requires ammo so expensive, we cant afford it).

(06-15-2021 01:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 12:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Gulf of Mexico is wide open and deep. Subs up from Venezuela could do tremendous damage quickly to bases in the South. That is VERY close to home.

This isn't Periscope Down. Those are 50 year old diesel subs and wouldn't get close enough to pose a real threat.

Actually a few of those old Russian diesel/electric boats could be quiet enough to be somewhat dangerous. The new generation of AIP subs are even more dangerous than those old diesel/electric boats and are cheaper to build than nuclear subs.

(06-16-2021 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 01:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 12:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Gulf of Mexico is wide open and deep. Subs up from Venezuela could do tremendous damage quickly to bases in the South. That is VERY close to home.

This isn't Periscope Down. Those are 50 year old diesel subs and wouldn't get close enough to pose a real threat.

Actually a few of those old Russian diesel/electric boats could be quiet enough to be somewhat dangerous.

Especially if the sub captain thinks like a pirate and has "Welcome aboard" tattooed on his ****.

(06-16-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I have to ask because I truly have never seen a decent answer---whats wrong with the current Ticon's and Burkes. Why cant we just build what works and upgrade the key systems where necessary? We know those platforms work and are durable. Why not just tinker with them to make them easier to upgrade in the future. One reason Toyota's are so reliable is that they basically stick with one design and just keep slowly upgrading and perfecting that one design. Each generation gets incrementally better by improving a known reliable design. I dont get why we feel the need to start from scratch every time. Use what works and continue to incrementally improve it. That way you dont throw away billions building "combat" ships that cant sink an enemy vessel in "combat" or ships designed around a gun system that never becomes operational (not to mention it requires ammo so expensive, we cant afford it).

Ticos are very unstealthy because of their big boxy superstructures, and are about at their weight limit to prohibit any further updates. They also don't generate enough electricity to support some proposed weapons (although I'm personally skeptical about the value of some of those weapons). The way they separate the four AEGIS panels among two separate superstructure areas gives them some problems (which I don't fully understand) in coordinating results between the two segments. AEGIS is apparently an amazing system when it works but we have had some reliability issues. What we really need to do is to put a Tico replacement on a bigger hull (say, Des Moines class) with room for more power generation, more VLS cells, and a better layout.

Burkes are also very close to overweight and not very stealthy and have the same issue with power generation for potential new power-intensive weapons. But Burkes are sill a pretty good platform, and in recognition of that the Navy is planning to build a bunch more.

My idea of an ideal fleet for 2050 keeps about 40 Burkes, replaces the Ticos with 20 bigger and more capable and stealthier cruiser, adds 60 GP escorts based on the FREMM (instead of redesigning the FREMMs as cheaper AEGIS/AMDR alternatives to the Ticos, which is what the Navy seems to be doing), and 80 ASW-specialist frigates that would be cheaper to build in numbers. In high/low terms, the new cruisers and Burkes would be high-end and the FREMMs and ASW frigates would be low end.

I also have ideas for carriers and would build some battleships, basically along the lines of the battlecarrier that was proposed in the 1980s.

Here's CNO struggling to answer questions from a congresswoman who just happens to be a retired CDR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_j-W5t3KTU

Do you care to explain why the Navy did this?