We should also see quad packed ESSM Blk II in a new launcher on the CVNs and LHAs as that contract was finally awarded. If its 4 cells like the BAE brochure that should double the ready rounds of ESSM on these ships.
In the linking good things together idea, I remain optimistic someone will put the NSM on MH-60. I'd half be curious to find a way to get it on AH-1Z.
Not as interesting as JSMs on US-2. Turns every atoll and island into a potential air base. Not sure if the survival rate for the US-2 crew would be better than that of a WWII TBD but it sure would distribute the threat axis for the CCP.
P-8s with JSM and or LRASM are the first step on that front. I like NSM on the helo because why should the ship need to get that close to the target if the helo can do it further out. Or at the very least attack from another direction at the same time.
P-8s have their own problems getting ordinance on target. Let's not complicate their mission further. Not to mention they need a long runway on land in the TOW. The Helo's range is not going to extend the range all that much.
Those -22's are probably going to be VERY busy and the time is approaching when production sunsets. I don't think the Navy will have the spare airframes to account for likely attrition. Too bad, runway independence, capacity and range are nice features...
Agreed as I've heard of numerous suggestions about V-22 variants as well. My understanding is that S3 Viking was one of the most versatile and adaptable airframes to ever grace the deck of a carrier. And we took them out of service with a lot of life left in them... :<(
Ops45 will come in here and beat me up for suggesting it again, but ESSM for ASuW. It would be useful for enemy FACs and helping to overwhelming enemy air defense.
I'm a big fan. Cheaper, better and faster is good. Particularly when it frees to Army CDR from the tyranny of some USAF fires control cell Major that decides there are more important "Joint" read USAF targets.
Though a SM-6 is big enough for a mission kill on a PLAN DDG. Is it right for land targets?
And the PLA will be happy. Fewer sets of code to steal and counter-counters to field
If you read the nation’s founding documents, you’ll see that there were two, distinct, branches of the military, an Army and a Navy. If we had a legitimate conservative movement in this nation, we’d have folks trying to hold that line.
The idea that the Army should be stripped of its air arm was the start of the problem. Creating an Air Force did nothing to improve the defense of our nation. The Army recreated a air force out of rotary craft, while the Pentagon staff made room for another set of brass. To be an effective fighting force an army commander needs control of his air arm. Creating an entire service out of what should be part of the army was a bad idea, and we are reaping the consequences of it today. The Air Force adds nothing to the national defense that the Army Air Corps couldn’t do better, faster, and cheaper.
There is little to no chance of change. Consider the Department of Education. Every Republican on the stump rails against the Department. Every presidential candidate the Republicans put forward says that they will eliminate the department. (Some Democrats see the department as a clumsy, ineffective waste of money too.)
Yet, we passed through a period where the Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court, and the Department survived. If the Republicans can't reorganize a department everyone agrees should go, how can they ever overcome the inertia behind Goldwater/Nichols?
Great article as always. Comments on The Drive seemed focused on off-road mobility and the system's deployment in the Pacific theatre, as in what country would be willing to allow such a system on their turf??? Love the economy of scale benefit & not reinventing the wheel...
Really? Show me the difference these days. Putin wants to resurrect the Warsaw Pact under oligarchs instead of communist hierarchy and systems...at least for now.
Ummmm....let's see....Russian actions in Chechnya? Georgia? Crimea and Ukraine? Moldova? Romania?
In fact, the case could be made that the last 20 years of the Soviet Union was MORE stable and less dangerous to its neighbors than Russia is now, based on these military and destabilization actions.
Putin wants to be a czar. Same authoritarian intent, same expansionist goals, and screws up their domestic economy in different but equally kleptocratic ways. Russia is at the core, the same country it's always been, and I don't blame any country for not wanting to be a part of that mess.
The Soviet Union was just the Russian Empire under new management. The Russian Federation is the rump state left over from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
They are the same, just less dangerous, powerful, and demographically unsustainable. We just need to keep them in their cage until they collapse again.
A few million collectivized or dead farmers might argue that point. Along with millions more non-farmers who were forced to live as Communists. And the inhabitants of Eastern Europe who were forced into Communism by Stalin et al.
The ideology is still there. It thrived because the populace was used to being told what to do by central authority - warlords, Kings, Czars. The Communists just took the same role. Once they were gone, the people were suddenly left to make decisions for themselves and they had no history, culture, or experience with that. Thus they did not seize the moment and oligarchs took control acting in the same manner, but even more corrupt if you can imagine. So, a portion of those people long for someone to tell them what to do so they don't have the responsibility for the day to day or the big picture, government issues. THAT is where the West failed in the transition after the fall of the Soviets....but it wasn't easy given the propaganda about the decadent and corrupt West all those decades. The oligarchs are how they think of the West, so it was really just reinforced in a lot of minds in Russia.
"The Soviet Union was just the Russian Empire under new management.'
No. The USSR was based on an expansionist, universal conflict with the non-Communist world; like the cobra and the mongoose the Communist USSR and the Capitalist enemy (and Capitalism was THE enemy of the USSR) were in an existential fight to the death with every Capitalist country, by definition.
Russia has no such designs on conquering the entire world. Nasty and nationalistic they are, but Russia poses no existential threat to Sweden, France, the US, or any other non-Russian country. I doubt it poses an existential threat to Ukraine although I am willing to believe it does if someone supplies me with some evidence.
There is, no doubt, residual Marxist reflexive hostility to Capitalist/non-Russian countries just as there is a fair amount of residual anti-USSR feelings left over from a century of ideological hostility. Just as there is residual anti-Japanese feeling in China and Korea. The present rulers of Russia have been indoctrinated from birth, as have Western leaders, in mutual antipathy and paranoia.
Nationalism and Communism/Marxism are not the same; they have different goals.
You are a very mixed up and conflicted person. Just the example of you claiming not to believe Russia is an existential threat and asking for evidence if they are - IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR THAT RUSSIA STARTED WITH AN INVASION - may be the silliest, stupidest, most obtuse thing you have ever posted here. And that is going some.
I will assume you are referring to Russia vs. Ukraine. As I said, if you can show me any evidence that Russia intends to destroy Ukraine as an independent nation, I will believe it. Until I see such evidence I will stand by my statement--
"I doubt it poses an existential threat to Ukraine although I am willing to believe it does if someone supplies me with some evidence. "
History has many examples of countries starting wars by invading other countries without threatening their existence. I will cite one, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. Prussia defeated France and occupied Paris and other French territory until 1873(?).
Can't get them produced and into Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Guam, etc. quickly enough. Anti-air first to protect airfields and other installations (hardening aircraft shelters wouldn't hurt, either). Then move in strike assets, maritime and land attack. The more anti-missile interceptors in the area, the more you stress China as to how many missiles they need to attack land based installations of the US, Taiwan, and ships. Making it a 10:1 ratio for such an attack means the Chinese won't be able to keep up...it should be enough to deter them or wreck them. This is like putting additional hulls in the water, unsinkable ones, hard to find and moving around. We need to count VLS tubes, on land and water. I am assuming the Army systems will work in integrated fires with AEGIS, Spy-6, F-35 downlinks, etc.
There is no bias in recognizing what the PLAN is doing. We don't work with intentions, though, we work with capabilities. The CCP is developing capabilities that would enable them to undertake more and more offensive actions with assets that are explicitly expeditionary. We speak to OUR capabilities to deny their success in those actions.
So, there is no more reason to ignore that, or to act as if they aren't doing what they're doing, than there was to have ignored the Soviets or to ignore current Russian activities. Their actions are explicit - and voiced continuously.
Sure they are...which is the point. China is building offensive capability, not defensive...so that shows INTENT through the capabilities they are concentrating on developing.
I wish you would read up on some of this stuff and be a little logical instead of just trying to be a contrarian troll all the time.
No, our intent and capabilities enable OFFENSIVE actions...and would not be developed in the same way if we didn't have interests across the world to defend. China has no such territories...although they illegally claim areas of the SCS.
Concur with your comments on centralized control making things worse. There are examples of joint use that make sense: C130s, F-4, H-60s and UH-1Ns all worked out well as joint efforts that didn’t start out that way.
One of those darn things was parked on the apron along the fence line adjacent to my quarters at Capodichino Naples during an 8 month deployment. Every Sunday a.m.... yep... gotta make sure those engines were working just fine... thank you very much... only 1/2 day I had off... Yeah I bet you "go big or go home" guys would love this... :>)
These what-if's have been going on for decades, with all sorts of 'artist renderings'...why not?
The idea always gets stopped, very likely by a star or a conference room full of stars, who've not been deployed or out to sea in a decade, gaffawing and giggling at an idea, that they can't wrap their heads around because they lack any sense of resourcefulness, imagination or, creativity.
Good, Now the bigger question is can these missiles be produced quickly (months, not years) and in quantity. We need many of all types of missiles in large quants yesterday. If this is something that can be ramped up for delivery in 2030 I fear it will be too late to the party even if they are just used (I hope) for deterrence
Raytheon is expected to be able to double production by next year but their biggest headache appears to be Rocketdyne - can't double production unless Rocketdyne does.
