tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post70284504139102549..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: SSN ShortfallComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61363225382997717112013-09-26T10:27:04.530-07:002013-09-26T10:27:04.530-07:00The S-3 may be a proven design, but it's not t...The S-3 may be a proven design, but it's not that simple to dust off plans for an aircraft designed in the '60s (if they still even exist in entirety), and produced in the 70's, and build a modern production line from it. You will essentially have to reverse engineer it into modern design and production tools and then develop a modern production line for it. <br /><br />It'll still take a decade or more and cost billions, but you'll end up with a 70's aircraft with none of the life-cycle cost reductions a modern design would offer.<br /><br />So might as well take advantage of 40+ years of technology and process improvements and build a modern aircraft. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27522701668985679892013-09-26T10:01:34.884-07:002013-09-26T10:01:34.884-07:00B.Smitty, my thought on the S-3 was that it has al...B.Smitty, my thought on the S-3 was that it has already been proven, debugged as an airframe, and is a known, stable design that is optimized for ASW. A new aircraft would cost billions and take decades! The military has a tendency to want to make everything Star Wars even when a basic (old) but solid technology could do the job perfectly well. <br /><br />The E-2, if it can be adapted to ASW (does it have the maneuverability?) has the advantage of commonality with an existing aircraft, of course. OTOH, I think it takes up a great deal more room than a Viking.<br /><br />Oh well, neither is going to happen!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86106874307936418242013-09-26T09:42:48.060-07:002013-09-26T09:42:48.060-07:00The S-3 has been out of production since the 70...The S-3 has been out of production since the 70's. Might as well design a brand new aircraft. <br /><br />The E-2D, OTOH, still has a hot production line. <br /><br />I don't have a source for the smaller airwings rationale. Just something I heard. You're probably right, budget was the main reason.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66850656170820127652013-09-26T09:32:51.332-07:002013-09-26T09:32:51.332-07:00B.Smitty - "... one reason we went to smaller...B.Smitty - "... one reason we went to smaller air wings is so we can carry a higher percentage in the hangar, to increase their service lives."<br /><br />I've never heard that one. Do you have a source? It sounds more like an after-the-fact justification. As far as I know, the smaller air wings are purely budget driven. Each succeeding class of aircraft has been purchased in smaller numbers and the resulting squadron sizes have decreased correspondingly. The Navy has stated that when the JSF enters service, the squadrons will be further reduced by 2-4 aircraft (quite a reduction!). That's driven purely by budget. <br /><br />"... finding funding for a new ASW aircraft in this budget climate seems far fetched, at best."<br /><br />Well, you're absolutely right about that!<br /><br />An E-2 ASW? Hmmm.... Interesting.<br /><br />There's no reason we couldn't build new S-3's with upgraded avionics and sensors. I never heard of any problem with the S-3 that justified dropping it. I suspect it was sacrificed in order to fund new construction. <br /><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25844554716491999772013-09-26T04:31:57.045-07:002013-09-26T04:31:57.045-07:00If you're willing to add more aircraft to perf...If you're willing to add more aircraft to perform ASW, you can far more easily add Super Hornets. <br /><br />I believe one reason we went to smaller air wings is so we can carry a higher percentage in the hangar, to increase their service lives. <br /><br />Replacing 4 with 2 is a frequently mentioned concern in the Growler program. The DOT&E mentioned that intense, combined comm and radar jamming tasks would overwhelm the crew. The same thing could occur with an ASW-equipped SH. <br /><br />On the other hand, finding funding for a new ASW aircraft in this budget climate seems far fetched, at best. <br /><br />An ASW version of the E-2 might be the cheapest path. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45586418340335141582013-09-25T17:54:33.676-07:002013-09-25T17:54:33.676-07:00B.Smitty, now you know we wouldn't have to tak...B.Smitty, now you know we wouldn't have to take Hornets off the carrier to make room for dedicated ASW aircraft! The air wings are close to half the size they used to be. The Nimitz class is designed to handle close to 100 aircraft and current air wings are around 60-65. There's lot's of room!<br /><br />Yes, we might replace 4 with 2 but that doesn't necessarily mean the 2 can do the job. I have the same concerns about the Prowler/Growler. Can the two-man Growler perform as well as the four-man Prowler? I don't know and I haven't read anything indicating one way or the other.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74812267110535088252013-09-25T17:38:27.830-07:002013-09-25T17:38:27.830-07:00We replaced the two pilots and two operators in th...We replaced the two pilots and two operators in the EA-6B with one and one in the EA-18G. <br /><br />Yes, I agree the Hornets have other jobs too, but you'll have to take some off the carrier to make room for dedicated ASW aircraft.<br /><br />Aircraft and carriers did modularity long before it became cool with the LCS. ;)B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11987743845621735252013-09-25T17:12:17.114-07:002013-09-25T17:12:17.114-07:00B.Smitty: "40+ fighters on a carrier. When o...B.Smitty: "40+ fighters on a carrier. When one runs out of gas, replace it with another. You can get 24 hour coverage with enough aircraft, just like a fighter CAP."<br /><br />Bear in mind, though, that the 40 Hornets must also act as tankers, CAP, strike, etc. There are not 40 Hornets available to dedicate to ASW. Realistically, there would only be a small handful, at best. The loiter time of Hornets compared to Vikings is woefully inadequate.<br /><br />"It can even be scaled real time just by flying in more pods and additional trained back-seaters." - A flying LCS?<br /><br />The Viking used two pilots and two technical operators to conduct ASW. Have we really been able to replace four pilots/operators with two? I'm dubious, to say the least.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2038978327154060672013-09-25T09:20:28.833-07:002013-09-25T09:20:28.833-07:00F/A-18F is a two seater. The EA-18G uses the ba...F/A-18F is a two seater. The EA-18G uses the back seat the same way. Honestly, the pilot could do it. Just put the plane on auto-pilot. However it's better to have a trained ASW back seater.<br /><br />The enemy can't just "jam our comms" anywhere in the vast ocean it wants to. It has to place an emitter somewhere near the line from transmitter to reciever. <br /><br />It may be better done by specialized aircraft, but the budget just doesn't allow for it. Better some capability than no capability. And this approach can scale without having to build specialized aircraft. It can even be scaled real time just by flying in more pods and additional trained back-seaters. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47254122284795521882013-09-25T09:19:36.846-07:002013-09-25T09:19:36.846-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38970611798822517762013-09-24T19:31:25.066-07:002013-09-24T19:31:25.066-07:00I think we'd agree that there is absolutely no...I think we'd agree that there is absolutely no way an F-18 driver is going to have time to fly the aircraft and watch acoustic grams. <br /><br />This means you're going to need a very big comms pipe to push sonobuoy data back to the acoustic guys carrier. <br /><br />I have a very hard time believing that we'll have that type of bandwidth in wartime, or that an enemy won't simply jam our comms.<br /><br />The thought that we can do everything with one T/M/S is what got us into the ridiculous situation of using an F-18 to tank other F-18s. Specialized missions call for specialized aircraft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27657206871663158452013-09-21T13:30:35.200-07:002013-09-21T13:30:35.200-07:0040+ fighters on a carrier. When one runs out of g...40+ fighters on a carrier. When one runs out of gas, replace it with another. You can get 24 hour coverage with enough aircraft, just like a fighter CAP. <br /><br />Multiple aircraft can lay and maintain as large a buoy field as you want. <br /><br />You could also use a UCLASS as a buoy comm relay back to the carrier, where numerous operators could monitor the field. <br /><br />The Russians are doing something similar with their Su-32FN. It can carry 72 sonobuoys in a centerline pod, along with up to 4 torpedoes on pylons.<br /><br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66689019905163569212013-09-19T15:22:56.367-07:002013-09-19T15:22:56.367-07:00B. Smitty. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I g...B. Smitty. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I guess I was thinking more of Phase 0 - although I didn't know it at the time.<br /><br />ComNavOps. I think we're in strong agreement on the need for patrol combatants. <br /><br />As to LCS, I've more or less resigned myself to the fact that we are going to buy some number of these craft - so might as well put them to use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35521149345424453972013-09-19T15:16:54.932-07:002013-09-19T15:16:54.932-07:00ASW is often for good reasons called "awfully...ASW is often for good reasons called "awfully slow warfare." A P-3 will often spend 6-8 hours deploying and monitoring fields of 80+ sonobuoys. And they have two highly-skill guys monitoring the buoys full time. <br /><br />Dropping the torpedo is probably the least challenging phase of the ASW Kill-chain. I just can't see how a short-legged Hornet, which could probably only carry a couple dozen buoys would be much good at finding a sub.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74499160327298367852013-09-19T13:53:22.661-07:002013-09-19T13:53:22.661-07:00Anon, did I answer your main question about the re...Anon, did I answer your main question about the reason why presence/deterrence requires the ability to apply force? If not, try this previous post on the subject, <a href="http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/01/deterrence-and-bluff.html" rel="nofollow">Deterrence And Bluff</a>. Let me know if you're still not comfortable with it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66690017331025548362013-09-19T13:46:41.837-07:002013-09-19T13:46:41.837-07:00B.Smitty, that's why I tend to shy away from N...B.Smitty, that's why I tend to shy away from Navy docs. They cloud and confuse the issues, more often than not, or, at best, contribute nothing of value. I use the simple word "presence" (or deterrence). The Navy doc gets caught up in trying to classify things. In the end, who cares? If a carrier can help calm things down, send it and don't worry about what Phase we're in! Will knowing what Phase the action is in have any impact on what we or the subject does? Of course not. The doc has no value other than as a talking point in a classroom, perhaps. To be fair, I guess that's kind of what we're doing, isn't it?