Skip to content

Sea Links

August 6, 2010

The Virginia-class attack submarine Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Missouri (SSN 780) conducts sea trials.

US Navy

Chinese ‘carrier-killer’ missile raises concerns of Pacific power shift.

Inside the Navy’s next-generation destroyer.

After the frigates are gone.

A Relatively Painless Submarine Detection Capability.

Amphibious Assault At Top Of USMC Priorities.

Congressman calls for increasing the Navy.

Missouri, newest fast-attack sub, commissioned.

Sub training ends RIMPAC.

Sea-based artillery doctrine tested at RIMPAC.

LCS 1 Demonstrates Its Potential At RIMPAC Exercises.

Admiral Harvey’s caution on LCS.

The Tragedy of American Shipbuilding.

Stiletto stealth boat visits Charleston, SC.


Warships of the World

US to sell Taiwan decommissioned warships.

West Sea Anti-Submarine Drill Kicks Off.

Royal Navy funding cuts and future to be revealed in October.

HMS Sutherland Gives Royal Navy an ‘Anti-Submarine Warfare Ring of Steel’.

Britain’s HMS Daring ready for action.

Opinion:The UK Ministry of Defence’s worst nightmare.


New Wars at Sea

EU NAVFOR warship SPS VICTORIA apprehends pirate attack skiff.

Russian ship thwarts pirate attack on tanker in Red Sea.

Warship rescues Norwegian tanker from pirates.

Islamist group claims tanker attack.

(Is this a new Tanker War?)

Smugglers’ Submarine Points to Growing Undersea Threat.


From the Navy Vaults

Thera – Representation of a Minoan Ship/Fleet. (Cog and Galley)

Western Colonial Naval Power. (War and Game)

Evolution of the Indian Submarine Arm. (Indian Defence Review)

Are U.S. Navy surface ships sitting ducks to enemies with modern weapons? (John T. Reed)

The Innovative, Mysterious Alligator. (Naval History Magazine)

Naval Aviation Centennial: Aircraft Carrier Evolution. (The Year in Defense)

Here’s to a Tot that fired up our Navy. (Daily Express)

The Audacity of Success. (Pauline’s Pirates & Privateers)


The Australian frigate HMAS Warramunga returns to Pearl Harbor after RIMPAC exercises.

15 Comments leave one →
  1. Juramentado permalink
    August 10, 2010 9:59 am

    For the Chinese – who knows? All they’re claiming is that it would take three hits to sink a CVN sized target. Will that mean 3 shots every salvo, 6, 9? A salvo for them simply means they have enough missiles to sustain a particular rate-of-fire and will invoke enough hits to destroy or mission-kill the target. That implies two things – they have or will have the capability to produce in volume and have enough launchers and fire control to make the ROF practical. If they are at that stage, they’re close to IOC. After that, all they need is a set of successful test fires that recreates the CONOPS.

  2. Chuck Hill permalink
    August 7, 2010 7:08 pm

    What I mean is how many missiles in a salvo, 1, 3, a dozen?

  3. Juramentado permalink
    August 6, 2010 10:46 pm

    Salvo in my case would mean in regular succession or simultaneously. There are pros and cons to firing them in both manners. Obviously achieving a multi-axis simultaneous ToT would be an optimal way to overcome the defenses but we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Does anyone think the targeting problem is, in fact, solved? Yoshihara thinks so but he’s not saying how…

  4. Chuck Hill permalink
    August 6, 2010 8:17 pm

    Or they could be firing more than one missile, not because it is not accurate in the terminal phase, but because, three salvos gets enough missiles over a target area, where the target position could not be established and predicted with certainty at launch, that at least one of the missiles will have the target in its sensor field and be able to kill the target, or perhaps they just see that as a way to swamp the defenses.

    And what does a salvo mean to the speaker?

  5. Juramentado permalink
    August 6, 2010 5:33 pm

    Re: Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile…

    Let’s put this into perspective. The “buzz” around this weapon still has way too many unknowns. Until they get answered, there’s no reasonable way (through open-source intelligence) to answer if it’s a viable threat.

    Is it Strategic or Tactical? That determines numbers built and doctrine use.

    What is the Concept of Operations? Strategic implies decision-making regarding it’s use is very limited and inflexible. The decision cycle to use could be OBE. A tactical weapon is at the disposal of numerous units and can be brought into play more nimbly in response to changes in the battlespace.

    China has supposedly built a dedicated base for these weapons in Guangdong province. That’s like saying we put up a Patriot battery in Texas. Guangdong’s huge but it does include a significant portion of coastline facing South into the China Sea and Hainan island is nearby. The bases there would be logical targets for a Carrier Strike Group. More importantly, Guangdong is already home to an IRBM regiment. So is the weapon strategic because of the co-loc? Or because the number of available weapons is low because it’s IOC, and it’s still tactical? The deployment numbers will determine what’s what.

    Effectiveness: If it’s fired singly implies high confidence of accuracy, very effective payload and capable sensor detection. If in in salvos, that implies less accuracy, and not lethal enough for a one-shot/one-kill against a CV sized target. Granted, a near-miss could result in a “mission kill.”

    The latest news stories quote the Xinghua News Agency stating that three salvos would be fired in order to sink a carrier. Getting past the rhetoric and assuming there’s even a shred of truth in it, that answers the effectiveness question.

    Unknown Factors: And here is the The Big Question Mark – how do they target an OTH task force? This weapon cannot be effectively employed LOS. It has to be a stand-off in order to hold a CSG at bay. Very few countries can claim to have OTH targeting that not only works, but works well. This is why the “buzz” around the weapon is so frustrating to informed observers – the BANG is only part of the equation. Getting the BANG to the target is a big gap. Have the Chinese filled it?

