Trump's Navy

[davidbfpo]

A curious deployment, which was just in a BBC News report. Why a helicopter carrier to escort a supply ship? Leaving politics aside.

What does this 'helicopter destroyer' contribute: ASW helicopters, SAR, CIWS, radar and the like. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS_Izumo

Is there a NK submarine threat?

Thanks to Google there is another helicopter carrier in Japan, a French Mistral class ship; there for separate multi-national exercises this month at Tinian island. See: https://www.rt.com/news/386592-frenc...l-drill-japan/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39768110

[AdamG]

Why a helicopter carrier to escort a supply ship?
Is there a NK submarine threat?

Threat? Yes & No.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...big-joke-20300

Meanwhile, back on the real carrier.

During the 2008 financial crisis the theory emerged that certain companies, particularly financial institutions, were “too big to fail.” These firms were considered to be so large and entwined with other companies that their closure would be catastrophic to the entire economy. In today’s Navy, the aircraft carrier has become “too big to sink.” When it functions as designed, it is an extremely powerful platform that has remarkable economies of scale. But carriers are crucial to so many of the fleet’s missions that if the enemy can defeat them, the results would be catastrophic for both the Navy and the nation. The loss of a $12 billion capital ship, more than 5,000 American lives, and a powerful symbol of U.S. military superiority would send shock waves around the world.
Yet the Navy remains blind to the reality that its carriers—by way of destruction, damage, or deterrence from completing their missions—are poised for defeat in battle. By accepting the eventual demise of the carrier, the Navy could accelerate its shift away from a carrier-centric fleet.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...5/too-big-sink

[AdamG]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee believes the Navy can reach a 355-ship fleet in the 25- to 30-year timeframe, given industrial base capacity and expected funding levels.
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) told USNI News today that, based on a Congressional Budget Office report, achieving a 355-ship fleet in under 20 years would be impossible due to industrial base capacity, and so the question for lawmakers is now whether they want to aim for a 20-, 25- or 30-year track.
“I believe that we can truly send that signal (to industry) and we can get that production ramped up to where we can get to 355 I think somewhere in the 25- to 30-year timeframe,” Wittman said at an event cohosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute.
After the event, he told USNI News that spending an additional $5 to $6 billion a year above recent averages for shipbuilding would get the Navy to 355 ships in 25 years. While he would like to speed up that timeline a bit, the reality of continuing resolutions, budget caps and other political hurdles may slow the shipbuilding spree to a 25- to 30-year pace instead.

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/02/hou...hing-355-ships

[AdamG]

Plot twist.

China is developing the unique ultra-low altitude anti-ship unmanned vehicle. Details have emerged of new Chinese unmanned ground effect vehicle that would attack enemy surface ships.

The new ultra-low altitude anti-ship unmanned system can fly as low as 50 cm above the sea, can reach a maximum altitude of 3,000 km, along with an endurance of 1.5 hours – depending on the flight profile. The maximum take-off weight (MTOW) is 3000 kilograms and can carry a 1000 kg load.

http://defence-blog.com/news/china-d...ed-system.html

[AdamG]

What's a Superpower without redundancy?

“If you do not have presence to exert sovereignty, you’re a paper lion,” the Coast Guard commandant said in explaining why the United States needs to build three heavy and two medium icebreakers to operate in polar regions.
Adm. Paul Zukunft, speaking Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the loss of the service’s current heavy icebreaker#– the 40-year-old USCGC Polar Star#— would leave the U.S. without a key capability.
“It is the one aspect I lose sleep about,” he said.
“There are no heavy icebreakers that we can legitimately lease,” to replace the ship.

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/03/coa...-s-icebreakers

[davidbfpo]

Now there's an "Icebreaker Gap", this is ridiculous and little more than advocacy for yet more US$.

There is a simple answer: ask your neighbours for help. No, not Mexico. The Canadian Coast Guard who have both 'heavy' (11k tonnes) and 'Medium' (8.5k tonnes). See:http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Icebreaking/home

[AdamG]

PENTAGON: Despite his campaign pledge of a 350-ship fleet, President Trump’s first budget cuts Navy shipbuilding and aircraft procurement below what was enacted in 2017, documents released today reveal. Despite Trump’s criticism of President Obama’s defense plans, this budget sticks with Obama’s shipbuilding plan for 2018: eight ships. And it actually buys eight fewer aircraft than Obama planned.
So we were overly optimistic last week when we predicted Trump would add at least one warship (a $1.8 billion Aegis destroyer) and possibly two (a $550 million Littoral Combat Ship) to the Obama plan. Instead, it adds zip, zero — nada.
Even the mix of types is exactly the same as under Obama:
one aircraft carrier (the future CVN-80, Enterprise);
two attack submarines (Virginia-class SSNs);
two Aegis destroyers (Arleigh Burke-class DDGs);
one Littoral Combat Ship or — if the new class can be started in time — a frigate;
and two support ships (a T-ATS tug/salvage ship and a “T-Interim,” presumably what was previously called the T-AO(X) oiler).
We have heard persistent rumors that OMB director Mick Mulvaney added a second Littoral Combat Ship at the last minute after a working group warned him that buying only a single LCS would shutter one of the two shipyards involved. “There’s a discussion right now on whether or not we add some additional Littoral Combat Ships,” Mulvaney told the Hugh Hewitt Show on May 4th. “We did not add any of those as part of this $21 billion dollar request…The Navy doesn’t want them.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/n...t-procurement/