US Navy News and updates

ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Arclighy said:
It is disappointing to read of the shortfall in U.S. requirements for Poseidons. In terms of the Pacific, l wonder what the shortfall would be? It is becoming apparent that U.S allies may need to look much more realistically at what future defence requirements actually means for them. I am sure there are those in the military and intelligence communities doing the sums and raising the red flags. Are the decision makers listening? Can Australia play a greater role in the Pacific, militarily, than it already does? I am sure Australia's current fleet of Poseidons may already be stretched and may not be able to help plug the gaps left by the U.S. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me would be able to enlighten about Australia's tasking of it's Poseidon's? Is there a possibility of having 3-4 Australian Poseidon's semi - permanently assigned to and operating out of a U.S. Pacific base where there is a shortfall? Or does Australia have the capacity to purchase, crew and support extra Poseidons if the need is indeed there?
Click to expand...
P8 numbers are only one facet of BAMS when discussing the narrative of replacing the entire capability provided by the P3’s.
The proposed 117 P8 platforms are complimented by G550 Gulfstreams, RQ4 Global Hawks and 68x MQ4C Tritons.
Further apart from Australia and Britain, Tritons have also been proposed for India and Germany.
Given that a P8 can cover nearly double the area covered by a P3 I would opine that the aforementioned “shortfall” does not exist.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The “Australian” (sorry can’t link) reports this am that a Saudi Airforce Second Lieutenant shot four and injured eight at NAS Pensacola.
He was in the US undergoing training and the incident occurred in the classroom areas.
Help with the link please.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
The “Australian” (sorry can’t link) reports this am that a Saudi Airforce Second Lieutenant shot four and injured eight at NAS Pensacola.
He was in the US undergoing training and the incident occurred in the classroom areas.
Help with the link please.
Click to expand...
ABC TV reports say he killed three and was shot dead by responding police, of whom two are numbered in the injured. Otherwise they agree. Don't have a link to the Oz though this is News Ltd

Four dead in US Navy base shooting

oldsig
 
Ananda

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Here’s what you need to know about the US Navy’s new deadly (and expensive) attack subs

An article on defensenews on Virginia Block V. It's going to be equipped with 6 VLS tubes of 4 in mid section of 7 SLCM and 2 in the bow as current Virginia of 6 each. That's make 40 SLCM. Plus more quiter but more importantly can reach USD 35 bio for 10 boats. That's about the costs range of SSBN.

This more intrigued me, with the price of Ford supercarrier and now this Virginia Blk V, something has to give in my opinion. I read an analyst review (forgot from where originated) that talk about whether in future USN still can afford 10-11 CBG.
He talk about 8 supercarrier and 8 LHD equipped F-35B will be more efficient for USN in order for them to still afford to get the amount of Surface Ships and Submarines they are planning.

Reading the prices of Blk V, perhaps that analyst opinion could have some merits. Looking to Chinese conditions, despite the bragging of Chinese ten cents army of 6 CBG, I really doubt China can afford more than 4 effective CBG in foreseable future anyway (their current Carrier plus the new indigenous one are both STOBAR, thus can be rules out from calculation on effective CBG).
 
Last edited:
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Looks like the White House intends to reject the USN plans to recapitalize its sealift ships because it sees the USN plans as expensive and not cost effective. White House poised to blow up US Navy’s plans to recapitalize its aging sealift ships. This could place the ability of the US to deploy large quantities of troops and equipment overseas in times of crisis in jeopardy.

The Pentagon, Office of the SECDEF, proposes cutting 5 of the 12 planned DDG-51 Flt III new builds and accelerating the decommissioning all of the 13 Ticonderoga CGNs. Pentagon proposes big cuts to US Navy destroyer construction, retiring 13 cruisers. This would occur during fiscal years 2021 - 25 and reduce the number of hulls in the USN from 293 of today to 287 in 2025. At the same time, the USN has proposed decommissioning the first 4 LCS in a plan driven by the Office of the SECDEF. US Navy proposes decommissioning first 4 LCS more than a decade early. This appears to be a cost cutting measure. So much for a 355 ship navy.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
It could be interesting to speculate on which countries may want to take one or two of these LCS off the U.S.N hands ,the ability to carry a rotary aircraft like Firescout and relativly low manning could make it tempting
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
A couple of things make me kind of skeptical with respect to the "proposal" of cutting surface combatant numbers. Firstly, there is the usual Pentagon political positioning for more funding allocation with the OMB whereby they choose to announce suggested cuts as a marker for what they want. It says as much in the article by David Larder as per his usual theme regarding the LCS reduction.

The memo amounts to a back-and-forth between the Defense Department and OMB on areas of disagreement inside the DoD’s 2021 budget request, which has yet to be finalized.

The Office of Management and Budget is part of the Executive so yes technically under the White House. However they have an auditing and cost control role and it is there job to reality check departmental spending prior to the Defence Budget and all other USA Govt budgets being set.

Quite rightly they the OMB are blasting the Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-Mission Platform at a per unit cost of USD$1.3 billion ($2B in Kiwi) for a Sealift and Support ship that was already supposed to cost an already over-priced $1 billion. So on one hand the Pentagon is squawking about cutting Cruisers, Destroyers and the the first 4 LCS yet on the other it is proposing wildly expensive sealift vessels.
 
T

the concerned

Active Member
Why can't they build the flight iii burke's to replace the cruisers and flight i's on a one for one basis. You are still cutting the cruisers just at a managed pace. The other bonus is transferring personal rather than losing them.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
the concerned said:
Why can't they build the flight iii burke's to replace the cruisers and flight i's on a one for one basis. You are still cutting the cruisers just at a managed pace. The other bonus is transferring personal rather than losing them.
Click to expand...
That's too logical.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
ngatimozart said:
That's too logical.
Click to expand...
Not entirely IMO. The Tico's (being cruisers as the USN now defines them...) have a command role or at least the potential for one, since there is space aboard for an admiral and staff to be embarked. Not sure about the Flight III Burke's, but the earlier batches did not have such space and apparently the CIC would get rather cramped/crowded if the extra personnel associated with an admiral and their command functions were shoehorned in.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
Not entirely IMO. The Tico's (being cruisers as the USN now defines them...) have a command role or at least the potential for one, since there is space aboard for an admiral and staff to be embarked. Not sure about the Flight III Burke's, but the earlier batches did not have such space and apparently the CIC would get rather cramped/crowded if the extra personnel associated with an admiral and their command functions were shoehorned in.
Click to expand...
You could put the brass hats with the scrambled eggs and all their clingons on the CVNs. With today's C3 is there a need for them to be aboard a DDG at all?
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
the concerned said:
I would be pretty sure this flight I burkes would find a new home. They are still capable
Click to expand...
Who with?
Yes they would be capable Ships but they would be 30yo+ at the time of sale, req a large crew by modern standards, 90 VLS Cells are not cheap to fill. It would not be easy to raise, train and sustain crews. I would doubt the only export customer, Japan would be interested, i doubt the usual customers for 2nd hand Ships would be interested, just too expensive to Crew and Arm them.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Redlands18 said:
Who with?
Yes they would be capable Ships but they would be 30yo+ at the time of sale, req a large crew by modern standards, 90 VLS Cells are not cheap to fill. It would not be easy to raise, train and sustain crews. I would doubt the only export customer, Japan would be interested, i doubt the usual customers for 2nd hand Ships would be interested, just too expensive to Crew and Arm them.
Click to expand...
There would also be the question of whether or not the SPY-1 arrays and racks/terminals loaded with the Aegis CMS would be included, and if they were included who the US would be comfortable with having them. IMO it would be unlikely that any of the nations currently fielding Aegis and SPY systems would be interested.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
the concerned said:
I would be pretty sure this flight I burkes would find a new home. They are still capable
Click to expand...
Redlands18 said:
Who with?
Yes they would be capable Ships but they would be 30yo+ at the time of sale, req a large crew by modern standards, 90 VLS Cells are not cheap to fill. It would not be easy to raise, train and sustain crews. I would doubt the only export customer, Japan would be interested, i doubt the usual customers for 2nd hand Ships would be interested, just too expensive to Crew and Arm them.
Click to expand...
I can't see Japan wanting them either, because their current crop of DDGs are newer and better than the DDG-51 Flt 1. A 30 year old hull that's been thrashed after 18 years of war and not maintained, is going to cost a fortune to bring the hull and machinery back up to standard before undertaking upgrades, then maintain, operate and crew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top