Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Update on Status of US Navy
Author Message
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,328
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #201
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
Navy training goes woke: Boot camp to include classes on suicide prevention, hazing, racism and sexual assault after numerous crisis over past number of years

Quote:The US Navy said it was expanding it's eight-week boot camp program to include two more weeks of classes focusing on suicide prevention, sexual assault, hazing and racism.

The change, the first major overhaul in nearly 20 years, comes as the Navy grapples with major shipboard issues over the years that include failures to address sexual assaults, fires and deadly collisions and the rise of extremism within the ranks.

Rear Adm. Jennifer Couture, who heads the Naval Service Training Command, told the Associated Press that the two extra weeks of classes would reinforce the behavior desired in a US naval officer.


'We're telling our recruits ... here are all of the things that we expect you to do, and here's how we expect you to behave and act,' she said, adding that it involves treating people with respect and holding peers accountable.

'We believe very strongly that those types of behaviors are directly impacting our fighting readiness and the performance of our sailors.'

The additional two weeks will be devoted to the 'Sailor for Life' course phase where recruits would take in mentorship classes focused on avoiding bad behavior.

It would also train sailors on how to keep levelheaded and respond to life-threatening situations such as fires and collisions.

Couture said the changes came after Navy leaders realized they needed to reinforce training and character development skills following problems in recent years.

The changes were first proposed in 2017 after two ships collided in the Pacific, killing 17 sailors. Years prior, the Navy reported that lack of sleep and preparedness had been causing several crashes out at sea.

Then in 2020, Navy officials found that sweeping failures prevented the saving of the $1.2 billion USS Bonhomme Richard, which burned for five days off the shore of San Diego in July.

Although the fire was allegedly started by sailor Ryan Sawyer Mays, who faces charges for the crime, Navy investigators said the crew was 'inadequately prepared' to battle the blaze due to lapses in training.

The Navy also wants to curb suicide among its officers as well as prevent sexual assaults and the mishandling of sexual harassments cases.

The Navy lost 66 active-duty sailors to suicide in 2020, with a suicide rate of 19.3 deaths per 100,000 service members.

The US military as a whole reported more than 20,000 instances of 'unwanted sexual contact' in 2018, a 38 percent increase from a the last report in 2016.

Last week, the navy relieved Cmdr. Richard Zamberlan and Lt. Cmdr. Phillip Lundberg of the Littoral Combat Ship USS Montgomery of duty 'due to a loss of confidence in their ability to command.'

While the Navy declined to release any more detail, a source told the San Diego Tribune they were let go in connection with the mishandling of a sexual harassment complaint on board.

The Navy confirmed an investigation is underway into the harassment complaint.

The military has also been trying to route out extremism after a number of former and current service members were found taking part in the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill.

The Navy had investigated Army reservist Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, who was employed as a security contractor at the Naval Weapons Station Earle in Colts Neck, New Jersey when he allegedly breached the Capitol on January 6.

The Naval Criminal Investigation Service interviewed 44 of Hale-Cusanelli's Navy base coworkers and 34 of them told investigators they believed he had 'extremist or radical views pertaining to the Jewish people, minorities and women'.

Investigators also recovered photos from Hale-Cusanelli's cellphone of him in April 2020 after growing a Hitler mustache, prosecutors say.

The photos were allegedly taken while he was on duty at the Navy base, according to court documents.

Wes Koshoffer, Fleet Master Chief of Naval Personnel, said in a statement that eight weeks was not enough for the navy to address these problems.

'Identity transformation in eight weeks is a lot to ask for,' Koshoffer said.

'Developing toughness, resilience, forging character are processes that take time. And so, adding this time, it doesn't sounds like a lot, but that two weeks really makes a difference.'
01-09-2022 03:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
He who walks without rhythm
*

Posts: 13,053
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 984
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Metrolina
Post: #202
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
For realz?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...i=10440323

Quote:Race to beat China to recover $100m US F-35 stealth fighter from bottom of South China Sea after it crash landed on aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson: Fears secret technology from America's most advanced jet could fall into enemy hands.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2022 02:56 PM by 49RFootballNow.)
01-25-2022 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #203
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(01-25-2022 02:56 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  For realz?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...i=10440323

Quote:Race to beat China to recover $100m US F-35 stealth fighter from bottom of South China Sea after it crash landed on aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson: Fears secret technology from America's most advanced jet could fall into enemy hands.

There is a race to find it---but we have a HUGE advantage in that race. Not only do we have excellent deep water recovery technology---more importantly----we know exactly where the plane hit the water. That gives us a waaaaaaaay smaller search area than any Chinese recovery attempt will be working with.
01-25-2022 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ballantyneapp Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,692
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 486
I Root For: App
Location:
Post: #204
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(01-25-2022 03:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-25-2022 02:56 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  For realz?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...i=10440323

Quote:Race to beat China to recover $100m US F-35 stealth fighter from bottom of South China Sea after it crash landed on aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson: Fears secret technology from America's most advanced jet could fall into enemy hands.

There is a race to find it---but we have a HUGE advantage in that race. Not only do we have excellent deep water recovery technology---more importantly----we know exactly where the plane hit the water. That gives us a waaaaaaaay smaller search area than any Chinese recovery attempt will be working with.

4-D chess, we purposely crash landed a "F-35" with false tech. Put the chinese on a hunt and then confuse them for a few month trying to break our dummy tech.

I wish we were that smart.
01-25-2022 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODU BBALL Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,817
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 524
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #205
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
If the Chinese are able to find it and reproduce it, maybe theirs will crash as well. Also, I seem to remember reading years ago that a lot of money and technology went into the helmet that works with the systems on the aircraft. I doubt they lost the helmet with the plane.
01-25-2022 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,328
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #206
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
The Perils and High Cost of ‘Routine’ Carrier Flight Operations


Quote:Navy officials recently announced that the F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter that crashed “during routine flight operations” on the deck of aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and injured seven sailors was lost over the edge of the flight deck.

The advanced 5th generation F-35C fighters cost $78 million each. With ten of the aircraft embarked on the Vinson in the VFA-147 squadron known as the Argonauts that component of the 75-plane air wing totals a $780 million investment.

Moreover, in addition to the capital cost per plane, the aircraft are pricey to keep flying. Every hour of flying time costs the taxpayers $38,000.

The official announcement of what was characterized as a “mishap” on the carrier Vinson added that the Navy is making recovery operation arrangements for the missing aircraft. Of course, locating and recovering a plane from the depths of the South China Sea is a steep challenge, but when you are dealing with a $78 million “mishap,” you need to go the extra mile to protect the taxpayers’ “investment.”

Thankfully, the pilot ejected from the F-35 and was recovered from the water by helicopter. The pilot and two sailors were evacuated to a medical treatment facility in Manila, Philippines, and four other sailors were treated by on-board medical personnel and are expected to make a full recovery.

All military aircraft operations are costly and very dangerous even in peace time. In fact, a congressional commission reports that, in the five-year period from 2013 to 2018, military aviation accidents killed 224 pilots or aircrew, destroyed 186 aircraft, and cost more than $11.6 billion.

Indeed, many aviators believe those numbers will keep rising. In dozens of interviews conducted by the Commission, military pilots said they are constantly haunted by the possibility of being the next aircraft accident.

Contrary to the Navy’s characterization of the incident on the Vinson, aircraft carrier operations are hardly “routine,” but rather are uniquely precarious. Night landings on a carrier in rough seas and severe weather conditions is akin to dancing on a tightrope without a net.

Of course, an aircraft carrier flight deck is really huge (4.5 acres), but looks like a postage stamp from the air. By contrast, the land-based runway for F-18 operations “officially requires” a tarmac of 6,000 to 7,000 feet. For landing on a carrier, the F-18 can stop within 200 feet with the help of the aircraft’s hook and the ship’s arresting gear.

Unlike a land-based runway, the aircraft carrier flight deck is a moving target. First, the ship is moving into the wind at a speed to generate 32 knots of wind down the angle deck. If winds are light, the ship may be moving through the water at speeds of up to 30 knots.

In addition to going forward at speeds that would get you a ticket in a residential community, the carrier moves in several other ways… six to be exact. A ship can move front to back (surge), side to side (sway), and up and down (heave). The ship can also rotate along each axis — pitch, roll, and yaw respectively.

Of course, heavy seas will exacerbate those movements to the point of seasickness. Just imagine attempting to land on the top of a five-story building in an earthquake. That’s why it is said that being a naval aviator takes “the right stuff.”.

So, here’s a salute to all those brave military pilots, and special wish to those naval aviators for “fair winds, following seas,” and happy arrested landings.
01-31-2022 01:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #207
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(01-31-2022 01:16 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  The Perils and High Cost of ‘Routine’ Carrier Flight Operations


Quote:Navy officials recently announced that the F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter that crashed “during routine flight operations” on the deck of aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and injured seven sailors was lost over the edge of the flight deck.

The advanced 5th generation F-35C fighters cost $78 million each. With ten of the aircraft embarked on the Vinson in the VFA-147 squadron known as the Argonauts that component of the 75-plane air wing totals a $780 million investment.

Moreover, in addition to the capital cost per plane, the aircraft are pricey to keep flying. Every hour of flying time costs the taxpayers $38,000.

