USN in General

[Pelican]

THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS LIBERTY IN 1967

The film shown tonight at 2100 on Al Jazeera is well worth viewing - what a disgrace to both Israel and the USA - not the USN.
The ship was repaired in Malta Dockyard prior to returning to the USA, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=187zED7 ... n%20vessel

Also re the attacks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUU08xnVaGM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzvgCLtCG8

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
And much more on the internet.
E.G. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... erty.shtml

[Pelican]

The Day Israel Attacked America

Contents of this link refer:
https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/sp ... 66462.html

[Pelican]

DISASTER IN THE PACIFIC
Sailors Report Enduring Concerns About Navy Readiness and Leadership

Sailors from every active fleet responded to a ProPublica callout, noting a continued lack of training, widespread exhaustion and an acute sense of vulnerability.
The responses by the sailors — consistent, repeated — can be jarring to read:

Are you getting enough sleep? “No.”

Do you feel well-trained to do your job? “No.”

Have there been scenarios in which you or your bosses had concerns about the safety of the ship and crew but felt they could not say no to new tasking? “Yes.”

Please rate your confidence in Navy leadership in the Pentagon. “I am not confident.”

On Feb. 26, ProPublica published a callout aimed primarily at active-duty men and women in the U.S. Navy. We had published two stories about neglect, exhaustion and deadly mishaps in the 7th Fleet, the largest armada anywhere and once the Navy’s crown jewel. Now, we wanted to take a measure of the confidence in the many reforms the Navy had announced in assuring the nation that it was addressing the systemic shortcomings laid bare after two fatal accidents in the Pacific in 2017.

We’ve received dozens of responses from active-duty sailors and their families, but also from people who retired from the Navy, academics and contractors.

Carry on reading at:
https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/ ... leadership
Link from Tim.

[Pelican]

What Would It Take For The U.S. Navy To Beat The Chinese Fleet? 581 Ships, According To One Plan


Forget 355. The U.S. Navy might try to expand from fewer than 300 front-line warships to a whopping 581.

But the bigger number is deceptive. To pay for hundreds of extra vessels under a new proposal, the Navy actually would give up many of its biggest and most powerful ships.

Under the theoretical force structure, the fleet could actually end up weaker than it is today—even though it possesses many more hulls.

Which might not matter. Weighed down by its high cost, the 581-ship fleet could sink before it gets underway.

The Navy for years has vacillated between fleet plans. The uncertainty deepened under Pres. Donald Trump.

The former reality-television star campaigned on a pledge to grow the front-line fleet from around 280 large warships in 2016 to as many as 355 by the 2030s—all in an effort to keep up with China’s own supercharged naval buildup.

Technically, it was the outgoing administration of President Barack Obama that, in late 2016, first proposed a 355-ship fleet. But Trump embraced the idea.

In any event, Trump’s pledge turned out to be a hollow one. Four years into Trump’s term of office, the Navy has just 296 major ships. And it only recently gave up on growing to 355, even as the Chinese fleet has surpassed that number of front-line hulls.

Continues at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... ef72ed107c

[Its capability and effectiveness - strike power - that counts rather than sheer numbers.]

Link from Tim.
Comment [ ] by me.

[designeraccd]

Here is, IMO, a well thought out opinion pc. that effectively compares two different eras, but both with HORRID decision making, from a naval blog.....

"Esper and Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (1975-1977 and 2001-2006) single-handedly instituted the policy of transformationalism whereby he forced the military to attempt to skip ahead a generation of technology development and to reject any weapon programs, developments, or upgrades that he didn’t deem sufficiently transformational. This was, arguably, the beginning of the US shift from a focus on strategy to a focus on technology. In the event, history has passed its judgment and found transformationalism to be a failure – one whose reach has negatively impacted even weapon systems being brought on line today.

The purpose of this post is not to examine Rumsfeld or his failed philosophy but, instead, to examine the current Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, in light of the Rumsfeld experience. Huh? How are the two related? Let’s see.

Let’s start by examining a speech SecDef Esper gave on 16-Sep-2020 at the RAND corporation.(1)

What is Esper’s main focus? He states it, clearly, himself:

I made clear that my highest priority would be the irreversible implementation of the NDS [ed. National Defense Strategy].

This strategy tells us that to be successful, we must follow three lines of effort: first, enhance our lethality and readiness across the force; second, strengthen our alliances and build partnerships; and third, reform the department to align our highest -- our resources with our highest priorities. (1)

Okay, that’s pretty generic but not terribly objectionable. What are his somewhat more specific goals? Esper cites a few goals he refers to as ‘lines of effort’.

Our first line of effort aims to maintain our warfighting advantages and continue outpacing the competition when it comes to lethality and readiness. To modernize our capabilities, we have successfully secured funding for game-changing technologies such as artificial intelligence, hypersonics, directed energy, and 5G networks. We have also made significant progress recapitalizing our strategic nuclear triad.

Our second line of effort builds on our relationships with other Nations, an asymmetric strategic advantage that no rivals can match.

Our third line of effort drives us to reform the department for greater performance and effectively manage our Fourth estate, which includes organizations such as the Defense Logistics Agency.

Um … so … Esper believes we’ll be successful because of AI, networks, relationships, and the Fourth Estate (whatever he means by that since he lumps a non-media group in with it). Where was any mention of combat firepower?

Esper might be just a little overconfident. He says,

I want to make clear that China cannot match the United States when it comes to naval power. Even if we stopped building new ships, it would take the PRC years to close the gap when it comes to our capability on the high seas.

Ship numbers are important, but they don’t tell the whole story.

They do not address the types of ships and the capabilities of the vessels being counted; the skill of the crews that operate them; the prowess of the officers that lead them; or the ways in which we fight and sustain them…just to name a few. (1)

Given the demonstrated collisions, groundings, surrenders, etc. one has to realistically assess the ‘prowess of the officers’ and the ‘skill of the crews’ as being decidedly lacking. That being the case, it calls into question his assessment that ‘China cannot match the United States’ but let’s set that aside and move on.

What does Esper have to say about the Navy and its fleet structure?

That said, to compete in a 21st century high-end fight, we will need a future fleet that optimizes the following operational attributes: first, distributed lethality and awareness; second, survivability in a high intensity conflict; third, adaptability for a complex world; fourth, ability to project power, control the seas and demonstrate presence; and fifth, capability to deliver precision effects at very long ranges. (1)

Again, note that of his five operational attributes, none are directly related to firepower and only one or two are even indirectly related to firepower.

Now, the million dollar question and the heart of this post … how will Esper implement his vision?

This fleet will be made up of more and smaller surface combatants; optionally-manned, unmanned, and autonomous surface and subsurface vehicles; unmanned carrier-based aircraft of all types; a larger and more capable submarine force; and a modern strategic deterrent.

We already knew this but there it is in plain English. He wants to convert the Navy from traditional firepower to small, weak, unmanned vessels and unmanned aircraft. He also mentions a larger submarine force, which is commendable, but I suspect he’s referring to the large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle (LDUUV), which the Navy has already begun the acquisition process for, rather than conventional submarines.

Taking all of the above statements from Esper, we see that he wants to move the Navy towards networks, AI, directed energy, hypersonics, unmanned ships and aircraft, and distributed operations. What’s utterly lacking is firepower!

This is what I want to consider, today. SecDef Esper is pushing the military and the Navy down a path of networks, unmanned, and data as a substitute for firepower. SecDef Rumsfeld pushed the military and the Navy down a path of technological leaps that were simply not reasonable or feasible. Do you get an eerie sense of similarity? Both ignore(d) routine firepower in an attempt to ‘leap ahead’ on the technology development curve to gain an illusory advantage. History has passed judgment on Rumsfeld and transformationalism. Are we seeing the same judgment in the process of being passed on Esper? A decade or so from now, will we look back and deem networks to be a failed effort and rue our lack of firepower due to the focus on data instead of explosives? Is Esper the next Rumsfeld? History will decide but it’s not looking good, at the moment."

The chicomm Adnmirals must be laughing the arses OFF! OTOH the future U$N will be sooo properly PC......... DFO

[Pelican]

Thanks designeraccd, interesting. I am not qualified to comment but what appears to me in recent years is the lack of proper training in various navies resulting in 'accidents' etc. I have often wondered, like others, what the situation would be when disabling of satelites is a reality, perhaps already is, and how it can be counteracted. Ditto being able to disable the enemy's power/electric supply. The PLAs determination to fight back should not be underestimated - remember the Russians when the Germans got too close for comfort? If nothing else their sheer number of humans is on their side.

[Pelican]

White House Hotspot — Admiral, General, and Aides Test Positive for Covid-19

See - http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2020/10/whit ... more-56184

[Pelican]

US Navy eyes new design for next-generation destroyer

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is looking to build a new generation of destroyers from a clean-sheet design, following the model of one of its most successful ship classes, the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, the service’s top officer said Tuesday.

The idea, colloquially referred to in-house as DDG Next, is to build a new hull smaller than the nearly 16,000-ton Zumwalt-class destroyer but still big enough to accommodate a larger missile magazine, Adm. Michael Gilday told a virtual audience at Defense One’s State of the Navy event.

“I don’t want to build a monstrosity. But I need deeper magazines on ships than I have right now,” the chief of naval operations said. “I’m limited with respect to DDG Flight IIIs in terms of what additional stuff we could put on those ships. … So the idea is to come up with the next destroyer, and that would be a new hull. The idea would be to put existing technologies on that hull and update and modernize those capabilities over time.”

Continues with links within at:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ew-design/

[Link from Tim]

[Pelican]

US and UK navies prepare to sign agreement to merge future tech work


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Navy and British Royal Navy are preparing to more closely align their futures in a whole host of warfare areas, the U.S. chief of naval operations announced Tuesday.

The U.S. Navy’s chief of naval operations and First Sea Lord Adm. Tony Radakin intend to “sign a future integrated warfighting statement of intent that sets a cooperative vision for interchangeablty,” CNO Adm. Mike Gilday announced at the virtual Atlantic Future Forum, being held on board the RN’s new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth.

“We will synchronize pioneering capabilities, strengthen operating concepts and focus our collective efforts to deliver combined sea power together. By organizing our cooperation on carrier strike, underwater superiority, navy and marine integration and doubling down on future war fighting like unmanned and artificial intelligence, we will remain on the leading edge of great power competition.”

Continues with links at:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... YHxi3XBzpw

[Pelican]

All 69 Navy Destroyers Are Getting Hypersonic Missiles

The Pentagon will equip all of the U.S. Navy’s destroyers with hypersonic missiles.
The Conventional Prompt Strike weapon missile travels at speeds faster than Mach 5 with a claimed accuracy of 6 inches or less.
The deployment will add more than 100 of the powerful new missiles to the Navy’s inventory, a huge boost in fleet firepower.
See - https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -missiles/
Link from Tim.