tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post1963904446516240436..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Undersea - Some Good, Some BadComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24031326903135433902019-11-14T09:13:08.781-08:002019-11-14T09:13:08.781-08:00@Nico
"The problem with that is you go a lea... @Nico <br />"The problem with that is you go a least a decade with no more SSGNs."<br />Exactly!! And while Id like to be wrong...it really seems like "that decade" is the one where we will actually be needing/using them....Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35754576209337086762019-11-14T04:33:31.964-08:002019-11-14T04:33:31.964-08:00"SSGN to return to port, reload, and then ret..."SSGN to return to port, reload, and then return to patrol. And, it's not like we have a lot of them either."<br /><br />That's why you build more than one! That's why we need half a dozen, at least.<br /><br />"And, the B-52s wouldn't be alone in an attack, they would have fighters and EW aircraft in support."<br /><br />That could work. What an enormous effort, though! And, in an opposed attack, there would be losses. All that can be avoided by using an SSGN. It's not that other methods of missile delivery can't work, it's just that an SSGN solves all the associated problems.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52156178737801445272019-11-13T21:02:10.519-08:002019-11-13T21:02:10.519-08:00"SSGNs aren't wonder weapons..."
I ..."SSGNs aren't wonder weapons..."<br /><br />I get that... But on day two of a major conflict with China for instance, where are the B-52s coming from? Did they get hit preemptively? Do they have a field to launch from, or return to? Do we have the 150 Tomahawks on hand there to put on them? And if we use them, how long til another stockpile appears for them to use? Airfields for them will become targets, and resupply wont be easy, so the logistics of other platforms to send HUNDREDS of missles downrange is a much more fragile situation. Of course the bombers will have support, but you think the Chinese arent going to have a say in all this?? B-52s on Guam are, im sure, in their day one strike plans. The two west coast SSGNs have 300+ missles at the ready. At least one, but hopefully both, are in theatre within the first few days of a brawl kickoff, and short of the intel community being completely oblivious, Id like to think the other two would already be on their way when things start. Chances will be awful good that those boats can penetrate well inside the Chinese perimeter, whereas the Chinese defensive depth makes anything other than those subs success questionable. So while not wonder weapons...theyre certainly the heavy offensive tool for breaking down the gate for follow-on forces, including those bombers...Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90176646957189370072019-11-13T19:23:11.673-08:002019-11-13T19:23:11.673-08:00"But...a single SSGN could do that. Plus it c..."But...a single SSGN could do that. Plus it could it from the enemy's doorstep, somthing not likely for 8 B-52s to manage."<br /><br />What do we do an hour later or the next day when we want to launch a follow-on attack or a new attack somewhere else? It could take days or weeks for an SSGN to return to port, reload, and then return to patrol. And, it's not like we have a lot of them either.<br /><br />And, the B-52s wouldn't be alone in an attack, they would have fighters and EW aircraft in support. And, their defensive electronics as good as they've ever been. <br /><br />SSGNs aren't wonder weapons and the Chinese aren't 10 foot tall giants either. Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87814263990192840482019-11-13T18:42:40.916-08:002019-11-13T18:42:40.916-08:00Yes, I think you're correct. The SLMM self-pr...Yes, I think you're correct. The SLMM self-propels to the designated 'laying' point and then the propulsion is disconnected and it acts like an immobile mine after that.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19204340127810980612019-11-13T18:36:42.177-08:002019-11-13T18:36:42.177-08:00@Jjabatie. Not sure it's possible to put an SS...@Jjabatie. Not sure it's possible to put an SSGN ever third SSBN. My understanding is USN and manufacturer is on a super tight timeline, so not sure you can move around the SSBMs production. <br /><br />Really only options:Figure out a way to save wear and tear on the old Ohio SSGN, convert a few more to SSGN (not sure where and by whom!!!) and again put them in some sort of storage to save on wear and tear OR build a few SSGN after the SSBM run. The problem with that is you go a least a decade with no more SSGNs.NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34561318641423918232019-11-13T17:42:58.742-08:002019-11-13T17:42:58.742-08:00(Don McCollor)...my apologies if I am wrong, but t...(Don McCollor)...my apologies if I am wrong, but the SLMM can move around, but does not actively rapidly attack a target like a torpedo.Don McCollorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028324869570493102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14809895830568620012019-11-13T14:41:17.024-08:002019-11-13T14:41:17.024-08:00Thanks. Ive been a closet SSGN advocate for a long...Thanks. Ive been a closet SSGN advocate for a long time. I feel they are a very valuable tool, in fact maybe top'o the list when looking at a Westpac/China Sea confrontation. Their massive capability to saturate target(s),deep into an enemy area from relative safety, makes them an incredible day one/two asset that we should be building many more of...Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85613177781665062432019-11-13T08:07:14.874-08:002019-11-13T08:07:14.874-08:00"But...a single SSGN could do that."
Th..."But...a single SSGN could do that."<br /><br />That's the key point. Yes, a combination of multiple ships and aircraft could equal a single SSGN but why subject ourselves to the challenge of coordinating such an expansive effort when we could accomplish the task with a single sub? Also, that coordination becomes infinitely more difficult in wartime.<br /><br />Finally, there is an opportunity cost, and a severe one, associated with using, say, 9 ships to what a single sub could have done. That's 9 ships that aren't doing some other mission. In peacetime, it's no big deal because those ships didn't have anything worthwhile to do, anyway. However, in war, those 9 ships will be desperately needed somewhere else!<br /><br />Really good comment.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49148108930970978362019-11-13T07:31:30.362-08:002019-11-13T07:31:30.362-08:00"For example, nine ships fired 122 cruise mis..."For example, nine ships fired 122 cruise missiles at the start of Desert Storm."<br /> But...a single SSGN could do that. Plus it could it from the enemy's doorstep, somthing not likely for 8 B-52s to manage. AAW being a Burkes main mission means a mostly TLAM loadout isnt ideal. And we could have an "arsenal" type ship, but thats a huge investment of offensive power in somthing thats still nowhere near as hard to find and counter as a submarine.... Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46143055945038677162019-11-13T06:51:42.195-08:002019-11-13T06:51:42.195-08:00"Any upcoming fight could hinge on having, or..."Any upcoming fight could hinge on having, or lacking, that kind of volume of firepower."<br /><br />Historically, large cruise missile strikes have been launched by a combination of ships and aircraft. For example, nine ships fired 122 cruise missiles at the start of Desert Storm.<br /><br />As for other platforms, the B-52 can launch 20 cruise missiles. For a special mission, a Burke could offload a number of Standard Missiles and carry a larger number of cruise missiles. Plus, there have been plans to convert the 747 into a cruise missile carry capable of launching 72 Tomahawks.<br /><br />We could also build a number of small "arsenal" ships each carrying 96 to 128 cruise missiles. By small, I mean something in the 5,000 to 6,000 ton range with a few self-defense weapons. If a carrier group is difficult to locate in the open ocean, a single small ship should be even harder to find.Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8337688497829643022019-11-13T06:28:10.657-08:002019-11-13T06:28:10.657-08:00"In particular, note the portions about the A..."In particular, note the portions about the Asiatic submarine force. I offer this not as an argument but simply as a piece of history that you might find interesting and enlightening. Let me know what you think."<br /><br />It is an interesting case, with some parallels to today. <br /><br />It's certainly an object lesson for things that could go wrong. (e.g. poorly tested weapons, untrained crews, ISR resilience, and so on.)<br /><br />One can only wonder how events might have changed if their torpedoes had worked, and their crews and captains had better, more realistic, training.<br /><br />On the other hand, today's Mk48 series is probably the most tested torpedo in history. Doesn't mean it will always work, or won't have flaws but it certainly isn't an early Mk13. Harpoon and Tomahawk are well tested in their respective roles too.<br /><br />Training of SSK crews is obviously non-existent because US SSKs are non-existent. SSN training is probably best in the world, but still may not be good enough for wartime.<br /><br />ISR network resilience is an issue, but it's an issue for the entire fleet, not just submarines. However simply having more manned "ears in the water" in the region could help significantly, assuming those ears can still communicate.<br /><br />Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87068982491087916332019-11-12T22:30:18.772-08:002019-11-12T22:30:18.772-08:00@Nico ideally, we could slip in an SSGN into the C...@Nico ideally, we could slip in an SSGN into the Columbia line... Maybe every third one?? Would be nice to start putting new ones in the water before the old ones are all gone....Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33969603595696368812019-11-12T22:26:06.144-08:002019-11-12T22:26:06.144-08:00"The VPM equipped Virginia submarines is the ..."The VPM equipped Virginia submarines is the follow-on plan."<br /><br />Sure, but its not 600+ missles in dedicated platforms either... The sheer punch weight of each SSGN is somthing we should replace on a two or three to one basis. Any upcoming fight could hinge on having, or lacking, that kind of volume of firepower...Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22226328923420717452019-11-12T20:58:25.524-08:002019-11-12T20:58:25.524-08:00"The imminent loss of the SSGNs should have a..."The imminent loss of the SSGNs should have a follow-on plan."<br /><br />The VPM equipped Virginia submarines is the follow-on plan. And, the Ohio's were originally built for a 30-year life which is being extended to 42 years. The longest serving submarine is the USS Kamehameha (SSBN-642), which was retired in 2002 after 36 and a half years of service. Ohio is the same age as when Kamehameha was retired. So, the Navy is entering some uncharted territory, which on the brightside, might provide some lessons learned for the Columbia class.Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34102361459042045342019-11-12T19:39:50.533-08:002019-11-12T19:39:50.533-08:00According to this,
https://russianmilitaryanalysi...According to this,<br /><br />https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/u-s-cruise-missile-strikes-in-syria-brief-analysis/<br /><br />We hit fuel, munitions bunkers, aircraft shelters, air defenses and other targets. Sure looks like we tried to knock the airfield out. <br /><br />Of course as others have said, we should harden our bases, and set up additional bases in the region. But it may require a lot more weapons than you’d expect to keep a base knocked out.<br /><br />The Chinese only have a handful of non-precision DF-26s that can hit Guam directly, which is a far cry from what they’d need to knock out either the air or naval bases. they could use air or sea launched cruise missiles, but those a pre easier to counter, Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14303172388368840232019-11-12T17:46:38.445-08:002019-11-12T17:46:38.445-08:00"UAVs aren't going to last long in the re..."UAVs aren't going to last long in the recon role. "<br /><br />No, they're not! Which is why I've consistently called for very large numbers of very cheap UAVs so we can keep throwing them at the surveillance mission. Enough will survive long enough to gather the information.<br /><br />This requires a wholesale rethinking of how we go about conducting surveillance.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83468012888524918412019-11-12T16:35:33.919-08:002019-11-12T16:35:33.919-08:00UAVs aren't going to last long in the recon ro...UAVs aren't going to last long in the recon role. <br />You can't jam a Navy SEAL.<br /><br />And the US attitude to casualties will change as a peer war escalates. It's always thus.<br />Once thousands are dying in a full scale, losing a handful of Navy SEALs in an important intelligence gathering mission is not going to cause them same reaction.<br />Which isn't to say they won't have exfil options, but no Admiral is going to commit squadrons of aircraft in a hopeless rescue mission in the midst of a large scale naval war.<br /><br />Anyway, we can agree to disagree on the worth of HUMINT. Personally I think people are going to very quickly have to relearn some lessons about the realities of reconnaissance once a war starts and all the relevant satellites are down and UAVs are getting jammed or shot down.Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-92211309666049534222019-11-12T15:56:18.678-08:002019-11-12T15:56:18.678-08:00Ill second that!! The imminent loss of the SSGNs s...Ill second that!! The imminent loss of the SSGNs should have a follow-on plan. I was just looking at the ages of the remaining ICBM Ohios, and trying to figure out if some more conversions would be plausible to replace their brethren. But the Columbia timeline doesnt support it, unless some Ohio service lives are extended. Even then, the conversion cost vs amount of life left in the hulls, and what the "acceptable" lower number of deterrent boats is, may make it a non-starter. However we do it though, I believe that the SSGN is somthing that shouldnt disappear from the toolbox.....Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41147326802586767622019-11-12T15:17:06.222-08:002019-11-12T15:17:06.222-08:00"Any subs at sea at the initial phase of a ma..."Any subs at sea at the initial phase of a major conflict can still get their licks in before leaving."<br /><br />This sounds amazingly similar to the WWII Asiatic Fleet episode. Check out this old post, <br /><b><a href="https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/08/asiatic-fleet-lessons.html" rel="nofollow">"Asiatic Fleet Lessons"</a></b><br /><br />In particular, note the portions about the Asiatic submarine force. I offer this not as an argument but simply as a piece of history that you might find interesting and enlightening. Let me know what you think.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40906603982891105992019-11-12T14:57:50.197-08:002019-11-12T14:57:50.197-08:00Some - to a limited extent. Once upon a time, hum...Some - to a limited extent. Once upon a time, human surveillance was highly beneficial but the advent of various other types of surveillance, like UAVs, has greatly reduced the benefits.<br /><br />What is the one enduring characteristic of human surveillance throughout history? It's that it's always inaccurate. Cargo ships are reported as carriers, numbers are badly misestimated, and so on. A UAV, by comparison, simply transmits images, 100% accurate.<br /><br />Another major drawback is the very limited range of human surveillance. The range is from a hundred feet (in woods or jungles) to, at best, the horizon which, barring sitting atop a mountain, is ten miles or so. A UAV, by comparison, can cover much, much larger areas.<br /><br />Humans can, under the right circumstances, remain hidden (stealthy) during surveillance, however, the more stealthy (hidden) they are, the more limited their field of view, generally speaking.<br /><br />Finally, there's the inevitable rescue attempts. Humans tend to get spotted and then, in the US way of things, we mount massive rescue operations and often lose multiple aircraft, helos, and personnel trying to execute the rescue. We don't just write them off. It's the American way. By comparison, a UAV can be casually written off.<br /><br />All this is not to say that there is zero use for human surveillance but it does say that the applicable scenarios are quite limited.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66189295196198393712019-11-12T14:45:41.854-08:002019-11-12T14:45:41.854-08:00"so anything from me would be speculative.&qu..."so anything from me would be speculative."<br /><br />That doesn't stop me! :)<br /><br />Seriously, our so-called professional sailor/warriors have pretty well botched up the Navy so why not some speculation informed by nothing more than common sense? Couldn't do any worse and, likely, a whole lot better!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20861549073875418382019-11-12T13:40:15.473-08:002019-11-12T13:40:15.473-08:00" imagine how many it would take to actually ..." imagine how many it would take to actually knock a base out for any length of time."<br /><br />Executed properly, potentially only a relative few. This is the Pearl Harbor lesson. Had the Japanese destroyed the fuel tanks, the Navy would have been unable to operate even though rest of the facilities were left untouched.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64973513040620100902019-11-12T13:39:35.209-08:002019-11-12T13:39:35.209-08:00We could really get into the weeds on this, but I&...We could really get into the weeds on this, but I'll just say one last thing.<br /><br />I don't think we should underestimate the value of intelligence in a major war, or the continuing value of HUMINT.<br /><br />Human recon has advantages. A quality special forces squad can provide long term surveillance in a way that is unsustainable through the use of UAVs and the like. They provide more detailed, long term data.<br /><br />In terms of the expenditure of resources required - intelligence is so vital, the potential loss of some special forces squads is going to be acceptable. In major warfare special forces units are going to be expended. They are going to be sent on the most dangerous missions and they are going to take heavy casualties. It's always been that way.<br /><br />And are they really that much more expensive then launching new satellites and building new UAVs as you lose them?Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24777217446542668872019-11-12T13:38:52.225-08:002019-11-12T13:38:52.225-08:00"To the best of my knowledge, we have very li..."To the best of my knowledge, we have very little in the way of defensive capability at Guam."<br /><br />I said that we could, not that we have the capability now. I actually saw somewhere (wish I could remember where, so I could link it) a layout for a pretty extensive self-defense capability for Guam. I don't believe any of it has been done. It will not be cheap, but if we plan to use Guam as a major base, it needs to be done. Same for Pearl, and of course Sasebo and Yokosuka to the extent the Japanese permit.<br /><br />"I'm thinking that someone needs to write up a SSK mini-CONOPS post to explore SSKs in specific US Navy scenarios."<br /> <br />I agree, but I don't wear dolphins so anything from me would be speculative. I almost think SSKs fit well into your war/peace concept. Let the SSKs do a lot of the routine peacetime surveillance stuff, so we can save wear and tear on SSNs. Plus, if somebody has to go sit on the bottom outside Murmansk or Vladivostok, an SSK is harder to detect and less critical a loss if the bad guys detect it and play nasty.CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.com