The Navy is attempting to retire large numbers of ships in a misguided effort to increase funding for unmanned vessels and other nonsensical items. In particular, the Navy has been trying for many years to retire the Aegis cruisers, the world’s most capable and powerful warships. After being repeatedly rebuffed by Congress, the Navy settled on the ploy of allowing the ships to sit pier side and, literally, rust away and then claim that it would cost too much to upgrade them. Now, the Navy is going a step further and outright lying to Congress. CNO Gilday had this to say to the House Armed Services Committee about the Aegis cruiser retirement requests:
“The older SPY radars can’t see the threat. If they can’t see it, they can’t shoot it down.”[1]
So, according to the admiral, Aegis/SPY-1 ‘can’t see the threat’. Really? Aegis originated the motto,
‘If it flies, it dies’.
Was that a lie?
The threats haven’t changed all that much since Aegis/SPY was first introduced. The threat was missiles back then and today the threat is … ah … missiles. Yes, stealth has come along but that affects all radars not just Aegis/SPY radars.
Ah … here’s a thought … don’t the Burkes use the same SPY-1 radar, albeit a slightly different version (-D versus –A/B). Is the version difference so great that Burkes are front line warships capable of seeing every threat and yet Ticonderogas are blind barges, unfit for even harbor patrol? Or, is Gilday lying to get what he wants which is to retire the cruisers?
___________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Decommissioned ship funds would go towards buying missiles, Navy says”, Aaron Mehta, 11-May-2022,
Burke Flight III is the only one with SPY-6 from the get-go, with Flight IIa getting retrofitted at some point (supposedly). In any case, the power and radar aperture are similar but SPY-6 is an AESA while SPY-1 is a PESA so the former will have a ton of advantages against small targets and in a complex EW environment (I can't go over it in detail in a brief post - Stimson 2nd or 3rd ed. should have a chapter on the subject of phased array radars, with the latter likely having pages on SPY-1 and SPY-6 specifically). The signal processing is also going to be leagues improved simply due to the timeframes each radar was developed in.
ReplyDeleteI'll buy that SPY-6 is tremendously more capable than any variant of SPY-1 in some scenarios (though in basic tasks like "detect a Tu-22M as far away from the boat as possible" the performance is probably pretty similar). But if the admiral is claiming that the difference is so great that it renders SPY-1 obsolete, he's got way more hulls than just the Ticos to turn into reefs. It remains one of the most capable radar systems in service worldwide!
An addendum: Raytheon just got awarded a $3.2b contract to upgrade the Flight IIa Burke radars, with all of the following included in the $3.2b: manufacture of 31 SPY-6 radars, ripping out the 31 existing SPY-1 radars already on the ships, installation of the SPY-6s, and post-install support for five years. That comes to about $100m/boat. Are you telling me it's impossible to do that on the old Ticos, that have room and power for the drastically heavier, bulkier and less-power-efficient early versions of SPY-1?! Even if they claim it costs $150m or $200m per hull to upgrade the Ticos to SPY-6(v)4, somebody should call Gilday's bluff and say "that's a bargain, do it!"
143.32 million for the first radar. For the full install total comes to about 170-180. Its in this year's budget.
DeleteThey aren't even good liars...
ReplyDeleteThe unmanned ships with which the Navy intends to replace the Ticonderoga class and other MANNED ships, will either be the Littoral Combat Ship 2.0, guaranteed to either EPIC FAIL before being cancelled after wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars, due to technological immaturity- or be the Joint Strike Fighter 2.0, delayed by 20+ years and then be obsolete when they finally enter service, due to the time required to debug their many "All New, All Different" systems. I'm willing to bet you $100 on this, but I doubt you'll take such an obvious sucker's bet- obvious to anyone using his brain, that is.
ReplyDeleteEven though he cleaned up his "reading list" this year, removing all the politically driven sexual and racial nonsense, the Admiral has very much passed his expiration date on trustworthiness...
ReplyDelete"An addendum: Raytheon just got awarded a $3.2b contract to upgrade..." Wow!! Didn't the cruisers that were idled get "modernization" contracts for about half that much?? Imagine if the Navy was serious about firepower and having a lethal fleet... For that $100M price wed have bargain Spy6 Ticos!!! Smh...
ReplyDeleteNot sure that is a one for one. I think the trick is, how many of each type of radar capability do we really need? Would EASR cut it on more hulls?
DeleteEASR and SPY-6 are, essentially, the same radar with different names. Both use the exact same Radar Modular Assemblies (RMA). Here's a quote from Naval News website:
Delete"Two variants of EASR are being built: a single-face rotating array designated AN/SPY-6(V)2 for amphibious assault ships and Nimitz class carriers, and a three fixed-face array designated AN/SPY-6(V)3 for Ford class aircraft carriers and the future FFG(X) guided missile frigates."
