The Navy has announced that USS Constitution, Old Ironsides,
will receive upgrades to its 32 pounder cannons which enable more précised fire
control as the ship pitches and rolls in battle. The wooden sailing ship is one of the Navy’s
true success stories and this upgrade will keep Old Ironsides at the forefront
of naval development.
Amazingly, the Navy has also announced yet another upgrade
for the E-2 Hawkeye, the airborne early warning and battle management aircraft
that has been around almost as long as Old Ironsides. The propeller driven aircraft with the giant
rotunda radar dome on its back that has a radar signature the size of the
Empire State Building is the Navy’s newest AEW platform, having begun
development in 1956 and first flown in 1960.
Truly now state of the art in modern aerial sensor platforms!
I know the Navy is pathologically gun shy after a couple of decades of successive program failures but, at some point, you have to move on to new technology. Perhaps a jet engine for the E-2? Whoa! I’m sorry, that’s just crazy talk! I didn’t mean it.
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Block II upgrade passed its critical design review … [1]
I know the Navy is pathologically gun shy after a couple of decades of successive program failures but, at some point, you have to move on to new technology. Perhaps a jet engine for the E-2? Whoa! I’m sorry, that’s just crazy talk! I didn’t mean it.
 |
| 32 Pounder Cannon Undergoing Upgrade Tests |
https://news.usni.org/2026/08/18/e-2d-advanced-hawkeye-block-ii-passes-critical-design-review-as-navy-plans-to-expand-fleet
It is so hard to keep reading stories like this, and especially yesterday's about AAW missiles fired from submarines! Really!?! The Navy is already facing the loss of 612 vls tubes from SSGNs retiring, thousands more from the demise of 27 Ticonderoga class Cruisers, and now some crazy idea of using our precious, shrinking submarine fleet to shoot down single aircraft or helicopters!!
ReplyDeleteWhen will you begin to name the specific military individuals who come up with these ideas so they can be called out for gross stupidity or worse yet as tools of China and Russia? How about naming the dozen or so Program Office leaders who supposedly managed the F-35 multi-decade fiasco (probably a dozen names, all promoted after their 2 yr stint as director) or those who led the DDG1000, the LCS, the various Frigate program failures? They all seem to go on to various positions in the military hardware industry after their military "career", don't they? When is anyone accountable for the mess we are in.
The US Navy has the best seamen in the world, hands down. Imagine if we could put them on modern, purpose built ships and aircraft, in quantity, and let them continue to protect world-wide maritime security.
Instead, if war happens, we will lose thousands in the opening salvos because we squandered away what we were.
In the B52 community there are sons flying in Dads old airplane.
ReplyDeleteWith new engines and radar being installed in the BUFF we’ll soon have the grandkids flying grandpa’s plane.
It's only a matter of time until the Navy decides to put new engines on the Red Barron's Fokker Triplane.
Delete"It's only a matter of time until the Navy decides to put new engines on the Red Barron's Fokker Triplane."
DeleteMinor correction, with tongue planted firmly in cheek
Actually, it would be the Air Force that would put new engines on the Red Barron's Fokker Triplane. The Navy would scrap the Baron's plane and build NEW Fokker Triplanes!
As the old British fighter pilot once said.... "There were Fokkers to the left of me, and Fokkers to the right.... and some of those Fokkers were Messerschmitts!"
Deletehttps://www.twz.com/news-features/chinas-massive-new-artificial-island-in-the-south-china-sea-emerges-primed-for-militarization
ReplyDeleteChina put all this in place in the first phase in 10 months?!?!
This would have been a great mission for SEALs. The islands are illegal according to UNCLOS so we have all the justification we needed to blow them up during construction. We lack the will to engage.
DeleteThe US hasn’t actually ratified the UNCLOS, so it would be ironic and problematic to rely upon it as a justification for attacking China’s bases in the SCS.
Delete"it would be ironic and problematic to rely upon it as a justification for attacking China’s bases in the SCS."
DeleteNot at all. Our ratification, or not, is irrelevant. What's relevant is that China HAS ratified UNCLOS and is in violation. China's violation of an international agreement is all the justification we need. In fact, NOT ratifying UNCLOS
gives the US more freedom to act since we are not bound to submit disputes to an UNCLOS tribunal. We can act in any manner we see fit. Of course, Philippines and others did submit complaints to an UNCLOS tribunal which did, in fact, find China in violation and China has ignored the treaty they signed and ratified.
What's truly ironic is that the US has adhered more closely to UNCLOS than China who has ratified it!
Upgrading the 32-pounders would leave the USS Constitution better armed than the LCS
ReplyDeleteUpgraded 32-pounders would leave the Constitution better armed than the LCS
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2026/08/24/uss-gerald-r-ford-sortie-test-exceeded-nimitz-class-performance-says-cno-caudle
ReplyDeleteSo... in the vein of upgraded technology- evidently the Fords is everything is supposed to be. Does that mean it's hit the cycles-per-failure target for EMALS, AAG,elevators etc?? Because last published report was in the 20% of target range. I want to see reports of how it ACTUALLY performed while deployed. Real numbers. And if it did...GREAT!! But color me skeptical til I see it.
And nevermind that the "sortie generation" thing is just EM gadget salesman stuff... we know it's not a realistic or important bench mark. Its just like the "extends airframe life" claims among others- more sales pitch that's not relevant to combat.
So... my take is that this "exercise" was nonsense, and the Admirals speech is a gentle public pushback against returning to steam, in light of the directive to investigate it. And IF Ford in fact performed terribly and still isn't hitting the mark, then it's laying the groundwork for opposition to halting the Fords as they are. It also means Trump made the directive wisely, based on facts. If the numbers are actually still poor, then that shows this CNO isn't about combat, he's about institutional inertia and continuing to waste money with big suppliers in spite of failures.
Can't wait to see some numbers... although WE likely never will.
You have to learn to read Navy spin. The article doesn't actually say EMALS has met its performance goals. In fact, it doesn't even say that any actual sorties were generated. It wants you to think that but it doesn't say it. It says that "sortie generation rate test(s)" were conducted. That could be simply timing the transfer of a weapon from the magazine to the deck and then adding known (or calculated) launch times to come up with a single sortie time. Multiply by one hour or one day and you get a "sortie generation rate" without actually launching a single aircraft.
DeleteThe article statements want you think that they conducted a couple hundred or more launches but it's nearly 100% certain that they didn't. Also, notice there is no mention of failures. Even if they conducted actual launches, if EMALS broke down they could simply stop timing, repair the problem, and resume timing their sorties. There are absolutely no details provided about what they ACTUALLY did.
Given the Navy's lies/spin (choose whichever word you wish) as documented repeatedly on this blog and do you really believe anything the Navy says? I don't. Don't make me list all the examples of lies/spin.
You have to learn to interpret anything the Navy says as if it were a foreign language because it is - it's Navy spin (and I'm being generous with that characterization).
Think about the last known EMALS and AAG reliability data. They were so far off the specification that no amount of reasonable, incremental improvement could possibly get them to spec. If they had achieved spec, don't you think the Navy would be releasing actual numbers and trumpeting the news to the world to stop criticism? The fact that they haven't tells me they're still horribly far from spec.
DeleteIn the Navy's mind, you classify your failures and broadcast your success (or spin/lie if you don't have any actual success).
DeleteClearly distributed lethality is the next step. Scattering the cannon over smaller gunboats, Jefferson gunboats-style. In defence of Jefferson, he did have a defined concept of operations, they were based on proven technology, and his gunboats were armed with a proven weapons system.
ReplyDelete"he did have a defined concept of operations"
DeleteUnfortunately, it was a flawed concept and was eventually proven as such. Having a concept is good ... IF it's the correct concept.
we been seeing recently that navies like North Korea are mounting more guns on their ships to counter drones will you make a blog post about this for the recent events that are leading this to happen as a cheap defense alternative to countering drones and how would more gun based approach for warships could lead to maybe armor again sense cheap drones could overwhelm those said defenses
ReplyDelete