A F-18 Super Hornet being towed rolled off the deck of the
carrier Truman and fell into the Red Sea.[1]
No, this is not an April Fool’s post.
I know the Navy has real problems with competency but this is bad even by Navy standards.
___________________________
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/04/28/uss-harry-s-truman-loses-aircraft-tractor-overboard-n2188441
Uff da
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
USS Truman made a sudden turn to avoid Houthi attack.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/28/u-s-fighter-jet-falls-overboard-00314317
Apparently, after Trump bombed Houthi, it can still attack.
That's a CNN rumor. USNI didn't note that.
Delete"USS Truman made a sudden turn to avoid Houthi attack."
DeleteThe turn seems to be confirmed but an attack as the reason is not confirmed and it would seem an unlikely event. We'll have to wait on further information.
I wondered if the hard turns were because they are changing headings after the commercial Chinese sats go over the horizon. Then there was some mishap/miscommunication on the deck with them not being prepared for it, or being in the wrong place/wrong time.
DeleteHow many decades have we been operating carriers and moving aircraft around hangars, elevators, and flight decks? You'd think, by now, we'd have learned how to do it without losing aircraft over the side because the ship turned. Have we only sailed in straight lines all these decades?
DeleteUSNI, "Truman was conducting an “evasive maneuver” during the incident, a U.S. defense official confirmed to USNI News on Monday. A second defense official told USNI News the Super Hornet was being loaded onto the aircraft elevator on Truman when the strike fighter slid over the edge."
Delete"U.S. defense official confirmed"
DeleteOkay, thanks for the confirmation source on that, as unlikely as it seems. It is disturbing that something got close enough to a carrier to require the ship to do an evasive maneuver. If the decidedly third tier Houthis can get weapons close enough to a carrier to make it do evasive maneuvers then either our various sensors and weapon systems are hugely overrated or we're trying to operate a carrier without proper numbers and placement of escorts.
You'll also recall an earlier report of a Houthi drone/missile getting close enough to a Burke to require the CIWS?
This is a microcosm of our concept for future warfare - omniscient sensing that is supposed to ensure flawless defense - and it would appear it's failing badly. One can't help but question the validity of our future warfare concept - as I've been doing for many years, now.
You beat me to it CNO. What the heck is going on over there?!?!
DeleteThis is supposedly not even a third world nation, they supposedly just a bunch of terrorists and goat herders AND THEY MANAGE TO HAVE TO MAKE A US CARRIER EVADE?!?!? Where is US MEDIA?!?! OK, thats a funny question, they obey orders
BUT over here, at CNO blog, we ask questions like how many Reapers have been shot down?7,19 12, more??? Heard we hit 700 to 800 targets, so why are they still firing back? What are we hitting??? How many multi million SM2, SM6 or ESSMs have we fired and burned our inventory ? For what???Etc, etc....this is something we should be able to handle every day finishing in Y, if we cant handle this, how do we think we can handle China?!?!?
"how many Reapers have been shot down"
DeleteReaper post coming!
"Nico: For What etc"
DeleteTo defend flag of convenience shipping, carrying Chinese
products to Europe, thru the Egyptian Suez Canal.
The mighty Liberian and Maltese Navies should be protecting their own, or at least hiring Privateers to
do it. North Korea is hiring out troops, maybe they can do a deal ?
I know we there to protect shipping BUT this is crazy! How many years now? At what expense? Seriously, we worried about Yemen IAMD or something?!?! This should have been taken care over 1 weekend!!! 700 to 800 targets have been hit, supposedly, so what are we hitting now?!? are we just moving rubble around? how come we haven't taken out all the ASMs by now?!? this is crazy and should be talked about in the media, it isn't but it should, there needs to be serious questions asked by Congress if true that a carrier had to make evasive maneuvers and that's the reason why we lost a jet.... what is US military doing there?!?!?! and we are we "struggling" to take care of this?!?!
Delete"so what are we hitting now?!?"
DeleteI can't answer what we are hitting now but I can answer the unasked, closely related question, "What should we be hitting that we aren't?". The answer to that is something I've discussed repeatedly and that is true all-domain warfare. Yemens ports should be obliterated and mined. Yemens banks should be destroyed. The roads (for transporting resupply from Iran) should be destroyed. All funds in foreign banks should be confiscated or, at least, frozen. Yemen should be blockaded by land and sea. Every ship and vehicle moving in or out of Yemen should be destroyed. Every Iranian ship that enters the Yemen territorial waters should be sunk.
If we're serious about stopping the Houthis, this is what we should be doing in addition to whatever we're doing now.
If this is a fight worth having then it's a fight worth totally committing to. Trump seems to have increased the number of strikes over Biden's effort but it still falls into the 'not really serious about it' category.
Anon 2:54, that would be a maneuver kill for the coastal artillery.
ReplyDeleteI think I'd be bolting on a half dozen SeaRAM's to the sides of each carrier right about now.
ReplyDeleteI saw a crazy bad wave reach up and smack the forward SeaRAM mount on my carrier. Edge case, to be sure, but still...
DeleteSadly, this kind of thing has happened before. An A-4 with a nuclear weapon on board fell off a carrier in the Philippine Sea in 1965. Another Hornet blew off the Truman in 2022 in heavy weather. Yet another Hornet fell into the Red Sea from the Truman in 2012, along with the tractor towing it.
ReplyDeleteNote that the Navy began accepting thousands of Cat 4 recruits in 2023 and no longer requires high school graduation. Cat 4 means the bottom quarter of ASVAB scores. This may be a factor.
ReplyDeleteI would be surprised if this is found to be a factor. Lack of deck maintenance is more likely to my thinking, where the non-skid wasn't maintained properly and the aircraft started to slide. Once it was sliding, that was it. I did hear one story that the pilot was on board, which seems very odd as I would expect getting out without ejecting would be almost impossible, and it they were under an overhang ejection might also be very unlikely. There would only be a few seconds to react to this.
DeleteWhat really bothers me is that there was obviously a Houthi "leaker" that required extreme maneuvering. That says nothing good about anything going on in theater. Apparently, if you can believe any of the scuttlebutt, there was also a leaker that hit within maybe a couple of hundred meters from the Eisenhower a few months ago.
So it seems air defense is not performing anything like expected and required, and if this keeps up its only a matter of time before bad things happen.
An Iowa class battleship would be a better choice for this type of mission.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Some sort of re-imagined heavy bombardment ship with heavy guns in addition to missile armament. Probably using some of the best features from the modern cruise-ship world like their propulsion systems, plus a lot of armor (if we can actually build armor anymore).
Delete"Some sort of re-imagined heavy bombardment ship with heavy guns in addition to missile armament."
DeleteThe Iowa class ships are already built.
They can be totally re-built in a modern form and it will still be cheaper and easier than trying to build something like that new.
Lutefisk
It's an interesting question. Seems to me it revolves around the ability to produce heavy armor and barrels for big guns. I don't know how far that industrial capacity has atrophied in the US and what it would take to restore it. If it has atrophied, I wonder if it should be a priority to recreate it as unarmored warships are going to be non-survivable fairly soon as anti-ship missile technology leaps ahead.
DeleteIf those issues were easily solved, it might be better and cheaper to start from scratch. If the industrial capabilities are gone beyond easy recovery, I agree with you that resurrecting the Iowas with a keel-up rebuild would be the way to go.
Further, after you get over the initial cost of acquisition, I believe the cost to operate either a new-build or a rebuilt Iowa would be very reasonable, and the risk of losing one in combat would be pretty low.
Here is my plan for updating the Iowa class ships.
DeleteIf this link works give it a read and let me know what you think.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sFajU_No1mhof6Jn-bZX3-AZV4I3WRUu/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103353243479675170382&rtpof=true&sd=true
Lutefisk
"If this link works"
DeleteIt sends me to an 'access denied' page.
I would love too, but its locked down. Can you open it for general access?
Delete"Can you open it for general access?"
DeleteHaha....honestly I don't know.
I literally just set it up to try it, I'll see if I can figure out what I didn't do right.
Sorry,
Lutefisk
OK, here we go...
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1sFajU_No1mhof6Jn-bZX3-AZV4I3WRUu/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103353243479675170382&rtpof=true&sd=true
Lutefisk
That link worked. Thank you.
DeleteHere's some thoughts for your consideration from your post:
Turbines require vast amounts of both intake and exhaust air. This is a huge consume of internal ship’s volume for the ducting and creates many large unarmored access points on the ship’s outer structure, potentially defeating the purpose of having an armored battleship. Where will all these air access points be? You might take a look at the tiny LCS or the Burke and take note of the number and size of the intakes/exhausts.
I don’t know that VLS cell covers can withstand 16” gun blast without being crushed. That would have to be determined.
“An example of using a cargo round against surface combatants would be against Iranian style speed boats.” The drawback to this approach is the extremely slow rate of fire of 16” guns (1 round per minute per gun).
A cluster bomb type munition or a simple fragmentation round as an initial round against a surface ship is, potentially, a useful tactic.
I find sabot rounds to generally be of very limited use. Targeting is the main issue. Plus, every sub-caliber round is one less large caliber round in a limited magazine capacity (1100 rounds per mount). I’d prefer not to give up the ship’s main benefit for the sake of a dubious sub-caliber round.
Deep strike, in general, is a dubious battleship mission. We have so many other ways to conduct deep strike: Air Force, cruise missiles, etc.
“three single-gun 155mm turrets.” There is no existing 155 mm naval gun. The cost/time of developing such a gun is nearly prohibitive. A better alternative is to use the existing 5”/62.
“A twin-arm launcher needs to be developed” Recall why we developed the Tomahawk armored box launcher. A twin-arm missile launcher is not likely to withstand the 16” gun blast.
“CIWS, Goalkeeper” Again, careful positioning is required to withstand the 16” gun blast. It may or may not be possible to mount many of them. Mixing Goalkeeper and Phalanx is counterproductive. They do nearly the same job and would create two inventory/repair/maintenance streams instead of one.
"Turbines require vast amounts of both intake and exhaust air...Where will all these air access points be?"
DeleteThat's an engineering problem that I hadn't thought about. That would likely require the retention of both funnels to expel the exhaust.
I looked at the Burke and it appears that they have air intakes on the sides of the funnels?
Assuming that you get clean air, I like that idea.
If that isn't enough for volume, air intakes could be co-located with the VLS cells since there is already deck penetration.
If that isn't enough air intake volume for the times that all of the engines are running simultaneously, I would consider using turbochargers to ram enough air into the system.
The duct work for all this air would be part of the engine room spaces voided by the removal of the boilers and engines of the steam power plants.
Lutefisk
I can’t say for sure without a dimensioned drawing but a Burke has something on the order of 32x 8’x4’ intake openings. Presumably, a BB would need more. Each intake is an armor penetration and a vulnerability. VLS creates more penetrations and more vulnerabilities. And so on. You can see this is leading us down the path of progressively weaker BBs. One of the strengths of the original Iowas was the lack of penetrations and the immense armoring of the penetrations that did occur, such as the main gun mounts. Too many penetrations runs the risk of creating a Hood.
Delete"I don’t know that VLS cell covers can withstand 16” gun blast without being crushed...A twin-arm missile launcher is not likely to withstand the 16” gun blast...CIWS, Again, careful positioning is required to withstand the 16” gun blast. It may or may not be possible to mount many of them."
DeleteThis would seem to be two different problems.
The first is the blast wave from the guns. I assume that it is a cone shaped blast that comes from the end of the barrels.
Limiting the firing arcs should help to alleviate this effect, especially since 'over the shoulder' firing shouldn't be necessary like it would be in a gun battle in which the ship is firing while it is maneuvering.
The second would be the 'earthquake' in the ship resulting each time the big guns are fired.
I would think that this could be reduced through the use of shock absorbers and rafting for more delicate pieces of equipment?
The 80s/90s versions of the Iowa class had CIWS on them. I don't know how much the positioning of those weapons was dependent on accommodating the 16" guns firing.
Lutefisk
No, the blast wave is omnidirectional though perhaps more concentrated in the direction of the shot. The Navy had a great deal of trouble finding safe mounting locations for the electronics and weapons during the modernizations.
Delete"I can’t say for sure without a dimensioned drawing but a Burke has something on the order of 32x 8’x4’ intake openings. Presumably, a BB would need more."
DeleteA Burke has four LM2500 engines, my Iowa plan would have eight. Presumably that would require twice as much (at least for the times when all eight engines are being used simultaneously).
Can that area be reduced with turbochargers ramming the air in?
Lutefisk
"No, the blast wave is omnidirectional though perhaps more concentrated in the direction of the shot. The Navy had a great deal of trouble finding safe mounting locations for the electronics and weapons during the modernizations."
DeletePlacing the twin-arm launchers in an armored turret might solve the blast wave issue and would have the secondary benefit of protecting the launcher from enemy fire.
But that might be more trouble than it's worth.
If needed, the ESSM can be efficiently quad-packed into VLS tubes, but that reduces the amount of mission-oriented ordinance that can be carried.
Lutefisk
"VLS creates more penetrations and more vulnerabilities. And so on. You can see this is leading us down the path of progressively weaker BBs."
DeleteFrom what I can glean from online sources, it looks like VLS cells use about 25' of vertical space.
These are huge ships, the VLS cells could be mounted above the armored deck (that might be better anyway).
But my concern would be the effect on the ships' stability from placing the weight of the VLS cells higher on the ship.
Lutefisk
"Deep strike, in general, is a dubious battleship mission. We have so many other ways to conduct deep strike: Air Force, cruise missiles, etc."
DeleteI may be using the term 'deep strike' too generally.
What I mean are targets that Tomahawks would be used against.
Those things seem to be in line with and complementary to the heavy artillery in the land attack mission of these ships.
Lutefisk
"There is no existing 155 mm naval gun. The cost/time of developing such a gun is nearly prohibitive. A better alternative is to use the existing 5”/62."
DeleteI don't doubt your wisdom on the difficulties that the navy would have developing the 155mm naval gun, looking at their previous performance.
But I feel like it shouldn't be that difficult.
Most of the world's armies use the 155mm for their standard artillery, it is hardly an unknown commodity. But you are probably right about it.
We could certainly start with the 5"/62 gun, it's a good proven weapon.
Of course, a 6.1" gun will be superior to the 5" gun, once it's developed.
Upgrading this type of weapon would be ideal for the three year layup time in the ship rotation plan.
Lutefisk
"Can that area be reduced with turbochargers ramming the air in?"
DeleteI have no idea. One would think so but there's the added equipment, maintenance, and points of failure. Think K.I.S.S. Would it be worth it? Don't know.
Presumably, the exhaust requirements wouldn't change.
"Mixing Goalkeeper and Phalanx is counterproductive. They do nearly the same job and would create two inventory/repair/maintenance streams instead of one."
DeleteEverybody forgets the logistics train for weapons, it's a good reminder.
The Phalanx 20mm guns fire sabot rounds. My concern is how many 15mm holes are needed to stop a surface drone or an Iranian speedboat.
The 30mm round, with a HE warhead, would produce significantly more damage and with slightly greater range.
The 30mm CIWS would also be capable of engaging incoming missiles as well.
Is that enough to justify what would be basically doubling the logistics tail for gun-CIWS?
One thing that would be in favor of this would be that the Iowas had 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft guns in their original configuration, so presumably they would have the capacity to handle the multiple shell types.
Another factor is the crew.
Replacing the steam boilers with LM2500s should result in a substantially smaller engine room staff.
Replacing the 40mm and 20mm guns with automated CIWS is an enormous saving of crew compared to the WW2 era needs.
Auto-loading of the secondary artillery, be it 5" or 155mm, would again reduce crew loading.
And a personal bugaboo is the number of people needed for the 16" guns. I don't see value in having highly capable sailors working as human forklifts down in the magazines wrestling 2000 lb shells.
Also, if the powder bags were replaced with powder in casings (like the 8" guns on Des Moines class) you could install autoloaders. This should both reduce crewing needs and increase rate of fire. (this is another example of improvements that could be done in stages during the 3-year layup time).
All of these would significantly reduce crew size. The crew would have a preponderance of mechanics and technicians who would be servicing and maintaining the ships' systems.
The problem that I think would develop would be having enough bodies to perform effective damage control.
Since adequate damage control staffing is non-negotiable, you would have the best maintained ship in the navy with all the bodies. I suspect keeping idle hands from becoming the devil's workshop would be part of the leadership's key responsibilities.
Of course, whether or not the navy wants to allocate resources for maintaining a 30mm CIWS above the ship level is another question.
Lutefisk
"I find sabot rounds to generally be of very limited use. Targeting is the main issue."
DeleteOne of the common refrains from detractors of the Iowas is that the guns have short range in modern combat.
A sabot round would provide significantly longer range, although I don't know how to calculate what that would be.
An 8" artillery round fired from the 16" barrel would travel pretty far, and that 203mm shell still carries a significant wollop.
The concern I would have would be with accuracy. As an artillery shell travels farther, dispersion will make it inherently less accurate.
I also do not know what effect the disengagement of the sabot from the shell would have on its trajectory. It wouldn't take much of an influence to drastically change the impact point of a 50 mile shot, for example.
I do believe that the rocket assisted sabot could be valuable if it had GPS guidance and was fired at a specific point target (not bombardment).
These capabilities would just give the 16" guns the versatility that artillery can offer.
Lutefisk
"Here's some thoughts for your consideration from your post:"
DeleteCNO, I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to look at my thoughts about how to bring the Iowas back into the active fleet.
There is so much that is written about those ships that is both extremely negative and not well thought through that I wanted to get my ideas down on paper.
However, I'm not a naval engineer, a former navy officer, or even a navy veteran, I served in the army. So I understand that I have gaps in my knowledge. That is why I appreciate your the time you spent to read my plan and give thoughtful feedback.
Thanks and thanks for the great blog.
Lutefisk
"the Super Hornet was being loaded onto the aircraft elevator on Truman when the strike fighter slid over the edge." The perils of owning aircraft carriers where the elevators work.
ReplyDeleteNow that you mention it, I don't know that I've ever heard of the Ford losing an aircraft off of the elevator.
DeleteLutefisk