tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post6113839729187702229..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: This Is A Carrier Strike Group?ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70972945797092794972021-06-25T17:58:53.493-07:002021-06-25T17:58:53.493-07:00I believe that you can build a CVL under 50,000 to...I believe that you can build a CVL under 50,000 tons that is CATOBAR capable.(My reasoning is long, but I will happily post it.)<br />However, it would still need escorts, which was the theme of this thread. We don't just need a new class of ASW ship, we need 2!<br /><br />The first would be a cheap ASW ship built in large numbers. It needs to be unmanned/optionally maned and does not need to be fast. The Sea Hunter drone looks like it might work.<br /> <br />The second class would be a manned frigate that could keep up with a CVN. That means 32 knots. Because of Froude's equations, it also means either a planning hull like the Freedom class or a multi-hull like the Independence class or the RV Triton. The trimaran hull can work, the Freedom class proved that the planning hull will NOT.<br /><br />The O.H.Perry class was 4,100-4,200 tons and has systems that appear to be older versions of the Constellation's systems. I suspect that the Constellations length has more to due with Foude number than damage control, but trimaran can easily 32 knots while having good slow speed fuel economy.<br /><br />I have some amateur calculations on both the CVL and the 5,000 ton(steel hulled) ASW frigate. <br />The second Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27317862856683760032021-06-20T15:52:04.884-07:002021-06-20T15:52:04.884-07:00"testament to inertia"
Now that's a..."testament to inertia"<br /><br />Now that's a succinct and devastatingly accurate assessment!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57531528354195859662021-06-20T10:53:40.054-07:002021-06-20T10:53:40.054-07:00Our military commitment continues largely as a tes...Our military commitment continues largely as a testament to inertia; the lack of vision and statecraft from decades of successive administrations. The U.S. presence in Europe was first a watch against a Nazi return to power in Germany, and only later a check on Soviet invasion, which I do not think was ever Stalin's plan, although the Russians certainly orchestrated a number of insurrections against European countries. <br /><br />NATO has long outlived its usefulness, at least as far as the USA is concerned. We have committed to defend a group of nations as wealthy and as populous as ourselves, against a Russian nation that has half the population of Europe and a tenth of its wealth. In return, there is no serious European commitment to defending the USA or Canada, and at best a lukewarm commitment to “shared values”.<br /><br />This one-way defense of Europe comes at great financial cost to the USA, while Europe is a major trading partner with potential USA adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and so forth. European countries have a long history of punitive legal warfare against U.S. companies, and are extremely proficient at circumventing U.S. tariffs (e.g. selling European goods and services to the USA via Mexican partnerships). Russia is also a neighbor to the USA (take a good look at a map of the Arctic Ocean). <br />GABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580029460978121408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32480593501478290112021-06-20T04:40:11.629-07:002021-06-20T04:40:11.629-07:00"The only facts we have about Europe are that..."The only facts we have about Europe are that the USA maintained a significant military presence there for 45 years, during which time the Soviets did not invade. Whether the Soviets ever had any intention of invading is a matter of conjecture, not fact"<br /><br />"Your [sic] are assigning causation without any evidence"<br /><br />I'm doing no such thing. I am explicitly not assigning causation. I think you have this habit of reading into my posts things that I am not stating, and then taking issue with the unstated things that you read in.<br /><br />The following is my opinion. Presence of token forces (sending 400 "advisors" to Vietnam, FONOPS) accomplishes nothing. Presence of sufficient force to increase significantly the degree of difficulty for whatever event we seek to oppose or discourage (thousands of troops in Western Europe during the Cold War) has a chance to work. nothing more than that, nothing more than that. You may draw inferences about those comments, but those are your inferences, not my comments.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15265909889607106902021-06-19T16:34:22.302-07:002021-06-19T16:34:22.302-07:00"What is not conjecture is that we were prese..."What is not conjecture is that we were present in significant numbers and they did not invade."<br /><br />Your are assigning causation without any evidence. There is a well known phenomenon in statistics that, briefly stated, warns about correlation without causation. Just because two things are correlated does not imply causation. Causation may or may not exist. For example, during the time in question, there were many birds in Europe and the Soviet Union did not invade. In fact, there were more birds than US soldiers. Therefore, it is just as valid to say that birds prevented the Soviet invasion as to say that the US presence did. Birds preventing an invasion is an example of correlation without causation (as far as we know, the Soviets were not frightened off by birds!).<br /><br />Given what I assume is your math/stats background, I'm pretty sure you know about correlation and causation but have forgotten or ignored it because you WANT TO BELIEVE that US presence deterred the Soviet Union.<br /><br />This is getting tedious and I'm going to simply delete comments with continued incorrect claims. You can opine that presence equates to deterrence all you want but if you state as fact, I won't allow it. Fair warning. <br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76901803794316598762021-06-19T16:23:00.797-07:002021-06-19T16:23:00.797-07:00"Therefore, claiming that our presence preven..."Therefore, claiming that our presence prevented an invasion is also conjecture."<br /><br />What is not conjecture is that we were present in significant numbers and they did not invade.<br /><br />"And you are welcome to express those opinions, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS OPINIONS AND NOT FACT. Abide by that simple requirement and you'll be fine."<br /><br />If I cite an external reference, I am presenting a fact. If not, I am presenting an opinion.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26659137737073540392021-06-19T13:51:03.954-07:002021-06-19T13:51:03.954-07:00"Whether the Soviets ever had any intention o..."Whether the Soviets ever had any intention of invading is a matter of conjecture, not fact."<br /><br />Therefore, claiming that our presence prevented an invasion is also conjecture.<br /><br />"I have opinions that are different from yours."<br /><br />And you are welcome to express those opinions, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS OPINIONS AND NOT FACT. Abide by that simple requirement and you'll be fine.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57118229523643195182021-06-19T12:56:21.418-07:002021-06-19T12:56:21.418-07:00I'm sorry, but you are asserting things as fac...I'm sorry, but you are asserting things as factual that are not supported by fact. The only facts we have about Europe are that the USA maintained a significant military presence there for 45 years, during which time the Soviets did not invade. Whether the Soviets ever had any intention of invading is a matter of conjecture, not fact.<br /><br />As far as the South China Sea goes, the presence of a force too small to matter, doing nothing of significance (FONOPS) is clearly not going to deter anyone from doing anything. Continued presence of a force sufficient to cause China extreme difficulty in attempting to take or occupy any of the first island chain, accompanied by statements indicating that our clear intent is to prevent such occupation, sends a very different message from sending a carrier, a cruiser, and a destroyer through the area on a brief mission.<br /><br />I don't know whether the Soviets ever entertained any serious thoughts about invading western Europe. I'd tend to guess that they had a battle plan for doing so, just as we had a battle plan (or several) for preventing that. If we had a platoon of riflemen in West Germany from time to time, I doubt that would have deterred them if they had entertained any invasion intentions. <br /><br />I have opinions that are different from yours. That does not make your opinion factual, or mine untrue, or vice versa. I respect your opinions, and your intent to spur conversations that exchange ideas or opinions for making our Navy stronger. I expect the same from you.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75876607260285183022021-06-19T12:15:16.757-07:002021-06-19T12:15:16.757-07:00"I promise to stick to the subject from here ..."I promise to stick to the subject from here on out."<br /><br />The subject is 'naval matters' so you're just fine!<br /><br />Thanks for sharing your experiences. Always good to hear from someone who has 'been there, done that'! Chime in anytime.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39748961145818689022021-06-19T12:11:58.009-07:002021-06-19T12:11:58.009-07:00CDR Chip, I'm sorry that you've taken offe...CDR Chip, I'm sorry that you've taken offense but the reality is that you made some factually incorrect and/or unsupported statements. As I said, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the Soviet Union ever intended an unprovoked invasion of Europe. Your belief that the mere presence of ships of some number will deter China is belied by the last decade or two of Chinese actions and aggression despite the presence of the entire 7th Fleet in close proximity. And so on. You can be offended, if you wish, but that doesn't change the reality. I protect the integrity of the blog by making sure that what is presented as fact, actually is and, I'm sorry, but you're presenting statements as fact that are not correct.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35095706713380186592021-06-19T12:10:29.610-07:002021-06-19T12:10:29.610-07:00Look forward to your comments, sir.
Old reserve X...Look forward to your comments, sir.<br /><br />Old reserve XO/NavigatorTermite.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10063740636732936036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63772756966515335142021-06-19T12:08:57.616-07:002021-06-19T12:08:57.616-07:00In answer to your response, in my experience, gain...In answer to your response, in my experience, gained from two deployments to The South China Sea--one for eight months and another for 13 months--is that the crew will become quite proficient in UNREP operations and in experiencing the effects of sleep deprivation, and that’s about the only “benefit” to be gained from any deployment. Sending a mini carrier strike force with such a limited tactical capability to that area will accomplish just about as much and is, quite frankly, embarrassing and I agree with your observations entirely.<br /><br />To this old sailor’s mind, unless and until, the Navy solves the surface officer proficiency problem—regarding which, quite incidentally—was the subject of an ad hoc group in which I participated in 1968—the discussion of strategy is moot.<br /><br />Just an old reserve XO/NAV talking here. I promise to stick to the subject from here on out.<br /><br />Termite.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10063740636732936036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31869379896865630752021-06-19T11:28:59.401-07:002021-06-19T11:28:59.401-07:00Just an attempt at some humor, sir. In my day, wh...Just an attempt at some humor, sir. In my day, whenever there was a crisis situation the Word was always, Where Are Our Carriers, and I said Where Are Our LCS's?<br />Termite.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10063740636732936036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18390740913539690212021-06-19T10:43:12.744-07:002021-06-19T10:43:12.744-07:00Not leaving permanently. Just when I have a post t...Not leaving permanently. Just when I have a post that elicits responses of "false assertions," "another falsehood," "sophomoric thinking," and "fantasy," I kind of get turned off a bit. And then when someone who says, "if you have them blow something up, then your force presence would mean something," turns around refuses to believe that I might shoot down a provocative ship or airplane, I get a bit more perturbed. <br /><br />ComNavOps and I have different ideas of what to do about China. At the risk of possibly putting words in his mouth (and if I am doing so, ComNavOps, please say so and I will retract) I think he sees some sort of direct attack on the Chinese mainland. To me, that is a suicide mission. I prefer to contest them at the first island chain, contain them within the SCS, and put pressure on their economy to bring them down. I am basically reprising what we did post-WWII in Europe, where Truman bribed up an alliance to contain Soviet expansion and later Reagan put pressure on the Soviet economy to collapse them. <br /><br />I just need to avoid reacting to the flak that some of my ideas seem to draw. As someone said yesterday, the more flak you take, the closer you are to the target.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76231014378914294112021-06-19T10:30:07.648-07:002021-06-19T10:30:07.648-07:00XO, I'm not sure what comment, post, or person...XO, I'm not sure what comment, post, or person you're referring to but glad you got something out of it!<br /><br />Given your experience, what are your thoughts on peacetime naval operations in the South China Sea. Do they accomplish anything? If so, what? If not, do you have any alternate suggestions for dealing with China from a naval perspective?<br /><br />If you haven't already, you might want to read this post: <b><a href="https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/09/forward-presence-deterrent-or.html" rel="nofollow">Forward Presence</a></b><br /><br />and this one: <b><a href="https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2020/08/forward-presence-deterrnet-effect.html" rel="nofollow">Deterrence Disproved</a></b><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61880461573469092902021-06-19T09:45:34.872-07:002021-06-19T09:45:34.872-07:00CDR Chip:
Don't leave permanently, sir. Your c...CDR Chip:<br />Don't leave permanently, sir. Your comments are always interesting.<br /><br />Old reserve XO/Nav. here.Termite.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10063740636732936036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15191562157713568752021-06-19T09:41:27.828-07:002021-06-19T09:41:27.828-07:00Excellent critique, sir.
My question is, Where ...Excellent critique, sir. <br /><br />My question is, Where are the Littoral Combat Ships?<br /><br />Old reserve XO/Navigator here.<br />Termite.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10063740636732936036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49882513358521285492021-06-18T19:36:44.182-07:002021-06-18T19:36:44.182-07:00I'm really not interested in having another on...I'm really not interested in having another one of these. I'm out.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69690957020408385432021-06-18T19:22:18.200-07:002021-06-18T19:22:18.200-07:00Really ? … …. …
You'll sink or shoot down a ...Really ? … …. … <br /><br />You'll sink or shoot down a ship or plane in international waters or airspace, where they have every right to be, because it gets too close? You'll pardon me if I find that hard to believe!<br /><br />I assume that you'll also be perfectly willing to accept, without protest, having our own ships sunk and aircraft shot down if we get what the Chinese deem 'too close' to their assets? That's only fair, after all.<br /><br />I'm sorry but I don't believe you.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53006089608707428082021-06-18T18:38:04.451-07:002021-06-18T18:38:04.451-07:00If you send an airplane to overfly and it makes an...If you send an airplane to overfly and it makes an attacking move, we will shoot it down. If you send a ship or boat and it gets too close we will sink it.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69564446631274609072021-06-18T17:35:45.254-07:002021-06-18T17:35:45.254-07:00"I would make it very clear to China that if ..."I would make it very clear to China that if you do A, this is how we will respond"<br /><br />Yet again, those are empty words, devoid of specific actions. Why don't you give some examples of what actions your forces will take?<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55183515191535830112021-06-18T16:38:37.130-07:002021-06-18T16:38:37.130-07:00The "false assertions" are words you are...The "false assertions" are words you are putting into my mouth, not words that I have said. I have no intent of sending them in to do nothing. I would make it very clear to China that if you do A, this is how we will respond, and if you do B, that is how we will respond--and then, if provoked, do exactly what we said we will do.<br /><br />I don't think we just go in shooting willy-nilly and start WWIII, but I do think we make it clear that we will exercise our rights fully in what we believe to be international waters, and will tolerate no interference with our doing so<br /><br />And I'm not quite sure how we could goad China into building more ships and airplanes than they are already doing.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44572723586538437682021-06-18T08:15:37.940-07:002021-06-18T08:15:37.940-07:00"Guys, this thread is degenerating into point..."Guys, this thread is degenerating into pointlessness. No one is going to change the other's views. Probably best to drop it and move on!"<br /><br />Wilco. We've devolved into arguing about the least important part of the discussion...the feasibility of refurbishing the Iowas.<br /><br />LutefiskAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53906309511505494852021-06-18T07:37:06.119-07:002021-06-18T07:37:06.119-07:00Guys, this thread is degenerating into pointlessne...Guys, this thread is degenerating into pointlessness. No one is going to change the other's views. Probably best to drop it and move on!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28769769718672168702021-06-18T07:28:49.951-07:002021-06-18T07:28:49.951-07:00"Which, of course, already exist if you are r..."Which, of course, already exist if you are refurbishing a ship."<br /><br />Refurbish museums, you mean. <br /><br />How much confidence do we have that 80 year old breech blocks can withstand firing live rounds after being in storage for 30 years? Recertifying everything in those relics might cost more than just buying new ships. There's probably not a person left in the Navy who's actually fired them. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com