    The comments of Prof. Yoshihara (US NWC) seems to imply that China has in fact made this targeting technical leap successfully; unless his e-mail is being taken out of context by the mass media echo chamber.

    Possible Counters: The Chinese know that Western doctrine is to attack the C3I layers – a “typical Baghdad template.” If part of the sensor net is deep enough inside the mainland, that should give pause to any proactive attacks on that component – this is a large capable military nation armed with a working ICBM nuclear wing, not just a bunch of free-fall gravity bombs. Question: Where else could we break the kill chain to prevent effective DF-21 use?

  6. August 6, 2010 3:29 pm

    I wonder how much of that Telegraph article Gen Sir Richard Dannatt actually wrote; were they really his own words? Helicopter parts of the RAF? I thought JHC’s operating budget came out of the Army pot. And transport helicopters aren’t exclusive to the RAF. And the “historic Harriers, of Falklands fame”? Well SHARs disappeared a while back now. And the were only a handful of GR3s that went south. Harrier’s role is CAS and who is the main customer for that? Oh yes the Army. The Royal Navy protects trade routes? Only with the help of others, the RN hasn’t had the hulls to do this since 1946. What utter b*llocks………

  7. m21 sniper permalink
    August 6, 2010 3:22 pm

    “Sea-based artillery doctrine tested at RIMPAC.”

    Want devastating firepower off-the-shelf ?

    Bring back the Iowas !!!


  8. m21 sniper permalink
    August 6, 2010 3:18 pm

    “Inside the Navy’s next-generation destroyer.”

    Duh-Duh(X), or whatever this MONSTRUOSITY is called nowadays, is cr@p.

    Want Bang for the Bucks : Bring Back The Iowas.

    All for of them.


  9. m21 sniper permalink
    August 6, 2010 2:49 pm

    “Stiletto stealth boat visits Charleston, SC.”

    Stiletto is plastic cr@p.

    Back to basics : stop wasting taxpayer money (aka OUR hard-earned $$$) reactivate the Iowas instead !!!

    Bang for the Bucks.

    Firepower for Freedom.

  10. Anonymous permalink
    August 6, 2010 1:30 pm

    Juramentado said “It’s very disconcerting that some Perrys had to rig a fake turret to deter potential attackers from a distance while on hot-zone deployments.”

    Blinking ‘eck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Fencer permalink
    August 6, 2010 12:10 pm

    Yes, I also got the feeling that ADM Harvey said the US Navy has just built a ship that it doesn’t know what to do with. However, I think this is could be a good warning for New Wars: LCS was designed to be a cheap ship that could grow the Navy but it hasn’t accomplished anything else no matter how many missions have been foisted upon it. If we want to increase the size of the Navy we can’t just tack a bunch of cheap ships on, as Mike puts it, a “battleship navy”; we have to review the entire force structure and work the new vessels into both the peacetime and wartime planning.

  12. Fencer permalink
    August 6, 2010 11:50 am

    Why do you continue posting these articles by army officers who so obviously don’t know anything about the navy? (I’m referring to the one by John T. Reed) Either the author of this one really believes that “electric Gatling guns” are the best defensive weapon in the USN’s arsenal or he’s being incredibly dishonest. But I think his argument is summed up in his statements that “Civilians essentially got rid of their ‘navy’ around 1950” and “Nowadays, civilians only ride passenger ships for pleasure cruises”.

    On a different note I skimmed through the Independent QDR and found some quotes I thought you’d like.

    “… the increased capability of our naval forces has not reduced the need for ships to demonstrate (in an unshrinking world) a U.S. presence abroad. We think it is time technology be used not to simply to increase performance (as important as that is), but to dramatically drive down cost so that we can increase quantity…”

    “The ability to conduct precision warfare is rapidly diffusing, however, and it seems likely that the next adversary that the United States faces will be armed with precision weaponry, whether that adversary is a state or not. The Panel believes the Department of Defense has not sufficiently integrated this likelihood into its operational concepts and plans.”

  13. Juramentado permalink
    August 6, 2010 11:12 am

    Re: After the Frigates are gone…

    The Perrys and their valiant crews deserve better than what they got. The last nine hulls received a 25mm Remote Weapons System Bushmaster mount cold-welded over the SM-1 bay. All of the remaining active hulls should have it – it can’t cost millions and it gives the crews some additional small-boat ASuW cap, especially against targets outside the 76 mount arc. It’s very disconcerting that some Perrys had to rig a fake turret to deter potential attackers from a distance while on hot-zone deployments.

    ADM Harvey’s comments *are* Happy Talk. Let’s face it, a senior Navy figure quoting the Zen of Ship Design? In the process of doing so, he jettisoned everything that PEOSHIPS and the publicized CONOPS have stated about LCS. If that isn’t a sign that the Navy really doesn’t have a clue about what to do with LCS, I don’t know what is.

  14. August 6, 2010 8:05 am

    I am not trying to think too much about the forth coming cuts to the RN’s budget. Last Friday I took the chance to visit Cumberland as I “know” the Batch 3 Type 22’s won’t be in service by the time Navy Days 2012 roles around again. After a brief visit to HMS Dauntless (security and health/safety mean as civilian you don’t get to see much) I am convinced that the Type 45 need all the toys and we need at least two more hulls. I would prefer to see more T45s, an off the shelf OPV, and perhaps another Astute than investment in the T26 frigate programme. It was a pleasure to visit Argus yet again. It is interesting to compare this mature large civilian hill and its high utility with the hi-tech bespoke T45s.


  1. » Maritime Monday 226; Smile, You Son of a Bitch!

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: