SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Operation Iraqi Freedom > US Policy, Interest, and Endgame

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2017   #1
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default Trump's Navy

Quote:
BATH, Maine — With President-elect Donald Trump demanding more ships, the Navy is proposing the biggest shipbuilding boom since the end of the Cold War to meet threats from a resurgent Russia and saber-rattling China.

The Navy's 355-ship proposal released last month is even larger than what the Republican Trump had promoted on the campaign trail, providing a potential boost to shipyards that have struggled because budget caps that have limited money funding for ships.

At Maine's Bath Iron Works, workers worried about the future want to build more ships but wonder where the billions of dollars will come from.
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/n...since-cold-war

Quote:
In a brief but illuminating interview, US Navy Vice Admiral#Tom Rowden, the commander of the US Navy's Surface forces, told Defense News'#Christopher P. Cavas a key difference between the ships of the US and Chinese#navies.#
Cavas asked Rowden about China commissioning a 4,000 ton frigate and deploying it just six weeks later, a start-to-finish speed inconceivable in the US Navy, where ships undergo many rounds of testing and often take more than one year to deploy.

When asked#about the differences between the US and China's processes, Rowden#explained that while a US and a Chinese ship may both appear combat-ready,"[o]ne of them couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and the other one will rock anything that it comes up against."
Rowden couched his criticism well, but the meaning is clear. The US doesn't test its#ships for fun, or to spend excess money in the budget, but "to be 100 percent confident in the ship and confident in the execution of any mission leadership may give them."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/comman...222602690.html
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017   #2
Azor
Council Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 791
Default

The Admiral's comments are all well and good, but the US Navy needs to be deploying LRASMs and SM-6s tomorrow in order to not be outranged and outgunned by the PLAN's surface fleet.

Hopefully, Trump will be able to ensure that the US shipbuilding program involves at least two Virginias and one Columbia each year, perhaps curtailing the LCS orders for more Virginias. Note that Virginias are capable of littoral operations in a way that the Los Angeles and Seawolf classes were not.

Lastly, there needs to be upgrades to the Block IV TLAM-E in order to ensure that it has the speed, stealth, maneuverability and hardness to strike land targets protected by the most advanced CIWS and SAMs.
Azor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017   #3
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,056
Default Building more ships is NOT the problem

This report suggests that the USN has a problem now with their aircraft carriers maintenance / overhaul schedule, so much so that not one carrier was at sea a few days ago:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...anywhere-world

Building more sounds grand, but is there the capacity to man new ships?

I will leave aside the cost and which ships to buy.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017   #4
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
The message Navy leaders are sending to President-elect Donald Trump’s team is: We need money to keep the current 274 ships in the fleet are maintained and modernized first and then give us the money to buy more ships.
Speaking to the press at the Surface Navy Association meeting Tuesday in Crystal City, Va., Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran said the transition team “has really been open-minded” and asked probing questions about the service’s plans for the coming budget deliberations understanding the department is currently operating now under a continuing resolution.
Moran said he and CNO Adm. John Richardson, have met with the team twice, but the team meets with different departments in all the services more often to gain an understanding of how the Pentagon operates.
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/11/mai...vy-trump-moran
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017   #5
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azor View Post
The Admiral's comments are all well and good, but the US Navy needs to be deploying LRASMs and SM-6s tomorrow in order to not be outranged and outgunned by the PLAN's surface fleet..
Beijing does not think it straight lines - they won't fight ship-vs-ship, particularly if they know they have a disadvantage. They will use apple corers to fight oranges, then move their own apples into the power vacuum that's left behind.
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017   #6
Azor
Council Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamG View Post
Beijing does not think it straight lines - they won't fight ship-vs-ship, particularly if they know they have a disadvantage. They will use apple corers to fight oranges, then move their own apples into the power vacuum that's left behind.
Yet if US surface ships don't have effective ASuW capabilities, they only burden the CAW and SS(G)Ns with these roles, in addition to their other missions.

If the PLAN's anti-ship missiles are countered, their surface fleet is only useful for air defense given that its anti-submarine skills are poor.

The PLA is cautious and seemingly aware of its lack of operational experience, particularly in the areas of precision-strike, combined arms and C4ISR.

Therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to rely upon their land-based cruise missiles (ballistic missiles being too risky and held in reserve) in a surprise attack to cripple US forces in the Western Pacific. If this blow fails, however, I think that the PLA would crumble and refocus on defending the mainland.
Azor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017   #7
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azor View Post
If this blow fails, however, I think that the PLA would crumble and refocus on defending the mainland.
As Foamy the Squirrel said, "it wouldn't hurt you people to think like a serial killer every now and then, if only for the sake of prevention".

If your ships physically can't leave Pearl or the West Coast, if your crews can't assemble in port, if your C4 systems are hacked then you don't get those pieces to use on the game board.

Apples and oranges goes beyond the physical, know what I mean?
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017   #8
Azor
Council Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamG View Post

If your ships physically can't leave Pearl or the West Coast, if your crews can't assemble in port, if your C4 systems are hacked then you don't get those pieces to use on the game board.

