Skip to content

Sea Links

July 9, 2010

Campbell saw it happening! U.S. Navy MZ-3A manned airship lands at Lake Front Airport, New Orleans, La., to provide logistical support for the Deepwater Unified Command and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

US Navy

U.S. Missiles Deployed Near China Send a Message. More.

Austal to lay keel for first JHSV.

Subs May Finally Get Online.

Stealth Fighter Program Getting Back on Track?

Submarine Missouri Successfully Completes First Voyage.

Op-Ed: The Persian Gulf and the Future of the U.S. Navy.

DARPA’s flying submarine (artist’s impression).


Warships of the World

Canada’s Naval reserves face $3M cut.

Dramatic cuts proposed for German Navy.

Britain’s First Sea Lord: ‘Navy necessity not luxury’.

Former British navy chief in government cuts warning.

US keeping close eye on Russian naval drill.

New Light Combat Aircraft to be custom made for Indian Navy.

Japan Counters China’s Naval Build-Up.

Chinese flotilla slips by Okinawa.

Greek Hovercraft Die Young.


New Wars at Sea

New document outlines sustainable future for Falkland Islands.

DEA finds first true drug submarine. More. More. Photos.

Draft Avoids Condemning North Korea in Ship Attack.

Opinion: China Winning a Victory at Sea. More.

As the world’s ice melts, the Navy’s role grows.

Pirates move into the Red Sea.

In responding to West, Iran stresses its naval abilities in Persian Gulf.


From the Navy Vaults

Ceremony honors Royal Canadian Navy’s Italian Campaign. (Defence Watch)

HMCS Camrose on display. (The Canadian Camrose)

Relatives honor HMS Neptune and HMS Kandahar sinkings in WW 2. (Burton Mail)

History of the American Gunboat Navy. (Gunboat Riders)

Battle of the Yalu (Yellow Sea), 17 September 1894. (War and Game)

Discovery of U-boat wrecks rewrites the history books. (The Independent)

Happy birthday Ark Royal. (Portsmouth News)

The Steam Powered Warships. (Air, Land, and Sea)

India’s first naval fighter squadron turns 50. (Times of India)

Old Ironsides Makes Yearly Voyage For The Fourth. (The Boston Channel)

USS Ranger gone but not forgotten. (Pauline’s Pirates & Privateers)

Archimedes and his Death Ray. (Pauline’s Pirates & Privateers)

USS South Dakota’s belle of the battle. (Argus Leader)

The U.S.S. Kentucky Takes to the Water. (Strategypage)


The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) submarine JS Mochisio (SS 600) departs Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.

7 Comments leave one →
  1. Anonymous permalink
    July 9, 2010 5:01 pm

    tangosix said “I sometimes think that sea blindness is a product of the commercial airliner.”

    Oh yes! I couldn’t agree more. And everything you said about armed forces too.

  2. Juramentado permalink
    July 9, 2010 12:28 pm

    RE: LEMV use in Maritime Security

    I made similar comments over at Information Dissemination. Psychologically, a darting and buzzing helo firing rounds at you is a lot more intimidating than a rigid airship. The latter is just *begging* to be shot at, even if it is firing back at you. We can settle on redundancies and kinetic armoring, but at the end of the day, it’s subject to a lot more small arms damage just because of the sheer volume it occupies. Given the relative differences in acceleration – chances are that the average bad guy will have more opportunities for aimed fire *and* a better chance of striking something valuable – the passenger gondola, a thruster, or put enough holes into the rigid frame to cause stability and lift problems.

    I understand the advantages this vehicle confers, but I for one would not want to be in the position of having to deploy RHIBs with anything even close to that size. In anything other than a glassy sea state, you’re asking for trouble if you have to submerge or immerse any part of the airship. And a helo, for all it’s relative awkwardness from a control perspective, is a lot more nimble and agile within the expected maneuver envelope for air-delivered VBSS (i.e., 50′-75′ with fine lateral control). If you’ve ever seen an air assault landing, a helo can rush to the drop point and deliver troops quickly either through ropes or direct deck contact. You cannot do that with an airship – they will see you coming many miles away. Not all boarding or security activities will allow you to deploy RHIBs.

  3. Mike Burleson permalink*
    July 9, 2010 11:51 am

    X wrote ” I know this blog thinks fighting terrorism at sea is the future.”

    Actually, this blog wants the West to be prepared for all sorts of wars, not just the kind where we planned for World War 3, then it never quite happened. Not to say we can’t expect some type of conventional naval conflict, other than chasing pirates in speedboats, just that we must manage the wars we have today or we won’t be prepared for the uncertain future, which, as we saw with WW 3, usually don’t happen as planned.

    To me sea-blindness is planning for the future by cutting still useful warships, as the Germans are doing. I hate to say it, but another form is placing unbearable cost burdens on the fleet, when the funds just aren’t there, as Admiral Stanhope and others are doing to the Royal Navy. In advocating ships they don’t have the money to pay for, fit mainly for fighting the “last war”, they are contributing to the collapse of naval power as assuredly as defeat in a major war will do.

  4. July 9, 2010 10:38 am

    Hello X,

    I sometimes think that sea blindness is a product of the commercial airliner.
    Once upon a time both people and “stuff” moved by sea so people saw and understood how important the sea was.
    Today “stuff” still moves by sea but people generally move by air and have little understanding of how “stuff” gets moved around.
    The logistical importance of the sea is out of sight and out of mind.

    This ignorance is even found within the armed forces who really should know better.
    Quite recently I was thoroughly shocked by someone in the military who did not appear to understand that fuel used by aircraft in Afghanistan came through the ports of Pakistan.
    He understood it was produced by Pakistani refineries but did not seem to understand those refineries make fuel from oil delivered across the Arabian sea by ship.
    One would think that the army and air force would understand the importance of the sea based logistical lines which they are almost always dependent on.


  5. July 9, 2010 10:16 am

    My fellow Brits are stunningly sea blind. I know this blog thinks fighting terrorism at sea is the future. But I don’t. I see the fight for resources both in the sea (food, mineral, energy and as a source of water) and as the avenue for the transportation of land sourced resources being of far greater importance.

  6. July 9, 2010 9:58 am

    Awwww, shucks, gee fellas…..

    Well, nice pic of a blimp. And, I’ll give em credit for tryin…..BUT….it’s still just a blimp!

    Actually, here’s some food for thought: this blimp pictured can carry 10 crew. Compared to Army’s LEMV, which is at least four times as big and yet can only carry about a ton. What’s up with that? The answer lies in the difference in altitudes at which they are supposed to operate….LEMV is (foolishy IMO) supposed to fly at 20K’ , while this Navy blimp is flying at altitudes of less than a tenth of that, typically. Lower altitudes means much, much more payload potential.

    Now, if Navy would just get busy and get a comparably sized airship to Army’s LEMV, then it could carry a couple of dozen crew; and, if constructed properly so it was amphibious, it would then be able land in the water and deploy an RHIB and boarding party. Perfect combo for both detecting and interdicting pirates/druggies, etc.

    Or……ASW…mine hunting,….

    Build the thing right, out of rigid carbon composites, cover it with solar cells, and you come up with real advantages. (have fun…link back at my name!)

  7. Juramentado permalink
    July 9, 2010 9:29 am

    Re: Op-Ed: The Persian Gulf and the Future of the U.S. Navy.

    Note the Op-Ed is from a website called “” It’s good they’re claiming to be knowledgable on aerospace because they rot as naval defense analysts.

    The Editor’s note at the bottom of their Op-Ed shows their ignorance. Everyone knows that the Lexington Institute is the home of the Naval Strike Forum and is a CoG for LCS supporters. And they’re wondering why the LCS is being endorsed in anti-access littoral warfare? This is why Op-Eds should be rubber-stamped AUTHOR IS AN UNINFORMED #*&$! – READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: