How truly capable is the United States Navy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peace4ever20

New Member
Hello, everyone. I'm new to this forum, and I think that it is a pleasure to discuss military and defense issues with people who are very knowledgeable about these topics. With that said, I hope to have a great experience on this forum.

Regarding my topic, I know that the USN has been regarded as the largest and most powerful navy in the world since the end of World War II. With the possible exception of the Soviet Navy, the USN remained the largest navy in the world during the duration of the Cold War. There is no question that the USN has evolved into an important instrument of power projection throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Having the largest budget of any navy in the world has enabled the USN the procure a plethora of extremely capable ships, aircraft, and weapons that are highly regarded throughout the world. However, there have been some incidents that have made me question the strength of the USN. For the last couple of decades, the USN has had its hands full during war games and military exercises with other nations. OPFOR diesel-electric submarines have taken a huge toll on American surface ships and submarines during exercises such as RIMPAC and JTFEX. RIMPAC 04 offers a fine example when a Collins-class submarine evaded ASW units and sank its targets. While I don't know the fine details of these exercises, there is no secret that the USN has struggled to detect these submarines. Despite having much more assets than any other navy, the USN has been routinely embarrassed by the results of these exercises. This is in no way to demean the navies of other nations. In fact, I have heard great things about the navies of several countries like Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. While these nations are American allies, isn't it a little unfair to classify the USN as the most dominant navy in the world? How would the USN have dealt with these submarines if these exercises had actually been real wars?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
there are a number of issues here - the first being the notion that exercises exist to establish a "winner". thats not the case, exercises are intended to test systems, interoperability, refine doctrine, improve capabilities and identify areas of improvement. training against different navies also acts as a catalyst to provide dissimilar training

at a different level one then has to consider the sheer flexibility and reach of the USN - in the traditional blue water sense, they are the only navy in the world that literally has a fleet presence in every one of the worlds major oceans - and any one of those fleets has the capacity to fight and sustain itself on its own terms.

no other navy has a fleet level concurrent ocean presence - ie in the traditional cold war interpretation of a blue water navy...

what other country is able to fight at fleet level in any ocean at any time and literally strike with its surface fleet (not just subs or organic air)

take nukes out of the equation and the second most capable navy in the world is japan - and they're regional. russias navy is but a shadow of itself with poor availability rates and basically a rump capability, chinas navy is less capable than the US 7th Fleet and is unable to project beyond the protection of land based air. France is a regional power, Indias Navy is less capable than the PLAN.

the USN trains with over 45 other navies - no other navy has that breadth and depth of experience and capability - no one else comes close to it - and that kinf of experience counts
 

Humming Drone

New Member
there are a number of issues here - the first being the notion that exercises exist to establish a "winner". thats not the case, exercises are intended to test systems, interoperability, refine doctrine, improve capabilities and identify areas of improvement. training against different navies also acts as a catalyst to provide dissimilar training
Perhaps someone can post Naval Power 101 one day, similar to the Air Power one. That should take care of basic misconceptions about training, exercises, threats and doctrine, etc.

I.e. scenario based training, rules and restrictions, dissimilar training and cooperation. That's even without addressing changes in US ASW capability post Cold War.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Perhaps someone can post Naval Power 101 one day, similar to the Air Power one. That should take care of basic misconceptions about training, exercises, threats and doctrine, etc.

I.e. scenario based training, rules and restrictions, dissimilar training and cooperation. That's even without addressing changes in US ASW capability post Cold War.
The Mod Team discussed Airpower 101 on and off for over 1.5 years (because we could not agree on certain sections or the approach), before we circulated the various drafts to other Defence Professionals, for their review and comment. A couple of us, flew in to meet at air show, had a great time chatting about airpower over hot dogs and drinks. Thereafter, we were inspired to write a draft that the Mod Team could agree to (having learnt from the pitfalls of our earlier approach).

Once the Mod Team felt the the daft was promising, we started sharing competed sections to the other Defence Professionals. That process of review took close to two months or so - and there were about 5 significant rewrites or additional sections added of the initial draft circulated.

As much as we would like to be helpful, we also do this for fun and at our free time. It took me so long as the principal author to write it in a manner that can be understood by others. It is doubtful that another Mod or I are willing to devote so much time to a writing project in the near future. For Naval Power 101, we have to wait for someone to volunteer to be the principal author. Thus far, that person has not appeared as yet. Would you like to volunteer? We will be pleased to facilitate circulation of drafts to the relevant communities for reviews. [/big grin]
 
Last edited:

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
take nukes out of the equation and the second most capable navy in the world is japan - and they're regional. russias navy is but a shadow of itself with poor availability rates and basically a rump capability, chinas navy is less capable than the US 7th Fleet and is unable to project beyond the protection of land based air. France is a regional power, Indias Navy is less capable than the PLAN.
I'd say the French are regional*, they're by no means global on the scale of the USN, but they're more than regional. They have the capability to deploy and sustain forces a long way from home and have a mean capability when doing it.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'd say the French are regional*, they're by no means global on the scale of the USN, but they're more than regional. They have the capability to deploy and sustain forces a long way from home and have a mean capability when doing it.
wasn't intending to be dismissive of the french, they're actually more blue water than the russians. ie they can sustain away from home with minimal grief

the russians are still deploying with tugs (and the tugs are earning their keep)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks for clearing that up for me. It's just that on some forums, people use these exercises as evidence that the USN is overrated. In fact, a professor named Roger Thompson wrote a paper and a book that uses these exercises as proof that the USN is not as powerful as it thinks it is. Since, I'm a new member of the forum, I can't post a link to a site where you can read the paper. However, I can tell you that you can use Bing or Google to find it if you want to. If you search transasianaxis US Navy overrated, you can find a long version of the paper. You can read it at your leisure, if you want to.
I've read Prof Thompsons paper and was of the view that it was fundamentally flawed as it started from an incorrect premise re the conduct of wargames - similar difficulties in comprehending the merits and benefits of such exercises also exist in DACT with respect to aviation exercises

If it's possible, I'd like to ask you another questions. How would the USN deal with diesel-electric submarines in the event of a real war? I've heard that in littoral regions, these submarines are as detectable as "trying to single out one car engine in the big city." Given how capable these platforms have proven themselves over the past few decades, I'd really like to know how the USN would overcome them in a real war.
the US conducts dozens of exercises per year against a variety of navies - and quite a few are sub users. each exercise enables them to train against conventionals with navies that don't necessarily embrace the same USW doctrine. the training boxes for all these navies can vary considerably, so they train under a variety of underwater conditions.

going into the tech options is relatively pointless as its a "how long is a piece of string" type scenario

the general maxim though is that its about training, then its about the technology
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I was also under the impression that occasionally scenarios are devised which put particular platforms in a disadvantaged position to properly get an understanding of the capabilities and more importantly the extreme limits of the system.

They're not always level playing field.
 

the road runner

Active Member
Anyway, the general maxim is about training first then technology, so how well-trained are the sailors, submariners, and pilots of the USN? This is a very broad question, but I want to know if the USN generally has people who are very well-trained in its
If you have a look at the equipment the US Navy uses its mostly made by US company's. Alot of Navy's around the world purchase US kit and also receive a training package when purchasing such equipment.

Australia purchased Romeo helicopters off the US and are training and learning how to use/deploy this helicopter by the US Navy.We have plugged into the US training system.

I would say the US are Jedi masters in a number of fields who help train other navys around the world.As for how well trained the US sailors are,they have all the toys to train against.Not to many navys have the fullspectrum of systems and platforms to train against.Eg subs,Air crafts carriers, LHD's, LHA,s Destroyers ,frigates,Cruisers ect. If anything other navys are lucky to be able to train and learn off the US Navy.( I would say this point also goes for the US Air force/ Army as well)
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I've discussed Prof. Thompson's paper on another forum, and all of the members there were of the same opinion that it was nothing more than sensationalist nonsense. I mean no disrespect, but I think that Prof. Thompson was just misinterpreting things. He disregards possible ROEs inherent in exercises, and he uses "exercise results" to come to the conclusion that the USN is poorly trained and led. Not only that, but he says himself that only very few exercises are unclassified. That means that the USN could be doing better than he thinks. Again, no disrespect is intended, but I just think that he is looking at things the wrong way.
Exercise results are useless for that kind of analysis without proper context. I can easily think of a few exercises where USN participation was to halfheartedly fulfill longstanding obligations. When real world operational tempo is high, "somebody" has to take the joint exercises. Other times, the exercises are simply trying to experiment and test new things. And USN prioritization of different warfare areas has been in flux over the last 15 or so years. Some areas were badly neglected and have recently seen big leaps in capability.

Anyway, the general maxim is about training first then technology, so how well-trained are the sailors, submariners, and pilots of the USN? This is a very broad question, but I want to know if the USN generally has people who are very well-trained in its ranks. This is not meant to be a jingoistic question with the intention of putting Country A versus Country B; it is just meant to simply inquire if the USN has people who are as well-trained as people other first world navies. Generally speaking, and based on your own experience, what do you think?
I'd put the best USN or USMC units up on par with the best of other top navies. On average, some of the other smaller forces may have a better "average unit" performance. Personally, I would guess the budget crunches to many of the first rate navies has actually narrowed whatever gap may have existed. And when compared to "smaller" they're also usually much, much smaller...where quantity adds a new dimension to the comparison.