It is the whole supply chain that has to be understood and stood up/expanded. Multiple sources is necessary because no near peer is going to give us years to spin up.
We should also see quad packed ESSM Blk II in a new launcher on the CVNs and LHAs as that contract was finally awarded. If its 4 cells like the BAE brochure that should double the ready rounds of ESSM on these ships.
In the linking good things together idea, I remain optimistic someone will put the NSM on MH-60. I'd half be curious to find a way to get it on AH-1Z.
LOL, on a COD?
VH-22 with a pair of NSMs would be interesting.
Not as interesting as JSMs on US-2. Turns every atoll and island into a potential air base. Not sure if the survival rate for the US-2 crew would be better than that of a WWII TBD but it sure would distribute the threat axis for the CCP.
P-8s with JSM and or LRASM are the first step on that front. I like NSM on the helo because why should the ship need to get that close to the target if the helo can do it further out. Or at the very least attack from another direction at the same time.
P-8s have their own problems getting ordinance on target. Let's not complicate their mission further. Not to mention they need a long runway on land in the TOW. The Helo's range is not going to extend the range all that much.
P-8s deploy laws?
I know... Rapid Dragon for the US-2 :>) ... kidding
Those -22's are probably going to be VERY busy and the time is approaching when production sunsets. I don't think the Navy will have the spare airframes to account for likely attrition. Too bad, runway independence, capacity and range are nice features...
V-280 Valors will be the replacement....will still be able to fit the F-35 engines in the back.
Pull out the S-3's baby!!!!! :>)
Being able to hang ordnance on those "misc" airframes can be a force multiplier.
Agreed as I've heard of numerous suggestions about V-22 variants as well. My understanding is that S3 Viking was one of the most versatile and adaptable airframes to ever grace the deck of a carrier. And we took them out of service with a lot of life left in them... :<(
Versatile and adaptable doesn't get you a corner office in the C-suite when you retire. Transformational does.
Versatile & adaptable - yeah... how boring right? Now transformational??? That's shiny and new...
Ops45 will come in here and beat me up for suggesting it again, but ESSM for ASuW. It would be useful for enemy FACs and helping to overwhelming enemy air defense.
The JSM has been fitted and demonstrated on an MH-60.
The Navy though has not bitten on the concept (at least not yet).
The JSM is an NSM modified to fit in an F35s internal weapons bay.
The Airforce is buying JSM to supplement LRASM while the Navy has not taken that step.
It would seem JSM on carried-based F35s would be a natural fit.
I'm a big fan. Cheaper, better and faster is good. Particularly when it frees to Army CDR from the tyranny of some USAF fires control cell Major that decides there are more important "Joint" read USAF targets.
Though a SM-6 is big enough for a mission kill on a PLAN DDG. Is it right for land targets?
And the PLA will be happy. Fewer sets of code to steal and counter-counters to field
SM-6 would be useful against ammo bunkers and mobile command posts.
expensive for bunkers that might or might not hold silver bullets.
Now TELs and reload canisters, sure...
If you read the nation’s founding documents, you’ll see that there were two, distinct, branches of the military, an Army and a Navy. If we had a legitimate conservative movement in this nation, we’d have folks trying to hold that line.
The idea that the Army should be stripped of its air arm was the start of the problem. Creating an Air Force did nothing to improve the defense of our nation. The Army recreated a air force out of rotary craft, while the Pentagon staff made room for another set of brass. To be an effective fighting force an army commander needs control of his air arm. Creating an entire service out of what should be part of the army was a bad idea, and we are reaping the consequences of it today. The Air Force adds nothing to the national defense that the Army Air Corps couldn’t do better, faster, and cheaper.
In theory, you're right. But looking at history, we'd just be seeing bigger intra- rather than inter-service rivalry.
There is little to no chance of change. Consider the Department of Education. Every Republican on the stump rails against the Department. Every presidential candidate the Republicans put forward says that they will eliminate the department. (Some Democrats see the department as a clumsy, ineffective waste of money too.)
Yet, we passed through a period where the Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court, and the Department survived. If the Republicans can't reorganize a department everyone agrees should go, how can they ever overcome the inertia behind Goldwater/Nichols?
And then the Air Force begat Space Force, yet another Potomac Brass Army.
Great article as always. Comments on The Drive seemed focused on off-road mobility and the system's deployment in the Pacific theatre, as in what country would be willing to allow such a system on their turf??? Love the economy of scale benefit & not reinventing the wheel...
This is why Russia doesn't want NATO on their borders.
Russia on their borders is why countries want to join NATO...and the reason for NATO in the first place.
The reason for NATO in the first place was the Soviet Union, not Russia. They are not the same.
Really? Show me the difference these days. Putin wants to resurrect the Warsaw Pact under oligarchs instead of communist hierarchy and systems...at least for now.
Have you anything concrete to support your hysterical comments?
Ummmm....let's see....Russian actions in Chechnya? Georgia? Crimea and Ukraine? Moldova? Romania?
In fact, the case could be made that the last 20 years of the Soviet Union was MORE stable and less dangerous to its neighbors than Russia is now, based on these military and destabilization actions.
Yup, Russia is going to make sure things near their borders don't threaten it.
Doesn't mean they're going to drive 10 divisions all the way to Portugal, even if they could, which they can't.
Well, you got one right; Romania was a Warsaw pact member.
Putin wants to be a czar. Same authoritarian intent, same expansionist goals, and screws up their domestic economy in different but equally kleptocratic ways. Russia is at the core, the same country it's always been, and I don't blame any country for not wanting to be a part of that mess.
The Soviet Union was just the Russian Empire under new management. The Russian Federation is the rump state left over from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
They are the same, just less dangerous, powerful, and demographically unsustainable. We just need to keep them in their cage until they collapse again.
You ignore that the ideology that drove the Soviet Union is no longer in play there. It has mutated and migrated West.
Restoration of the Russian Empire may not be the worst of possible outcomes if it leads to order and stability in that part of the world.
Communism was a fig leaf. Once Stalin took over communism was a dead letter. The goal of the USSR after Stalin was to keep Caesar in power.
A few million collectivized or dead farmers might argue that point. Along with millions more non-farmers who were forced to live as Communists. And the inhabitants of Eastern Europe who were forced into Communism by Stalin et al.
Destruction of the Russian Empire may not be the worst of possible outcomes if it leads to order and stability in that part of the world.
It won't. It will lead to chaos. 5K nuclear weapons held by numerous warlords like Prigozhin would not lead to any kind of stability.
I get it, you hate the Russians for something that happened years ago to an ancestor, but you must suffer their existence to prevent something worse.
The ideology is still there. It thrived because the populace was used to being told what to do by central authority - warlords, Kings, Czars. The Communists just took the same role. Once they were gone, the people were suddenly left to make decisions for themselves and they had no history, culture, or experience with that. Thus they did not seize the moment and oligarchs took control acting in the same manner, but even more corrupt if you can imagine. So, a portion of those people long for someone to tell them what to do so they don't have the responsibility for the day to day or the big picture, government issues. THAT is where the West failed in the transition after the fall of the Soviets....but it wasn't easy given the propaganda about the decadent and corrupt West all those decades. The oligarchs are how they think of the West, so it was really just reinforced in a lot of minds in Russia.
Maybe. But without Putin, Russia would look like Ukraine now: poor nation full of resources.
"The Soviet Union was just the Russian Empire under new management.'
No. The USSR was based on an expansionist, universal conflict with the non-Communist world; like the cobra and the mongoose the Communist USSR and the Capitalist enemy (and Capitalism was THE enemy of the USSR) were in an existential fight to the death with every Capitalist country, by definition.
Russia has no such designs on conquering the entire world. Nasty and nationalistic they are, but Russia poses no existential threat to Sweden, France, the US, or any other non-Russian country. I doubt it poses an existential threat to Ukraine although I am willing to believe it does if someone supplies me with some evidence.
There is, no doubt, residual Marxist reflexive hostility to Capitalist/non-Russian countries just as there is a fair amount of residual anti-USSR feelings left over from a century of ideological hostility. Just as there is residual anti-Japanese feeling in China and Korea. The present rulers of Russia have been indoctrinated from birth, as have Western leaders, in mutual antipathy and paranoia.
Nationalism and Communism/Marxism are not the same; they have different goals.
You are a very mixed up and conflicted person. Just the example of you claiming not to believe Russia is an existential threat and asking for evidence if they are - IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR THAT RUSSIA STARTED WITH AN INVASION - may be the silliest, stupidest, most obtuse thing you have ever posted here. And that is going some.
Ukraine killing ethnic Russians in the Donbas had nothing to do with it.
existential---
"Of, relating to, or dealing with existence."
I will assume you are referring to Russia vs. Ukraine. As I said, if you can show me any evidence that Russia intends to destroy Ukraine as an independent nation, I will believe it. Until I see such evidence I will stand by my statement--
"I doubt it poses an existential threat to Ukraine although I am willing to believe it does if someone supplies me with some evidence. "
History has many examples of countries starting wars by invading other countries without threatening their existence. I will cite one, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. Prussia defeated France and occupied Paris and other French territory until 1873(?).
Can't get them produced and into Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Guam, etc. quickly enough. Anti-air first to protect airfields and other installations (hardening aircraft shelters wouldn't hurt, either). Then move in strike assets, maritime and land attack. The more anti-missile interceptors in the area, the more you stress China as to how many missiles they need to attack land based installations of the US, Taiwan, and ships. Making it a 10:1 ratio for such an attack means the Chinese won't be able to keep up...it should be enough to deter them or wreck them. This is like putting additional hulls in the water, unsinkable ones, hard to find and moving around. We need to count VLS tubes, on land and water. I am assuming the Army systems will work in integrated fires with AEGIS, Spy-6, F-35 downlinks, etc.
Appreciate your making assumptions explicit rather than hidden implicit/tacit bias!
There is no bias in recognizing what the PLAN is doing. We don't work with intentions, though, we work with capabilities. The CCP is developing capabilities that would enable them to undertake more and more offensive actions with assets that are explicitly expeditionary. We speak to OUR capabilities to deny their success in those actions.
So, there is no more reason to ignore that, or to act as if they aren't doing what they're doing, than there was to have ignored the Soviets or to ignore current Russian activities. Their actions are explicit - and voiced continuously.
Agreed!
Suggest scanning DIKUW diagram embedded in this recap of prior
ASW-NCAPS lessons relearned and relayed via PDLogs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Richardson_(admiral)?wprov=sfti1
Found 71 digital documents using keywords:
Pass Down Line Log Book (aka #PDLog)
Some shipboard SWO-PDLogs were used to help qualify JOODs as capable (if not yet competent) bridge watch-standers
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/search.html?q=Pass+Down+Line+Log+Book&start=0&pdf=true&ts=false
"capabilities that would enable them to undertake more and more offensive actions with assets that are explicitly expeditionary. "
I would certainly consider our amphibious capability to be "expeditionary" if not offensive.
Sure they are...which is the point. China is building offensive capability, not defensive...so that shows INTENT through the capabilities they are concentrating on developing.
I wish you would read up on some of this stuff and be a little logical instead of just trying to be a contrarian troll all the time.
So our INTENT is aggression because we also have an amphibious capability? Aggression aimed, presumably given all the rhetoric, aimed at China?
No, our intent and capabilities enable OFFENSIVE actions...and would not be developed in the same way if we didn't have interests across the world to defend. China has no such territories...although they illegally claim areas of the SCS.
Now if they could just place them in other locations beside Guam...
It's the return of US Army Coastal Artillery though it's not being called that.
Concur with your comments on centralized control making things worse. There are examples of joint use that make sense: C130s, F-4, H-60s and UH-1Ns all worked out well as joint efforts that didn’t start out that way.
I really like this. I do seem to recall there was a "Typhon" AAW weapons system years ago that did not actually go into production.
For the Douglas Missileer!
The one I was thinking of was a Navy SAM , the progenitor of the Standard Missile system.
Typhon, it's not just for Sean Connery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-50_Typhon
AAM-N-10 Eagle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-N-10_Eagle
Makes sense to me....
Let's buy a LOT of them!
"Now we just need for strategic airlift and sealift to give it better global mobility."
As a C-5 pilot, I'm literally salivating over this.
One of those darn things was parked on the apron along the fence line adjacent to my quarters at Capodichino Naples during an 8 month deployment. Every Sunday a.m.... yep... gotta make sure those engines were working just fine... thank you very much... only 1/2 day I had off... Yeah I bet you "go big or go home" guys would love this... :>)
These what-if's have been going on for decades, with all sorts of 'artist renderings'...why not?
The idea always gets stopped, very likely by a star or a conference room full of stars, who've not been deployed or out to sea in a decade, gaffawing and giggling at an idea, that they can't wrap their heads around because they lack any sense of resourcefulness, imagination or, creativity.
Good, Now the bigger question is can these missiles be produced quickly (months, not years) and in quantity. We need many of all types of missiles in large quants yesterday. If this is something that can be ramped up for delivery in 2030 I fear it will be too late to the party even if they are just used (I hope) for deterrence
Raytheon is expected to be able to double production by next year but their biggest headache appears to be Rocketdyne - can't double production unless Rocketdyne does.
It is the whole supply chain that has to be understood and stood up/expanded. Multiple sources is necessary because no near peer is going to give us years to spin up.
Oh that's a lengthy conversation to put it mildly.
The best joint programs begin as single service, and are adapted to fit others requirements.