Just a couple of thoughts:
ReplyDelete- USN always wanted to get rid of the old Ticos and it will end up getting its wish. So much I'm sure could still be done with them but USN will just throw them away. ...
- With all this talk of supply chain problems, long wait times, lack of chips,etc wonder what the production lead time is for a brand new SPY6? Probably 1 to 2 years? Maybe more. So when USN is throwing away 10 SPY1s, its years of production that I'm sure we could refurbish lot faster in a war than make new ones...
- LCS USS Sioux just made its FIRST operation and what will be its LAST trip across Atlantic, USN has the gall to tout it's accomplishments.....and surprise after all these years, Independence class has a bunch of cracks so looks like its wasn't all that much better than Freedom class....
- We all know where this is going:
USN wants to buy 100s of unmanned ships and doesn't care if they work or not in war.
"USN wants to buy 100s of unmanned ships and doesn't care if they work or not in war."
DeleteMore likely, the DoD officials and admirals pushing for those programs, are under the delusion reality must conform to their wishes, i.e., the EXACT SAME DELUSION Robert S. McNamara was under. "I say it works, so it works!" is not something taxpayers or their elected representatives- the Congressmen controlling the Navy's budget- should accept, and after the EPIC FAILures that are the Littoral Combat Ships, I doubt they will.
The obvious lack of experience the navy now has with small ships also comes into play. We could be building small ships, crewing them, and still be ahead of the game.
Delete"Independence class has a bunch of cracks so looks like its wasn't all that much better than Freedom class...." I used to write work items for the Independence class LCS. Easily 60-70 percent of the work I wrote was crack repairs in the Amahs (those outrigger things). Literally dozens of cracks on each work items....and this was 3 years ago.
Delete"crack repairs"
DeleteThat's even more disturbing considering that the Independence variant has had so few deployments. Are they cracking pier side?
This may not directly go to this post but does the Navy have a coherent strategy on weapons ships and personnel? It seems like they purchase something that’s the cats meow to only abandon the idea a decade or less later aka the LCS program while demonstrating a complete lack of direction on concept or strategy.
ReplyDelete"does the Navy have a coherent strategy"
DeleteIf they do, they're great at hiding it.
"does the Navy have a coherent strategy"
DeleteNo.
Do Aegis cruisers still deserve the 'most powerful surface combatants afloat' award?
ReplyDeleteDidn't the Type 55 take that laurel years ago?
Donald Rumsfeld made many mistakes, but he did make one comment that resonates with me. He said it about the army, although it's even more true of the Navy, given how long it takes to build ships. Here it is (paraphrased):
ReplyDeleteYou go to war with the Navy you have, not with the navy you'd like to have at some future date.
It's looking like we may have to go to war with China sometime in this decade. Several admirals have stated this. If that happens, we'll basically be doing it with the current fleet, with a few minor changes. In that case, we'll wish we still had those ships. The LCS's? Not so much. But these ships, yes.
"You go to war with the Navy you have, not with the navy you'd like to have at some future date."
DeleteHe failed to follow up with the point we made just recently:
"You win a war with the navy you build, not with the navy you start the war with.
""You win a war with the navy you build, not with the navy you start the war with."
DeleteTrue, although in fairness to Rumsfeld, he said it in connection with the second Iraq war which was (at least as far as advanced combat operations were concerned) fairly short. Even though the counter-insurgency did last for many years, the intensity was far lower than a major power war would be.
Additional thought. Even if the radar on the cruisers isn't up to the requirements of managing air and missile defense for a carrier battle group, it's probably better than the radar on most smaller ships, the LCS certainly but probably also many NATO frigates and whatnot. So there must be something useful that could be done in a war. For example, escorting merchant convoys. I understand that the Navy is currently telling merchant ships that there are no escorts for them in a war. They're on their own. These ships would certainly be better than THAT.
ReplyDelete"Even if the radar on the cruisers isn't up to the requirements of managing air and missile defense for a carrier battle group, "
DeleteThat's exactly what it was designed to do and I haven't seen anything to suggest it can no longer do it. In fact, given that it has facilities for anti-air command and control that the Burkes do not, it is better suited.
"facilities for anti-air command and control that the Burkes do not"
DeleteHere's another thought. How about repurposing the space for the helicopter hanger on the Burke Flight 3 to be facilities for anti-air command and control. Obviously redesign the interior, just use the space. The hanger is of no real use for anti-air work, after all.
Additional thought: Even if the radar on these ships is no longer adequate to the task of managing air and missile defense for a carrier battle group, it's still better than the radar on most smaller ships, the LCS certainly but probably also many NATO frigates.
ReplyDeleteSo there must be other missions they could do. For example, escorting merchant convoys. I understand the Navy is currently telling merchant ships that, in the event of war, there will be NO escorts for them. They're on their own. These ships would certainly be better than THAT.
Sorry I duplicated the last post. It disappeared after I posted it, then came back later.
DeleteOh, wellllll .....
" It disappeared after I posted it, then came back later."
DeleteIt went to the spam folder and reappeared when I moved to the normal folder. This is a sporadic problem with many people that I've been unable to do anything about. Just trust that all comments will, eventually, appear. I check the spam folder several times a day.
Day might come where we will regret throwing away 10 good SPY1s into the trash can instead of at least taking them apart and storing them in a controlled environment.....those things are national security assets, we discard them to our peril.
ReplyDeleteBe nice you fellas called this what it is.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“The older SPY radars can’t see the threat. If they can’t see it, they can’t shoot it down.”
Well the Constellations can't shoot it down, or at least not many of them, because they don't have enough missiles.
Well, the Constellation has 32 VLS cells so with ESSM that's a maximum of 128 anti-air missiles. Given that a ship would be lucky to get 4 shots per engagement, that's up to 32 engagement opportunities. That's plenty for a local area anti-air frigate.
DeleteOf course, the Navy seems to want to include area defense SM-6 missiles so that brings the anti-air missile count down. Area AAW for a frigate is stupid because then it doesn't have enough area missiles to be effective nor enough local missiles to be effective. If you want an area AAW platform, just build more Burkes ... or keep the Ticos instead of retiring them.
It depends on the quantity of missiles carried. Trying to do area AAW with SM-6 doesn't make sense with just 32 cells on a constellation, but if it's something like 4-8 cells carrying SM-6 to deter/suppress/chase away MPA, I think that's a defensible decision. The OHP frigates could only carry SM-1, which meant that Soviet MPAs could operate with impunity against them and the REFORGER convoys they were supposed to protect.
Delete- JMD
"The OHP frigates could only carry SM-1"
DeleteAs demonstrated by the Australian upgrades, the OHP could carry SM-2.
"Soviet MPAs could operate with impunity against them and the REFORGER convoys"
At that time, there was no SM-6. SM-1 was the only missile. SM-2 entered service around 1980 or so.
"Area AAW for a frigate is stupid because then it doesn't have enough area missiles to be effective nor enough local missiles to be effective."
DeleteBut I'm telling you that is the plan. Get rid of 22 Ticos and replace them with 20 Connies, and tell Congress, "See we only lost two AEGIS platforms. What good boys are we."
Ignoring the missile count when it is convenient to do so.
"But I'm telling you that is the plan."
DeleteEven for the Navy, that's ridiculous. The Navy is hoping to replace the Ticos with a 'family' of combined manned and unmanned vessels (mostly unmanned), just as they're planning to do with the Next Generation aircraft which has been officially announced as a family of unmanned aircraft 'quarterbacked' (yes, that was their term) by a manned aircraft. I think they have the exact same vision for the 'cruiser' replacement.
You'll note that the Navy is wholesale retiring the LCS. That was not a decision they arrived at yesterday. They've known they were going to do that for some years. I think the Constellations are the LCS replacement.
Not enough missiles, yet.
DeleteAlso, I've only seen SM-2 in the FFG portfolia. No illuminators on the ship. My guess is they think 24 SM-2 and 32 ESSM. 2 long shots 2 short shots, 2 off the RAM or close in with the gun. 3 layers and the SEWIP and other decoys. Less potential engagements, but real good for aanything we've actually ever seen attempted. Doesn't leave much room for VLA. Really need this ship based around quad packed options.
DeletePerry class ships use the STIR (Separate Track and Illumination Radar) which is a modified SPG-60 radar for illumination.
Delete"Even for the Navy, that's ridiculous."
DeleteLet's wait and see.
"I think the Constellations are the LCS replacement."
DeleteSo we replace one ship that can't do ASW with another ship that can't do ASW? Yippee!
So maybe the Marines are wanting to do ASW because nobody else is.
I have a question. I have read that the reason that the Constellations don't have a hull/bow sonar is because the controlling depth in the St. Lawrence Seaway is too shallow. Is that true?
"St. Lawrence Seaway is too shallow."
DeleteI have not heard that. Do you have a reference?
The FFG capabilities chart that was developed prior to selecting a manufacturer called for a VDS or 'low band hull array', whatever that is. It appears that a traditional hull sonar was never an option unless the hull array is the Navy's way to describe a hull sonar.
The first two are from Wikipedia, so may not be totally accurate, but it's what I could find:
DeleteSt. Lawrence Seaway:
Maximum boat draft
12.5 m (downstream of Quebec City),
10.7 m (Quebec City to Deschaillons),
11.3 m (Deschaillons to Montreal),
8.2 m (upstream of Montreal)
FREMM:
Draught
France: 7.6 m (24 ft 11 in)
Italy: 8.7 m (28 ft 7 in)
And from Naval Technology:
(The Constellation) will have a length of 151.8m, a beam of 19.81m, and a draft of 7.01m.
So it looks like fitting a hull/bow sonar could be a major problem..
As I pointed out, it looks like the Navy never considered a bow sonar regardless of where the ship would have been manufactured.
Delete"The FFG capabilities chart that was developed prior to selecting a manufacturer called for a VDS or 'low band hull array', whatever that is."
DeleteI would have expected the "hull array" to refer to the Thales USM 4110/4110CL bow sonar array that's on the French and Italian versions of the FREMM, but normally you want the bow array (which operates either active or passive) to be medium-frequency with the towed array (the VDS they specify as an alternative) and the flank array (if present) to be low-frequency. Not sure whether that's a typo, or whether the Navy was considering some hypothetical low-frequency active/passive bow array. They certainly aren't putting a flank sonar on a frigate.
The most sensible option here, of course, would be to go with exactly the equipment that's on the FREMM already (BOTH the hull sonar and the towed array). It's a capable sonar suite for a frigate, and the integration work (the 'second 80%' of the total development effort) is already done. And understand that, outside of contrived scenarios, the frigate is at a pretty steep disadvantage compared to a competently-commanded modern NUCSUB or even a diesel boat with AIP (a diesel boat running on batteries or AIP will be a little quieter than a NUCSUB of otherwise equivalent design ceteris paribus, but the tactical flexibility of the hypothetical equivalent NUCSUB is much greater and the ceteris are not very paribus in any case).
A very short search on the Internet (Wikipedia) reveals that SPY-1B (Ticonderoga) and SPY-1D (Arleigh Burke) are actually quite similar in performance.
ReplyDeleteThe major difference seems to be that SPY-1D was adopted to be installed in a single deckhouse.
So if the Ticos can't see, then the Burkes can't see, neither...
And that's why I conclude that Gilday is lying to manipulate Congress. He's undoubtedly hoping that no one will question him. Well, that's why I'm here; to ask the questions.
DeleteThey imply the need for updated Aegis baselines, some of this seems to have to do with the software.
DeleteMaybe the reason that the older AEGIS/SPY systems can't see the bad guys is because they have not been properly maintained.
ReplyDeleteI've documented this before. As described in a fair amount of detail in a Proceedings article by a Burke captain, Aegis was found to be too complex for Navy techs to not only maintain but to even recognize that it was degraded. This goes back to my constant K.I.S.S. them. There's no point having the most complex equipment in the universe if it can't be maintained (EMALS, elevators, Aegis, combining gear, F-35, etc.).
DeleteYet the average Chinese maritime strike aircraft is still a hulking Flanker derivative (Su-30/J-16) or equally hulking JH-7 Flying Leopard. J-15 carrier jets are also Flanker derivative. They are still mainly shooting the 120-180 km range subsonic C-704/705/YJ-83s missiles.
ReplyDeleteHow is SPY-1 obsolete against these aircraft?
CNO "As I pointed out, it looks like the Navy never considered a bow sonar regardless of where the ship would have been manufactured."
ReplyDeleteNAVSEA gave the bidders for the FFG(X) the option to fit either a HMS or VDS, contractor furnished equipment (not GFE). Fincantieri chose VDS option with the new all digital Raytheon AN/AQS-62 DART in development for LCS, Raytheon contract awarded July 2018, testing identified challenges in hydrodynamic stability and transducer reliability and performance and was cancelled Feb? 2022. Fincantieri replacing it with the French Thales CAPTAS 4 to built in US.
Would note reCAPTCHA originally stopped above post, updated to latest version of Chrome and posted.
ReplyDeleteI'll go with "Gilday is a liar!"... Why anyone would entrust the Navy today with a procurement budget is beyond me. Let's make whole classes of corvette, fast transport ships like what turned into the San Juan and Brunswick, only to want to retire them (yet Marines using them now as test ships, here's your new LST Jarheads), and of course our huge AK tanker class, which transformed into the Montford Point and then the Puller class. The latter two were useful, but procured before folks even knew what to use them for. What in Hades is that? Navy needs to come up with a budget request that says yes, we can and need to have a boatload more ships, we need to service the fleet we have, and it will cost tens of billions more a year. Perhaps a couple hundred of the non-spent Covid billions $$ could be shifted over to help a brother out?
ReplyDeleteIt’s the new thing to have unmanned ship. The Navy will do what it takes to have one. We have seen this before.
ReplyDelete