tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post1238396348490786251..comments2024-03-29T13:09:31.522+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: How to fix ... the United States NavyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-76181412361102204382020-09-21T10:58:03.128+02:002020-09-21T10:58:03.128+02:00I mentioned the SSBNs having short-duration crews ...I mentioned the SSBNs having short-duration crews (turnover rate for full crew change shorter than two years) and SSNs having 'sailor for life' crews (with most crewmembers serving decades as part of that crew, even moving on to a successor boat). <br /><br />I would even reduce the SSBNs to one crew and 30% time at sea because minimum deterrence can make do with one SSBN at sea, as shown by the UK and France. The two-crew system is unnecessary and thus wasteful.<br />Likewise, there's no need for having SSNs at sea more than 1/3 of the time. The incessant peacetime patrolling isn't as important as a rapid deployment in wartime and the patrolling is in large part about shadowing Russian subs, which would be quite irrelevant in the event of conflict compared to being able to sink ships in the Strait of Taiwan.<br />SSNs shadowing foreign nuke subs also diverts subs from ASW training.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-5525796119796409962020-09-21T01:57:25.699+02:002020-09-21T01:57:25.699+02:00My apologies for not clarifying properly. The idea...My apologies for not clarifying properly. The idea of SSBNs being used as a recruiting ground for SSNs. There are currently 14 SSBNs and around 50 SSNs in the USN. Therefore, this would effectively cause a bottleneck in the personal having to go through the SSBNs in order to get to SSNs which would be exacerbated by the USN's current practice of having SSBNs manned by a Blue and Gold crew which rotate through the SSBN about every 70 days when it returns to port to minimize the time it spends in port. This is what I believe would happen based off of how I understand your idea for that. Charlie Foxtrothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03805615143194630926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-48889923587715375972020-09-20T13:11:06.177+02:002020-09-20T13:11:06.177+02:00I'm not sure what "SSBN thing" you r...I'm not sure what "SSBN thing" you refer to.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-82104479188102500512020-09-20T09:37:08.389+02:002020-09-20T09:37:08.389+02:00I'm speaking from an American perspective. The...I'm speaking from an American perspective. The disbanding of the USMC is inconceivable. It has far too many supporters. It would be like disbanding Russia's VDV or France's Foreign Legion. It's too culturally ingrained as America's shock troops. I don't know how else to explain it. I do agree though that is probably should be disbanded, as it is essentially a second land-army with some organic air capability.<br /><br />The F-35. I have doubts as to its capabilities in any of its variants. It seems to me that a lot of its pundits are trying to justify its massive budget and time overruns. Maybe, it is as effective as they say. But at this point it is far too controversial to know for sure. Unfortunately, the F-35B can not simply be given up on due to several foreign navies hedging on it for their SVTOL carriers. As for the USMC, the main purpose of the acquisition of the F-35B is for operation off of amphibious assault ships as part of their lightning carrier concept.<br /><br />The auxiliary cruiser idea seems to be something to look into. Although, there are already concerns as to whether the current American merchant marine could support a war effort that doesn't even take into account armed merchant ships. The SSBN thing is a foolish idea. SSBNs actually operate with two crews so that very shortly after the SSBN returns the second crew rotate in so that the submarine is almost continuously at sea. As far as I know, SSBNs actually have really good retention rates because of this very unique work-life balance. <br /><br />As for my very own ideas. I would scrap the Ford-class supercarriers. Too expensive and too vulnerable. Instead go for a class based off of the French Charles de Gaulle-carrier. 40,000 tonnage, nuclear-powered, costing around $4 billion, and capable of operating F-18s, E-2s, and C-2s.<br /><br />My other idea would be looking into a modern Seaplane Striking Force. https://warontherocks.com/2020/07/bring-back-the-seaplane/ Although, that would definitely be a controversial decision.<br /><br />Finally, because I feel bad. I do appreciate the idea of firing of everyone involved with the LCS and the genius blueberry uniform. I would hope to see it extended to some involved with the F-35 but I digress. I really enjoyed seeing your point of view on how to fix the US Navy although I disagree with some of it.<br /><br /><br />Charlie Foxtrothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03805615143194630926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-58208586050776814312019-08-14T13:45:04.263+02:002019-08-14T13:45:04.263+02:00I don't think China sees the USMC as much of a...I don't think China sees the USMC as much of a threat in their neck of the woods. OTOH, their amphibious fleet would be critical to any forcible reunification of Taiwan.<br /><br />Doesn't seem like they would go for that trade.<br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-75820799487239152202019-07-18T16:14:51.792+02:002019-07-18T16:14:51.792+02:00Maybe there wont be a barney between yankland and ...Maybe there wont be a barney between yankland and China. Post trump, increased corporate capture. Wall street and silicon valley have long accepted a civilisational war couldn't be won.<br /><br />Sell their ownership into chinese position and currency. Turn fallen empire yankland into a chinese client state.<br /><br />The japanese navy and shipyard capacity was nowhere near large enough to play the games it was asked to play. Same with the nazis. Same with the yanks now. If they are stupid enough to play against the chinese they can accept the fallout from a defeat or childishly escalate to nukes.<br /><br />Worth a read up about whats happening with the FFG(X) program for a giggle.<br /><br />The USN can not fight and win in the chinese swimming pool. Not now, not in twenty years.<br /><br />Three moves ahead. Mahan. No control over sea lines of communication, therefore isolation. The yankish empire will fall.<br /><br />Plenty of animus against yanks can then be vented in their weakened state. Harold Pinter said it pretty well in his nobel acceptance speech. Pretty angry, pretty clear thinking, for a dying man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-20657085448775167062019-07-15T09:57:43.865+02:002019-07-15T09:57:43.865+02:00The detection issue was touched (MPA) and was cove...The detection issue was touched (MPA) and was covered in the long warships article series.<br /><br />The other points of yours are unsupported and I disagree, of course.<br /><br />Overall, you fall well short of supporting your initial judgment.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-56648909994072634952019-07-15T07:05:06.990+02:002019-07-15T07:05:06.990+02:00This is a particularly biased and ill-conceived lo...This is a particularly biased and ill-conceived look at naval power in general, and the USN in particular. Perhaps the author should invest a little time reading some of the strategic thinking from maritime powers like Japan, India, China, and the Russians before making sweeping prognosis.<br /><br />There is very little serious consideration in this article for the realities of fighting at sea, specifically critical points like locating the enemy. Nor has this article precisely identified the root cause of moral issues; blaming them on the deployment system, without explaining how long deployments were not an issue for decades during the cold war (and indeed are not a huge issue for most merchant mariners today).<br /><br />Other ideas border on the fantastic, for example excoriating the U.S. Navy for allowing MCM assets to languish and then proposing abandoning amphibious warfare capabilities (although this is a welcome call). U.S Navy SSBNs are the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence, and arguably helped prevent WWIII more than any monies spent on air force or army units. The bit about “evaluating” sailors on SSBNs prior to selection for SSN duty is absolutely ridiculous in any practical sense. <br /><br />Finally, perhaps Germany should cede a few cities to say Poland, or France before telling the USA what to do with its territory.<br /><br />GAB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com