tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7596760723095106047..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Open PostComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger203125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43406531472485334932020-01-04T09:40:50.836-08:002020-01-04T09:40:50.836-08:00Kath,
I can see a comment you attempted to post s...Kath,<br /><br />I can see a comment you attempted to post somewhere on the Open Post but it doesn't seem to be showing up. Here's the (partial?) comment that I've been able to copy:<br /><br />"OK how about Germany. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31694/germany-has-fewer-than-10-tiger-and-12-nh90-helicopters-ready-for-combat Now the easy take away is Germany is simply paying for deciding it did not a military after the cold war. But the point that jumps out at me is insidious decision to outsource maintenance to a for profit company. Airbus cares about the next quarter - or at least its executives do. Not winning wars or king and country. If they screw up bad enough they still get a golden parachute. The 737 max fiasco shows that. People at Boeing created an epic long term screw up and killed people because they wanted to cut corners everywhere for short term gain and the man in charge walked away a millionaire. The real mistake it seems to me was that Germany did not decide that 20 or 40 Tigers were better. When well maintained by soldiers/government employees on a regular basis from a military facility (were the metric was performance and safety and reliability on Open Post<br /><br />Kath at 7:21 AM"<br /><br />I don't know why it won't show up but I want you to know it's not me stopping it. Maybe try posting a test comment to the most recent blog and see if that shows up?<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63472960492089415492020-01-04T07:21:08.300-08:002020-01-04T07:21:08.300-08:00OK how about Germany.
https://www.thedrive.com/t...OK how about Germany. <br /><br />https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31694/germany-has-fewer-than-10-tiger-and-12-nh90-helicopters-ready-for-combat<br /><br />Now the easy take away is Germany is simply paying for deciding it did not a military after the cold war. <br /><br />But the point that jumps out at me is insidious decision to outsource maintenance to a for profit company. Airbus cares about the next quarter - or at least its executives do. Not winning wars or king and country. If they screw up bad enough they still get a golden parachute. The 737 max fiasco shows that. People at Boeing created an epic long term screw up and killed people because they wanted to cut corners everywhere for short term gain and the man in charge walked away a millionaire.<br /><br />The real mistake it seems to me was that Germany did not decide that 20 or 40 Tigers were better. When well maintained by soldiers/government employees on a regular basis from a military facility (were the metric was performance and safety and reliability and not Q4 cost savings) than 80 or so by Airbus (where Q4 was god)Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54967928393076414502020-01-02T09:57:21.094-08:002020-01-02T09:57:21.094-08:00Probably won't get notice but this
http://www...Probably won't get notice but this<br /><br />http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/2020/01/01/griffin-missile-exercise/<br /><br />The Cyclones and Island cutters are the work horses of whatever the US is doing. The Griffin (on the Cyclone only unless they did some field add on for the USCG) are their only missile that keeps them from being outgunned by something like half of the Iranian small boat fleet.<br /><br />An annual exercise? <br /><br />Should we not have monthly ones if not weekly with real firing. How about fire if some bits and bobs are turned off, or if a smoke grenades is on deck (and some part of the crew has to deal with that)or while maneuvering at top speed in erratic ways.Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51486679513772074102019-12-22T19:33:22.195-08:002019-12-22T19:33:22.195-08:00Airforce is working on LRASM integration with B-52...Airforce is working on LRASM integration with B-52s. It's potentially a future possibility - bombers staging out of Guam or Changi or Kadena acting as an additional threat vector.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64693050810581880222019-12-22T19:22:35.694-08:002019-12-22T19:22:35.694-08:00Huh, so it was. Must have conflated that with a di...Huh, so it was. Must have conflated that with a different thing I'd read. I stand corrected.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10679937641945590302019-12-18T10:11:04.121-08:002019-12-18T10:11:04.121-08:00"I recall Forrestal returning to Guam to stoc..."I recall Forrestal returning to Guam to stock up on weapons, which lead to the flight deck fire"<br /><br />Forrestal's bombs were restocked at sea, on Yankee Station, by USS Diamond Head the day before the conflagration. Over a dozen of the bombs were 1000 lb bombs that were old and had been improperly stored resulting in the bombs becoming unstable. A shortage of conventional bombs led to them being used despite being visually identifiable as unsafe.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54819117263223989562019-12-17T09:15:37.881-08:002019-12-17T09:15:37.881-08:00@Ocean: I recall Forrestal returning to Guam to st...@Ocean: I recall Forrestal returning to Guam to stock up on weapons, which lead to the flight deck fire, but I'm willing to accept that might have been an extremis case.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21665813193117463952019-12-17T01:31:07.074-08:002019-12-17T01:31:07.074-08:00"I'm not sure they can achieve maximum ef..."I'm not sure they can achieve maximum effectiveness in ASW without S-3s"<br />In an ASW role,they would host primarily helos, with just enough F-35s to preform a CAP role.Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12674985088729901472019-12-16T22:05:41.742-08:002019-12-16T22:05:41.742-08:00Hi CNO,
Yes, it's best used as a first strike...Hi CNO,<br /><br />Yes, it's best used as a first strike. As for defense, that's why I wanted several more SeaRam installed, since it's relatively easier than trying to have Mk41 cells installed.<br /><br />But if they can, somehow , act as missile trucks, that'd be a thing of beauty to see.<br /><br />Andrew<br />AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2146413108928823422019-12-16T18:48:04.393-08:002019-12-16T18:48:04.393-08:00Yankee Station carriers never ran out of ammo. The...Yankee Station carriers never ran out of ammo. They were replenished at sea every three days. MK-82 500lb bombs.ocean venturerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15539023267346522015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70761224281198433442019-12-16T18:22:59.558-08:002019-12-16T18:22:59.558-08:00@ComNavOps:
I'm of the opinion that sortie ra...@ComNavOps:<br /><br />I'm of the opinion that sortie rate in the USN is a holdover from Vietnam-era influence. Recall all the time US carriers spent at Yankee Station, launching strikes into North Vietnam - they were able to remain on station until running out of ammo because the North Vietnamese didn't have any ability to threaten US carriers. <br /><br />You may be right that sortie rate might not be as relevant in peer war for carriers - Andy Pico's writeup of the NORPAC 82 experience certainly suggests that quite strongly - but it may possibly be more relevant for land-based air, since airbases, unlike carriers, don't move. Reportedly the Israelis put a premium on turnaround time and sortie rate. But that's an Air Force problem, not a Navy problem. WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87905849985642619042019-12-16T16:57:18.852-08:002019-12-16T16:57:18.852-08:00A post about the use of bombers in naval warfare. ...A post about the use of bombers in naval warfare. Would there be any use to emulate Russian tactics with a naval version of the B-21 Raider and stealth cruise missiles in a naval conflict with China? At $550 million per plane it is less expensive than a Littoral Combat ship. michael woltmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719963700565405955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82801817792296319792019-12-16T15:43:45.439-08:002019-12-16T15:43:45.439-08:00"I just kind of assumed that their presence w..."I just kind of assumed that their presence would be something that the Chinese would need to be aware of and try and counter."<br /><br />Why? They know won't actually take any action. If we didn't take action when China forced down our EP-3 and seized it or when they seized our UUV drong or when the Iranians seized our riverine boats and crews, why would the Chinese feel they have to worry about some SSKs roaming around?<br /><br />We send carrier groups and Burkes through the South China Sea regularly and the Chinese don't seem to have slowed their power projection efforts noticeably. Why would a few more SSKs make any difference?<br /><br />Presumably (I hope!) we have SSNs patrolling the South China Sea now. Why would a few more SSKs make any difference?<br /><br />I'm sorry, it sounds like I'm jumping on you and that's not my intent at all. I just want you to clearly understand what some SSKs could AND COULD NOT accomplish before you call for them. Too many people call for various weapon systems in isolation without considering what, if anything, they can actually accomplish. You're a good reader/commenter and I want you to clearly think this through. If you can come up with a specific task that the SSKs can do that would actually have some beneficial impact on the China situation then I'm all for it. If you would, think about it a bit more and let me know what your thoughts are.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5189902778014558512019-12-16T15:35:15.577-08:002019-12-16T15:35:15.577-08:00"Just sail them close to any fleets and unlea..."Just sail them close to any fleets and unleash the fury."<br /><br />That's inspiring. Of course, you realize that if the LCS is in range of the enemy then the enemy is in range of the LCS. It works both ways. Since the LCS has very limited defensive capability, few would survive an engagement.<br /><br />This illustrates the naval maxim (paraphrased!) that the winner is the side the launches effectively first. This, in turn, illustrates the immense importance of sensors and targeting. <br /><br />Now, consider that your LCS-missile boat is 418 ft long. The purpose built Chinese missile boat, the Type 022, is 139 ft long and looks to be quite stealthy. Which side is going to see the other first, do you think?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67060934221652511132019-12-16T15:31:26.639-08:002019-12-16T15:31:26.639-08:00When I was thinking of contesting for the South Ch...When I was thinking of contesting for the South China Sea, I just kind of assumed that their presence would be something that the Chinese would need to be aware of and try and counter.<br /><br />This would make them focus there, instead of being able to expend all their resources on power projection.That army guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371740407141453702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16087626683565226682019-12-16T15:25:10.616-08:002019-12-16T15:25:10.616-08:00"USN CVN close(ish) to shore to support a lan..."USN CVN close(ish) to shore to support a landing"<br /><br />Fleet carriers do not directly support landings. Their job is to interdict threat axes hundreds of miles away from the landing site. In WWII, escort carriers provided the direct ground support and modern US Navy doctrine calls for LHA/LHD to provide the ground support. Tying a CVN to a static location is how you lose carriers.<br /><br />A QE could reasonably provide ground support but, again, that's an incredibly expensive version of a very basic ground support requirement.<br /><br />"QE class were designed in part for a significant sortie rate"<br /><br />It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which sortie rate is important. Carriers simply don't fight that way. We've covered this in posts. The only scenario I can evenly vaguely imagine where sortie rate might be important is a low end, limited engagement (probably 'peacetime') where some light infantry were in trouble and needed support. Of course, if you've got light infantry engaged to the point of needing aerial support, you've already screwed up big time since light infantry, by definition, are not capable of significant combat on their own. Sortie rate is a useless red herring.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39266462438890619912019-12-16T13:50:58.802-08:002019-12-16T13:50:58.802-08:00Also, I did consider - what if we had built three ...Also, I did consider - what if we had built three Cavour sized vessels with a more air orientation?<br />Well, the QE class were designed in part for a significant sortie rate,perhaps more than two Cavour. As such there ought to be situations where this is applicable (I hope so).<br />For example, it would be dull to deploy a USN CVN close(ish) to shore to support a landing (I appreciate your attitude to contested landings, the UK agreed during the Falklands). A QE might be considered more useful to provide closer support with the CVN behind covering (it is reasonable to consider a QE more expendable in the grand scheme).Dave Wolfyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05161028886307241207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61569085223304560162019-12-16T13:45:01.767-08:002019-12-16T13:45:01.767-08:00"This would give the US the opportunity to st..."This would give the US the opportunity to start contesting for that area, as we seem to not be doing that very well right now."<br /><br />Again, doing what? Contesting how? What, specifically, can a sub (SSK) do to contest the S China Sea?<br /><br />"The subs on the coasts of the US would be to defend our ports and home waters."<br /><br />I'm good with that. The US has gotten used to thinking that our ports are out of reach of enemies and that's no longer true. China has a small but growing fleet of SSNs that can reach the US.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75317967565407727012019-12-16T13:26:54.100-08:002019-12-16T13:26:54.100-08:00Thanks for your response.
My thoughts on these die...Thanks for your response.<br />My thoughts on these diesel-electrics are that they would be a good way to put a survivable presence into the South China Sea.<br />This would give the US the opportunity to start contesting for that area, as we seem to not be doing that very well right now.<br /><br />It would also afford the US the vehicle with which to start building relationships with some of the countries that we want to ally with to encircle China.<br /><br />The use of diesel-electrics would be to take some of the pressure off of the blue-water attack subs, and we would be using subs that are presumably very quiet and effective.<br /><br />The numbers are a bit arbitrary because, frankly, when it comes to patrolling with submarines I don't know what it takes to be effective.<br /><br />The subs on the coasts of the US would be to defend our ports and home waters.<br /><br />Basically what I'm thinking is to replace nuclear attack subs with diesel-electric types whenever the patrolling areas are somewhat 'local'.That army guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18371740407141453702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6898445439836310932019-12-16T13:21:25.267-08:002019-12-16T13:21:25.267-08:00"We" are all part of whatever we put tog..."We" are all part of whatever we put together - be it NATO or other coalition.<br />Each of us cannot all aspire to the same, as such we provide what is within our means and contribute accordingly. What the piece did say was that we endeavour to provide something (tangible), and that sometimes having what might be effectively described as a sea-control ship is useful in it's own right even if only to release other assets. The UK could never provide a worthwhile CV/CVN all of the time (how useful is the French carrier when in dock?)<br />The UK experience in the Falklands showed that an E2 type platform is NEEDED. At what point do you decline to deploy because you do not have what is needed? Just about every commander in history would have walked away.<br />One final point, there was a comment (I didn't keep a reference unfortunately) that the CV HMS Ark Royal could not have flown F4s or Gannets for significant periods because of the sea states in the Falklands campaign. At no point were the Harriers incapable of flying because of sea states. It would be interesting if there was some data about ships of the QE or USN CVN size being able to fly aircraft conventional aircraft in the North (or South) Atlantic.<br />Thank you all for bothering to comment.Dave Wolfyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05161028886307241207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15607236698797215082019-12-16T10:12:56.013-08:002019-12-16T10:12:56.013-08:00The Iver Huitfeldt is almost a baby Burke and it a...The Iver Huitfeldt is almost a baby Burke and it appears that it will be used for anti Air with some capability for anti surface and anti submarine warfare.<br />The Arrohead 140 appears to be designed with coastal patrol in mind. Basic radar with self defense missiles, 57 mm gun, four boat bays and a Helicopter hanger.<br /><br />The cost is the most noteworthy aspect of the Arrowhead 140 variant of the ship(~$350 million). You could buy almost two Arrowhead 140 ships for the price of a Legend class cutter. The cost of the Iver Huitfeldt is difficult to know with precision.<br />The Arrowhead 140 compares favorably to both the Legend class and Heritage class cutters for the Coast Guard and has design margin to carry vertically launched weapons if called on to do so.<br />I could see a need for the Coast Guard cutters being pressed into military duty and it would be nice to have a ship that was designed from the start to be more heavily armed.<br />michael woltmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85987947321277877752019-12-16T06:56:36.964-08:002019-12-16T06:56:36.964-08:00My dream is to watch them ho away just Go Away My dream is to watch them ho away just Go Away D M Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07944039365612613761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33066744979350757642019-12-16T06:36:43.320-08:002019-12-16T06:36:43.320-08:00"The problem is that those are very expensive..."The problem is that those are very expensive ships to act as escort carriers."<br /><br />Right now they are very cheap, in fact free, because they already exist. Of course, the politics involved in getting those other countries to give them up might not be so cheap, but that's a different issue. You don't go to war with the military you want, you go with the military you have, and right now they are what an allied navy has. I'm not sure they can achieve maximum effectiveness in ASW without S-3s, but then again the whole Navy is now operating without S-3s.<br /><br />This is a big part of my thinking about turning the LHAs/LHDs into light carriers. We have them, we've spent a bunch of money on them (but that's sunk costs), and they aren't really useful as amphibs because there's no viable CONOPS for using them as such. Are they as good as a Nimitz? No (but right now neither is a Ford, and for a whole lot more money). They can haul certain airplanes around, and operate them, in moderate numbers. If you got rid of the well deck and troop spaces, they could haul a few more. That's all. But that's more than nothing. And right now they have no viable way to conduct an effective amphibious assault.CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82132035829350328122019-12-16T05:17:16.130-08:002019-12-16T05:17:16.130-08:00"Maybe itd be a case of having to throw money..."Maybe itd be a case of having to throw money at them??"<br /><br />At the moment, Philippines leader is not disposed towards the US. Until he's replaced, nothing can happen regarding basing. In fact, he's more likely to offer basing rights to China!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54197352985506088642019-12-15T22:53:37.982-08:002019-12-15T22:53:37.982-08:00You don't have to tweet to use twitter.
All y...You don't have to tweet to use twitter.<br /><br />All you can do is post a link to a blog post and reaching a bigger audience there are many naval pages on twitter with interesting things like this ones for example<br /><br />https://twitter.com/RussianSubmarin<br /><br />https://twitter.com/CovertShoresStorm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.com