The official announcement of what was characterized as a “mishap” on the carrier Vinson added that the Navy is making recovery operation arrangements for the missing aircraft. Of course, locating and recovering a plane from the depths of the South China Sea is a steep challenge, but when you are dealing with a $78 million “mishap,” you need to go the extra mile to protect the taxpayers’ “investment.”

Thankfully, the pilot ejected from the F-35 and was recovered from the water by helicopter. The pilot and two sailors were evacuated to a medical treatment facility in Manila, Philippines, and four other sailors were treated by on-board medical personnel and are expected to make a full recovery.

All military aircraft operations are costly and very dangerous even in peace time. In fact, a congressional commission reports that, in the five-year period from 2013 to 2018, military aviation accidents killed 224 pilots or aircrew, destroyed 186 aircraft, and cost more than $11.6 billion.

Indeed, many aviators believe those numbers will keep rising. In dozens of interviews conducted by the Commission, military pilots said they are constantly haunted by the possibility of being the next aircraft accident.

Contrary to the Navy’s characterization of the incident on the Vinson, aircraft carrier operations are hardly “routine,” but rather are uniquely precarious. Night landings on a carrier in rough seas and severe weather conditions is akin to dancing on a tightrope without a net.

Of course, an aircraft carrier flight deck is really huge (4.5 acres), but looks like a postage stamp from the air. By contrast, the land-based runway for F-18 operations “officially requires” a tarmac of 6,000 to 7,000 feet. For landing on a carrier, the F-18 can stop within 200 feet with the help of the aircraft’s hook and the ship’s arresting gear.

Unlike a land-based runway, the aircraft carrier flight deck is a moving target. First, the ship is moving into the wind at a speed to generate 32 knots of wind down the angle deck. If winds are light, the ship may be moving through the water at speeds of up to 30 knots.

In addition to going forward at speeds that would get you a ticket in a residential community, the carrier moves in several other ways… six to be exact. A ship can move front to back (surge), side to side (sway), and up and down (heave). The ship can also rotate along each axis — pitch, roll, and yaw respectively.

Of course, heavy seas will exacerbate those movements to the point of seasickness. Just imagine attempting to land on the top of a five-story building in an earthquake. That’s why it is said that being a naval aviator takes “the right stuff.”.

So, here’s a salute to all those brave military pilots, and special wish to those naval aviators for “fair winds, following seas,” and happy arrested landings.

Yup. Carrier aviation is a very complex and dangerous operation. Aircraft mishaps have been steadily rising in the Navy since 2013. Its a little concerning since these are largely mature systems (like the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet). One theory for the rise is that the planes have been used much more than expected due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of flight hours in brutal climates can break airplanes. Frankly, I would say carrier aviation by its very nature is very tough on aircraft. Or course, thats just one of many factors that likely contribute to the rise.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-...ough-2018/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-...2-percent/
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2022 01:47 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-31-2022 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MileHighBronco Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,297
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 1727
I Root For: Broncos
Location: Forgotten Time Zone
Post: #208
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
You’re Gonna Need a Better Boat: Navy’s New $13B Aircraft Carrier Fails Testing.
The USS Gerald R. Ford’s Combat System Can’t Defend the Costly Carrier.

Quote:The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier. It’s almost four football fields long and cost $13 billion dollars to build. Formally commissioned by President Donald Trump on 22 July 2017, the ship is a sight to behold —a behemoth of a thing.

According to the ship’s website (yes, it has a website) “the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is a first-in-class aircraft carrier, and the first new aircraft carrier designed in over 40 years. The Sailors who serve aboard Ford are tasked with ensuring the ship is able to execute national tasking for decades to come.”

There’s just one problem…it doesn’t work very well.

“Mixed performance by missile interceptors, radar and data dissemination systems on a testing vessel limited the ability to destroy replicas of incoming weapons even though sensor systems ‘satisfactorily detected, tracked and engaged the targets,’” according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News.

“The carrier built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. is still dogged as well by the ‘poor or unknown reliability’ of its aircraft launch and recovery systems, according to the five-page report. And recent shock tests to assess the vulnerability of key systems ‘identified several design shortfalls not previously discovered,’ the testing office said. It said ‘the Navy has already identified several survivability’ opportunities to improve the four-carrier class of ships ‘against underwater threat engagements,’” Bloomberg continues.

As Russia and China continue to test more advanced weaponry (hyper-sonic missiles), the pressure is on the U.S. to get some serious firepower into the water. China is cranking out patrol boats, frigates, cruisers and submarines with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles —all things the USS Gerald R. Ford is not ready to defend against.

https://thedrilldown.com/newsroom/youre-...s-testing/
01-31-2022 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bobdizole Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,468
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 337
I Root For: MT
Location:
Post: #209
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(01-31-2022 02:35 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  You’re Gonna Need a Better Boat: Navy’s New $13B Aircraft Carrier Fails Testing.
The USS Gerald R. Ford’s Combat System Can’t Defend the Costly Carrier.

Quote:The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier. It’s almost four football fields long and cost $13 billion dollars to build. Formally commissioned by President Donald Trump on 22 July 2017, the ship is a sight to behold —a behemoth of a thing.

According to the ship’s website (yes, it has a website) “the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is a first-in-class aircraft carrier, and the first new aircraft carrier designed in over 40 years. The Sailors who serve aboard Ford are tasked with ensuring the ship is able to execute national tasking for decades to come.”

There’s just one problem…it doesn’t work very well.

“Mixed performance by missile interceptors, radar and data dissemination systems on a testing vessel limited the ability to destroy replicas of incoming weapons even though sensor systems ‘satisfactorily detected, tracked and engaged the targets,’” according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News.

“The carrier built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. is still dogged as well by the ‘poor or unknown reliability’ of its aircraft launch and recovery systems, according to the five-page report. And recent shock tests to assess the vulnerability of key systems ‘identified several design shortfalls not previously discovered,’ the testing office said. It said ‘the Navy has already identified several survivability’ opportunities to improve the four-carrier class of ships ‘against underwater threat engagements,’” Bloomberg continues.

As Russia and China continue to test more advanced weaponry (hyper-sonic missiles), the pressure is on the U.S. to get some serious firepower into the water. China is cranking out patrol boats, frigates, cruisers and submarines with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles —all things the USS Gerald R. Ford is not ready to defend against.

https://thedrilldown.com/newsroom/youre-...s-testing/

If a carrier is doing it's own missile defense something has gone horribly wrong, that's what the escorts are there for. The catapult thing is absolutely mind boggling. Like designing a gun that can't shoot
01-31-2022 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #210
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(01-31-2022 02:35 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  You’re Gonna Need a Better Boat: Navy’s New $13B Aircraft Carrier Fails Testing.
The USS Gerald R. Ford’s Combat System Can’t Defend the Costly Carrier.

Quote:The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier. It’s almost four football fields long and cost $13 billion dollars to build. Formally commissioned by President Donald Trump on 22 July 2017, the ship is a sight to behold —a behemoth of a thing.

According to the ship’s website (yes, it has a website) “the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is a first-in-class aircraft carrier, and the first new aircraft carrier designed in over 40 years. The Sailors who serve aboard Ford are tasked with ensuring the ship is able to execute national tasking for decades to come.”

There’s just one problem…it doesn’t work very well.

“Mixed performance by missile interceptors, radar and data dissemination systems on a testing vessel limited the ability to destroy replicas of incoming weapons even though sensor systems ‘satisfactorily detected, tracked and engaged the targets,’” according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News.

“The carrier built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. is still dogged as well by the ‘poor or unknown reliability’ of its aircraft launch and recovery systems, according to the five-page report. And recent shock tests to assess the vulnerability of key systems ‘identified several design shortfalls not previously discovered,’ the testing office said. It said ‘the Navy has already identified several survivability’ opportunities to improve the four-carrier class of ships ‘against underwater threat engagements,’” Bloomberg continues.

As Russia and China continue to test more advanced weaponry (hyper-sonic missiles), the pressure is on the U.S. to get some serious firepower into the water. China is cranking out patrol boats, frigates, cruisers and submarines with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles —all things the USS Gerald R. Ford is not ready to defend against.

https://thedrilldown.com/newsroom/youre-...s-testing/

Im thinking we'd be better off building 5 more Nimitz/Reagan class carriers along with 5 to 10 more America class amphibs that are fully optimized for carrier operations. While these Amphib's would retain some secondary capability for amphibious assaults---the primary purpose of these vessels would be aviation. The cost of 5 Nimitz/Reagan class carriers is about 50 billion. The cost of 5 Fords is about 70 billion. The cost of an America class light carrier is about 3.4 billion. So you can have 5 Nimitz/Reagan class carriers and 6 America class light carriers for about the same cost as just 5 Ford class carriers. I think we are much better off with 11 carriers that work well than just 5---that's especially true if the 5 Ford carriers dont work all that well. The America "light carriers" would carry about 20-25 F-35B Lightning fighter jets. Thats a pretty capable air wing--one that is arguably better than any carrier foe in the world outside of our own Nimitz/Regan/Ford carriers. If you develop a stealth VTOL autonomous drone for the Navy, these "light carriers" could add even more capability to their air wing.

