Skip to content

Sea Links

November 13, 2009
tags:
091112-N-2218S-067

A landing craft utility from Assault Craft Unit 1 passes astern the well deck of the forward-deployed amphibious dock landing Ship USS Tortuga (LSD 46).

US Navy

 

USS New York commissioned in shadow of midtown.

USS Truman-Inside on of America’s Largest Warships.

National Security Cutter-New Coast Guard ship gets good notices.

The Gerald R. Ford-Northrop taking steps to keep carrier on budget. More.

USAF, U.S. Navy To Expand Cooperation.

USS Freedom-Navy’s LCS not living up to the hype.

D/E Subs Give USN a Run for its Money.

USS Lassen and USS Blue Ridge-Two US naval vessels visit Vietnam.

Pre-commissioning Unit (PCU) Dewey-Navy to Commission Guided Missile Destroyer Dewey at Seal Beach.

Navy Receives First Refurbished Trident Warheads.

 

Warships of the World

 

Two Koreas in naval clash. More. More. Still More. One More.

Saudi navy blockades north Yemen coast.

First UAV launched and recovered by a Canadian warship.

Russian shipyard set to float out frigate for India in November.

New Spanish Maritime Action Ship.

Indian Navy exhibits strength off Orissa coast. More.

Option for a new Malaysian amphibious ship.

German Navy Planning 2020/2025+.

UAE setting course to a blue-water navy.

Royal Navy Invests £55M In New Aircraft Carriers. More.

Bold bid at Australian subs’ $12bn contract.

Australian Government stands firm on submarines.

Sigma class corvette.

 

Tackling Pirates

 

Somali Pirates Launch Longest Range Attack Yet. More.

The GPS pirates.

‘Lost’ cargo ship Arctic Sea gives up its secrets.

HMAS Toowoomba turns heat on pirates.

India to Deploy Fast Crafts to Thwart Mumbai-like Attacks.

Israel shows documents it says link Iran to arms shipment.

Norwegian naval units again under pirate fire off Somalia.

Somali Pirates: Arms Ship Pirated.

 

From the Navy Vaults

 

 US Navy versus the Martians-seriously! (Letters of Note)

Fantastic Voyage:the Battleship Oregon (Sea Classics)

HMS Trafalgar sails into Plymouth for the last time. (Plymouth Herald)

Today is National Donut Day: A funny POW story. (USNI Blog)

The Navy Has A Rare Opportunity To Build A World-Class Museum. (USNI Blog)

Confederate Commerce Raiders. (War and Game)

Uuurr-auughh as the Marine Corps turns 234. (Scoop Deck) More.

Another sound of freedom — or is it? (Scoop Deck)

Prince Charles pays respects to Canada’s navy on last day of visit. (National Post)

Australian Navy’s first victory a crucial piece of history. (WA Today)

Charleston’s Amazing Historic Attractions. (Rates to Go)

Battleship Tirpitz-The Death of the Lonely Queen. (USNI Blog)

14 Comments leave one →
  1. Mike Burleson permalink*
    November 14, 2009 6:42 am

    Tarl said “The carriers were there first.”

    True, but the Bear and her missiles were there before Phoenix and Aegis. It is an natural reaction, they make a breakthrough, we counter, then they counter again. An ongoing process in war.

    Concerning the Virginia/California cruisers, both were superb hull designs which were obsolete as built. It is a perfect example of a hull becoming more important that the weapons she carried, which we often rail against. Here is a giant warship which could stay at sea for years without refueling, yet she didn’t carry modern weapons like the SM-2ER to deal with new threats. No VLS, no Aegis, these magnificent works of art had no future. All were prematurely retired from service for this cause, with less than 20 years service (the California’s a few year older.)

    A marvelous design but she couldn’t fight.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cgn-38.htm

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cgn-36.htm

  2. Tarl permalink
    November 13, 2009 11:06 pm

    The carriers were there first. Soviet aircraft with ASCMs were a reaction to the carriers. The carriers would exist even if Soviet maritime strike aircraft did not exist; Soviet maritime strike aircraft with ASCMs would not exist if the carriers did not exist. Thus, the carriers imposed a cost on the USSR simply by existing.

    The F-14 and Aegis would have existed even if the Backfires did not exist, because the CVBG would still have to defend itself from air and missile threats of other sorts even in the absence of a Backfire threat.

    I totally disagree with the interpretation that the USN was “slow” to react to Soviet missile threats. If anything, they were ahead of the game.

    I can only conclude that when you use the term “exquisite” it has no real meaning other than “it’s something I don’t like”. Virginia was exquisite but Ticonderoga was not??? Criticizing the California class, designed from 1964-68, for not having Aegis radar, not having VLS tubes, and not being able to fend off the Backfire threat that did not yet exist does not exactly impress me.

  3. Chuck Hill permalink
    November 13, 2009 8:21 pm

    Another 5 tons of Cocaine from a semi-submersible

    http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Coast-Guard-Sub-Seizes-Five-Tons-of-Drugs/g2hY_4ZpbEmZ22YakOwRmg.cspx

  4. Mike Burleson permalink*
    November 13, 2009 7:15 pm

    Tarl, who is backwards here? The USN was perfectly satisfied with its exquisite and poorly armed California and Virginia nuclear frigates/cruisers until the missile threat from Russia became too big too ignore. Why build anti-missile systems like Aegis and the Phoenix armed F-14 if they weren’t worried about the missiles?

  5. Tarl permalink
    November 13, 2009 5:01 pm

    I have always been jealous of those Russian Bear bombers that can fly intercontinental ranges and launch huge cruise missiles against our carriers. An amazing force multiplier which along with the supersonic Backfires forced us to build the Aegis system and the F-14 Tomcat.

    You’re getting it backwards. It was our big, expensive, “useless” carrier fleet that forced the Soviets to invest in a big, expensive reconnaissance-strike complex that was totally irrelevant to Soviet needs as a land power. The Soviets consistently showed great fear of the ability of US carriers to strike their motherland from 1945-91, and went to great lengths to gain the capability to attack the carriers, which ought to tell you that the ability of the carrier to strike land targets is not “useless” and “irrelevant to the Navy’s real mission” as you seem to think it is.

  6. Mike Burleson permalink*
    November 13, 2009 2:43 pm

    Heretic I didn’t forget, just haven’t found a good place to fit it in.

  7. Heretic permalink
    November 13, 2009 2:19 pm

    D’oh! Typo.
    Total fleet construction price over 30 years: $390.3 billion

  8. Heretic permalink
    November 13, 2009 2:17 pm

    Since Mike is “being a little slow” on the Build Your Own Navy front (and since I’m bored outta my gourd here at work) … I decided to rerun David Axe’s fun little game again. All I had to do was add Type 212/214 SSP submarines into the mix and all of a sudden I was able to “build” a navy that cost only $13 billion a year in construction costs(!) which exceeded the 313-ship navy standard (when including subs) and which would apparently (surprise surprise!) reverse the downwards decline in supercarrier big decks! Take a look …

    Note that this “game” postulates that the USN goes “poof!” overnight and that you need to plan the next 30 years of procurement to replace … well … everything. Sidestepping the question of foreign exploitation of a vanished USN, the whole point of the exercise is to “rebuild from scratch” and if you do that … what happens?

    =====

    1 point = $0.1 billion dollars

    90 points : CVN-21 Ford-class aircraft carrier
    30 points : LHA-6 America-class assault ship
    15 points : LPD-17 San Antonio-class assault ship
    50 points : DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer
    20 points : DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
    20 points : SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine
    5 points : Type 212 SSP (shallow water)
    5 points : Type 214 SSP (deep water)
    6 points : LCS
    5 points : T-AKE Lewis and Clark-class logistics ship
    2 points : JHSV

    =====

    Here’s my answer. Note that the 8 carriers in 30 years is actually a 13 carriers in 50 years construction pace. For me, the “amazing” side of this little exercise is the average production rate numbers that would be required to complete this level of work in 30 years (see below) and what that kind of production rate would do to US shipbuilding yards.

    —–

    8 Carrier Strike Groups = 218 points * 8 = 1744 points (88 hulls)
    1 * CVN-21 = 90
    3 * DDG-51 = 60
    3 * LCS = 18
    2 * SSN-774 = 40
    2 * T-AKE = 10

    17 Amphibious Ready Groups = 127 points * 17 = 2159 points (238 hulls)
    1 LHA-6 = 30
    2 LPD-17 = 30
    1 DDG-51 = 20
    3 LCS = 18
    1 Type 212 SSP = 5
    1 Type 214 SSP = 5
    3 T-AKE = 15
    2 JHSV = 4

    = 3903 points, 326 hulls, $13.01 billion per year over 30 years

    Ship Totals over 30 years:

    8 CVN-21
    $2.4 billion per year construction cost
    1 ship per 45 months construction rate
    13 CVNs in fleet at 50 years retirement age

