Skip to content

Sea Links

May 14, 2010
tags:

Special-Canada Fleet Cuts

Canada’s navy set for major cuts to fleet.

Canada’s navy cuts coast patrol fleet in half.

No decision made to dock navy warships: Peter MacKay.

Defence Minister denies navy fleet will be cut in half.

*****

US Navy

Stiletto wows viewers in Potomac. Images.

U.S. House Seapower Chair Wants Ship-Retirement Limits.

Future USS San Diego (LPD 22) Launched.

Ship cost hike law threatens Navy destroyer.

Navy to Gates: Yes, we need 11 aircraft carriers.

*****

Warships of the World

Iranian Navy Equips Hovercrafts with Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles.

Iran’s Navy Already a Threat to Oil Tankers.

Iran war games continue with home-built torpedo test.

N Korea’s sub fleet scrutinized.

Second RN Carrier Target for Cuts.

Castle Class Retires To The Tropics.

Cuts Threaten Aussie Sub Plans.

Second Scorpene submarine sets sail for Malaysia.

Russian Navy to retain Akula class nuke subs till 2019.

French warships for Russia may be armed with Ka-52 helicopters.

India steals a march on the high seas with stealth ship.

Japan’s Carrier-Killing Missile to Deter China?

*****

New Wars at Sea

Chasing the Pirate Cash Flow.

Obama interested in Russian proposals on battling piracy.

Islamic rebels in Somalia vow to free pirate captives.

Freed pirates mysteriously vanish.

Somali pirates vary tactics, use Gulf dhows.

*****

From the Navy Vaults

Battle of the Atlantic Remembrance. (Boston Maggie)

Standing up for ourselves at sea-The start of Canada’s navy. (Times Colonist)

To the Last Salute: Memoirs of an Austrian U-Boat Commander. (Strategypage)

Portsmouth men and the fall of Hong Kong. (Daly History Blog)

The US Navy first oiler-USS Kanawha. (Sea Classics)

Proposal for a Captive Air Amphibious Transport-pdf. (Navatek)

Tools Of The Trade: The Most Coveted Book. (Pauline’s Pirates & Privateers)

The Rise and Fall of the French Navy1680-1713. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. (War and Game)

Russian cruiser Aurora turns 110. (RusNavy.com)

Gunner’s mate saw Japan’s ‘last stand’. (The Desert Sun)

*****

18 Comments leave one →
  1. Joe permalink
    May 15, 2010 12:40 am

    The quote on the China blogspot does come from the article (in this day and age you DO sometimes wonder). It’s a 15 page article (plus 5 pages of footnotes at the end) and the quotes come from page 15. Page 13 is where the meat of the matter finally breaks.

    Briefly, the articles delves into historical backgrounds first. You read about developments in India and about their Naval Nuclear Doctrine, in so many words. You read about Pakistan’s nuclear theory and the 4 scenarios under which Islamabad says it would use nukes against India.

    It’s the existence of India’s S-2 that is the “final straw”. India now possesses the ability to strike all of Pakistan while maintaining the safety of of the unspent deterrent. Islamabad’s deterrent is heavily dependent upon fighters delivering the attack or the firing off of missiles. Well, India now has an A2AD network that can deny Pakistan much, if not all, of the expectation that its deterrent can strike India.

    The Pakistanis feel this, coupled with Russian/American assistance to India on its nuclear program, means it is entitled to either build its own capability or hire out someone who can provide it. Enter Stage Right – China – the world’s largest submarine producer and someone the Pakistanis can somewhat get along with.

    Hope I hit the high points…by the time you pull this up and read :)

  2. D. E. Reddick permalink
    May 14, 2010 11:29 pm

    Joe,

    No, I’ve never been able to open it. And I went to the U.S. Naval War College home site and tried another article in that same Summer 2010 issue of their Review. The attempt at opening that one caused my Firefox 3.6.3 browser to crash, wholly and completely (all six windows and 30+ open tabs)!

    Here’s the Summer 2010 Naval War College Review page. The article I originally referenced simply fails to open (for me) and and the article on the Russian Arctic is what killed my browser.

    http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/2010—Summer.aspx

    I’m presently running the Adobe Acrobat Reader version 7.0 whatever. I guess I’ll download the 8.x or 9.x reader and see if that works. And to think that I found AAR 4.0x perfectly acceptable several years ago – sigh…

    So, it took you several attempts. That (along with my problems) makes it sound like they might be using something proprietary or else encoding things incorrectly (only compatible with the latest version of AAR, perhaps).

    Anyhow, what did the whole article say? Was it similar to what was suggested in that short report from China Defense Blog?

  3. Joe permalink
    May 14, 2010 10:55 pm

    D.E.R.,

    I was able to get it to open. It did take multiple attempts, though. Did you eventually have success?

  4. D. E. Reddick permalink
    May 14, 2010 9:08 pm

    Change of topic…

    Can anyone open and read the following article. It dies each time I try to access it. It seems as though it’s supposed to be a PDF article regarding the leasing of a Chinese PLAN Xia class SSBN to the Pakistani Navy. That seems remarkably similar to the Russian leasing of a SSN to the Indian Navy. Of course, the Indian Navy has already launched their own first SSBN – so this might be tit for tat and such.

    http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/cc6209f2-7f01-4bb7-ac24-8c301c62f015/S-2–Options-for-the-Pakistan-Navy

    It was mentioned in the China Defense Blog:

    PLAN’s Xia submarine to Pakistan??

    http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/05/plans-xia-submarine-to-pakistan.html

  5. Scott B. permalink
    May 14, 2010 7:40 pm

    Mike Burleson said : “If its a frigate might as well be armed like one!”

    It won’t be easy (and cheap !!!) to turn any of the boondoggles (Austal or LM) into something that might even remotely look like a frigate.

    Furthermore, since much better designs already exist and cost much less (ABSALON for instance), why even bother ?

    Injecting a proven, flexible and affordable design like ABSALON into the most productive of the ‘Big Six’ shipyards would be such a bad move.

    Just sayin’…

  6. Scott B. permalink
    May 14, 2010 7:24 pm

    Reddick said : “And there is still the Mk-56 VLS for ESSM as seen on the U.A.E. Baynunah class of corvettes, where those VLS cells are fitted to the sides of the helo hanger in sponsons.”

    The GMVLS launchers on the Baynunahs are not entirely contained in the sponsons and require space to be allocated inside the superstructure :

    On LCS-2, you might be able to get away with it using an on-deck configuration of the Mk-56 (much like the Mk-48 Mod.0 on the Canadian City-class) or a bulkhead configuration (much like the Mk-48 Mod.1 on the Dutch Karel Doorman-class). Weight changes involved wouldn’t be trivial though (count 1 ton per ESSM, launcher included).

    And then you’d have to find a way to illuminate the target, which means adding (at least) one FC radar somewhere, preferably where it would provide some decent hemispheric coverage (you’d have some serious blind arcs with only one such director though).

    Etc…

  7. Scott B. permalink
    May 14, 2010 6:45 pm

    Reddick said : ” then might not a Mk-41 fit in the foredeck space of LCS-2 which was allotted for the NLOS launcher”

    The Mk-41 Self-Defense module requires more than twice the hull depth currently allotted to the NLOS-LS Mission Module.

    The Mk-41 Self-Defense module (with 8 cells) empty is something like twice heavier than the weight limit currently set for the NLOS-LS Mission Module.

    And there are many more subtleties that make such an add-on a complete non-starter.

  8. Mike Burleson permalink*
    May 14, 2010 6:37 pm

    If we had a real shooting war with cruise missile flying, you would see all size warship with as many SAMs as we could fit. Those that survived, that is!

  9. D. E. Reddick permalink
    May 14, 2010 6:25 pm

    If you look at that picture of the eight-cell Mk-41 VLS launcher on HMAS Sydney, then it’s apparent that it was installed at 90 degrees to the axis of the frigate. If the installation was re-oriented by 90 degrees to fit lengthwise with the LCS-2 hull, and if it was fitted partially above the deck (as seen in that HMAS Sydney picture), then might not a Mk-41 fit in the foredeck space of LCS-2 which was allotted for the NLOS launcher (with appropriate belowdecks modifications to allow the fitting of the VLS).

    And there is still the Mk-56 VLS for ESSM as seen on the U.A.E. Baynunah class of corvettes, where those VLS cells are fitted to the sides of the helo hanger in sponsons. That same sort of installation should be possible with the melding of Mk-56 cells on the sides of helo hangers on either type of LCS. Of course, on the LCS-1 design then the overweight thing would likely roll over…

  10. Scott B. permalink
    May 14, 2010 6:15 pm

    Hudson said : “ESSM has much longer range than the older version.”

    Much like Sea-Sparrow, ESSM has no OTH capabilities in the surface-to-surface mode though.

  11. Hudson permalink
    May 14, 2010 5:49 pm

    D.E.R.,

    As Scott says, yes it can. Even though ESSM has the same relatively small warhead (compared to Harpoon) as the older RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, app. 90lbs, it strikes down with terrific force. On YouTube, the explosion completely envelops the target vessel. Which is why two RIM-7s could K-O the Turkish destroyer as you mentioned. ESSM has much longer range than the older version.

  12. Scott B. permalink
    May 14, 2010 5:32 pm

    Reddick said : “The question is whether you want to try and fit some Mk-41 cells between the superstructure & 57 mm gun (if it’ll fit in any way or possibility is unknown to me)”

    Don’t even think about it. Mk-41 VLS in this location is not an option.

  13. Scott B. permalink
    May 14, 2010 5:30 pm

    Reddick said : “I can’t recall if the more modern RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) has that dual-purpose capability (that would be beneficial for a blue-water frigate).”

    ESSM has a surface-to-surface mode.

  14. D. E. Reddick permalink
    May 14, 2010 3:17 pm

    Mike,

    Well, the Australians and Turks have figured out how to add an ESSM-filled VLS in the bows of their old Oliver Hazard Perry (OHP) class frigates (Adelaide class in RAN service). In the RAN installation the Mk-41 VLS sticks up above the foredeck, but it provides eight launch cells which carry quad-packed ESSM – meaning that there’s 32 medium range SAMs installed forward of the old one-armed bandit Mk-13 40-round Standard & Harpoon launcher. So, those upgraded Turkish OHPs & RAN Adelaides carry 72 missiles, both SAMs and AShMs. And recall that the earlier RIM-7 Sea Sparrow had an anti-surface / shipping capability (regrettably confirmed when USS Saratoga struck the Turkish destroyer TCG Tuavenet with two such missiles, causing the destroyer to be written off by the Turkish Navy). I can’t recall if the more modern RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) has that dual-purpose capability (that would be beneficial for a blue-water frigate).

    Anyhow, here’s a picture of the Mk-41 VLS installation in the foredeck of HMAS Sydney (forward of the still-retained Mk-13 single-rail missile launcher):

    The question is whether you want to try and fit some Mk-41 cells between the superstructure & 57 mm gun (if it’ll fit in any way or possibility is unknown to me), or perhaps add on Mk-56 VLS cells around the ship’s superstructure (melded onto the helicopter hanger, probably).

  15. Mike Burleson permalink*
    May 14, 2010 2:21 pm

    “that unused VLS bay on USS Independence ”

    What could you put there? Sea Sparrow? Harpoon? If its a frigate might as well be armed like one!

  16. Fred permalink
    May 14, 2010 2:00 pm

    Its a story about a rumor . . . its what passes for journalism these days.

  17. D. E. Reddick permalink
    May 14, 2010 1:05 pm

    Scott,

    Yeah, that unused VLS bay on USS Independence (LCS-2) looks awfully empty. An evocative picture of its emptiness is prominently shown in this Scoop Deck report:

    The LCS missile may still fly

    http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdeck/2010/05/13/the-lcs-missile-may-still-fly/

  18. Scott B. permalink
    May 14, 2010 8:25 am

    Meanwhile, the NLOS-LS psychodrama continues :

    Army Cancels Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System

    House Authorizers Shift NLOS R&D Funding to Navy

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: