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 (it needs to be more like 10% per year for the next 5 years, and focused upon 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, inclusion, and equity (DIE).

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.

Unreal and embarrassing.

Thx, Joe and all your radleft buddies.

I've been saying it since 08, we are under attack and have been since the Marxist Lord Zero took office, not from an invading army of course but from something far more sinister. We are being invaded by an unseen army and since it's unseen it's largely ignored by the general population. We have opened the doors to the keep and let the invaders waltz right in and that is by design IMO.

I suspect that CSG has 1 or more undersea little friends with it. I suspect they make just enough noise on purpose to let the Chinese know they're there and can disappear just as fast.

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.

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.

I think the next 18 months are very dangerous. I hope I am wrong.

(06-15-2021 10:42 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I suspect that there's at least enough competency left in the Navy leadership to be ready to protect that group if needed.

I'm not sure. Given the parade of idiocy coming from that leadership in recent years, I don't have much confidence.

With respect to having an underwater buddy or two, I don't think carriers go anywhere without them these days.

(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.

1) Hard to understand any of that risky behavior. First of all--my understanding was the Carrier Strike Group was a outgrowth of the end of the cold war---a period when there were no peer blue water navies to be concerned about. Thats no longer the case. Carriers should go back to traveling only in the old Carrier Battle Group fleet configuration.


2) 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.

3) Defunding long range strike missile projects is about the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. Thats not a decision that has anything to do with combat effectiveness. Its hard for me to even comprehend how a recommendation like that could ever emerge from Naval leadership. The fact it did is beyond frightening.

Quote:A giant Black Lives Matter (BLM) flag was allowed to be prominently displayed at the barracks of a U.S. naval installation in Africa, according to an allegation by a military whistleblower to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).

The complaint was submitted through a whistleblower complaint page set him by the senator and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) for service members to report examples of bias against conservatives in the military.

The whistleblower wrote that while deployed to a combat zone in Africa, there was a giant Black Lives Matter flag displayed at a U.S. naval installation. The whistleblower, who name was withheld, wrote:

In the barracks area of the installation, a massive BLM flag had been hung from the third story of the barracks, draping over both the second and first rows under it. The flag was probably fifty feet long, by fifteen feet wide. In addition to this, there were many service members that were wearing BLM t-shirts that sported additional BLM slogans, doo rags, and hats, all with BLM plastered on them. I am opposed to the BLM movement for many reasons, and seeing a constant reminder of this group daily, was offensive and distracting to me, especially in a combat zone. I also feel that it is a very politically driven and polarizing group, that has no business being advertised on a military base. There were also multiple people that I worked with, that felt the same way as I did about the group. I asked an individual that had influence on the base and with the base commander, why this was being allowed. He said it was the view of the commander that this movement was not political, and non-partisan, therefore, he had no issue with its advertisement. I asked him then if it would be ok if a hung a massive make America great again trump 2020 flag, and wore hats and memorabilia for the MAGA movement. He told me that would not be allowed, as that would be a very political statement, and cause a lot of offense to some people. I told him this seemed very one sided and hypocritical, and he said it was the commanders [sic] decision, and not his. I share this because I don’t think it was right then, or now, that there is such a double standard, when it comes to these issues. I felt powerless to affect any change, and just had to try and let it go and deal with it everyday.

Link

The US will never be physically invaded and conquered. There are more weapons than people in the US - and that's just considering the guns we know about. On top of that we are a geographic nightmare to an invading force. Our four time zones contain seven different climate regions, not to mention everything from high mountains to marshland, swamps to deserts, and in some places, a lot of flat nothing. Just going across the mighty Mississippi River without a bridge is enough to kill off a good chunk of an army while the residents of East St. Louis are using it as target practice.

When the invaders get out of the actual geographical features of the United States (where roving bands of armed American militias are waiting to ambush their enemies), the invaders will enter some of the largest cities in the world, three of which are in the top 100 in terms of population, and many are full of the aforementioned gangs and violent extremists groups.

Good luck to them.

(06-15-2021 11:38 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The US will never be physically invaded and conquered. There are more weapons than people in the US - and that's just considering the guns we know about. On top of that we are a geographic nightmare to an invading force. Our four time zones contain seven different climate regions, not to mention everything from high mountains to marshland, swamps to deserts, and in some places, a lot of flat nothing. Just going across the mighty Mississippi River without a bridge is enough to kill off a good chunk of an army while the residents of East St. Louis are using it as target practice.

When the invaders get out of the actual geographical features of the United States (where roving bands of armed American militias are waiting to ambush their enemies), the invaders will enter some of the largest cities in the world, three of which are in the top 100 in terms of population, and many are full of the aforementioned gangs and violent extremists groups.

Good luck to them.

This nation is corroding from within. And, has been for quite some time.

No invading force is needed. We're doing it to ourselves.

(06-15-2021 11:43 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 11:38 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The US will never be physically invaded and conquered. There are more weapons than people in the US - and that's just considering the guns we know about. On top of that we are a geographic nightmare to an invading force. Our four time zones contain seven different climate regions, not to mention everything from high mountains to marshland, swamps to deserts, and in some places, a lot of flat nothing. Just going across the mighty Mississippi River without a bridge is enough to kill off a good chunk of an army while the residents of East St. Louis are using it as target practice.

When the invaders get out of the actual geographical features of the United States (where roving bands of armed American militias are waiting to ambush their enemies), the invaders will enter some of the largest cities in the world, three of which are in the top 100 in terms of population, and many are full of the aforementioned gangs and violent extremists groups.

Good luck to them.

This nation is corroding from within. And, has been for quite some time.

No invading force is needed. We're doing it to ourselves.

Which is why I began with the bolded part.

eh, the right coalition of countries could absolutely invade and conquer, especially if the idiot left continues to cause such issues inside the country.

(06-15-2021 11:38 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The US will never be physically invaded and conquered. There are more weapons than people in the US - and that's just considering the guns we know about. On top of that we are a geographic nightmare to an invading force. Our four time zones contain seven different climate regions, not to mention everything from high mountains to marshland, swamps to deserts, and in some places, a lot of flat nothing. Just going across the mighty Mississippi River without a bridge is enough to kill off a good chunk of an army while the residents of East St. Louis are using it as target practice.

When the invaders get out of the actual geographical features of the United States (where roving bands of armed American militias are waiting to ambush their enemies), the invaders will enter some of the largest cities in the world, three of which are in the top 100 in terms of population, and many are full of the aforementioned gangs and violent extremists groups.

Good luck to them.

I'm imagining Chevy Chase in Vacation. You mentioned East St Louis. I can just see the tracks getting stolen off a Chineae tank...

https://youtu.be/hwBoa-NbNL8

They won't invade. They'll just nuke us and use the land after it sits a few years.

(06-15-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

1) Hard to understand any of that risky behavior. First of all--my understanding was the Carrier Strike Group was a outgrowth of the end of the cold war---a period when there were no peer blue water navies to be concerned about. Thats no longer the case. Carriers should go back to traveling only in the old Carrier Battle Group fleet configuration.


2) 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.

3) Defunding long range strike missile projects is about the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. Thats not a decision that has anything to do with combat effectiveness. Its hard for me to even comprehend how a recommendation like that could ever emerge from Naval leadership. The fact it did is beyond frightening.

1- Not sure what the best course of action is on the CSG versus CBG configurations. The pessimistic side of me leans towards the Navy fearing the anti-ship ballistic missiles of China/Russia and not wanting to put a large force in one threat area, likely believing the deterrence attacking a CG of any size or configuration would be enough unless the adversary wants all out war at which case best not to expose too many surface craft a one time.

2- The LCS mentality seemed off from the start with me. They are glorified Coast Guard ships IMO, or sophisticated forward landing craft. Were they built to police the world's shorelines, defend the US exclusive economic zone or to assist in a massive D-day style invasion? The ship seems better suited for European countries that have a vested interest in a small body of water like the North Sea, Baltic Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. I don't think they ever made sense for US projection of force or likely active warfare. Perhaps the US can sell the ships to Europe or the Philippines and cut our losses.

3a- bull****. This is the Obama era leadership continuing to weaken out military. The Navy can afford whatever it wants.

3b- Shrink the bureaucracy. Optimize the USMC/NAVY shared resources.

3c- Again, the pessimistic side of me thinks we are abandoning advancing this tech due to is ineffectiveness against Chinese or Russian countermeasures. On the optimistic side, our own rail gun and laser tech may be replacing the need for sea-based cruise missiles. Perhaps this is moving to a satellite based function of the Space Force.

3d- Self-inflicted gunshot wound to the face. I want the best and most capable sailors, pilots, and leadership regardless of color, sexual orientation, ect. All of the US armed forces, not just the Navy, needs to refocus on being the deadliest force on the planet. Promotion of such BS should get your court-martialed. Likewise, racisms, sexism, or any other form of discrimination or prejudice within the services should get you court-martialed on first offense.

(06-15-2021 11:53 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  eh, the right coalition of countries could absolutely invade and conquer, especially if the idiot left continues to cause such issues inside the country.

Not right now. But, in 20-30 years, when my generation is gone and the nation is completely overrun by people that can't figure out the 2 genders and can't do anything without a device in their hands, it may be a different story.

There is a glut of cruise ships available. I'm sure the sailors would like the staterooms.

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.

My father was on the USS Forrestal during the fire.