Apples and oranges goes beyond the physical, know what I mean?
That sounds like the plot of "Ghost Fleet". Do you think that the US isn't working feverishly on those capabilities?

Regardless, the LRASM will be crucial to kinetic capabilities. The US has relied upon asymmetrical capabilities to deter and defeat its opponents since the early 1980s, particularly where electronic warfare is concerned. Snowden's revelations illustrated that the US was far from lagging in the cyber game as well...
Azor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017   #9
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
U.S. President Donald Trump says he wants to build dozens of new warships in one of the biggest peace-time expansions of the U.S. Navy. But interviews with ship-builders, unions and a review of public and internal documents show major obstacles to that plan.
The initiative could cost nearly $700 billion in government funding, take 30 years to complete and require hiring tens of thousands of skilled shipyard workers - many of whom don't exist yet because they still need to be hired and trained, according to the interviews and the documents reviewed.
Trump has vowed a huge build-up of the U.S. military to project American power in the face of an emboldened China and Russia. That includes expanding the Navy to 350 warships from 275 today. He has provided no specifics, including how soon he wants the larger fleet. (For graphics on projected strength of U.S. Navy, shipyard employment see: tmsnrt.rs/2n3vOr0)
The Navy has given Defense Secretary Jim Mattis a report that explores#how the country's industrial base could support higher ship production, Admiral Bill Moran, the vice chief of Naval Operations with oversight of the Navy’s shipbuilding outlook, told Reuters.
He declined to give further details. But those interviewed for this story say there are clearly two big issues - there are not enough skilled workers in the market, from electricians to welders, and after years of historically low production, shipyards and their suppliers, including nuclear fuel producers, will struggle to ramp up for years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN16O142
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2017   #10
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
The deployment of Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group has been extended by a month so the CSG can conduct presence operations off the coast of Korea, the commander of the strike group said late Tuesday in a message to his crew.
“Our deployment has been extended 30 days to provide a persistent presence in the waters off the Korean Peninsula,” wrote Rear Adm. Jim Kilby on the wall of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) Facebook page.
“Our mission is to reassure allies and our partners of our steadfast commitment to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. We will continue to be the centerpiece of visible maritime deterrence, providing our national command authority with flexible deterrent options, all domain access, and a visible forward presence.”
https://news.usni.org/2017/04/19/car...yment-extended
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017   #11
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
The Navy would have to spend $102 billion annually build, operate and maintain a 355-ship fleet over the next 30 years, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office issued on Monday.
The report, prepared at the request of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower and projection forces, outlines cost scenarios in how the Navy buys and maintains the 355-ship fleet the service announced it needed in 2016 – up from its current fleet of 275 ships.
“The cost to build and operate a 355-ship fleet would average $102 billion per year (in 2017 dollars) through 2047, CBO estimates, or more than one-third greater than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for today’s 275-ship fleet… That amount would be 13 percent more than the $90 billion needed to build and operate the eet envisioned in the Navy’s 2017 shipbuilding plan,” read the report.
“Meeting the 355-ship objective would cost the Navy an average of about $26.6 billion (in 2017 dollars) annually for ship construction, which is more than 60 percent above the average amount the Congress has appropriated for that purpose over the past 30 years.”
https://news.usni.org/2017/04/25/cbo...uilding-budget

see also https://news.usni.org/2017/04/25/25316
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017   #12
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
For more than three years now, I've been tracking the U.S. Navy's progress toward building a working electromagnetic railgun prototype -- a Mach 6 cannon reputedly capable of striking targets 110 miles away with pinpoint accuracy.
Each railgun projectile would cost about $25,000 to produce -- and if you're keeping track, then yes, success on the railgun project would yield a weapon boasting nearly twice the 67-mile range of Boeing's (NYSE:BA) Harpoon II missile#but costing just 1/48th the Boeing missile's $1.2 million cost.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...for-prime.aspx
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017   #13
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
Old enemies unite: Japan dispatches its biggest warship since WWII to protect a US supply ship from Kim Jong-un's missiles
Izumo, a helicopter carrier, is being sent by Japan to protect a US supply ship
The American vessel is thought to be supplying the USS Carl Vinson strike group#
Deployment marks the first time Japan has used new powers allowing its military to carry out actions that are not strictly in self-defense
Comes as North Korea threatened to carry out a sixth nuclear test at 'any time'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4fpma5j7x
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017   #14
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,056
Default

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
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017   #15
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2017   #16
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
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
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2017   #17
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Plot twist.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2017   #18
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

What's a Superpower without redundancy?

Quote:
“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
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2017   #19
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,056
Default

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
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2017   #20
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
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/
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't Get Caught!, or How US Navy Capt. Owen Honors Learned About Filmmaking M.L. The Whole News 22 01-11-2011 01:38 AM
Iran captures British sailors tequila Historians 44 06-12-2008 02:14 PM
Navy Will Shift Military Might To Shallower Waters SWJED Equipment & Capabilities 2 07-06-2006 03:32 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation