I wonder what was cut for the advanced procurement for the frigates? Also, need to look at something to replace the reduction in C-5 capacity. Maybe more EFPs?
(smile) just havin' my morning fun with this. the ability of airship to make that delivery, directly VTOL onto field where materials are needed, without any needs for mid-air refueling, airport runways, or port-piers adds to the fun.
Build one and PROVE it. Considering the winds? And it's 6000nm more or less, is their an airship anywhere that can maintain 110 knots to do it in three days?
Also, how do you defend something in the air moving so slowly?
We need more of everything. Airlift is one of those things. We need tactical airlift somewhere between C-5 & C-17 with ramps. Look at the workout that the existing Airlift fleet is getting moving things around the world supporting Ukraine and Israel.
Face the realities: The T-EPF can lift 600 tons but NOT at full speed and certainly not at long distances. A more realistic scenario is 300 tons at 20 kts..
further 230 tons is pittance when it comes to transport. Might be more than the CV-22 can lift but…
We really need a clean sheet on both platforms. I think the medical variant EPFs are going to go that way clearing that path. In terms of very large airlifter size we could use the bigger box created by the A380 to get a larger airlifter.
I am pretty sure the Navy has completed the EPF type of ship. Note that last four are being converted to carry or be Medical Treatment Facilities. I suspect some will get other mods to be a drone mothership?
My ears pricked up when you mentioned PHNSY Drydock #3. I spent a lot of time there 1987-1990. The lower-than-requested allocation for its upgrade caused me to seek additional info about that. At BuildingIndustryHawaii.com I found a 1 May 2023 article that said $2.8B is in the total contract for repairs and upgrades. I admit that I do not know the current state of the contract. Updates are always welcome.
Up front exposure to the DOD budget process way back in the early 1980s drove home the lesson of “follow the money” when looking for the real priorities
Seems like cutting RegNav CVW would be an opportunity to bring back a CVWR to keep a spare airwing on the cheap. Only this time stand the units up at their Master Jet Bases.
JRB would be good because they can draw reserve aircrew from AA and SWA along with the ground pounders.
However like VF-301 and 302 being on a Master Base allows for more interaction with their RegNav counterparts and 1st degree AIMD backshop support is right there as well.
I can see stationing reserve squadrons at both the Master Bases and at Reserve Bases (Fort Worth and New Orleans) as having merit. An issue is how consolidated the DoD has gotten. Are we the US Navy or Virginia and California's Navy?
I'd love to keep some a reserve airwing in the heartland. Unfortunately the reality is we can't afford to do so. The issues with SelRes airlift, standing up the facilities, training, etc. just makes it a non-starter in the current environment.
And frankly, I'd rather see the pork spending going to payoff the powers that be in places where we could open new USN owned shipyards.
Sure, the basic facilities are there. How about test cell compatability? Tooling? Test benches. Avionics test gear? The vast majority of that stuff is not common to USAF. We're now duplicating IMRL at the I-Level that is an unnecessary cost.
There is equipment I've seen in passing for dealing with small UAS with out munitions. I'm not sure how well it would work against a determined swarm...
Isnt the total number of airwings misleading anyways?? I thought i read that one "airwing" flys F-16s and other non-CVN aircraft, and another is much the same. So how many airwings are actually deployable with pilots, Navy combat aircraft, fully manned maintenance crew, etc???
The count here is for CVW (tailhook) wings. But, otherwise you are correct. And once you start getting into administrative wings there's even more. There's test wings, helo wings, patrol wings, etc.
Considering combat attrition, as well as peacetime deployments getting longer and harder on equipment and personnel alike, it seems like 10 active (one always in RCOH) CVNs need about 15 fully staffed and equipped (90-ish planes like the old days, not the current neutered ) airwings. But that's just me...
There type wings that own the FRS and supply the CAGs with squadrons when deployed. When not deployed the squadrons revert back to the Type Wing. Then there are Training wings and various command and control wings that own the operational aspects. Only the Japan based CAG maintains fully operational control of their deployed squadrons. It’s a dogs breakfast but it works. And works well. The NDAA cuts the carrier air wings to 9. Stupid mistake.
...there’s not a single thing we cannot do as a nation... - Joe Biden
The DOD budget merely reflects their thinking, but it is not nearly enough to fulfill their wishes. Indeed, it is difficult to see how America can maintain a force of 1.3 million active duty personnel given our annual budget (1.7 TRILLION) and trade (945 BILLION) deficits. The events of the last year make parts of the 2022 NSS seem silly.
Let's accentuate the positive. Isn't "building Arleigh Burke’s until the crack of doom," the very purpose of this blog. Evolution, not transformation, is the goal.
The hull is sound, the propulsion system is getting steadily more reliable, and the electronics can be the newest and best we have. Seems like a win.
We built tthe Aegis Combat System from the get-go to be evolved. That is why so much of the function was in computer programs. Using the Spruance hull for the basis of the cruisers was found to be a long-life weak point, but the NAVARCHs designed that Arleigh Burke hull to be tough as nails. That ship is a Swiss Army Knife---it does it all, and does it well. If Navy can suppress the anti-Aegis mafia and keep evolving them, they will be useful until the "crack of doom."
I would say the road to Block VIII AB is both good and bad. Evolution is good as long as you acknowledge that you are embraciing the limitations of the form factor. Clearly Block III LA-class were more capable than Block I's. The last one was laid down the same year as the first Seawolf and less than 10 years before the first VA. Different hull forms and power plants offer new opportunities and different limitations. Same for the F-18 which, when concieved ,was an air superiority platform first and foremost, with ground attack being way down the list. Sure, they've added a second seat, upgraded electronics, bolstered the airframe but it will never be a bomb truck. Even the Super Hornet upgrade has a bomb load capacity only two-thirds that of an A-6E and probably half of what would have been and A-6F Intruder II. Maybe we don't need bomb trucks anymore. I don't know.
I too look forward to the AB Block VIII's and all the good things that will come. I also believe that we should at least be looking into a blank sheet of paper destroyer design. If for no other reason in that it is a good place to challenge assumptions.
Id still cast my vote to do away with the multipurpose, do-everything ship. Build AAW and ASW ships. They could each be smaller and cheaper, and focused in hardware and training. AAW ships dont need hangars or helos. Just a Tico-sized VLS count, and maybe some stealth shaping to make them more survivable. ASW ships dont need Aegis. Three choppers, a dome, and towed array. If we think we need ASuW, resurrect the MCLWG, and give me two twin mounts, about 60 VLS cells, and every antiship missile worth carrying. They could even double as NGFS if its ever needed again.
I hear how successful the ABs are, but I think we dropped the ball with the Connies not being cheap ASW-focused ships. I think its past time to look at abandoning multipurpose for focused and plentiful.
Unless we speed up the lines and start building 4-5 Burkes a year...
Speed up the Burkes is probably the best option. Focused vessels is a good idea, IF you're doing everything but nukes fighting; but we're not currently doing that. If you're not, and having recruiting issues, 315 on a fully manned Burke is better than 400 people on 2 Burke-lites. Especially if the Burke-lites have to travel together during a HIC.
That's what keeps the ASW Constellations from happening; what if long-range strike aircraft launch a dozen ASCMs at a resupply convoy? Could a Constellation with just point defense stop them?
I would say what the Navy really needs is a patrol/missile boat for presence, ISR, SAR, etc. Couple NSMs, SeaRAM, a couple of .50s.
Sure...good points. The manning might be problematic, but since this is my fantasy navy, where we build what I want, I'd surely do a top to bottom rethink, and the shore billet count would drop drastically, along with the number of flags and staffs!! Id find the sailors!
As far as ASW ships needing AAW, you build a battle group, SAG, convoy, or whatever with as many of each ship type as needed for the mission and threat level. I think if you could build each ship for 2/3 the price of a multipurpose, itd be a win. The AAW would be spendier, but the ASW ship could be closer to 50% the cost. Of course theres more crew and maintenance costs for two ships, but now we dont lose an AAW asset trying to play tag with a sub, and we have two ships that can be in different places doing different things at the same time. I see the AAW ship as definitely a cruiser in power/size but the ASW/ASuW ships can get back closer to their WWII DD sized predecessors.
Sure... And im not opposed to secondary capabilities as long as it doesnt increase the ships size and cost significantly, or reduce its ability to be exquisite at its primary. I keep bringing up the old MCLWG because I think we dropped the ball by not pursuing it. 8in really is a sweet spot for ordnance weight vs mount size/weight, and puts the 5in to shame...
I think we have seen that SM-2 range comes in handy even in a tight spot. I'd been in love with an ESSM ship, but we probably need hat extra layer.
We are missing the boat. he Overlord/MUSV hull, or the lengthened version of the same should be our patrol/missile craft and manned. Really, we could tailor several other variants to enhance the fleet forward capability and numbers quickly.
Think of the hull and the propulsion systems as multipurpose, and what you put in this hole in the water as where the focus should be. An ASW Burke and a AAW Burke.
The LCS debacle has shown that issues created when we design from scratch; while the Burkes just keep getting better.
Well yes...and no... If we're building an ASW Burke, whys it so big? Doesnt need to be!! An AAW only Burke doesn't need helo facilities...so why add them?. And ideally an ASW ship will have all the quieting and powertrain isolation we can give it, but its not as needed on the AAW ship. Thats why I think ships should be designed around a single purpose and absolutely optimized for it. Anything less is a compromise and ...well...
(1) Forty years ago, air assets were the best way the surface navy had to prosecute ASW. I don't think things have changed since then, except we have less air assets. Every ship should have the capability to land and refuel an ASW helo.
(2) Surface ships are LOUD! Even our quietest ships are LOUD. The subs know where we are. They always know where we are. We cannot make a surface ship quiet enough to avoid detection by a sub. See point number 1.
While helo ASW is still "the way", I dont think every ship needs helo facilities. Its a lot of ship length, plus the fueling facilities, the crew to man them etc...means more berthing, more galley and stores space etc. Its a snowball. Expanded facilities on an ASW ship for more helos means they aren't needed on others. The amount of "nice to haves" that created our multibillion dollar multipurpose ships is excessive and unnecessasary.
When I talk about ship quieting, its the same as stealth. Nothing is totally invisible or inaudible. But the closer you can make it the better. So while a sub can detect our ships, sure, making it harder, and at a more favorable range is obviously the point. I never suggested making the ships undetectable LOL.
Are the three Virginia SSNs to Oz new production or retirees? If new construction, is that in addition to USN scheduled numbers, or will it push back delivery of 3 USN boats?
Excellent question. AUKUS Pillar 1 currently envisions the 2032 and 2035 transfers to come from the VA fleet with the 2038 to come from new construction. Subsequent acquisitions will all be new construction of a notional AUKUS design SSN. If you missed last week's DOD press release or the RAN Thanksgiving week releases - here you go.
The part about the books for the DOD School system is cringe worthy. Those used to be the best we had. Based upon what I see coming out of "Higher" education these days I suppose it's no surprise. I also suspect that, like pretty much al of the woke crap, it's being driven by the very top.
"when you nominate unelectable candidates for very competitive Senate seats" - I saw the signage in PA. Oz had the worst graphic design team. Just utterly incompetent. No one wins an election by a yard sign, but candidates with confusing, illegible, and difficult signage never win.
From my understanding the Navy only has 9 active carrier air wings anyway.
So I wonder what the reduction to 9 carrier wings mean in practice. Are they just legalising what has already happened? Kinda like what happened with the reduction in aircraft carriers after the enterprise was decommissioned, the navy went down to 10 carriers even though legally they were meant to have minimum of 11.
Just a gut feeling guess, but I think the Navy is appeasing the Corps with another amphib, while quietly trying to ignore and eventually kill the LAW... Because it and the whole EABO thing that Berger birthed is just absurd, and even the navy brass can see it. Theyre just waiting for the Berger devotees to fade away... Just my guess...
I wonder what was cut for the advanced procurement for the frigates? Also, need to look at something to replace the reduction in C-5 capacity. Maybe more EFPs?
Or the money may have been shuffled over to another service, or just dropped on the cutting room floor, as they say.
delivery San Francisco to Manilla:
C-5 135 tons, 12 hours
EFP 600 tons, 10 days
600' Airship 230 tons, 3 days
(smile) just havin' my morning fun with this. the ability of airship to make that delivery, directly VTOL onto field where materials are needed, without any needs for mid-air refueling, airport runways, or port-piers adds to the fun.
Build one and PROVE it. Considering the winds? And it's 6000nm more or less, is their an airship anywhere that can maintain 110 knots to do it in three days?
Also, how do you defend something in the air moving so slowly?
alas, I haven't the money to build one, even a little prototype. (yet.....but hope springs eternal, dontcha know!)
winds? ah, Sir, you and I have already been here about that. Yes, I do consider winds.
speed? no not until I do build one. Till then, one is sadly stuck with typical blimps/dirigible types, which max out at about 65 kts.
defend? give it means to defend itself. (as well as......shape it, build it, coat it, and run it....stealthily, just as B-2, which is "defenseless")
Everything is simple for the man who doesn't have to do it...
I expect that is true. I have to admit that there have been a few times when I have wished that I did NOT have to do this; but no one else will.
So far, it's been a long, hurtful, empty 43 year-old fight. But I persevere.
We need more of everything. Airlift is one of those things. We need tactical airlift somewhere between C-5 & C-17 with ramps. Look at the workout that the existing Airlift fleet is getting moving things around the world supporting Ukraine and Israel.
Face the realities: The T-EPF can lift 600 tons but NOT at full speed and certainly not at long distances. A more realistic scenario is 300 tons at 20 kts..
further 230 tons is pittance when it comes to transport. Might be more than the CV-22 can lift but…
We really need a clean sheet on both platforms. I think the medical variant EPFs are going to go that way clearing that path. In terms of very large airlifter size we could use the bigger box created by the A380 to get a larger airlifter.
I am pretty sure the Navy has completed the EPF type of ship. Note that last four are being converted to carry or be Medical Treatment Facilities. I suspect some will get other mods to be a drone mothership?
3 will be EPF flight II and 3 will be medical ships.
Two Flight II to lift E-MTF. I didn't think their were 3 EMS?
I'm going from Austal's 2023 annual report and the Wiki article on the EPF.
My ears pricked up when you mentioned PHNSY Drydock #3. I spent a lot of time there 1987-1990. The lower-than-requested allocation for its upgrade caused me to seek additional info about that. At BuildingIndustryHawaii.com I found a 1 May 2023 article that said $2.8B is in the total contract for repairs and upgrades. I admit that I do not know the current state of the contract. Updates are always welcome.
It seems myopic to not be restoring the Red Hill capacity and neglecting ship repair facilities in Hawaii.
EA-37B? LOL.
The only CC ever destroyed was my ears.
Up front exposure to the DOD budget process way back in the early 1980s drove home the lesson of “follow the money” when looking for the real priorities
Seems like cutting RegNav CVW would be an opportunity to bring back a CVWR to keep a spare airwing on the cheap. Only this time stand the units up at their Master Jet Bases.
There’s space at NAS JRB Fort Worth, and it’s right next to the plant for the F-35.
For what it’s worth, both Reserve Tomcat Squadrons on the West Coast were at Miramar.
Hello Chief, (I liked writing that.)
JRB would be good because they can draw reserve aircrew from AA and SWA along with the ground pounders.
However like VF-301 and 302 being on a Master Base allows for more interaction with their RegNav counterparts and 1st degree AIMD backshop support is right there as well.
I can see stationing reserve squadrons at both the Master Bases and at Reserve Bases (Fort Worth and New Orleans) as having merit. An issue is how consolidated the DoD has gotten. Are we the US Navy or Virginia and California's Navy?
I'd love to keep some a reserve airwing in the heartland. Unfortunately the reality is we can't afford to do so. The issues with SelRes airlift, standing up the facilities, training, etc. just makes it a non-starter in the current environment.
And frankly, I'd rather see the pork spending going to payoff the powers that be in places where we could open new USN owned shipyards.
So, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, or Wisconsin?
Youngstown Air Reserve Station could easily support a NavAir contingent....
Sure, the basic facilities are there. How about test cell compatability? Tooling? Test benches. Avionics test gear? The vast majority of that stuff is not common to USAF. We're now duplicating IMRL at the I-Level that is an unnecessary cost.
Have we also given any thought to getting something away from the coasts so they might not be able to be hit by drones launched from commercial ships?
Would love to. It'd be easier and cheaper to defend them then move them at this point.
There is equipment I've seen in passing for dealing with small UAS with out munitions. I'm not sure how well it would work against a determined swarm...
Isnt the total number of airwings misleading anyways?? I thought i read that one "airwing" flys F-16s and other non-CVN aircraft, and another is much the same. So how many airwings are actually deployable with pilots, Navy combat aircraft, fully manned maintenance crew, etc???
The count here is for CVW (tailhook) wings. But, otherwise you are correct. And once you start getting into administrative wings there's even more. There's test wings, helo wings, patrol wings, etc.
Considering combat attrition, as well as peacetime deployments getting longer and harder on equipment and personnel alike, it seems like 10 active (one always in RCOH) CVNs need about 15 fully staffed and equipped (90-ish planes like the old days, not the current neutered ) airwings. But that's just me...
There type wings that own the FRS and supply the CAGs with squadrons when deployed. When not deployed the squadrons revert back to the Type Wing. Then there are Training wings and various command and control wings that own the operational aspects. Only the Japan based CAG maintains fully operational control of their deployed squadrons. It’s a dogs breakfast but it works. And works well. The NDAA cuts the carrier air wings to 9. Stupid mistake.
The underlying problem is the administration's goals as outlined in the NSS whereby America will be all things to all people around the world.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf
...there’s not a single thing we cannot do as a nation... - Joe Biden
The DOD budget merely reflects their thinking, but it is not nearly enough to fulfill their wishes. Indeed, it is difficult to see how America can maintain a force of 1.3 million active duty personnel given our annual budget (1.7 TRILLION) and trade (945 BILLION) deficits. The events of the last year make parts of the 2022 NSS seem silly.
CBDR to Niagara.
CBDR to Niagara? Not to worry, Pete. I hear they are designing a proper barrel for the ride.
CBDR?
Constant bearing, decreasing range is a guess.
Right. Not good.
Thank you.
There are so many maritime metaphors that can be applied to this administration. Red over red....
Former enlisted Airedale, occasionally require translation services for black shoe speak.
Red Over Red the Captain is Dead meaning the Vessel is not Under Command.
Today’s 4-stars and politicians: say grandiose empty tripe, reap accolades, retire rich, incur no consequences
9 air wings. The actual fuck?
MRT's Haircut: Maybe reducing the denominator makes flight readiness look better, and then, someone gets a promotion.
There better be one less admiral slot available.
Ha! E-4 Mafia and JOPO could take lessons from the FOGO group.
That’s a second order effect for sure.
Gonna be hard to build pilots and super hornets in wartime.
Good thing we're not expecting to lose massive amounts of planes and pilots defending Taiwan...(breathes deeply into paper bag)
Uh Skipper, you might want to edit that, "you show me what you spend your money one."
Let's accentuate the positive. Isn't "building Arleigh Burke’s until the crack of doom," the very purpose of this blog. Evolution, not transformation, is the goal.
The hull is sound, the propulsion system is getting steadily more reliable, and the electronics can be the newest and best we have. Seems like a win.
Great platform. I was on one in the 1990s. Each one is an improvement over the previous hull number.
We could certainly work out a cheaper variant allowing DDGX to be more of an actual cruiser.
We built tthe Aegis Combat System from the get-go to be evolved. That is why so much of the function was in computer programs. Using the Spruance hull for the basis of the cruisers was found to be a long-life weak point, but the NAVARCHs designed that Arleigh Burke hull to be tough as nails. That ship is a Swiss Army Knife---it does it all, and does it well. If Navy can suppress the anti-Aegis mafia and keep evolving them, they will be useful until the "crack of doom."
I would say the road to Block VIII AB is both good and bad. Evolution is good as long as you acknowledge that you are embraciing the limitations of the form factor. Clearly Block III LA-class were more capable than Block I's. The last one was laid down the same year as the first Seawolf and less than 10 years before the first VA. Different hull forms and power plants offer new opportunities and different limitations. Same for the F-18 which, when concieved ,was an air superiority platform first and foremost, with ground attack being way down the list. Sure, they've added a second seat, upgraded electronics, bolstered the airframe but it will never be a bomb truck. Even the Super Hornet upgrade has a bomb load capacity only two-thirds that of an A-6E and probably half of what would have been and A-6F Intruder II. Maybe we don't need bomb trucks anymore. I don't know.
I too look forward to the AB Block VIII's and all the good things that will come. I also believe that we should at least be looking into a blank sheet of paper destroyer design. If for no other reason in that it is a good place to challenge assumptions.
Id still cast my vote to do away with the multipurpose, do-everything ship. Build AAW and ASW ships. They could each be smaller and cheaper, and focused in hardware and training. AAW ships dont need hangars or helos. Just a Tico-sized VLS count, and maybe some stealth shaping to make them more survivable. ASW ships dont need Aegis. Three choppers, a dome, and towed array. If we think we need ASuW, resurrect the MCLWG, and give me two twin mounts, about 60 VLS cells, and every antiship missile worth carrying. They could even double as NGFS if its ever needed again.
I hear how successful the ABs are, but I think we dropped the ball with the Connies not being cheap ASW-focused ships. I think its past time to look at abandoning multipurpose for focused and plentiful.
Unless we speed up the lines and start building 4-5 Burkes a year...
Speed up the Burkes is probably the best option. Focused vessels is a good idea, IF you're doing everything but nukes fighting; but we're not currently doing that. If you're not, and having recruiting issues, 315 on a fully manned Burke is better than 400 people on 2 Burke-lites. Especially if the Burke-lites have to travel together during a HIC.
That's what keeps the ASW Constellations from happening; what if long-range strike aircraft launch a dozen ASCMs at a resupply convoy? Could a Constellation with just point defense stop them?
I would say what the Navy really needs is a patrol/missile boat for presence, ISR, SAR, etc. Couple NSMs, SeaRAM, a couple of .50s.
Sure...good points. The manning might be problematic, but since this is my fantasy navy, where we build what I want, I'd surely do a top to bottom rethink, and the shore billet count would drop drastically, along with the number of flags and staffs!! Id find the sailors!
As far as ASW ships needing AAW, you build a battle group, SAG, convoy, or whatever with as many of each ship type as needed for the mission and threat level. I think if you could build each ship for 2/3 the price of a multipurpose, itd be a win. The AAW would be spendier, but the ASW ship could be closer to 50% the cost. Of course theres more crew and maintenance costs for two ships, but now we dont lose an AAW asset trying to play tag with a sub, and we have two ships that can be in different places doing different things at the same time. I see the AAW ship as definitely a cruiser in power/size but the ASW/ASuW ships can get back closer to their WWII DD sized predecessors.
With a Mk. 54 and NSM quad launchers plus SM-6, both could have a secondary ASuW mission.
Sure... And im not opposed to secondary capabilities as long as it doesnt increase the ships size and cost significantly, or reduce its ability to be exquisite at its primary. I keep bringing up the old MCLWG because I think we dropped the ball by not pursuing it. 8in really is a sweet spot for ordnance weight vs mount size/weight, and puts the 5in to shame...
I think we have seen that SM-2 range comes in handy even in a tight spot. I'd been in love with an ESSM ship, but we probably need hat extra layer.
We are missing the boat. he Overlord/MUSV hull, or the lengthened version of the same should be our patrol/missile craft and manned. Really, we could tailor several other variants to enhance the fleet forward capability and numbers quickly.
Think of the hull and the propulsion systems as multipurpose, and what you put in this hole in the water as where the focus should be. An ASW Burke and a AAW Burke.
The LCS debacle has shown that issues created when we design from scratch; while the Burkes just keep getting better.
Well yes...and no... If we're building an ASW Burke, whys it so big? Doesnt need to be!! An AAW only Burke doesn't need helo facilities...so why add them?. And ideally an ASW ship will have all the quieting and powertrain isolation we can give it, but its not as needed on the AAW ship. Thats why I think ships should be designed around a single purpose and absolutely optimized for it. Anything less is a compromise and ...well...
Less.
I'm going to say two things.
(1) Forty years ago, air assets were the best way the surface navy had to prosecute ASW. I don't think things have changed since then, except we have less air assets. Every ship should have the capability to land and refuel an ASW helo.
(2) Surface ships are LOUD! Even our quietest ships are LOUD. The subs know where we are. They always know where we are. We cannot make a surface ship quiet enough to avoid detection by a sub. See point number 1.
While helo ASW is still "the way", I dont think every ship needs helo facilities. Its a lot of ship length, plus the fueling facilities, the crew to man them etc...means more berthing, more galley and stores space etc. Its a snowball. Expanded facilities on an ASW ship for more helos means they aren't needed on others. The amount of "nice to haves" that created our multibillion dollar multipurpose ships is excessive and unnecessasary.
When I talk about ship quieting, its the same as stealth. Nothing is totally invisible or inaudible. But the closer you can make it the better. So while a sub can detect our ships, sure, making it harder, and at a more favorable range is obviously the point. I never suggested making the ships undetectable LOL.
Exactly!
Are the three Virginia SSNs to Oz new production or retirees? If new construction, is that in addition to USN scheduled numbers, or will it push back delivery of 3 USN boats?
Excellent question. AUKUS Pillar 1 currently envisions the 2032 and 2035 transfers to come from the VA fleet with the 2038 to come from new construction. Subsequent acquisitions will all be new construction of a notional AUKUS design SSN. If you missed last week's DOD press release or the RAN Thanksgiving week releases - here you go.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3604511/aukus-defense-ministers-meeting-joint-statement/
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9843/CBP-9843.pdf
The part about the books for the DOD School system is cringe worthy. Those used to be the best we had. Based upon what I see coming out of "Higher" education these days I suppose it's no surprise. I also suspect that, like pretty much al of the woke crap, it's being driven by the very top.
"when you nominate unelectable candidates for very competitive Senate seats" - I saw the signage in PA. Oz had the worst graphic design team. Just utterly incompetent. No one wins an election by a yard sign, but candidates with confusing, illegible, and difficult signage never win.
So the GOP has a mote in its eye, meanwhile the Dems have a beam in their’s
Electoral science is not about the size of the mote, it's about the motion of the devotion.
Keep an eye on the MILCON/FH amounts for FY24. That line is shaping up to be another political grift slush fund.
From my understanding the Navy only has 9 active carrier air wings anyway.
So I wonder what the reduction to 9 carrier wings mean in practice. Are they just legalising what has already happened? Kinda like what happened with the reduction in aircraft carriers after the enterprise was decommissioned, the navy went down to 10 carriers even though legally they were meant to have minimum of 11.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Why do we need another amphib warship which costs over $1.5 billion bucks?
Why is the Navy keeping rather then replacing those tired, old LSDs?
Why hasn't the number of T-AO 205 going UP, to service the ships in DMO?
Just a gut feeling guess, but I think the Navy is appeasing the Corps with another amphib, while quietly trying to ignore and eventually kill the LAW... Because it and the whole EABO thing that Berger birthed is just absurd, and even the navy brass can see it. Theyre just waiting for the Berger devotees to fade away... Just my guess...
The LSM formerly called LAW is supposedly not associated with the older amphibs.
Yeah the LAW is meant to support the EABO concept where the Marines go to islands and hide while hunting submarines and surface ships....
( LOL )