    17 LHA-6
    $1.7 billion per year construction cost
    1 ship per 21 months construction rate
    17 LHAs in fleet at 30 years retirement age

    34 LPD-17
    $1.7 billion per year construction cost
    1 ship per 10.6 months construction rate
    34 LPDs in fleet at 30 years retirement age

    41 DDG-51
    $2.733 billion per year construction cost
    1 ship per 8.8 months construction rate
    41 DDG-51 in fleet at 30 years retirement age
    68 DDG in fleet at 50 years retirement age

    16 SSN-774
    $1.067 billion per year construction cost
    1 boat per 22.5 months construction rate
    16 SSN-774 in fleet at 30 years retirement age
    26 SSN in fleet at 50 years retirement age

    75 LCS
    $1.5 billion per year construction cost
    1 ship per 4.8 months construction rate
    75 LCS in fleet at 30 years retirement age

    17 Type 212 SSP
    $283.3 million per year construction cost
    1 boat per 21 months construction rate
    17 Type 212 in fleet at 30 years retirement age

    17 Type 214 SSP
    $0.283 billion per year construction cost
    1 boat per 21 months construction rate
    17 Type 214 in fleet at 30 years retirement age

    67 T-AKE
    $1.117 billion per year construction cost
    1 ship per 5.4 months construction rate
    67 T-AKE in fleet at 30 years retirement age

    34 JHSV
    $0.227 billion per year construction cost
    1 ship per 10.6 months construction rate
    34 JHSV in fleet at 30 years retirement age

    Average construction price per hull: $1.2 billion
    Total fleet construction price over 30 years: $39.03 billion

  9. Mike Burleson permalink*
    November 13, 2009 11:40 am

    Solomon, I can see the P-8s in this role too, enhancing its already considerable ASW abilities.

  10. November 13, 2009 11:16 am

    Well thanks Mike!
    Yep. Only thing is, airships are historic NAVY platform. AF weenies can cry about it.

    Serious….I’ve enjoyed watching all the amphibious this ‘n that–and carrier alternative ideas everyones’ been floating of late. If only (sigh) everyone would expand their view to include ships that can serve…out of the water.
    An airship UAV carrier? Of course. Consider, no more catapult and no more trapping; both of which save on costs; and reduce need for special robust aircraft landing gear as well. At least three times the speed of surface carrier. No sonar sig, no wake; no vulnerability to torpedoes/mines. Blue water/Green water/Brown water, Frozen white water/No water! Solar powered so they have range and linger abilities of nuclear subs. Yes, less craft carried and launched certainly, but as you suggest, we’re in a new era. Smaller, more intelligent, more independant, more vertatile, and lethal UCAVs..

    (Must leave “blimps” behind though, and begin to see airships as cross between B-2 and Nuclear Sub) Do-able. Far less cost than other, traditional vessels.

    Hey, if the “2012” nuts are right and we’re all doomed anyway, we shouldn’t even be worried about nature of the Fleet. But if not, and those who warn about China/Russia/newly enlarged non-state actors are right………then we should be looking to field airships, ASAP

  11. November 13, 2009 10:12 am

    I disagree. If any aircraft has the ability to act as motherships it would be the P-8. Also I disagree with the potency of the maritime bomber in todays world. It would seem that the Chinese agree with my point of view….why else would they go to the trouble of even thinking about using ballistic missiles as anti-carrier weapons?

  12. Mike Burleson permalink*
    November 13, 2009 8:06 am

    Ya think so Solomon? I have always been jealous of those Russian Bear bombers that can fly intercontinental ranges and launch huge cruise missiles against our carriers. An amazing force multiplier which along with the supersonic Backfires forced us to build the Aegis system and the F-14 Tomcat.

    I see bombers in the future which can act as UAV motherships, stealing some of the Navy’s thunder if they ever get around to deploying them at sea. Though Campbell would prefer airships for this role!

    So, yeah cooperation sounds good.

  13. November 13, 2009 7:34 am

    Ah you caught the AF and Navy forced cooperation! The AF is about to get rolled again. If they’re not careful they’re going to lose more missions. They have always dabbled in the area of naval warfare but this will not gain them a thing. The B-52 as a maritime patrol bomber??? The B-1 outfitted for the anti-shipping mission?

    I know that sounds like a winner but what it will do is force them to keep aircraft in service longer than they want doing missions that they really don’t desire, all the while keeping them from moving forward on procurement priorities that they deem more important. NOT SMART~! They’re so screwed.

Trackbacks

  1. Build Your Own Navy-Radicalized! « New Wars

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: