Spent some time in Rota (also Valencia, Barcelona, Palma etc.). Spain is a pretty good place to be forward homeported. Having said that, suspect your strategic analysis is pretty much spot on. Still, the vastly superior yard and repair work done in Japan versus that in the US might be worth the trade off.
I could see risking an availability or even an ROH in Japan, one ship at a time (the yard work used to be the best on the planet) but not homeporting for exactly the reason Sal mentions. Spent a good bit of time in Rota over the years; Sydney would be an easy sell.
But leave it to the nitwits running things to be 179 degrees out.
Forward deployed ships in foreign ports have been a draw for reenlisting to many sailors. Anything that helps retention/recruiting can't be too bad. My only concern here is that the progressive wonk nitwits in D.C. do something worse than USNS Harvey Milk and rename those DDG's USS Trafalgar and USS Gibraltar.
I will take Japan over Spain every time (been to both, lived 5 years in Yokosuka), but we’re obviously running out to ships we can shove in there. I second your nomination for Oceania.
Barcelona for a Port visit many years ago and Palma De Majorca wonderful places. Missed Rota went to the Azores. no shore liberty just rubber necking from the catwalks.
Spain occupies that Nation that is connected to Gibraltar that is what they are there for to keep that strait open.
It's place south of the English Channel is also important.
dunno 'bout marine vessels much vis-a-vis DDG's or frigates 'n all......
But I know airships and what they can add or bring to the fleet. Presently, a commercial company in Spain has a contract to build (10) "Airlander" type "hybrid airships" for $600 Million. Two days ago, Lockheed Martin decided to jump into the market with their own moribund 17 year old version of a "hybrid airship" akin to the "Airlander".
(the "Airlander", once known as the Army "LEMV" is a double-butt-two-or-three-blimps-smashed-together, proven failure monstrosity)
The U.S Navy is now looking into using "Airlander" type craft for logistics.
Perhaps Spain's commercial airship experiment will segue into some testing of new naval airships. It would be a good move. Airships (proper rigid hulled craft) have enormous advantages and potential for the Navy.
the arguments in favor of airships as a whole include: unmatched aerial linger capability (weeks) unmatched range (circumnavigate Earth if wanted), unmatched aerial payload potential (100-500 tons), all with extreme fuel efficiency. (Nuclear? sure why not?) The abilities to hover, land/take off without need of runway, and operate amphibiously add to the mix.
There is certainly a role for unmanned craft; but having a pilot on board allows for far greater versatility.
"kind of cheap" is relative. Airships are certainly far less expensive than many other types of aircraft, both to manufacture, and to operate.
Properly designed fully rigid hulled airship.
600’ long x 360’ wide x 150’ depth.
Hull of syntactic aluminum and carbon foam, 3”- 24” thick
The fact no one has made them not wreck when the wind kicks up. We try these every few years and they never stick. Once an future capability. Lasers are closer now than this and lasers are the always just in the future tech.
full stop, exactly my point. For a full century, no one has made anything except blimps or dirigibles. All fail. Stop making glorified BALLOONS and expecting them to do real work. Time to move on from 19th Century nonsense
to 21st Century materials and technologies, and build airships that are strong, fast, and can actually offer real tangible benefits.
The only airship programme that makes sense, unless HAV actually get to build Airlander for commercial customers....(I bet they run out of money first...), is the Thales Alenia Statobus...
As a HALE platform it makes a lot of sense...couple it with a rivals products i.e. Airbus' Zephyr or BAE's Phasa 35 and you could have a very interesting capability...
Long endurance. ASW, in particular. The union of LTA and UAV technology gives you tremendous potential endurance, you're doubling down on the same advantage.
"Presently, a commercial company in Spain has a contract to build (10) "Airlander" type "hybrid airships" for $600 Million. Two days ago, Lockheed Martin decided to jump into the market with their own moribund 17 year old version of a "hybrid airship" akin to the "Airlander".
(the "Airlander", once known as the Army "LEMV" is a double-butt-two-or-three-blimps-smashed-together, proven failure monstrosity)"
That 'Spanish company'.....is in fact Hybrid Air Vehicles from the UK....
And that 'Airlander' type "hybrid airship" is in fact......the actual Airlander...
What is missing from a discussion of China is any effort to view the world from China’s perspective. The fact of the matter is that the post WWII global system depended on American seapower. China trades with the world. They need the sea lanes open, and they relied on our Navy to do it.
Since the peace dividend the United States has neglected the Navy. We can debate the hows and whys, but the inescapable fact is that the US is teetering on the edge of being unable to keep the sea lanes open. Nation-state piracy would cripple the Chinese economy. Does anyone think that American naval shipbuilding is on a pace to keep our navy in a position of keeping the seas free on a world-wide basis?
Ask yourself, what should a responsible Chinese government do in the twilight of pax americana? To me, one inescapable conclusion is to build an equip a navy able to keep open the sea lanes so that trade can flow uninterrupted. When China depends on a nation to keep the oceans free, and that nation appears to be not up to the task, you can't blame China for picking up the reins herself.
Yes, but. We are not a serious competitor. We lack the ability to build warships.
Our old ships are in such poor material condition that they cannot leave the pier. Our new ships are so poorly designed that they too cannot leave the pier. Any rational Chinese leader is going to come to the conclusion that the USN is no longer able to fill her historic role as defender of open navigation.
If only that were their *openly* stated aims. Unfortunately, there has been little of that from their leadership in reference to their naval expansion.
The RAN doesn't have much for facilities in Darwin. It's all for smaller ships with a draft of no more than 6'. Perth or Sydney would allow for better maintenance support.
It's all based on public information. Basing units in Darwin would be like expanding the station in Kodiak, AK. Yes, there's some existing infrastructure, but the equipment for a homeport, Intermediate Maintenance, piers, and personnel services would be overly expensive.
Perth at HMAS Stirling would be best. Improvements are already slatted to start there given AUKUS, however is that base evolving to be a sub-only base? Other location could be to develop Darwin or, Exmouth, which was a US submarine base during WWII and a day's sail closer to monitoring SCS.
Doesn't Australia have a DDG of their own in the form of the Hobart class DDG that is based off the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate. So maybe Australia should start getting another one as well.
Rota is special. I spent two years at NSGA Rota. Had an apartment on the beach. Didn't see a whole lot of it because I was deployed constantly but when I was back it was very nice. A wonderful country. Had a base beater that I drove around. Spent a lot of time in Souda Bay and Sigonella too. Crete was wonderful. Can't believe that was almost 30 years ago. Can't believe that the NSG is gone and VQ-2 as well. Hope the robots are having fun now.
Navy BMD should be to defend maneuver over land and water. Defending fixed positions of a non military nature should fall to a land based asset and someone else's budget.
I'd also point out 2 Navantia ships have sunk from collisions, so perhaps their 48 cell ship pushed the limit a bit. Given theirs is also a 2 main diesel 2 gas turbine plant, I'd say that adds to the case. Those wanting more VLS on Connie may be barking up the wrong tree. Given they need to integrate SM-6 and Tomahawk and are hiding the fact those cells are tactical length, maybe putting those 40 foot container launchers for SM-6 and Tomahawk where NSM is planned would be a good way to get that Congressional mandate done. Guessing they could only fit 8 cells that way vs 16, but NSM ought to be hitching a ride on the MH-60 anyway.
Singapore or, Subic would be best however, those host countries are doing the political balancing act with the CCP. Probably best to keep them as constant port calls and resupply bases rather than home port options.
"She’s a medium sized power. but she is not a rich nation. Her per capita income is $30,103 compared to the USA’s $70,480 - and her national GDP tracks accordingly at only 6% of the USA (fairly close to Russia. Yes, that Russia)."
Not sure I buy that as a valid argument.
"The economy of Spain is a highly developed social market economy. It is the world's fifteenth-largest by nominal GDP and the sixth-largest in Europe."
(From our friends at Wikipedia.)
Here is a slightly different measurement that somewhat jives with yours.
"Spain is therefore one of the world's largest economies and is currently at rank 14. If this is calculated per inhabitant, taking purchasing power parity into account, then Spain ranks 39th in the list of the richest countries. Inflation in Spain in 2021 was around 3.09%."
At the end of the day? Spain needs to up their naval game.
As far as what we send to the West Coast or more southern environs? In my uninformed opinion? Whatever small hulls go WESTPAC need to be a 70% ASW/AAW mix and operate as groups. Our own SSN are going to be a bit busy.
If I were to pick where that spirit lives on I'd say the Korean frigates. Incheons being about like a Gridley or Bagley and the flight II and III more akin to a Gearing. If we thought that way we'd have more ships.
I am not in favor of disbanding NATO but is is time to leave the 1949 mindset of the US doing all the heavy lifting while the rest of Europe rebuilds from WWII. Europe is done rebuilding and is now an an economic and political competitor of the US in many areas. TIme for them to collectively step up.
The question is how many Americans does it take to defend (and at what cost.) approx. 420 million Europeans, with a combined GDP of over $20 Trillion from approx. 150 million Russians (and falling) with a GDP of only approx. $1.7 Trillion (also falling)?
All the US requires in Europe is two Brigade combat teams along with an Expeditionary Air Wing on a unit rotation in Easter Europe. Russia being a continental power not a Maritime one European Naval strength should be able to handle it if they met their treaty obligations.
Spent some time in Rota (also Valencia, Barcelona, Palma etc.). Spain is a pretty good place to be forward homeported. Having said that, suspect your strategic analysis is pretty much spot on. Still, the vastly superior yard and repair work done in Japan versus that in the US might be worth the trade off.
I could see risking an availability or even an ROH in Japan, one ship at a time (the yard work used to be the best on the planet) but not homeporting for exactly the reason Sal mentions. Spent a good bit of time in Rota over the years; Sydney would be an easy sell.
But leave it to the nitwits running things to be 179 degrees out.
Forward deployed ships in foreign ports have been a draw for reenlisting to many sailors. Anything that helps retention/recruiting can't be too bad. My only concern here is that the progressive wonk nitwits in D.C. do something worse than USNS Harvey Milk and rename those DDG's USS Trafalgar and USS Gibraltar.
Oh they'd never name those DDGs that. Neither Gibraltar nor Trafalgar are black or queer.
Solo mire, Capitán Mongo, and there dago again. They are a ham-fisted bunch.
Forward deployed is good but forward deployed where? Australia, Japan, a return to Subic(?}, Singapore makes more sense now than Spain.
Dare I add Cam Ranh Bay to the list?
For China, either Cam Rahn Bay or Da Nang would be like a kick to the cods...one of those diplomat "Let's you and him fight" things.
Dare add it, please.
Hmm....Hard as hell to get out of in a shooting war.
One could say the same thing about Pearl or Diego
I will take Japan over Spain every time (been to both, lived 5 years in Yokosuka), but we’re obviously running out to ships we can shove in there. I second your nomination for Oceania.
4 ships for the BMD mission meant an overly high optempo. Aegis Baseline 9/BMD 5.x helps (and all 6 will be outfitted as such in time).
But a mirror out of Australia (or other allies) would not be a bad thing, either.
Barcelona for a Port visit many years ago and Palma De Majorca wonderful places. Missed Rota went to the Azores. no shore liberty just rubber necking from the catwalks.
Spain occupies that Nation that is connected to Gibraltar that is what they are there for to keep that strait open.
It's place south of the English Channel is also important.
Valencia!
dunno 'bout marine vessels much vis-a-vis DDG's or frigates 'n all......
But I know airships and what they can add or bring to the fleet. Presently, a commercial company in Spain has a contract to build (10) "Airlander" type "hybrid airships" for $600 Million. Two days ago, Lockheed Martin decided to jump into the market with their own moribund 17 year old version of a "hybrid airship" akin to the "Airlander".
(the "Airlander", once known as the Army "LEMV" is a double-butt-two-or-three-blimps-smashed-together, proven failure monstrosity)
The U.S Navy is now looking into using "Airlander" type craft for logistics.
Perhaps Spain's commercial airship experiment will segue into some testing of new naval airships. It would be a good move. Airships (proper rigid hulled craft) have enormous advantages and potential for the Navy.
just sayin.
I'd be skeptical of anything beyond a UAV airship and it needs to be kind of cheap. Someone also needs to show me what its doing another UAV can't.
Discounting "blimps" or "dirigibles".......
the arguments in favor of airships as a whole include: unmatched aerial linger capability (weeks) unmatched range (circumnavigate Earth if wanted), unmatched aerial payload potential (100-500 tons), all with extreme fuel efficiency. (Nuclear? sure why not?) The abilities to hover, land/take off without need of runway, and operate amphibiously add to the mix.
There is certainly a role for unmanned craft; but having a pilot on board allows for far greater versatility.
"kind of cheap" is relative. Airships are certainly far less expensive than many other types of aircraft, both to manufacture, and to operate.
Properly designed fully rigid hulled airship.
600’ long x 360’ wide x 150’ depth.
Hull of syntactic aluminum and carbon foam, 3”- 24” thick
Fully lighter-than-air aerostatic lift only
albeit with lifting-body and/or stealthy shaping
130 kts, deploy direct from CONUS central
Amphibious
Logistics: 300 ton payload, Roll on-roll off
ASW AMW ISR sea level hover, unlimited linger/range
Or?.....mount 32 VLS cells?
@ $250 Million each, and fielding up to (3)/yr for say, ten years.....
What’s not to love?
The fact no one has made them not wreck when the wind kicks up. We try these every few years and they never stick. Once an future capability. Lasers are closer now than this and lasers are the always just in the future tech.
"no one has made them"
full stop, exactly my point. For a full century, no one has made anything except blimps or dirigibles. All fail. Stop making glorified BALLOONS and expecting them to do real work. Time to move on from 19th Century nonsense
to 21st Century materials and technologies, and build airships that are strong, fast, and can actually offer real tangible benefits.
my last mention, this time 'round
The only airship programme that makes sense, unless HAV actually get to build Airlander for commercial customers....(I bet they run out of money first...), is the Thales Alenia Statobus...
https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/drones-air-taxis/thales-stratobus-to-launch-into-stratosphere.html
As a HALE platform it makes a lot of sense...couple it with a rivals products i.e. Airbus' Zephyr or BAE's Phasa 35 and you could have a very interesting capability...
Long endurance. ASW, in particular. The union of LTA and UAV technology gives you tremendous potential endurance, you're doubling down on the same advantage.
Your never ending airship arguments are full of hot air.
"Presently, a commercial company in Spain has a contract to build (10) "Airlander" type "hybrid airships" for $600 Million. Two days ago, Lockheed Martin decided to jump into the market with their own moribund 17 year old version of a "hybrid airship" akin to the "Airlander".
(the "Airlander", once known as the Army "LEMV" is a double-butt-two-or-three-blimps-smashed-together, proven failure monstrosity)"
That 'Spanish company'.....is in fact Hybrid Air Vehicles from the UK....
And that 'Airlander' type "hybrid airship" is in fact......the actual Airlander...
https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/news-and-media/overview/news/air-nostrum-group-becomes-airlander-10-launch-airline-customer/
What is missing from a discussion of China is any effort to view the world from China’s perspective. The fact of the matter is that the post WWII global system depended on American seapower. China trades with the world. They need the sea lanes open, and they relied on our Navy to do it.
Since the peace dividend the United States has neglected the Navy. We can debate the hows and whys, but the inescapable fact is that the US is teetering on the edge of being unable to keep the sea lanes open. Nation-state piracy would cripple the Chinese economy. Does anyone think that American naval shipbuilding is on a pace to keep our navy in a position of keeping the seas free on a world-wide basis?
Ask yourself, what should a responsible Chinese government do in the twilight of pax americana? To me, one inescapable conclusion is to build an equip a navy able to keep open the sea lanes so that trade can flow uninterrupted. When China depends on a nation to keep the oceans free, and that nation appears to be not up to the task, you can't blame China for picking up the reins herself.
Yes we can
Their public statements make it clear that they are challenging the US not supporting anti piracy
Yes, but. We are not a serious competitor. We lack the ability to build warships.
Our old ships are in such poor material condition that they cannot leave the pier. Our new ships are so poorly designed that they too cannot leave the pier. Any rational Chinese leader is going to come to the conclusion that the USN is no longer able to fill her historic role as defender of open navigation.
If only that were their *openly* stated aims. Unfortunately, there has been little of that from their leadership in reference to their naval expansion.
Seems to me that if we need to "keep the sea lanes open" it'd be keeping them open FROM China, not FOR China.
They aren't building carriers to keep down pirates.
Perhaps in Australia at Sydney or Perth?
Selling Darwin might be harder But the location is more strategic
The RAN doesn't have much for facilities in Darwin. It's all for smaller ships with a draft of no more than 6'. Perth or Sydney would allow for better maintenance support.
I defer to experts on naval log stuff. I picked it for location
It's all based on public information. Basing units in Darwin would be like expanding the station in Kodiak, AK. Yes, there's some existing infrastructure, but the equipment for a homeport, Intermediate Maintenance, piers, and personnel services would be overly expensive.
