-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
I read the first page and this is my favorite part "the ships nuclear reactor main boiler", their is no reason to read any further, if this guy can't take the time to get basic information correct how much other inaccurate information is in the article?
Looks like the issues with Zumwalt's advanced 155mm guns remain unsolved. Whether they will be replaced with an older model weapon, a revolutionary system such as rail gun or just go without them remains to be seen.
http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20181127-zumwalt.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/des...ack-ammo-and-navy-may-just-scrap-them-2018-11
http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20181127-zumwalt.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/des...ack-ammo-and-navy-may-just-scrap-them-2018-11
On a positive note, we're only building three of these...
Not particularly specific to either of Randy's two most recent article shares, but in general: I find more and more that the people who write the most, and are the most critical of these programs (i.e., JSF, LCS, DDG1000) typically know the least about the program and, moreover, don't really understand how it often takes incremental steps to develop and mature truly game changing technologies.
Now, there's plenty to be said about the fiscal mismanagement of the programs, LCS and JSF come to mind, but DoD bending over for industry is somewhat separate conversation from whether or not the programs/platforms actually provide value and utility to the end user(s).
Now, there's plenty to be said about the fiscal mismanagement of the programs, LCS and JSF come to mind, but DoD bending over for industry is somewhat separate conversation from whether or not the programs/platforms actually provide value and utility to the end user(s).
Problems with complex weapons systems are nothing new but the cottage industry of "industry experts" who bemoan acquisition conduct for click bait and just to be heard seems to be a new phenomenon. Most of these so-called experts do nothing but complain and don't offer solutions just criticism of the man in the arena.
I wonder how the B-29 and the Battle of Kansas would play these days?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kansas
See: anything by Jerry Hendrix.
That is the bigger concern. Everything seemingly well over budget and behind schedule does not bode well for the future. Spending $22.5 billion for 3 cruisers? Yes, nearly $10 billion was R&D but still, $4+ billion per hull? Likewise the Ford class was so far over budget even the late Senator McCain was asking pointed questions. And the LCS has been disappointing. As we try and increase the size and effectiveness of the Navy, this fiscal mismanagement needs to be resolved.
"Everything" is a bit of a stretch.
There are quite a few programs that haven't been plagued by the same cost/schedule controversies. However, it is notable that those programs tend to adopt a more incremental/phased acquisition approach.
The programs that have struggled have been massively technologically ambitious affairs (JSF, DDG1000) while also heavily influenced by politics.
Does Congress want military acquisitions to be (in addition to military readiness) jobs programs or be good bang for the buck?
Pick one or the other, I don't care which one, just be up front about it! If you want it to bring "good" jobs to your district, boost technology in the country, help disadvantaged small businesses get a leg up, or whatever else, then fine- just be up front about where half of the dollars are actually going.
I know, I know, unicorns and leprechauns don't exist.
Pick one or the other, I don't care which one, just be up front about it! If you want it to bring "good" jobs to your district, boost technology in the country, help disadvantaged small businesses get a leg up, or whatever else, then fine- just be up front about where half of the dollars are actually going.
I know, I know, unicorns and leprechauns don't exist.
Good article from Proceedings. Whether you call it an Arsenal Ship or perhaps a Q-Ship, an interesting take on how to get more hulls in the water at a cost effective price.
Converting Merchant Ships to Missile Ships for the Win
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/converting-merchant-ships-missile-ships-win
Converting Merchant Ships to Missile Ships for the Win
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/converting-merchant-ships-missile-ships-win
Good article from Proceedings. Whether you call it an Arsenal Ship or perhaps a Q-Ship, an interesting take on how to get more hulls in the water at a cost effective price.
Converting Merchant Ships to Missile Ships for the Win
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/converting-merchant-ships-missile-ships-win
I agree with a lot of it, but I elieve too many Navy officers in planning positions who “do the math” will find it kind of like the Zombie S-3. In other words, there is no need to panic until there is a need to panic
It's a cool idea, but before giving it the green light, there would have to be questions answered on the legal ramifications, how that would impact operational employment, and finally several technical issues. In other words, think through what you'd do with it, before we even start framing the technical problems that need to get solved (because for many missiles carried, this isn't just a bolt on solution).
But it is a given that merchant traffic will be greatly impacted by any war involving China or Russia, and Russia has already developed containerized cruise missile systems (and no doubt China would do the same), so it's certainly something worth thinking about.
Once you arm a merchant vessel, it becomes a combatant. It also becomes a combatant that is slow, unable to maneuver, and difficult to defend. It definitely won't keep up with the CSG. Survivability under the conditions that such a platform would likely be used would be problematic.
File this under cool idea, never going to happen.
File this under cool idea, never going to happen.