tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7086701844098546212..comments2024-03-18T17:57:44.714-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Not Enough Escorts For ConvoysComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5092477770029008642018-10-23T22:58:46.233-07:002018-10-23T22:58:46.233-07:00Three Zumwalt hulls would get you one fine trimara...Three Zumwalt hulls would get you one fine trimaran AAW/ASAT platform. All those odd-number LCS hulls would get you fine one-way drug-runners in a permissive environment. Other than that, I'm at a loss for the Navy's current acquisitions programs...Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296988746956477216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68323048906228960782018-10-23T22:49:07.851-07:002018-10-23T22:49:07.851-07:00@CptSteve, it would be good, but we have few merch...@CptSteve, it would be good, but we have few merchant ships that are "our" ships. They're mostly flagged as Panamanian or Liberian or some other 3rd World S**thole. What do we do, then?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296988746956477216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35517429292410683302018-10-23T22:45:39.473-07:002018-10-23T22:45:39.473-07:00Before ramping up production of warships, we'd...Before ramping up production of warships, we'd need to build the factories to produce the heavy equipment needed by the new shipyards we'd need to construct in order to build more new warships beyond those that could be handled in existing yards. Moreover, we'd need to begin training the workers that could build these ships -- far too many of our shipyard workers are getting older rapidly. Last, but not least, I suspect we'd have to make quite a number of industry and union leaders "offers they couldn't refuse" to either retire or get with the program. For that matter, a bunch of admirals, too.<br /><br />People (not our esteemed host) tend to forget that our industrial mobilization began rather before Pearl Harbor, though in a quiet way. Had FDR waited until December 8, 1941, we'd have been in a world of hurt on all fronts until at least 1943 and probably 1944 since the long lead time on a lot of projects were already being addressed at least in planning form (but not only!) for nearly a couple of years by the time of Pearl Harbor. I pray we have that much warning, but without a Congress and President and JCS to make use of it, I fear for the worst.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296988746956477216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75608251936389159942018-10-23T22:33:58.355-07:002018-10-23T22:33:58.355-07:00The Politically Correct urgently need to know abou...The Politically Correct urgently need to know about JAPs before suffering a snowflake meltdown.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296988746956477216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50745842168013912902018-10-23T22:31:54.940-07:002018-10-23T22:31:54.940-07:00There are serious advantages for the Army having l...There are serious advantages for the Army having longer-ranged artillery. Analogous to dreadnoughts, being able to out-range the enemy means being able to hang relatively safely further back from the front, increasing the area to disperse in, while still being able to bring the enemy's batteries under fire. By no means is their only target within a mile of our own troops. Also, a longer range means that whether in attack or defense, more batteries can be brought into action from the left and right flanks, even from neighboring units, enabling a greater concentration of fire, if necessary, without having to physically concentrate batteries near the decisive point. Of course, we are playing catch-up with near-peer competitors, with the M-109A5 rather short-ranged compared to what potential adversaries can field. The Army very much <i>needs</i> this long-overdue enhancement, and hopefully we can begin rebuilding M-109s with the longer barrels soon, and fielding the new rounds. These are liquid-fuel ramjets, not solid-fuel RAPs, which should bypass the weaknesses of current RAPs (ramjets are dirt simple steel geometry and the shock of firing would open fuel flow, so none of the weakness of solid fuel). The big question is: are liquid-fuel ramjet shells LRAPs (no, not really, since they aren't Rockets) or JAPs (Jet-Assisted Projectiles)? Or are JAPs only those shells with terminal guidance systems, or are those JAKaPs -- Jet-Assisted Kamikaze Projectiles?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13296988746956477216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49886145758248630012018-10-23T18:57:40.935-07:002018-10-23T18:57:40.935-07:00@Wild Goose, I must apologize for taking so long t...@Wild Goose, I must apologize for taking so long to reply, I hope you understand.<br /><br />While it isn't a new idea of using fishing ships as a picket force, comparing it to the Soviet Union's tactics or capabilities isn't accurate. Many things are different... Communications equipment has gotten smaller and cheaper in the 3 decades since the USSR collapsed. <br />Further more the USSR fishing fleet is dwarfed considerably by China's. According to Wikipedia, which states these figures are from 2002, they have over 25 thousand vessels in the 100+ GT range and nearly 220,00 smaller vessels. We literally don't have the ordnance to destroy them all in a timely manner.<br /><br />The Fact that we would have to eliminate them to pursue an attack on the any military target, is a warning that we are operating in the area. Jamming, in and of itself, is a similar prospect. <br /><br /><br />Not all of their ships will have long range communications, granted. How do we know which ones thou?<br /><br /><br />As to the DF-21 and DF-26 threats being overstated...<br />Who knows. We have no idea of the capabilities cause we have no comparable weapon system. Furthermore, the systems that we have to deal with them are questionable because they themselves have not been tested in a realistic scenario against that type of attack profile. <br /><br />Nor have our weapon systems been tested against a maneuvering target at speed... not that makes much difference considering our carriers do between 35-40mph.<br />BTW, a similar statement was used against Billy Mitchell after the Project B: Anti-ship bombing tests.<br /><br />Simply dismissing the ASBM as insignificant, due to its complicated targeting, isn't something I personally find reassuring. Especially since we'll likely have to operate well within it advertised range as some point.<br /><br />Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27633100526776390792018-10-16T22:59:13.254-07:002018-10-16T22:59:13.254-07:00@Purple Calico: In actual wartime, convoy escorts ...@Purple Calico: In actual wartime, convoy escorts and CSG escorts should be chasing away those fishing boats; the CSGs aircraft and escort ships in particular should be sanitising space around the CVN, precisely to avoid this sort of shenanigans. It's not like this is a new idea; the Soviets used to do this in the Cold War as well.<br /><br />That said, the threat of ASBMs like DF-21 and DF-26 is overstated; the Chinese have only tested their ASBMs on stationary targets and DF-21 has never been demonstrated to be able to hit a manuevering target at speed, and the flight time it takes to hit its target gives the CVN plenty of time to escape the seeker head of an ASBM reliant on itself for terminal guidance.<br /><br />China isn't talking up ASBMs because it thinks ASBMs are a credible threat against CVNs, it's talking up ASBMs because then people focus on the antiship role and the carrier killer role and overlook how China's using these ASBM platforms to recapitalise its MRBM force.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49774176291422672022018-10-16T18:52:27.143-07:002018-10-16T18:52:27.143-07:00HM. Yes, but we should be building and installing/...HM. Yes, but we should be building and installing/stockpiling these systems now, and not in competition with installations on warships/Fleet Auxiliaries. One LCS= How many defensive outfits?Captain Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297301009511642108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90608175272823844162018-10-16T13:30:09.740-07:002018-10-16T13:30:09.740-07:00"Well, nothing (useful) is actually free.&quo..."Well, nothing (useful) is actually free."<br /><br />Note that I'm not against defensive equipment/measures, per se. What I'm against is the simplistic notion that so many people have that adding these things is "free" and easy. It's neither. <br /><br />If, after doing a realistic assessment, one concludes that it's worth the cost and effort then, by all means, go ahead.<br /><br />By the way, every CIWS (or whatever piece of equipment) that's bolted on to a merchant ship is one less that's available for use on a warship. Even in WWII we were limited in availability of various weapons and sensors for new construction. Today's highly advanced electronics suggest that manufacturing availability of even something as "simple" as a CIWS will be severely limited. Do we use our limited equipment to arm merchant ships or their escorts? This is part of the overall assessment that has to be done to make a good decision.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58739161770535553712018-10-16T13:24:00.556-07:002018-10-16T13:24:00.556-07:00"I meant to include Nixie or equivalent in th..."I meant to include Nixie or equivalent in the equipment list."<br /><br />And now we're punching holes in the stern, building compartments for the winch/handling equipment, providing power, providing a compartment for the display/operator station, computers, underwater warfare software suite, operators, additional berthing, electronics/maintenance techs, etc. Nothing's free, indeed!<br /><br />In WWII we were able to quickly build Liberty ships. Presumably we could do the same today. However, if we have to add advanced weapons, magazines, sensors, computers, software suites, etc., then the modern Liberty ship becomes just another drawn out ship build and won't be all that helpful. We'll have supplies piling up on the docks waiting for a sophisticated modern Liberty/frigate to be built.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13920497538079804132018-10-16T12:33:59.929-07:002018-10-16T12:33:59.929-07:00China's fishing fleet will have to be eliminat...China's fishing fleet will have to be eliminated, for the simple fact they can and have provided intelligence to their navy brethren. God forbid if we let any live and the provide enough information for a DF-21 launch. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70817807508338980262018-10-16T11:59:41.074-07:002018-10-16T11:59:41.074-07:00Well, nothing (useful) is actually free. Yes, do a...Well, nothing (useful) is actually free. Yes, do a (real) cost/effective analysis with various degrees of self protection versus "Plan Lemming" (i.e. bunch up all the cargo ships and hope enough survive the transit to accomplish the mission). BTW: I meant to include Nixie or equivalent in the equipment list.Captain Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297301009511642108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58590780787932821882018-10-16T11:32:30.010-07:002018-10-16T11:32:30.010-07:00"Although maybe a good offense is the best de..."Although maybe a good offense is the best defense you know 3 Zumwalts not built get you 40 US Soryu-class AIP subs."<br /><br />Correct. We've discussed many times the opportunity cost associated with the Zumwalt, LCS, and Ford class purchases. We're cutting our own throats and bragging about it while we do it!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4588989260691603752018-10-16T11:30:12.053-07:002018-10-16T11:30:12.053-07:00"a whole new level of reserves ... pay to do ..."a whole new level of reserves ... pay to do training exercises ... buy lots of gears to be in storage and maintained."<br /><br />Very good point. We can buy, man, train, maintain hundreds of CIWS, for example, or we can buy a relative handful of reusable escorts.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67825899786074010002018-10-16T10:58:02.841-07:002018-10-16T10:58:02.841-07:00Although maybe a good offense is the best defense ...Although maybe a good offense is the best defense you know 3 Zumwalts not built get you 40 US Soryu-class AIP subs. Based out of Japan and Guam that's a really bad time for the PLAN to go to sea. Even before the Virginia class Subs show up.Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12072127795915257222018-10-16T10:51:01.067-07:002018-10-16T10:51:01.067-07:00One would assume that China is not really planning...One would assume that China is not really planning for a long war. <br /><br />On balance I China just like the US has kinda sees a peer war as not a reality. They do want to attain their primacy in what the expose as there proper sphere of influence. <br /><br />But they get there by a thousand cuts not by war. Create a sufficient force that they could overwhelm Taiwan and convince everyone to shun them and nobody to arm them. Create a sufficient threat to the US such that parking a CV or two in the Taiwan strait is no easy decision. Their artificial islands are ridiculously vulnerable but to the extent they happen they create facts on the water. Or take the USNS Bowditch. Unless the US sends it back and inside of China's imagined sea sovereignty area escorted by a Burke DD, the US has ceded w/o fighting the sovereignty of what are Filipino waters to China since they can now apparently dictate what happens there. Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18373617481940356132018-10-16T10:33:10.794-07:002018-10-16T10:33:10.794-07:00"To set up a giant shipbuilding industry woul..."To set up a giant shipbuilding industry would take 10...15 years in the U.S., assuming the manpower is available and the government does all the necessary cheating and all the necessary market distortions."<br /><br />Now that hurts "cheating". If everyone else does it I'm not sure it is cheating its just the nature of the game. <br /><br />You do not need a massive shipbuilding industry, just a substantial one. Maybe not Japan or the ROK, but maybe just back to a moderated commercial capacity. If the US is willing to spend and use the Jones act there there is room to take away business from China. Their margins are thin and they are heavily subsidized. In they argue simple go on the WTO merry go round of charge and counter charge.<br /><br />In any case back to the arming convoys alone. This is still an expensive plan. You need either the USN or the USGC to support a whole new level of reserves to be available to be stationed on these ships. Where are these ships coming from? Only American flagged ships? You are going have to pay to do training exercises right. That means paying for ships to not be working. You need to buy lots of gears to be in storage and maintained.<br /><br />At the end of the day why is not simply easier building escorts for the reserve fleet and expanding sailor reserves to man them. They be small enough that you could rotate them and base them all over the US coasts and even the Great Lakes for reservist to train on. As long as they had a few 25/30 MM cannons. There is no reason they could not supplement the USCG for drug inter dictation and US coast patrolling to keep busy.<br /><br />A small ship focusing on range and sea keeping, with one helo and a full onboard ASW kit, Say a large load of ESSms and just a single bolt on 4 box of the new NSMs. There are lots of solid corvette designs out there to do that with US gear and a reasonable price. Seems easier than trying to bolt tons sensors and weapons in haste to a cargo ship.Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7379747844762995692018-10-16T10:06:50.065-07:002018-10-16T10:06:50.065-07:00My assumption is their massive soft fishing fleet ...My assumption is their massive soft fishing fleet which is depleting the worlds oceans would be picked off by our allies while we did the heavy lifting.Peter Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47038519730413467622018-10-16T09:46:21.651-07:002018-10-16T09:46:21.651-07:00china telegraphed their intentions when their &quo...china telegraphed their intentions when their "fishing fleet" began<br />grabbing our towed arrays years ago. When they claimed the whole SCS and militarized their impressive islands it was like Hitlers book Mein Kamph with history rhyming. Anyone who has their eyes open can see where this is going. Here's my problem. The first real act of aggression from them may be their seizing one of our ships. As the conditions escalate at some point all trade with china will stop. All their oil imports. All their food imports. The US feeds the world with our exports. How will china sustain a multi year war? I just don't see it. Some one tell me how their economy does not collapse. We are almost self sufficient in energy. They are not. We feed the world if we choose to. We would not feed them. As far as I know china does not have food reserves.Peter Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4135677099028644702018-10-16T09:30:01.400-07:002018-10-16T09:30:01.400-07:00I should note that the T-72 - at least the version...I should note that the T-72 - at least the version the Russians kept for themselves, not the monkey model they sold their client states - wasn't really *that* far behind the T-80; it was a solid tank and a peer contender with the equivalent NATO tanks of its era (Chieftain, Leopard 1, M60 Patton). There's an argument to be made that for much of the Cold War, the USSR had the superior tanks; it was only once NATO's 3rd gen MBTs came online that the gap was narrowed.<br /><br />I think the T-72's longevity is helped by how it had a 125mm smoothbore gun from the get go, so it's easier to keep it relevant by giving it new ammo; in contrast it's NATO peers were running the rifled 105mm gun, and so NATO *had* to buy new tanks with the new 120mm smoothbore gun.<br /><br />Although with tanks, I'd argue it's relatively simpler to keep them relevant on an evolving battlefield; the T-72B3 is basically an incremental update to the baseline cold war T-72, the improvements being to the sights, fire control system, new ammo and new ERA packages. Not to say that it can't be done with ships and aircraft, just that it's a little easier with tanks.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87496024960884548882018-10-16T08:38:46.795-07:002018-10-16T08:38:46.795-07:00"I don't even know how to respond to this..."I don't even know how to respond to this!"<br /><br />That's because you stay in the box and disregard historical precedents.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22100941413192657662018-10-16T08:37:01.446-07:002018-10-16T08:37:01.446-07:00"What warships are they building for us now? ..."What warships are they building for us now? Since when has China had any influence over SKorea?"<br /><br />I didn't write that they were, but SK has the capacities, and the '"West' would stand a chance in an arms race if SK shipyards joined said race on the side of the West.<br /><br />The PRC can say "Don't build more warships than usual or we will overrun you, and nuke you if that fails by some miracle."<br />SK would gladly accept the civilian ship orders that would not be picked up by the Chinese and Japanese shipyards.<br />South Korea is continental - its security depends on land power. Sea power is by comparison irrelevant to them.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78315490861828874922018-10-16T08:29:16.203-07:002018-10-16T08:29:16.203-07:00"Wouldn't the destructive power of modern..."Wouldn't the destructive power of modern weapons and there range speed up a modern war?"<br /><br />No, because that same destructive power allows much smaller forces and individual platforms to create much greater effects. Thus, significant combat can occur with smaller forces which suggests longer, drawn out war.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46162599187123991932018-10-16T08:26:27.413-07:002018-10-16T08:26:27.413-07:00"You should look at how little shipbuilding t..."You should look at how little shipbuilding the U.S. has today. "<br /><br />The US shipbuilding industry is depressed, without doubt. However, the real issue is how is it trending? I don't have any data so I don't know. My sense is that it is trending somewhat upward. The US 'boom' in oil has increased demand for both intercoastal and international shipping. GD-NASSCO has some lucrative oiler contracts in hand. There have been a series of tankers built in various yards. And so on. Not a lot by some of the international standards but possibly trending better. Maybe someone can take the time to supply some trending data for us to see what direction we're going?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52866919971529914162018-10-16T08:02:39.674-07:002018-10-16T08:02:39.674-07:00"* I don't think it would take 30-50 year..."* I don't think it would take 30-50 years."<br /><br />You're quite right. The key is demand. Create/foster demand and all the rest will take care of itself. The Navy needs to stop its trend towards very few, very expensive, very complex ships and start building many more (demand!) simpler, single function ships. We need to revise our regulations to encourage commercial shipbuilding. We need to bring manufacturing back home (Trump is doing this) and increase our exports (demand, again). Do all this and shipbuilding can rebound.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com