To me, the Navy should be pouring money into missile, smart shell, and VTOL stealth drone tech. Electric catapults and fancy elevators seem like a waste of money to me. The current tech in those areas is more than adequate. A one shell one hit style smart munition for the main guns our navy ships would make a real difference in the field---something an electric catapult cant match. Same goes for an autonomous VTOL stealth drone. Such a drone could increase the utility of almost every warship in the Navy. Improvements in missile tech---obviously increases the lethality and survivability of every navy ship.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2022 03:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-31-2022 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #211
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(06-15-2021 10:42 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I'm no fan of Uncle Joe, but I suspect that there's at least enough competency left in the Navy leadership to be ready to protect that group if needed.

I don't.
02-14-2022 02:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #212
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(01-31-2022 02:35 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  You’re Gonna Need a Better Boat: Navy’s New $13B Aircraft Carrier Fails Testing.
The USS Gerald R. Ford’s Combat System Can’t Defend the Costly Carrier.
Quote:The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier. It’s almost four football fields long and cost $13 billion dollars to build. Formally commissioned by President Donald Trump on 22 July 2017, the ship is a sight to behold —a behemoth of a thing.
According to the ship’s website (yes, it has a website) “the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is a first-in-class aircraft carrier, and the first new aircraft carrier designed in over 40 years. The Sailors who serve aboard Ford are tasked with ensuring the ship is able to execute national tasking for decades to come.”
There’s just one problem…it doesn’t work very well.
“Mixed performance by missile interceptors, radar and data dissemination systems on a testing vessel limited the ability to destroy replicas of incoming weapons even though sensor systems ‘satisfactorily detected, tracked and engaged the targets,’” according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News.
“The carrier built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. is still dogged as well by the ‘poor or unknown reliability’ of its aircraft launch and recovery systems, according to the five-page report. And recent shock tests to assess the vulnerability of key systems ‘identified several design shortfalls not previously discovered,’ the testing office said. It said ‘the Navy has already identified several survivability’ opportunities to improve the four-carrier class of ships ‘against underwater threat engagements,’” Bloomberg continues.
As Russia and China continue to test more advanced weaponry (hyper-sonic missiles), the pressure is on the U.S. to get some serious firepower into the water. China is cranking out patrol boats, frigates, cruisers and submarines with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles —all things the USS Gerald R. Ford is not ready to defend against.
https://thedrilldown.com/newsroom/youre-...s-testing/

And the toilets don't work.
02-14-2022 02:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #213
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
The USS Ford is probably going to deploy--sort of. This year, Ford,

" … will conduct a “service-retained early employment” period where the Navy keeps full control over the ship’s activities and schedule, Rear Adm. John Meier said.
...
The carrier and its strike group will operate on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean alongside a long list of foreign navies, he [RAdm. Meier] said.
...
2nd Fleet’s sent out a ton of invitations, done a huge amount of work of inviting partners and allies to come and interact with Ford
...
The air wing will be a robust, fully capable air wing, but smaller than an operational carrier air wing, … But that air wing is going to be more potent than any other air wing on any other ship in the world as it is, Meier said."[1]

This is not a typical deployment. Te Navy will keep control rather than passing it to area operational commanders. At the first sign of trouble, they will bring it home. They have spent $15B on a worthless carrier.

Here is what I think should be done:

1) Set the USS Ford aside until it works, specifically until the catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--and toilets--work.
2) Stop work on the remaining three Ford class carriers, redesign them to incorporate steam cats, hydraulic traps, weapons lifts, and plumbing from the Nimitz class, and complete them to revised design; this will cost an arm and a leg, but it is possible--the original JFK was redesigned from nuke to conventional steam propulsion after construction had started--and at least it will provide carriers that can launch aircraft off the front end and recover them over the back end, and places where sailors can take a crap when they need to
3) Go back to the Nimitz or an improved Nimitz or the RAND CVN XL design for future nuke carriers
4) Design a new conventionally powered class of CVs, probably an updated Kitty Hawk, and build them on a 1:1 basis with CVNs; at an estimated $9B for the Nimitz/improved Nimitz/CVN LX, and $6B for the CV, you can get two carriers for the $15B price tag of one Ford, or 12 two-carrier CVBGs for the price of 12 Fords
5) While waiting for the new CVs to enter the fleet (probably 10-15 years for the first), convert the LHD/LHD "large deck amphibs" to interim Lightning Carriers--put in ski jumps, replace the troop berthing and equipment spaces and the well decks with larger hangars and aircraft maintenance spaces, and if practicable upgrade engineering plants to get 25-28 knots out of them; they are basically worthless as amphibs because doctrine requires them to stay 25-50 miles offshore, from which they have no way to get tanks and heavy artillery ashore, forcing Marines to abandon them; the useful lives of the LAs/LHDs will probably run out just as the CVs join the fleet, making a pretty smooth transition; estimated conversion cost about $1.5-2B each
6) To replace the LHAs/LHDs as amphibs, build some more traditional/conventional amphibious squadrons (PhibRons) that can actually be risked close enough to shore to conduct an assault--smaller LHA/LHD like Spanish Juan Carlos/Australian Canberra, LPH like French Mistral, LSD/LPD like British Albion, LST with beaching bow like Turkish Bayraktar, LPA/LKA that could be converted merchant, and fire support/land attack frigate with 155mm guns and rockets like an enlarged LSMR; total cost per PhibRon $4B, or about the cost of one new LHA/LHD; 10 such PhibRons should satisfy the Marines' requirement for a 2-MEB lift capability
7) As the new amphibs enter the fleet, convert the existing San Antonio class LPDs to the ABM/BMD ships that HII has proposed for the same hull, and deploy them to protect advanced bases--Yokosuka, Sasebo, Okinawa, Guam, Pearl, Rota, Naples--and major domestic ports/bases--Seattle/Puget Sound, San Francisco, Los Angeles/Long Beach, San Diego, New York, Chesapeake Bay, Jacksonville/Kings Bay, New Orleans, Houston/Corpus Christi.
8) In addition to the 12 CVBGs (that can form six of Marc Mitscher's 4-carrier task forces) build 8 surface action/hunter-killer groups (SAG/HUKs) consisting of a modern battleship patterned after the 1980s battlecarrier concept (6 16-inch guns, 320 vertical launch missile cells, with 128 convertible to 32 long-range hypersonic/supersonic cruise or short/intermediate ballistic missile cells, and a ski jump flight deck and hangar for 10 F35Bs and 10 helos) and an ASW helo carrier like the Japanese Hyuga (18 helos)
9) For each of the 12 CVBGs and 8 SAG/HUKs, have an escort squadron (CortRon) consisting of 10 ships (20 squadrons, 200 ships total)--1 cruiser (larger replacement for Ticos, Des Moines hull, 2x3 8" guns, 192 VLS cells with 64 convertible to 16 long-range hypersonic/supersonic cruise missile or SRBM/IRBM cells, large deck for UAV operations with USV/UUV capability over the side), 2 AAW destroyers (Burkes or Burke replacements), 3 GP escorts (could be FREMMs but not the FFG(X)s that the USN has bastardized the FREMMs into), and 4 ASW frigates (ASW specialists); in wartime, PhibRons would always travel with CVBGs/CTFs and/or SAG/HUKs, and thus do not require separate escort forces; cost $12B/squadron, $240B total

That would be my naval air/surface combat fleet.

[1]Defense News website, “US Navy carrier Ford to go on unusual deployment this year”, Megan Eckstein, 3-Feb-2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/0...this-year/
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2022 08:03 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-14-2022 03:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,476
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #214
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
Very disappointed when I opened this thread. I thought for sure I would get an update on the progress our military has made toward ensuring our sailors and soldiers use the correct pronouns when addressing their cross dressing leadership.

Instead I get a military readiness update. 03-banghead

How do you expect me to virtue signal to the progressives I might accidentally run into 03-hissyfit

Now that progressive states are canceling mask mandates I’m not sure anyone can even see me wearing my mask alone in my Prius now. 03-weeping
02-14-2022 05:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #215
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(02-14-2022 05:34 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Very disappointed when I opened this thread. I thought for sure I would get an update on the progress our military has made toward ensuring our sailors and soldiers use the correct pronouns when addressing their cross dressing leadership.

Oh, be at ease my friend. Rest assured, that part is going very well.
02-14-2022 08:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,328
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #216
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(02-14-2022 03:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The USS Ford is probably going to deploy--sort of. This year, Ford,

" … will conduct a “service-retained early employment” period where the Navy keeps full control over the ship’s activities and schedule, Rear Adm. John Meier said.
...
The carrier and its strike group will operate on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean alongside a long list of foreign navies, he [RAdm. Meier] said.
...
2nd Fleet’s sent out a ton of invitations, done a huge amount of work of inviting partners and allies to come and interact with Ford
...
The air wing will be a robust, fully capable air wing, but smaller than an operational carrier air wing, … But that air wing is going to be more potent than any other air wing on any other ship in the world as it is, Meier said."[1]

This is not a typical deployment. Te Navy will keep control rather than passing it to area operational commanders. At the first sign of trouble, they will bring it home. They have spent $15B on a worthless carrier.

Here is what I think should be done:

1) Set the USS Ford aside until it works, specifically until the catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--and toilets--work.
2) Stop work on the remaining three Ford class carriers, redesign them to incorporate steam cats, hydraulic traps, weapons lifts, and plumbing from the Nimitz class, and complete them to revised design; this will cost an arm and a leg, but it is possible--the original JFK was redesigned from nuke to conventional steam propulsion after construction had started--and at least it will provide carriers that can launch aircraft off the front end and recover them over the back end, and places where sailors can take a crap when they need to
3) Go back to the Nimitz or an improved Nimitz or the RAND CVN XL design for future nuke carriers
4) Design a new conventionally powered class of CVs, probably an updated Kitty Hawk, and build them on a 1:1 basis with CVNs; at an estimated $9B for the Nimitz/improved Nimitz/CVN LX, and $6B for the CV, you can get two carriers for the $15B price tag of one Ford, or 12 two-carrier CVBGs for the price of 12 Fords
5) While waiting for the new CVs to enter the fleet (probably 10-15 years for the first), convert the LHD/LHD "large deck amphibs" to interim Lightning Carriers--put in ski jumps, replace the troop berthing and equipment spaces and the well decks with larger hangars and aircraft maintenance spaces, and if practicable upgrade engineering plants to get 25-28 knots out of them; they are basically worthless as amphibs because doctrine requires them to stay 25-50 miles offshore, from which they have no way to get tanks and heavy artillery ashore, forcing Marines to abandon them; the useful lives of the LAs/LHDs will probably run out just as the CVs join the fleet, making a pretty smooth transition; estimated conversion cost about $1.5-2B each
6) To replace the LHAs/LHDs as amphibs, build some more traditional/conventional amphibious squadrons (PhibRons) that can actually be risked close enough to shore to conduct an assault--smaller LHA/LHD like Spanish Juan Carlos/Australian Canberra, LPH like French Mistral, LSD/LPD like British Albion, LST with beaching bow like Turkish Bayraktar, LPA/LKA that could be converted merchant, and fire support/land attack frigate with 155mm guns and rockets like an enlarged LSMR; total cost per PhibRon $4B, or about the cost of one new LHA/LHD; 10 such PhibRons should satisfy the Marines' requirement for a 2-MEB lift capability
7) As the new amphibs enter the fleet, convert the existing San Antonio class LPDs to the ABM/BMD ships that HII has proposed for the same hull, and deploy them to protect advanced bases--Yokosuka, Sasebo, Okinawa, Guam, Pearl, Rota, Naples--and major domestic ports/bases--Seattle/Puget Sound, San Francisco, Los Angeles/Long Beach, San Diego, New York, Chesapeake Bay, Jacksonville/Kings Bay, New Orleans, Houston/Corpus Christi.
8) In addition to the 12 CVBGs (that can form six of Marc Mitscher's 4-carrier task forces) build 8 surface action/hunter-killer groups (SAG/HUKs) consisting of a modern battleship patterned after the 1980s battlecarrier concept (6 16-inch guns, 320 vertical launch missile cells, with 128 convertible to 32 long-range hypersonic/supersonic cruise or short/intermediate ballistic missile cells, and a ski jump flight deck and hangar for 10 F35Bs and 10 helos) and an ASW helo carrier like the Japanese Hyuga (18 helos)
9) For each of the 12 CVBGs and 8 SAG/HUKs, have an escort squadron (CortRon) consisting of 10 ships (20 squadrons, 200 ships total)--1 cruiser (larger replacement for Ticos, Des Moines hull, 2x3 8" guns, 192 VLS cells with 64 convertible to 16 long-range hypersonic/supersonic cruise missile or SRBM/IRBM cells, large deck for UAV operations with USV/UUV capability over the side), 2 AAW destroyers (Burkes or Burke replacements), 3 GP escorts (could be FREMMs but not the FFG(X)s that the USN has bastardized the FREMMs into), and 4 ASW frigates (ASW specialists); in wartime, PhibRons would always travel with CVBGs/CTFs and/or SAG/HUKs, and thus do not require separate escort forces; cost $12B/squadron, $240B total

That would be my naval air/surface combat fleet.

[1]Defense News website, “US Navy carrier Ford to go on unusual deployment this year”, Megan Eckstein, 3-Feb-2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/0...this-year/

You'd be my SecDef and I'd expect 5 stars a week on my desk.
02-14-2022 03:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #217
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(02-14-2022 03:21 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  You'd be my SecDef and I'd expect 5 stars a week on my desk.

If I were SecDef, a lot of stars would fall in a hurry. What I'd actually like to do is the old British ceremony. Line a bunch of them up in front of the Pentagon and go around and cut the buttons off their jackets.
02-14-2022 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,328
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #218
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(02-14-2022 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-14-2022 03:21 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  You'd be my SecDef and I'd expect 5 stars a week on my desk.

If I were SecDef, a lot of stars would fall in a hurry. What I'd actually like to do is the old British ceremony. Line a bunch of them up in front of the Pentagon and go around and cut the buttons off their jackets.

04-rock
02-14-2022 03:46 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #219
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(02-14-2022 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-14-2022 03:21 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  You'd be my SecDef and I'd expect 5 stars a week on my desk.

If I were SecDef, a lot of stars would fall in a hurry. What I'd actually like to do is the old British ceremony. Line a bunch of them up in front of the Pentagon and go around and cut the buttons off their jackets.

I'd love for you or someone like you to be SecDef or at least somewhere directing budget allocation for ship building. My biggest concern when I read your stuff is there really doesnt seem to be anyone high up in the Navy that's fighting for idea's like yours. Cool tech is great---but whats even better is Tech that actually works in a war. I personally like the idea of building ships a little larger than they need to be with the idea that you an upgrade them with the newest tech once it actually becomes reliable enough to be effective in the field. No more building ships a around a gun system we havnt invented yet (or is too expensive to operate once we do invent it). That modular component was one thing I actually liked about the LCS. What I never understood is why wernt the "modules" simply based on the best operational tech available at the time so we know the modules would work and be effective. If they needed to be upgraded later on---well---that was kinda the whole point of the modular concept. It would be fairly easy to just modernize the module with the new tech without having to spend a fortune building a whole new ship. That idea actually makes some sense to me.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2022 05:13 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-14-2022 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,328
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #220
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
4 East Coast Destroyers Deploy to Europe Joining U.S. Naval Buildup

Quote:The Navy sortied four East Coast guided-missile destroyers as the U.S. and NATO have massed naval forces in the region, USNI News has learned.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) USS Mitscher (DDG-57) USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and USS Gonzalez (DDG-66) left the U.S. last month as independent deployers for U.S. 6th Fleet.

“Throughout their deployment, they will participate in a range of maritime activities in support of the U.S. 6th Fleet and our NATO allies,” Navy spokesman Cmdr. Arlo Abrahamson told USNI News on Thursday.

Gonzalez and Mitscher, based at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., and Donald Cook and The Sullivans, based in Naval Mayport, Fla., departed from the East Coast in January, according to ship spotters.

All four ships are also configured for ballistic missile defense.

Cook and The Sullivans both returned from Europe last year. Cook was forward-deployed to Rota, Spain for seven years before returning to the East Coast in July. The Sullivans deployed last year with the U.K. Royal Navy’s HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) carrier strike group and returned in November. Both ships are part of Task Force Grey Hound – an anti-submarine warfare detachment U.S. 2nd Fleet stood up last year as a sustainment mission for ships awaiting maintenance.

The ships join the four Navy BMD destroyers based in Rota, Spain – USS Ross (DDG-71), USS Roosevelt (DDG-80), USS Porter (DDG-78) and USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) and the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group operating in the Mediterranean Sea.

Navy officials on Thursday took pains not to directly tie the deployments to the simmering tensions between the U.S. and Russia over the 100,000 Russian troops on the border of Ukraine and the Russian naval buildup in the Black Sea. However, the collection of ships in U.S. 6th Fleet is the largest American naval force in Europe since 2018, according to USNI News carrier deployment database.

In 2018, the Truman CSG operated in the Mediterranean Sea for 79 days largely in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the anti-ISIS missions in Syria and Iraq.

Now, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), Carrier Air Wing 1 and its escorts have been on station near the entrance to the Black Sea since late December under orders from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, USNI News reported.

Two of Truman’s escorts – USS Cole (DDG-67) and USS Jason Dunham (DDG-109) – had been operating in U.S. Central Command while USS Bainbridge (DDG- 96), USS Gravely (DDG-107) and Royal Norwegian Navy frigate HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen (F310) have been in 6th Fleet. Jason Dunham has recently returned to the Mediterranean, according to shipspotters.

Truman is also accompanied by guided-missile cruiser USS San Jacinto (CG-56).

The strike group recently wrapped the NATO-led Neptune Strike, which featured Italian Navy F-35B aircraft carrier ITS Cavour (CVH-550). The group also operated with French Navy carrier FS Charles de Gaulle (R 91) and its escorts.

The Navy announcement comes a day after the Russian Navy sent six amphibious warships into the Black Sea and two Russian guided-missile cruisers to the Mediterranean Sea.
02-16-2022 03:58 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.