Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[PhrogPhlyer]

To put this in aviator terms... the F-35C is behind, so why don't we just buy a bunch of Piper M500s?

However, when a need exists, why not fill it economically?
At one point in the '80s, the US military evaluated the BD-5J, jokingly the F-0.5 .
Imagine 100 of these, each with 1 100lb bomb. Nearly impossible to detect.
It does give room for some tactical thought.

And today, the modified BD-5J may fill some current needs.

Jamex is born

www.smart-1.us

SMART-1's support combined red flag

www.smart-1.us

SMART-1 flies for the naval air warfare center

www.smart-1.us

 

[Flash]

By that logic, we would still have nuclear-powered cruisers. Do the submarines in the fleet have to be equally flexible across the fleet? If that is so, then we wouldn't have both SSBNs and SSNs. One can argue flexibility in a mix of DE and nuke. How flexible is a boat that was never built for lack of funds, or under construction for 6 years plus? . A modern DE sub is not valueless in the 21st century. Given budget constraints and threat horizons the question isn't which option is better in absolutes, but which mix brings the best value. We simply can't afford what we want, both in terms of money and time.

There is not a drastic difference in capabilities between a CGN and a CG, but there is a HUGE difference in capability between an SSN and an SS(K). And there is frankly not a big enough difference in mission between an SSK and an SSN, while there is a massive difference in mission between an SSN and an SSBN.

Look to France and the UK if you like. They did not go to nuke subs solely for flexibility. Moreover both have operated DE subs along with nukes in their submarine fleet.

They went nuke only because of their much greater capability than diesel boats. And the Brits ceased operating diesel boats over 30 years ago and 25 years ago for the French.

The article proposed buying the submarines from Japan off of a hot production line so as to not interfere with our current production in the US.

This is where the bright idea fairy comes in with a proposal that makes little sense in the real world when looked at with any real scrutiny. So many hurdles would have to be overcome from industrial capacity, I doubt Japan could make a substantial number of additional subs than they are making now, to systems/design/engineering modifications needed to make them US submarines. One only needs to look at the Constellation-class to see how messy it can be to adapt a foreign design to US specs/requirements, in non-fairy land we ain't taking a Japanese-spec sub into US service no matter how good it may be.

That is a recurring problem with this 'bright idea fairy' articles, once you dig down into the details it gets far messier and murkier than the authors almost always assume they will be.

 

[Griz882]

However, when a need exists, why not fill it economically?
At one point in the '80s, the US military evaluated the BD-5J, jokingly the F-0.5 .
Imagine 100 of these, each with 1 100lb bomb. Nearly impossible to detect.
It does give room for some tactical thought.

And today, the modified BD-5J may fill some current needs.

Jamex is born

www.smart-1.us

SMART-1's support combined red flag

www.smart-1.us

SMART-1 flies for the naval air warfare center

www.smart-1.us

I know a pilot in Maryland that had a contract with the navy to use his BD-5 for cruise missile training. Basically he’d get a vector, drop down low and fly as fast as possible at some surface ship so they could respond to the simulated attack.

 

[mmx1]

I know a pilot in Maryland that had a contract with the navy to use his BD-5 for cruise missile training. Basically he’d get a vector, drop down low and fly as fast as possible at some surface ship so they could respond to the simulated attack.

Wild. Just confirm again you have R2D2 on simulate, right?

 

[Griz882]

Wild. Just confirm again you have R2D2 on simulate, right?

Maybe…this was (is) the same guy who owned and flew a Harrier, Art Nalls.

 

[Spekkio]

Aiding in sea control/sea denial in a future peer fight in the littorals. For example, find/fix enemy surface ships and submarines, and securely relay targeting data. Also, port security and maritime domain awareness.

Obviously, the longer endurance/range, the more useful it would be.

Ok, for INT against surface assets, that would be a very expensive and redundant capability with unmanned space platforms, assuming that you could solve the stealth issues that @Gatordev pointed out.

As we frequently say today "nobody needs pictures of surface ships" (unless you're doing a CK).

We are very, very, very far away from UUVs being able to run search patterns, let alone detect / track / classify other submarines.

 

[Spekkio]

One only needs to look at the Constellation-class to see how messy it can be to adapt a foreign design to US specs/requirements, in non-fairy land we ain't taking a Japanese-spec sub into US service no matter how good it may be.

Nothing could possibly go wrong by building a submarine to metric specifications and turning it over to a country that does everything in English units.

 

[taxi1]

Nothing could possibly go wrong by building a submarine to metric specifications and turning it over to a country that does everything in English units.

Trying to think…besides bouncing a NASA probe off of mars, what are some other examples?

 

[Mos]

Shifting gears, we've talked about Harvey Milk in this forum before, and I wasn't a fan of the decision to name this ship after him, but this seems like yet another example of poorly chosen battles.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5330963-navy-ships-rename-harvey-milk/

 

[Griz882]

Shifting gears, we've talked about Harvey Milk in this forum before, and I wasn't a fan of the decision to name this ship after him, but this seems like yet another example of poorly chosen battles.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5330963-navy-ships-rename-harvey-milk/

It’s bad luck to rename a ship.

 

[Brett327]

Shifting gears, we've talked about Harvey Milk in this forum before, and I wasn't a fan of the decision to name this ship after him, but this seems like yet another example of poorly chosen battles.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5330963-navy-ships-rename-harvey-milk/

Agree on all points. To make thin announcement as Pride gets underway is just evidence that it’s being done to be overt assholes. That seems to be the one core competency that MAGA brings to the table.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Didn’t like the renaming commission before, but that was at least something Congress made DOD do. This is just opening the flood gates to so much future dumbassery.

 

[wink]

There is not a drastic difference in capabilities between a CGN and a CG, but there is a HUGE difference in capability between an SSN and an SS(K). And there is frankly not a big enough difference in mission between an SSK and an SSN, while there is a massive difference in mission between an SSN and an SSBN.



They went nuke only because of their much greater capability than diesel boats. And the Brits ceased operating diesel boats over 30 years ago and 25 years ago for the French.



This is where the bright idea fairy comes in with a proposal that makes little sense in the real world when looked at with any real scrutiny. So many hurdles would have to be overcome from industrial capacity, I doubt Japan could make a substantial number of additional subs than they are making now, to systems/design/engineering modifications needed to make them US submarines. One only needs to look at the Constellation-class to see how messy it can be to adapt a foreign design to US specs/requirements, in non-fairy land we ain't taking a Japanese-spec sub into US service no matter how good it may be.

That is a recurring problem with this 'bright idea fairy' articles, once you dig down into the details it gets far messier and murkier than the authors almost always assume they will be.

Soo, guessing you don't like the bright idea of resurrecting the S-3 😆

 

[Hair Warrior]

Speaking of buying warships from metric system countries, what do we think of the Constellation-class FFG? Will it become another LCS, or will it be an Arleigh Burke fleet success?

 

[BigRed389]

Speaking of buying warships from metric system countries, what do we think of the Constellation-class FFG? Will it become another LCS, or will it be an Arleigh Burke fleet success?

It’ll work out given enough time.

LCS had/has more fundamental issues between the platform speed requirement and mission module immaturity.

FFG sounds more like a simple unwillingness to adopt European ship standards. Unfortunately makes us look really dumb because it is way more design work (rework) than advertised, but the basic concept is entirely built around proven systems.