The Los Angeles class submarine, USS Boise (SSN-764), has
been waiting pier side since 2015 for routine maintenance. The Navy has now announced that a 2024, $1.2B
maintenance contract has been terminated and the vessel will be retired.
Boise was commissioned 1992 and served around 22 yrs until
being abandoned pier side by the Navy in 2015 where it has been rotting since.
A perfectly good, world class submarine abandoned by the
Navy because they prioritized new hulls over maintenance of existing ones.
We’re in a pre-war arms race with China and the Navy does
this?
I’m not a lawyer but this is unforgivable criminal
negligence, dereliction of duty, and fraudulent management of the nation’s
resources by a decade of Navy leadership.
Every CNO since 2015 should be recalled to active duty and
court-martialed. It’s depressing how
many of my posts end with that sentence, isn’t it?
Navy Matters
Naval analysis provided by ComNavOps, Commander - Naval Opinions
Friday, April 10, 2026
Wednesday, April 8, 2026
Combat? What’s That?
I saw the following headline and read the article with great
anticipation. I’ve been calling for a
drone carrier for some time now and only Turkey has made a move in that
direction so I was very interested to see what kind of vessel this would be,
what kind of drones it would operate, and how it would fit into combat
operations.
“Damen launches ‘Drone Carrier’ for the Portuguese Navy”
To say I was disappointed is a huge understatement. The following describes the ship’s mission focus.
Does anyone else notice the one glaring omission? There’s no combat mission!
In addition, the vessel is butt-ugly and woefully
non-stealthy.
The vessel has a high degree of system autonomy. It is designed for unrestricted service in tropical and moderate environments and is especially suited for multi-purpose activities such as oceanographic research, environmental control, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and maritime surveillance and support tasks.[1]
Does anyone else notice the one glaring omission? There’s no combat mission!
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/04/damen-launches-drone-carrier-for-the-portuguese-navy/
Monday, April 6, 2026
Why Do We Have Lightweight Torpedoes?
During the Cold War, the US Navy concluded that lightweight
torpedoes were largely ineffective against Soviet submarines, in terms of
achieving a kill. Even heavyweight
torpedoes were questionable and thought to require multiple hits to kill. Lightweight torpedoes were considered more of
an annoyance to Soviet subs than a lethal threat.
Lightweight torpedoes are a lethal threat only to small,
lighter built diesel subs.
Lightweight torpedoes are not a ship-sinking threat to
anything much bigger than a patrol boat and are not capable of sinking surface
ships, either merchant or naval.
That being the case, why is the Mk54 lightweight torpedo so
ubiquitous throughout the surface Navy?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for ships to mount heavyweight torpedoes?
Here’s a brief comparison of the Mk48 heavyweight and Mk54
lightweight torpedo characteristics.
Characteristics vary, of course, depending on the exact model but these
are representative. Note the lightweight
torpedo’s warhead weight and range deficiencies compared to the heavyweight
torpedo.
- Sinking merchant ships
- Sinking submarines
- Sinking surface ships
- Destroying maritime structures (oil platforms and such)
Sunday, March 29, 2026
What Could the LCS Do in the Middle East?
Currently, two of the three LCS supposedly based in the
Middle East have been moved (evacuated?) to Singapore.[1] The whereabouts of the third is unknown. Why aren’t they in the Middle East, perhaps
ensuring the safe passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz? Isn’t this kind of mission exactly what they
were designed for? As you recall, the
original LCS concept was that they would boldly enter littoral (hence, the ship’s
name) waters and neutralize mines, subs, surface, and land threats so that
larger, more expensive ships could operate in the area with less risk.
So, why aren’t they there?
Well, we all know the answer. The
originally envisioned modules were just flights of fantasy and never
materialized. But, what if the original
modules had become available as fully functioning equipment? Would such LCSes be useful in the Middle East
today?
Let’s briefly recall the intended functionality of the original
modules.
MCM – The LCS was intended to stop well outside a minefield
and use remote, unmanned assets to clear the area of mines.
ASuW - This
was, perhaps, the key to the entire LCS concept. The NLOS (not to be confused with the current
Spike NLOS missile) system of loitering, smart, networked munitions would
address all threats out to a range of 20+ miles. By removing all visible threats, it would
allow fellow LCSes to deal with mines and submarines.
ASW – The LCS was intended to basically stop and throw out
an ASW barrier of remote vehicles that would track down and destroy enemy
submarines while the LCS remained safely out of reach.
Thus, a mixed group of LCS would enter an area and the ASuW
equipped vessels would eliminate all visible land and surface threats while ASW
and MCM equipped vessels eliminated the subsurface threats. Such a group in the strait, today, would
eliminate all missile, rocket, artillery, and speed boat threats to shipping
across the width of the strait and twenty miles inland. UAVs would provide continuous surveillance
with NLOS munitions on-call, moments away.
Hidden enemy launchers would be destroyed moments after they emerged
from hiding. The MCM-LCS would search
for the rumored, but not yet confirmed, mines.
Highly effective, indeed!
Of course, the LCS modules were never realized (that’s why
it’s called fantasy!) and the LCS proved useless as demonstrated by the Navy’s
removal of the ships from the very mission they were designed for. The concept was okay but it was dependent on
non-existent technology coupled with unbelievably inept execution.
Since we don’t have fantasy modules but the conceptual need
still exists, what do we have that could do the job? Well, there’s always air power that could,
for enormous cost and effort, provide the continuous surveillance and quick
response strike that’s needed to deal with emergent threats. We have Burkes with their single 5” gun that
could provide persistent, on-call, fire support if some other asset can provide
targeting. We could land Army/Marines in
various locations to search and destroy or provide counterbattery fire.using
G/ATOR or similar systems.
We have the theoretical capability for ships to do
counterbattery fire since the radars are fully capable, lacking only the
software to do so. Why hasn’t the Navy
ever bothered to implement counterbattery capability? Because it doesn’t put big, new, shiny hulls
in the water which is how large budget slices are ensured.
The original LCS concept was valid and the need was
legitimate but the actual design was based on non-existent technology and
wishful thinking. We didn’t need the
LCS. The need could have been met with
existing assets by implementing counterbattery capability on Burkes, adding
much more small UAV capability to ships, and incorporating air power and land
forces. The cost would have been minimal
– free compared to what the LCS program has cost us.
That we didn’t take the approach of using existing assets
simply highlights the Navy’s focus on budget over mission accomplishment. The LCS gained the Navy large budget share as
opposed to simple software modifications or buying some more small UAVs.
Until we stop viewing the Navy as a business organization
trying to turn a profit (budget slice) and start viewing it as a tool for
mission accomplishment, nothing will improve.
Where are the LCSes?
The past Navy CNOs need to be brought out of retirement and forced to
take responsibility for their dereliction of duty.
_______________________________
https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-minesweepers-stationed-in-middle-east-are-now-in-singapore
Monday, March 23, 2026
Dropping Like Flies
The Air Force has publicly stated that large UAVs are not
survivable on the modern battlefield.
ComNavOps has emphatically stated that, also. Despite that, many commentators remained
convinced that our UAVs will somehow, magically, provide us with total
situational awareness. Well, here’s some
evidence that supports ComNavOps’, and the Air Force’s, belief. From the Atlantic Council (a supposed non-partisan think tank) website,
I’ve read unverified, updated reports that the Houthis have shot down as many as 20 MQ-9 Reapers.
I have no verification of the reports and no sense of the
credibility of the Atlantic Council but it does fit exactly with what I believe
and what seems patently obvious: that
slow, non-stealthy, non-maneuverable UAVs are simply target drones on the
modern battlefield. Similar reports from
other sources vary in number of Reapers shot down but all are in the 14-20+
range.
Further evidence comes from the current strikes against
Iran, as reported by Air & Space Forces website,
If a thoroughly decimated military like Iran can manage to down that many drones, imagine what a coherent, peer enemy like China could do. Large UAVs have a lifetime measured in minutes against a competent peer enemy and have no place on the modern battlefield.
One of the fears that I have is that the US will take “lessons”
from this Iran conflict and apply them inappropriately to a future war with
China just as we seem to be doing with the Ukraine “lessons”. Both conflicts involve utterly inept
militaries which renders any “lessons” invalid.
The only valid lesson is that large, slow, non-stealthy,
non-maneuverable UAVs are not survivable in a contested air space and we are
foolish to count on them.
_____________________________
Since November 2023, the Houthis have claimed responsibility for downing fourteen MQ-9 Reaper drones …[1]
I’ve read unverified, updated reports that the Houthis have shot down as many as 20 MQ-9 Reapers.
MQ-9 Reapers are flying numerous orbits over Iran, gathering intelligence and taking out missile launchers in Operation Epic Fury. Yet Iran has managed to down about 10 of the armed drones …[2]
If a thoroughly decimated military like Iran can manage to down that many drones, imagine what a coherent, peer enemy like China could do. Large UAVs have a lifetime measured in minutes against a competent peer enemy and have no place on the modern battlefield.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/houthi-strikes-on-us-mq9-reaper-drones/
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/mq-9s-over-iran-striking-and-finding-targets-but-taking-some-losses/
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
LCS Mine Countermeasures Assessment
Surprisingly, two of the Navy’s MCM configured LCS have been
moved from the Middle East to a port in Malaysia despite the obvious
possibility of Iranian mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The ships were relocated about a week or so
before the US strikes began. If the
Iranians do lay mines (there are no confirmed reports yet), we’ll desperately
miss the LCS MCM capabilities … or will we?
From a Hunterbrooks website report, we learn that the LCS
MCM capability is even more problematic and limited than we already knew. The report provides information from a US
Navy briefing.[1]
As you read it, bear in mind that the summarized information
presented below is the Navy’s information, not mine. If you want to dispute anything, you’ll have
to take it up with the Navy.
By trying to be multi-mission, training time available for
mine countermeasures is being significantly reduced to support ASuW, VBSS, and
other missions.
The entire MCM package is pretty minimal and consists of just:
- 1x MH-60S Seahawk
- Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS)
- mine neutralization system (underwater suicide drone)
- AN/AQS-20 side-scan and volume-search sonar
- Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS)
- 4+ hrs pre-mission maintenance
- 1.5 hrs post-launch sonar calibration
AQS-20 sonar has a habit of failing to record data which is
not detectable until after the mission, during the post-mission analysis.
CUSV still has a tendency to “runaway”, out of control.
CUSV comms are unacceptably short range requiring the LCS to
operate in or near the minefield.
Navy MCM doctrine requires a visual ID of mines and the
camera fails even in relatively clear waters.
The single CUSV crane is a single point of failure and is
prone to failure.
https://hntrbrk.com/demining-hormuz/
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Moderation of Comments
Due to a spate of idiotic comments, largely by one or
perhaps two people, I suspect, I’m going to institute moderation of comments
until we move on to less “charged” topics.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)


