Navy Proposal To Cut Surface Combatants

[EchoFiveMike]

Cut flag officers and their staffs, as well as bureaucratic shipbuilder staff until you have enough $ to buy the proper equipment. Also eliminating all diversity/AA/outreach and anything supporting nontraditional sexuality should also free up some money, mostly though firing worthless pogues ashore. If the person hasn't been to sea during their current enlistment/term of commission, they're probably worthless and should be fired.

 

The US DOD, all services, is infiltrated with activists and bureaucrats, America need outsiders to reform. In the same fashion that guys like Adm Mike Rogers should be "unretired" to be DCI.

 

We are potentially approaching the Stalin era purge phase of the American decline, and that's not a bad thing, compared to continuing on the Lenin phase of Cheka etc. S/F....Ken M

[Nobu]

Conclusions about USN development and procurement can be met with various other conclusions that kind of dampen the USN conclusion. On one hand, there are the arguments that still point out that the USN is by far the most powerful navy in the world and that make a case that the PLAN still has a very long way to go before remotely challenging the USN in general capabilities. But on the other hand is the argument that points out the maintenance problems with things like F-18s on carriers, the destroyer accidents, and development/procurement errors such as Zumwalt and LCS (speaking of which, might retire 10 years early). So its like, when the surrounding understanding is in disagreement about evaluating USN and PLAN, any more specific conclusions gets watered down. Then further pile on conflicting interest for the USN to continue a global role or to pull back. 5 years ago when I started here, I thought it be easy to see positive reaction and interest to see strong naval relations between the USN and JMSDF. But its been really hard actually. And I've been stun how easily interest in today's naval relations between the USN and JMSDF can be so easily blunted by disagreement over the general narrative about WW2. This thread has yielded very little positive showing out of the US contingent even though it is in large part about balancing a big red china that everyone here I think would feel being necessary. Had the core American contingent fancied the amount of effort that went into it to only be left out drying, and for the most part, talking to my self, very little active participation by the American contingent to add content in it to keep it vibrant? lol Instead it feels like a bunch of grumpy people with arms crossed given reserved nods about it. Well, take a nod if that's all one can get I figured.. Well by average of course. The USN has reigned supreme over the Asia-Pacific throughout the whole Cold War and afterwards and still does with only a recent possible change in some parts inside of the 1st island chain. To that "no relevant strategy since 1945" Sometimes one wonders if a post is for informative or for invoking a response. Or is its a mix. Sometimes goals are stated higher than whats achieved but still makes the general direction. Maybe some flashy noise about 600 ship fleet? But was any other Navy willing to try calling out that bluff and test its integrity? But if then if its true, and that the USN was a paper tiger the whole time to be lucky to not have been seriously challenged, then its kind of like a bad joke for the USN to be competent, come to this region, take out the IJN and enable the break up of the empire, cut Korea in half and toss the north to the Fat-Kims, then to only later go incompetent and to then subsequently just leave to let the CCP's PLAN a good chance in dominating the whole thing. But the USN while having troubles, hasn't gone that incompetent no has it? Sometimes I wonder about the general deposition behind the opinions of posters. If your weak, then its your fault. If your strong, then you're a competitor. Can't win. One way or the other, its "FU" behind it. Or maybe its not. Could be just the "no your wrong" knee jerk reaction regardless of content. But clarity is needed. More active posts showing a positive interests to actually be part of the activities between the USN and JMSDF would make such clarity. Well IDK, I could be rambling on unnecessarily. I do that sometimes. But reaffirming active posts would make a huge difference. Without it, then its just wondering. So why get into that, well it sort of influence what posture I should take when responding about problems with the USN. Does the American contingent want to the USN to stay in the Asia-Pacific? Do they want to keep an active defense relations with the JMSDF in the Asia-Pacific to counter China? Or do they want to do it on they own without developing a inter-dependent defense relation? Or do they just want to up and out. Several posts have been made that make quite clear on the "just want to up and out" but are those really the long term sentiment or on the spur of the moment reaction during hot debate? The posture of the general US contingent and mine is going to be a factor in how to address problems with the USN. Do I want to point out the still positive things about the USN capabilities? Or do I just want to jab and just say they should be Type 45 destroyers ( ) ? Sometimes I think negativity towards US forces gets carried away, despite LCS, Zumwalt, the destroyer collisions. The USN is very big and very active. Well the US contingent is made up of different posters as well, I don't want to blur them all together as characterizing all as how I went rambling on with. Sometimes the American contingetn is most negative about their Navy, except when talking about the British capabilities Should I be left in trying to keep the negative ways always in check even though I'm somewhat of a different contingent, being an odd one out? Well anyway, I think the main point I'm trying to make is, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND I could just not worry about all that and just go with straight factual posting, even if it rubs the wrong way with a sentiment by another posting that just wants to bash the USN out of feeling of being disappointed with it or whatever. Or maybe I should just not respond

 

What in the actual...

Edited January 2, 2020 by Nobu

[Burncycle360]

It's so asinine to use an arbitrary number like that, and I think most people know it. Nor is it useful to have any number of ships when intangibles suffer lest you're left with a hollow force that looks great on the big board but can't do basic tasks like not hit another vessel.

Unfortunately, there's no incentive not to continue doing things the way we have been, but that bubble is going to burst one of these days, and when it does there will be a push for a bailout rather than collapse similar to the banking crisis, and it will be on the platform of "saving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans and prevent another great depression" and the S&P will drop the credit rating again and the ratcheting decline of the US will continue. The left will blame the right, the right will blame the left, but none of the practices will change (they got bailed out after all, no repercussions) and they'll both continue fighting for the controls of the airplane right up until it hits the ground, and it'll be both their faults because they were both complicit in shutting the engine off.

Entities in the Military Industrial Complex from corporations to congressmen are like viruses, with the host being the US Economy. All of them strive to maximize their individual game play at the micro level (shareholder profits, corporate welfare, constituent jobs programs and reelections) with no regard to the cumulative effects at the macro level, and will continue to do so until the host dies.

It will get to the point where we're so deep that 4-8 year election cycles and leadership turnover rates will prevent any sort of long term coherent plan necessary to correct the course. Not to be doom and gloom, but Xi and Putin with perpetual presidencies might be the only possible route unless congressional basic literacy and competency rises, and a set of broad best practices are developed and adhered to...

Edited January 2, 2020 by Burncycle360

[JasonJ]

 

 

What in the actual...

Something like that.

[Jeff]

 

Well they are still making Burkes, but they arent launching Ticonderoga's. The difficulty in maintaining may be purely due to the age of the platforms. If they had been replacing them like for like, as they have with the Burkes, they may not have had a problem at all.

 

This kind of reminds me of the 1970's when they had aging ships they hadnt replaced from the buildup in WW2. And we are as far from the 1980's buildup now as that generation was from WW2.

 

USN seems sucks at fleet management as an institution, that they get into these situations. That ship class X is going to need replacement is no suprise after Y years of servie. Either new builds of the same class or a new class for the role.

 

 

It's actually brilliant fleet management from a cynical standpoint. Promise pie in the sky then when fiscal reality crashes in, force the administration and Congress to make the decision on less ships or more dollars or a combination. All branches are guilty of it and it's been happening for as long as I can remember. It's gutless on the part of the service chiefs but it keeps them in business.

[Nobu]

It is brilliant from (and very applicable to) the standpoint of the Bureaucracy of Things as well.

 

Meanwhile, defense contractor recruitment of retired generals and admirals to board membership and consultancy positions continues.

[Burncycle360]

Starting to think Robespierre was on to something. Appointing E5M internal reform czar and having a little purge might be the healthiest route

[lucklucky]

"Pour encourager les autres"?

[Nobu]

 

 

Conclusions about USN development and procurement can be met with various other conclusions that kind of dampen the USN conclusion. On one hand, there are the arguments that still point out that the USN is by far the most powerful navy in the world and that make a case that the PLAN still has a very long way to go before remotely challenging the USN in general capabilities. But on the other hand is the argument that points out the maintenance problems with things like F-18s on carriers, the destroyer accidents, and development/procurement errors such as Zumwalt and LCS (speaking of which, might retire 10 years early). So its like, when the surrounding understanding is in disagreement about evaluating USN and PLAN, any more specific conclusions gets watered down. Then further pile on conflicting interest for the USN to continue a global role or to pull back. 5 years ago when I started here, I thought it be easy to see positive reaction and interest to see strong naval relations between the USN and JMSDF. But its been really hard actually. And I've been stun how easily interest in today's naval relations between the USN and JMSDF can be so easily blunted by disagreement over the general narrative about WW2. This thread has yielded very little positive showing out of the US contingent even though it is in large part about balancing a big red china that everyone here I think would feel being necessary. Had the core American contingent fancied the amount of effort that went into it to only be left out drying, and for the most part, talking to my self, very little active participation by the American contingent to add content in it to keep it vibrant? lol Instead it feels like a bunch of grumpy people with arms crossed given reserved nods about it. Well, take a nod if that's all one can get I figured.. Well by average of course. The USN has reigned supreme over the Asia-Pacific throughout the whole Cold War and afterwards and still does with only a recent possible change in some parts inside of the 1st island chain. To that "no relevant strategy since 1945" Sometimes one wonders if a post is for informative or for invoking a response. Or is its a mix. Sometimes goals are stated higher than whats achieved but still makes the general direction. Maybe some flashy noise about 600 ship fleet? But was any other Navy willing to try calling out that bluff and test its integrity? But if then if its true, and that the USN was a paper tiger the whole time to be lucky to not have been seriously challenged, then its kind of like a bad joke for the USN to be competent, come to this region, take out the IJN and enable the break up of the empire, cut Korea in half and toss the north to the Fat-Kims, then to only later go incompetent and to then subsequently just leave to let the CCP's PLAN a good chance in dominating the whole thing. But the USN while having troubles, hasn't gone that incompetent no has it? Sometimes I wonder about the general deposition behind the opinions of posters. If your weak, then its your fault. If your strong, then you're a competitor. Can't win. One way or the other, its "FU" behind it. Or maybe its not. Could be just the "no your wrong" knee jerk reaction regardless of content. But clarity is needed. More active posts showing a positive interests to actually be part of the activities between the USN and JMSDF would make such clarity. Well IDK, I could be rambling on unnecessarily. I do that sometimes. But reaffirming active posts would make a huge difference. Without it, then its just wondering. So why get into that, well it sort of influence what posture I should take when responding about problems with the USN. Does the American contingent want to the USN to stay in the Asia-Pacific? Do they want to keep an active defense relations with the JMSDF in the Asia-Pacific to counter China? Or do they want to do it on they own without developing a inter-dependent defense relation? Or do they just want to up and out. Several posts have been made that make quite clear on the "just want to up and out" but are those really the long term sentiment or on the spur of the moment reaction during hot debate? The posture of the general US contingent and mine is going to be a factor in how to address problems with the USN. Do I want to point out the still positive things about the USN capabilities? Or do I just want to jab and just say they should be Type 45 destroyers ( ) ? Sometimes I think negativity towards US forces gets carried away, despite LCS, Zumwalt, the destroyer collisions. The USN is very big and very active. Well the US contingent is made up of different posters as well, I don't want to blur them all together as characterizing all as how I went rambling on with. Sometimes the American contingetn is most negative about their Navy, except when talking about the British capabilities Should I be left in trying to keep the negative ways always in check even though I'm somewhat of a different contingent, being an odd one out? Well anyway, I think the main point I'm trying to make is, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND I could just not worry about all that and just go with straight factual posting, even if it rubs the wrong way with a sentiment by another posting that just wants to bash the USN out of feeling of being disappointed with it or whatever. Or maybe I should just not respond

What in the actual...

Something like that.

 

 

Indeed.

[Simon Tan]

The Last 2 decades has been pretty suckass for the surface warfare component. With LCS in particular. And the daft way of managing the PLAN. Oh well.

[Yama]

 

Nothing new, the Navy has not had a relevant strategy since 1945 and that was canx when the funds went south. The much vaunted 600 ship Navy of R Reagan and his hysterical Secnav Lehman had no strategic basis, except for one wag's analysis the it equaled 25 ships per time zone. 'Nuf said?

 

I have heard it theorized that the 600-ship Navy may have helped spook the Russians into playing the arms race game they eventually lost. If that was the strategy, it certainly worked at least partly as intended.

 

It was Brezhnev who massively increased Soviet miltary spending. It did not actually increase in the '80s much, if at all - even if they had wanted, they could not afford the increases.

[Yama]

I still cannot believe they got rid of all those serviceable FFG's just so they could buy LCS. They really want their bumps read.

There were no serviceable FFG's left. Perry's were old and stripped of missiles. While still useful as ASW and patrol assets, they were no longer frontline combatants and had only weak upgrade potential.

Whether the LCS was right choice to follow up, is of course another matter altogether.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yama

[Chris Werb]

 

 

 

Sometimes the American contingetn is most negative about their Navy, except when talking about the British capabilities or profound lack thereof

What in the actual...

Something like that.

 

 

Indeed.

 

 

FIFY, Jason.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I still cannot believe they got rid of all those serviceable FFG's just so they could buy LCS. They really want their bumps read.

There were no serviceable FFG's left. Perry's were old and stripped of missiles. While still useful as ASW and patrol assets, they were no longer frontline combatants and had only weak upgrade potential.

Whether the LCS was right choice to follow up, is of course another matter altogether.

Not in the USN, but many of those figs were transferred to foreign navies, most notably Poland, and they still seem to have life in them.

 

Look at it like this. The USN is still procuring Arleigh Burkes. The first one of those was laid down in 1991. Still in production. The first OHP was taken into service in 1977. If the same timeline had held true for the OHP's, they would have been building them as late as 2006/2007, so the pending obsolescence would not have been an issue. Instead they pulled the plug on them in 1989, presumably because the USN wanted lots more Burkes, and thought Frigates were not sexy enough. Well they bought sexy with LCS, and look where that got them.

 

Interestingly enough, Taiwan was building an OHP knockoff as late as 2004. Clearly there was nothing badly wrong with the basic design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROCS_Tian_Dan_(PFG2-1110)

 

Navies need cheap and cheerful. This pursuit of the high end at all cost just means more seaspace that is not covered by anyone, and reflects the general decline of Western maritime dominance.. A frigate might not be a destroyer, and certainly not as sexy, but in the final analysis its a lot better than nothing at all.

[Ivanhoe]

Navies need cheap and cheerful. This pursuit of the high end at all cost just means more seaspace that is not covered by anyone, and reflects the general decline of Western maritime dominance.. A frigate might not be a destroyer, and certainly not as sexy, but in the final analysis its a lot better than nothing at all.

+1

 

Late 1980s, the US DoD was worried about 10 ft tall Russkies coming over the polar ice cap. Amusingly, by the mid-1990s, there was no threat from a major combatant, but tons of problems in the 3rd world.

 

When there's a consensus amongst experts about the War After Next, a smart SecDef would plan for the opposite. Yes, full-scale combat against a global adversary should be 1st on the priorities list. But cover all your bases, be well-rounded, and don't get sucked into planning the next war.

[Stuart Galbraith]

To be fair to the USN, they are looking at drone ships, which clearly have the potential to be a 21st Century Frigate in some respect. But if you look at traditional roles of a navy, any navy, they include maritime blockades, stopping and searching, search and rescue, even combat against lower end surface threats. Some of those can be undertaken by a drone ship, but not all, and yes, use drones as pickets and supplements to maritime forces. But dont pretend, as some do, that its a substitute for manned ships. That only seems to work for the Israeli's, and they still have a fleet of manned corvettes.

 

I think the problem with the USN that I can detect, it lacks pragmatists. It lacks people who reject the very best that money can buy, and are willing to buy lower end platforms, that they specify room and development space on to bolt on new weapons or systems, that they throw the money at like no tomorrow. I dont know if that implies a 21st Century OHP, or something like type 31. But it implies people rejecting silly ideas like the Seawolf, or the Zumwalt or the LCS that anyone with some common sense would see were not affordable in the post cold war world. Alright, new cold war world. Nobody is still stumping up for it, and if they did, its still leaving seaspace uncovered.

 

Bring back the Flower class!

[Burncycle360]

I wonder what survivability category WW2 Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts would qualify for by todays standards, if any.

[DB]

It's an interesting question. There are few examples of modern warships that have had to withstand the beating that WW2 era ships took, so it would not be easy to make a definitive statement on the empirical evidence.

 

I don't think that SINKEX trials are particularly useful to us, either, without the underlying data.

 

Perhaps we could get a list of post-war designs that have been sunk or badly damaged in battle as a starting point?

 

 

List of Falkland Island damaged and sunk is here: https://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm This list may be biased by the well known fuzing issues - a lot of what are essentially mission kills due to UXB poking holes.

 

There was USS Stark, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

 

Should the USS Cole be counted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_(DDG-67)

 

 

Korea is too early - most ships would be WW2 veterans or designs but not obviously "modern", at a guess. INS Eilat was a wartime UK destroyer.

 

Small boats, like OSAs and the Israeli Saars are probably too small to be considered survivable.