tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7813587938902833040..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Naval Trends and Future CombatComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18841126265033778682014-05-20T13:55:14.372-07:002014-05-20T13:55:14.372-07:00I'm not a fan of the SH. It is what it is. I...I'm not a fan of the SH. It is what it is. It's reasonably reliable, has good sensors, cockpit and integration and carries a decent load. It also has a known price tag.<br /><br />Otherwise it's a pig. <br /><br />It was a fantastic program that successfully produced a mediocre product. <br /><br />Just MHO.<br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-401258918232716412014-05-20T12:07:43.829-07:002014-05-20T12:07:43.829-07:00"The Navy needs to grow a doctrinal pair and ..."The Navy needs to grow a doctrinal pair and learn how to operate within effective range of the enemy"<br /><br />Amen! I mean, during the Cold War wasn't one plan to sail the CVN's up close to Russia to threaten some of their northern airbases? <br /><br />I don't want to sound callous, and I've had several friends in the Navy. But... I guess I'm of the opinion that if we don't have the ability to risk our naval assets for the sake of achieving certain goals, then its almost useless spending billions on our Navy. <br /><br />If we have to go to war, its going to entail risk, alot of it. And ships will get sunk. <br /><br />If our Navy is just a land strike platform that is only good for dealing with smaller nations, than maybe we'd do just as well with fewer, smaller carriers that can park with impunity off the coast of Somalia or Iraq. No, we wouldn't get the punch, but we'd certainly spend less money. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88220988787517882072014-05-20T12:00:16.662-07:002014-05-20T12:00:16.662-07:00I hate to pick at a scab, but I wonder if we didn&...I hate to pick at a scab, but I wonder if we didn't miss an opportunity back in the day:<br /><br />"Air power is potent but not from 1000-1500 miles away! The Navy needs to grow a doctrinal pair and learn how to operate within effective range of the enemy. If they want effective range to be 1000+ miles than we need some longer ranged missiles and planes"<br /><br />You guys can debate about the HS range, but while its better than the C/D variant its still doesn't seem to have the range we'd like. IIRC the Tomcats had around a 550nm combat radius. It was because of that that during the opening stages of Afghanistan IIRC they were some of the first strike aircraft on scene. <br /><br />Yes, from what I understand she could be a maintanance nightmare, but I wonder if we had put the effort into upgrading we could have mitigated that, and gotten an altogether more useful aircraft. <br /><br />FWIW, I like the SuperHornet. The more I read though, the more it seems like an evolution to the Tomcat would have us in better stead now. <br /><br />Ah well. Water under the bridge. They're gone. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75535965915633955362014-05-20T10:45:52.553-07:002014-05-20T10:45:52.553-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16405400577241096522014-05-20T08:21:42.699-07:002014-05-20T08:21:42.699-07:00That's a set of PowerPoint slides from many ye...That's a set of PowerPoint slides from many years ago. Any idea what the data source is? That range is so far beyond any other stated combat range that I can't accept it without some authoritative source data. As you've stated previously, PowerPoint presentations are generally optimisitic in the extreme!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47716123547337408852014-05-20T06:17:11.596-07:002014-05-20T06:17:11.596-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17150964557975034132014-05-20T05:50:43.523-07:002014-05-20T05:50:43.523-07:00B.Smitty, I'm not conceding the zone, the Navy...B.Smitty, I'm not conceding the zone, the Navy is! I don't believe the Chinese have any functional ballistic missile carrier killer capability at all but the Navy is certainly terrified of it.<br /><br />Where did you get that 800 mile figure? Wiki lists the range of the SH in clean configuration as 1275 nm and that would be with a perfect flight profile. The combat radius is listed as 390 nm and, again, that would be without any roundabout waypoints or combat maneuvering. A real world combat radius would be more like 250-300 nm at best.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78094595612283504392014-05-20T04:36:05.049-07:002014-05-20T04:36:05.049-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1679048318568004432014-05-19T13:46:27.079-07:002014-05-19T13:46:27.079-07:00B.Smitty, air power is an effective anti-ship forc...B.Smitty, air power is an effective anti-ship force, as you note. I would add, though, that naval air power must be relatively close to the target and the Navy is showing ever greater reluctance to step into harm's way. The Navy has stated that they won't approach enemy shorelines closer than 50+ miles out of fear of land based missiles. They've all but ceded the 1000 nm A2/AD zone out of fear of ballistic missiles. <br /><br />Air power is potent but not from 1000-1500 miles away! The Navy needs to grow a doctrinal pair and learn how to operate within effective range of the enemy. If they want effective range to be 1000+ miles than we need some longer ranged missiles and planes.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14013129498491521402014-05-19T13:39:33.701-07:002014-05-19T13:39:33.701-07:00Dwight, that's a good comment. Note, though,...Dwight, that's a good comment. Note, though, that the author of the article was not limiting his discussion to ASuW. He was looking at the impact of long range precision strike in general - to include attacks against fixed bases from very long ranges. His comments and conclusions were much more general than just ASuW.<br /><br />I also note that the Harpoon inventory is nearing zero. They have a shelf life issue and will be completely removed from service in the very near future. <br /><br />While subs offer a very effective means of conducting ASuW, I'm sure the unlucky ship's CO who does not happen to have a sub at his beck and call would appreciate a modern and capable anti-ship missile for those chance meetings with an enemy ship!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58275071509579772362014-05-19T13:12:33.825-07:002014-05-19T13:12:33.825-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62160023718626453662014-05-19T11:41:23.491-07:002014-05-19T11:41:23.491-07:00The US Navy has been frequently criticized for not...The US Navy has been frequently criticized for not having an adequate anti-ship arsenal. It is easy to articulate that line of criticism... The US Navy's primary anti-ship missile -- the Harpoon is 35 years old, and while Russia, China and even India has (collectively) put out 4 generations of newer anti-ship weapons, most with longer range than the Harpoon, including successive generations of supersonic examples, the US has done nothing. In fact, most Burkes and submarines don't even carry the Harpoon and have no anti-ship missiles on board. The long range Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile has long since been retired from inventory.<br /><br />It seems, that the USN is fully intent on being a cruise missile shooting and bomb trucking force with an AEGIS missile battery defending it's carrier(s) and TLAM barges. Confronted with an enemy Navy it seems that there is very little to engage them with.<br /><br />This is both true and untrue. Yes, the US Navy is most interested in power projection over land using cruise missiles and bomb dropping carrier aircraft. This has been the principle role played by the USN in all our recent wars. Yes, it is true that there are very few Harpoons in a task group -- both on top of destroyers and in the carrier's stockpiles. But, no, an opposing Navy will be gravely mistaken to think that USN has very little ability to sink them.<br /><br />There are currently 40 Los Angeles and 10 Virginia class boats in service. That's 50 offensive platforms which most Navies do not have effective defenses against. That is the USN's ASuW punch and it is felt that this is a more effective way of sinking surface action groups than trading anti-ship missiles with them. The Harpoon and the LRASM are simply prudent steps to not put all the eggs in the same basket. It doesn't change the fact that the dominant component in the US Navy's anti-ship punch lies in her silent service.<br /><br />Pertaining to the topic above, one needs to ask... what's has a greater emphasis on offensive firepower, is extremely mobile, extremely low-observable, logistically independent, readily dispersed, hidden, obscured, minimally reliant on RF networks, than a nuclear attack sub?dwight looihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07724167433766696375noreply@blogger.com