Perth at HMAS Stirling would be best. Improvements are already slatted to start there given AUKUS, however is that base evolving to be a sub-only base? Other location could be to develop Darwin or, Exmouth, which was a US submarine base during WWII and a day's sail closer to monitoring SCS.
Doesn't Australia have a DDG of their own in the form of the Hobart class DDG that is based off the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate. So maybe Australia should start getting another one as well.
Why not start sweet talking Singapore (or the Thais re: Phuket) to really sit on China's jugular?
Better 2 more US hulls than more Spanish ones. US interests in the Med are better served by US ships, not by fickle friends.
What's the old say, if you're not there and involved, you then don't have a say at the discussion table.
Rota is special. I spent two years at NSGA Rota. Had an apartment on the beach. Didn't see a whole lot of it because I was deployed constantly but when I was back it was very nice. A wonderful country. Had a base beater that I drove around. Spent a lot of time in Souda Bay and Sigonella too. Crete was wonderful. Can't believe that was almost 30 years ago. Can't believe that the NSG is gone and VQ-2 as well. Hope the robots are having fun now.
We've probably crossed paths somewhere.
Navy BMD should be to defend maneuver over land and water. Defending fixed positions of a non military nature should fall to a land based asset and someone else's budget.
ADA is not a Navy job. Not sure why the Navy is manning Romania & Poland when plenty of at sea billets go unfilled.
I'd also point out 2 Navantia ships have sunk from collisions, so perhaps their 48 cell ship pushed the limit a bit. Given theirs is also a 2 main diesel 2 gas turbine plant, I'd say that adds to the case. Those wanting more VLS on Connie may be barking up the wrong tree. Given they need to integrate SM-6 and Tomahawk and are hiding the fact those cells are tactical length, maybe putting those 40 foot container launchers for SM-6 and Tomahawk where NSM is planned would be a good way to get that Congressional mandate done. Guessing they could only fit 8 cells that way vs 16, but NSM ought to be hitching a ride on the MH-60 anyway.
Perth, Darwin, maybe somewhere in Japan. Singapore would be hard. Dare I mention India?
Singapore or, Subic would be best however, those host countries are doing the political balancing act with the CCP. Probably best to keep them as constant port calls and resupply bases rather than home port options.
"She’s a medium sized power. but she is not a rich nation. Her per capita income is $30,103 compared to the USA’s $70,480 - and her national GDP tracks accordingly at only 6% of the USA (fairly close to Russia. Yes, that Russia)."
Not sure I buy that as a valid argument.
"The economy of Spain is a highly developed social market economy. It is the world's fifteenth-largest by nominal GDP and the sixth-largest in Europe."
(From our friends at Wikipedia.)
Here is a slightly different measurement that somewhat jives with yours.
"Spain is therefore one of the world's largest economies and is currently at rank 14. If this is calculated per inhabitant, taking purchasing power parity into account, then Spain ranks 39th in the list of the richest countries. Inflation in Spain in 2021 was around 3.09%."
https://www.worlddata.info › spain
Economics in Spain compared to the EU - Worlddata.info
At the end of the day? Spain needs to up their naval game.
As far as what we send to the West Coast or more southern environs? In my uninformed opinion? Whatever small hulls go WESTPAC need to be a 70% ASW/AAW mix and operate as groups. Our own SSN are going to be a bit busy.
To think that we one has 174 FLETCHERs, 58 ALLEN M SUMNERs, and 98 GEARINGs.
If I were to pick where that spirit lives on I'd say the Korean frigates. Incheons being about like a Gridley or Bagley and the flight II and III more akin to a Gearing. If we thought that way we'd have more ships.
Better to buy some of them, than Little Coffin Ships.
The LCS is some primo sea duty.
I am not in favor of disbanding NATO but is is time to leave the 1949 mindset of the US doing all the heavy lifting while the rest of Europe rebuilds from WWII. Europe is done rebuilding and is now an an economic and political competitor of the US in many areas. TIme for them to collectively step up.
The question is how many Americans does it take to defend (and at what cost.) approx. 420 million Europeans, with a combined GDP of over $20 Trillion from approx. 150 million Russians (and falling) with a GDP of only approx. $1.7 Trillion (also falling)?
All the US requires in Europe is two Brigade combat teams along with an Expeditionary Air Wing on a unit rotation in Easter Europe. Russia being a continental power not a Maritime one European Naval strength should be able to handle it if they met their treaty obligations.