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70258399003215202782013-09-19T11:17:58.885-07:002013-09-19T11:17:58.885-07:00Hmm, I suppose you are talking about the deterrenc...Hmm, I suppose you are talking about the deterrence portion of Phase 0 as well. <br /><br />The difference between Phase 0 deterrence and Phase 1 deterrence appears to be that the Phase 0 version occurs during routine day-to-day activities, where Phase 1 deterrence occurs during a crisis. Clear as mud. :)B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41432217958787103382013-09-19T08:04:25.925-07:002013-09-19T08:04:25.925-07:00Perhaps to clarify meaning, we should adopt the JP...Perhaps to clarify meaning, we should adopt the JP 5-0 Operations six-phase model instead of using generic terms like "presence". <br /><br />http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp5_0.pdf<br /><br />Shape (Phase 0). Joint and multinational operations—<br />inclusive of normal and routine military activities—and <br />various interagency activities are performed to dissuade or deter potential adversaries and to assure or solidify relationships with friends and allies.<br /><br />Deter (Phase I). The intent of this phase is to deter <br />undesirable adversary action by demonstrating the <br />capabilities and resolve of the joint force. It includes activities to prepare forces and set conditions for deployment and employment of forces in the event that deterrence is not successful. <br /><br />Seize Initiative (Phase II). JFCs seek to seize the <br />initiative through the application of appropriate joint <br />force capabilities. <br /><br />Dominate (Phase III). The dominate phase focuses on <br />breaking the enemy’s will for organized resistance or, <br />in noncombat situations, control of the operational <br />environment. <br /><br />Stabilize (Phase IV). The stabilize phase is required <br />when there is no fully functional, legitimate civil <br />governing authority present. The joint force may be <br />required to perform limited local governance, <br />integrating the efforts of other supporting/ contributing multinational, IGO, NGO, or USG department and agency participants until legitimate local entities are functioning. <br /><br />Enable Civil Authority (Phase V). This phase is <br />predominantly characterized by joint force support to <br />legitimate civil governance in theater. The goal is for <br />the joint force to enable the viability of the civil <br />authority and its provision of essential services to the largest number of people in the region. <br /><br />CNO, you are mostly talking about Phase 1 - Deter-style presence. Anonymous includes Phase 0/V - Shape/Enable Civil Authority-style presence. Both are valid and desirable capabilities. Both have different, if overlapping requirements. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30499654785682625322013-09-19T07:37:27.016-07:002013-09-19T07:37:27.016-07:00Anon, fair enough! Do you like the word deterrenc...Anon, fair enough! Do you like the word deterrence better than presence? I use the two almost synonymously (spelling?). Presence implies a bit more but for our discussion they're essentially the same if that makes it clearer or easier.<br /><br />Yes, presence/deterrence must include the ability to threaten a significant degree of harm on an enemy. It doesn't have to be the ability to obliterate a center of gravity. It can be lesser degrees such as the ability to sink and enemy vessel.<br /><br />For example, the Chinese are currently sending corvette/frigate-ish ships into Vietnamese, Japanese, and Philippine waters in an attempt to enforce their territorial claims (or whatever purpose the Chinese really have!). Having a US ship(s) in those same waters that has the capability to engage and sink them might (no guarantees in presence/deterrence!) alter their behavior. Of course, that assumes we have the political will to use force but that's a topic for another time. The original OHP was a capable corvette/frigate killer and would have been suitable for such a mission. <br /><br />Recall that I said presence/deterrence is scalable. While a OHP would be fine the scenario I just described, it would have been insufficient for the actual incident where the Chinese started firing "test" missiles towards Taiwan quite some time ago and the US responded by sending carrier groups (two, if I dimly recall). The carriers arrived and the Chinese quieted down. Side note: some credit that incident as the motivation for both the development of Chinese IRBM anti-ship weapons and their own carrier program - interesting thought.<br /><br />The maximum that an LCS could realistically threaten is small boats. That's not enough to alter anyone's behavior, hence, the LCS is not suitable for presence/deterrence. <br /><br />As I've said, the LCS can chase pirates or show the flag or conduct multi-national training exercises or interdict drug smugglers but those missions can be more cost effectively performed by PC-ish vessels.<br /><br />That's the problem with the LCS - too expensive for the truly low end, peacetime jobs and not capable enough to actual (or implied, for presence/deterrence) combat. At the moment, the only two possible worthwhile tasks for the LCS are MCM and shallow water ASW but useful versions of those modules appear to still be five to ten years down the road. Worse, MCM would be far better performed by other platforms which really only leaves shallow water ASW and, unfortunately, the LCS even with a mature module is not optimized for ASW.<br /><br />You may agree or disagree with my statements and conclusions but within the context of my definitions the reasoning is sound and logical, I think. Feel free to point out errors in logic or offer alternatives!<br /><br />Given the Navy's litany of poor decisions on a myriad of issues the fact that I might disagree with their official thinking can only be viewed as a good thing!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36811336953135269772013-09-19T05:50:26.855-07:002013-09-19T05:50:26.855-07:00I really am interested in a 2-way discussion. I do...I really am interested in a 2-way discussion. I do apologize if my remarks came off as terse or pointed.<br /><br />I suppose what I'm trying to get at is your apparent view that thepresence mission must also entail the capability to inflict significant harm on an enemy's center of gravity (TLAM, CVN). <br /><br />An FFG - even in its unneutered form - never had any such capability. It was not a line-of-battle ship and had no strike weapons. <br /><br />FFGs were designed for patrolling the sea-line of communications. And in the the case of war with the Soviet Union, they would likely have served as convoy escorts and missile/torpedo sponges. <br /><br />So again: if neither ship type had significant offensive capability, why is an FFG good enough for presence but a Littoal Combat Ship not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82078433602263654592013-09-18T18:58:56.261-07:002013-09-18T18:58:56.261-07:00Anon, OHPs, as originally built, would be perfectl...Anon, OHPs, as originally built, would be perfectly adequate for many presence missions. I did not list them for today's presence missions because they no longer exist (the few that remain have been neutered) but, of course, you know that... Which leads me to wonder, are you interested in a discussion with the possibility of two-way learning or are you trying to prove some point? If the latter, let's just let the discussion end.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60636858055747992662013-09-18T18:04:56.969-07:002013-09-18T18:04:56.969-07:00"Presence as I've defined it, requires a ..."Presence as I've defined it, requires a DDG or bigger."<br /><br />If that is the case, then why exactly did the Navy build and operate 51 OHP frigates? <br /><br />And what did the Navy been do with them for the last 40-odd years if not presence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52125543072586188602013-09-18T17:48:53.451-07:002013-09-18T17:48:53.451-07:00Anon, I answered this but I'll answer it again...Anon, I answered this but I'll answer it again. You ask, specifially, what ship type I'd use to chase pirates and show the flag. Chasing pirates in a skiff requires no more than a PC. An LCS can certainly do the job but is a very expensive way of doing a very simple task. Any ship can show the flag: tankers, PCs, LCS, DDG, hospital ship, JHSV, literally any ship. No combat capability whatsoever is required. <br /><br />Presence, as I've defined it, requires a DDG or bigger.<br /><br />Why are CSGs deploying with only 2 or 3 escorts? Money. Pure and simple. The Navy is trying to save money by operating with the bare minimum during peacetime. One can debate the merits of that philosophy but that's the answer.<br /><br />Let's assume, just for fun, that I'm aware of the ratio of forward deployed ships to the total number of ships. As you know, around a third of any given ship type is available for active deployment at any given moment. That leaves around 30 Aegis ships for presence. Seems sufficient.<br /><br />As I've stated before, I'd love to see around 20 new, slightly upgunned PCs (or something similar). The PC-14 or the Ambassador class would be a good starting point.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22184889056504952452013-09-18T10:28:53.634-07:002013-09-18T10:28:53.634-07:00Jim,
The Osprey is another option, but it won'...Jim,<br /><br />The Osprey is another option, but it won't be a great dipping platform or MIW helo. But it is in service.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11110206861855019562013-09-18T10:26:35.004-07:002013-09-18T10:26:35.004-07:00CNO,
F-35C:
Yes, the F-35C is an expensive inte...CNO, <br /><br />F-35C:<br /><br />Yes, the F-35C is an expensive interim step. It will provide more capability, but IMHO is not going to be the world beater we need in the Pacific. <br /><br />I just don't know if it CAN be killed. The whole JSF program appears "too big to fail". <br /><br />Unfortunately the Super Hornet is even more wheezy and less survivable. <br /><br />ASW:<br /><br />In an all-out conflict with China, everything in the second island chain may be subject to attack, carriers included. <br /><br />This is one reason why I think creating a podded solution for fighter aircraft makes sense. Super Hornets/F-35s have at least some ability to defend themselves from air attack, or evade, while they perform ASW. Helos, S-3s or V-22s don't. <br /><br />I could see using multiple aircraft to perform the mission. Use one F/A-18F configured with conformal/drop tanks, a centerline sonobuoy receiver pod, and a pair of HAWWC Mk-54s as the command aircraft. It flies high and slow and controls multiple F/A-18Es carrying sonobuoy dispenser pods, who fly low dropping lines of buoys. If a sub is detected, the command aircraft can attack it from altitude. <br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.com