It's the end of the year and it's been while since the last open post so let's do it again. This is your chance to offer a comment on whatever interests you.
Got a suggestion for a post topic?
Want to talk about something that's been neglected?
Want to tell me what you'd like more (or less) of?
Want to tell me how you'd make the blog better?
Got a rant you want to get off your chest?
You pick the topic!
Have at it!
Have at it!
A deep & large analysis about the currently catastrophic DDG(X) program (Arleigh-Burke successors)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that wouldn't be a post, it would be a book! And, the ultimate conclusion would be that the Navy is run by idiots.
DeleteShould Navy go back to air superiority and attack aircrafts combination on carrier? like F-14 and A7?
ReplyDeleteChina appears going this way. J-35 is an air superiority and J-15 multirole fighters. During last month's Zhuhai Airshow, a J-35 (navy version) markup displayed while a J-35A (air force model, mainly for export) performed a live show.
Giving China's carriers are smaller but still want to place two types of fighters. Do you think this air superiority plus see/land attack still have merit? or one multirole (F/A-18E/F or F-35) is better? giving carriers' sizes and missions.
We've covered this many times in this blog and you can answer it for yourself by answering this simple question: do you want to succeed and survive in combat or do you want to fail and die?
DeleteThe way you succeed and survive is by doing one thing and doing it supremely well. The way you fail and die is by trying to do multiple things and doing none of them well.
An airframe can only be supremely optimized for a single function. A pilot can be a supremely capable fighter pilot or he can be a supremely capable strike pilot. Limited training time does not allow a single pilot to be supremely good at more than one thing.
You have your answer!
I suspect that for many purposes surface warships are obsolete. You should be building submarines for many duties including mine-laying and mine-sweeping.
ReplyDeleteThe future will be about mines, drones, and missiles, not aircraft carriers and destroyers. This will be especially true for coastal waters.
Okay ... so how would you propose handling blockades, boarding, inspections, shore bombardment, amphibious assault support, convoy ASW and AAW escort, ballistic missile defense, etc.?
DeleteHow will drones get to open ocean or first island chain operating areas without a drone 'carrier'?
How does a submarine do mine sweeping? I've never heard of that.
Unless you're talking about developing intercontinental missiles, how will cruise missiles get within range of operating areas without a surface ship launch platform of some sort?
Many questions about your vision! Enlighten me!
Rant: If the Marines are determined to strand themselves on a multitude of Gilligan’s Island, force them to take and maintain $ the currently useless LCS ships. Instead of the bizarre plan to use slow transports for resupply. Like repurposing destroyers as fast transports, as the Japanese used in Gaudalcanal Campaign; not that it was game changing for the IJN.
ReplyDeleteI mean think about it , “Littoral”, might not be value added to the island/ anti-ship missile idea, but it would look they were seriously trying.
One problem with that thought is that the LCS range AT SPEED is very short. For example, they could not sail to and from the South China Sea or first island chain at high speed.
Delete"For example, they could not sail to and from the South China Sea or first island chain at high speed."
DeleteEven if they had the range to get there at speed, would they actually be able to travel that far at speed without breaking down?
Type 076 has launched and named Sichuan. There is one EMAL on it (suspected to launch heavy drones). Any thought on how it will be used?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.twz.com/sea/chinas-monster-type-076-amphibious-assault-ship-seen-like-never-before-at-launch-ceremony
Can anyone say for certain why the Navy went full speed ahead on the Constellation-class FFGs? The intention is to buy 20 of these things. If we were to use modern naval thinking, the final number may be considerably less than what was initially intended (see DDG-1000, LCS,, SSN-21). I still don't know what the intended mission(s) of the FFG-62 is/are. Multi-mission? ASW? (Thats funny). According to www.seaforces.org :
ReplyDeleteArmament:
32-cell Mk.41 Vertical Launching System / VLS
for a mix of
RIM-66 Standard Missile SM-2MR
RIM-174 Standard ERAM
RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
- - - - -
1 x BAE Systems Mk.110 57mm gun weapon system
1 x Mk. 49 missile launching system for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM)
SSM launcher (4x4 cells)
for
RGM-184A Naval Strike Missile NSM/JSM or
RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
(Full link :https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/ffg/Constellation-class.htm)
According to dote.osd.mil:
(link: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2022/navy/2022ffg62.pdf)
MISSION
The Maritime Component
Commander will employ the
Constellation-class to support
the National Defense Strategy
across the full range of military
operations. Specific mission
areas include anti-air warfare,
anti-submarine warfare, surface
warfare, electronic warfare/
information operations, and
intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance missions.
I don't see any ASW weapons. No 2 x 3 Mk 32 SVTTs or VL-ASROCs.
A look at Quad v China naval warfare scenarios?
ReplyDeleteQuad co-op issues?
Mine warfare v China?
Options for the use of USMC in a fight with China? Other than leaving them stranded on remote islands to die.