There are some things the USN can do other navies can pretty much only dream of doing.
But there are also some niche capabilities where other navies are considered the experts. In Coalition operating environments, the RN is considered the experts on Mine Warfare. And I think the Swedes and Norwegians have the fast missile craft in littoral environments thing down pretty good.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Getting back to the original topic, the US uses these exercises to train and gain experience. If every exercise ended with US forces completely obliterating all challenges seconds after the exercises start there would be much training or experience. There are often many handicap and forced situations to enable a real test and a more interesting exercise to be conducted. In fact they are often designed so the US loses, the idea is to minimise the loss and how to deal with it.

That being said submarines have always proven themselves problematic. In war and peace time exercises, throughout history. The handicap a submarine needs in these situations is often minimal (ie to be at a certain known point at the start of operations etc). However, the US operates the largest fleet of submarines, with the highest operational tempo. They are also extremely serious about ASW and as mentioned train other navies on ASW and part of that comes out of joint operations. So its not like they are incapable of utilising submarines.

I do think countries like France and the UK have significant and demonstrated capabilities that put them into a category other than regional (regional plus/hemisphere?). They quite often conduct operations outside of their region. Japan however is very strong navy wise, they are region focused.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
there's some fundamentals at play here as well

sea time = proficiency
air time = proficiency

they train at meaningful levels basically all the time

ie

fleet level
task force level
expeditionary force level
dissimilar training with a variety of other navies - and all those navies have different capabilities, so its not just about meshing its about adapting
"real exercises" such as RIMPAC where multiple forces need to communicate in "real time" - and not always using common comms links (eg the Japanese have traditionally not had direct battlecomms with others so as to stay within the spirit of their constitution - so at RIMPAC they were always left of field - that will probably change now
night flying
flying outside the protection of land based air - ie truly organic air protection
they train with a real ability to change the tempo of the vignette without compromising overall force capability etc etc......
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Since you said that you read Roger Thompson's paper and thought that it was fundamentally flawed, do you think that Prof Thompson is wrong in his beliefs that the USN is overrated? I'm asking this because the members of the other forum I frequent thought that his paper was nothing more than sensationalist nonsense. They thought that his paper contained many flaws and wrong conclusions. In fact, they told me to completely disregard him as a credible source of information. What did you think of his entire paper?

if the foundation of the house is weak, then the house will fall sooner than later....
I didn't have much regard for his work because IMO he had not been objective to start with - there is a need to suspend personal visions and inject your analysis with some fact and as stated before - "fundamentals"

no force is unbeatable, but its the force that has trained constantly, trained under duress, trained realistically, trained to learn (not to win) that force has to benefit from that training

eg from a common operating picture capability level alone the US has so much overmatch its not funny. they are better placed than others because they are already at a fighting posture, train to fight at that posture and are better placed to dictate when and where they want to fight due to those situational awareness and situational appreciation advantages

hubris will slay the wielder of the sword just as much as the sword can slay the beast - I can only go on my dealings with US service people - esp during major exercises, that they knew their stuff but were very low key - the very antithesis of the commonly touted comment that they're "all hat and no head"
 

the concerned

Active Member
I would of thought one of the benefits for the US is that it would be hard to think of any situation where the USN would be involved in a war with anybody on their own. So any areas that the USN might be lacking in would soon be filled by coalition partners. I've also said many times although many foreign forces have achieved success in exercises that is not a true war. You have to ask yourself although you could have a chance in taking out a major US vessel would you be willing to deal with the consiquences if you did, think there's 6,000 US lives on 1 cv that's more people than where killed at pearl harbour. It wouldn't matter which country you came from after that your country as a working unit would cease to exist.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, Sandy Woodward managed to sink a carrier on exercise, once. They're still talking about it nearly four decades on - because it's very very rare. The submarine stories fit into the same category - as to the occasional F22 shootdown in training -they're triumphs against the odds.

You don't hear how the subs were let loose well inside comfortable range, as opposed to having to make a submerged transit with snorting vs a steel overcast of ASW effort, and getting sunk five or six times in the process.

USN kit is very good, their sailors are dedicated, their damage control is legendary. They also have the most toys *ever*, and some awesome training opportunities.

I'm sure they've put a lot of thought into ASW efforts and while SSK's are tricky targets, they have their limits and being hunted to exhaustion by a pair of frigates with ASW helicopters is apparently a grim business for the diesel guys.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A lot of the exercises you hear about an SSK getting a "shot" at a carrier or other HVU is a scripted event. Usually it is to simulate a choke point transit where the HVU has limited speed and maneuverability, also it is to force the "enemy" sub and the HVU within torpedo range of each other. Such exercises are used for crew training on both sides and help to develop tactics.

Often in these wargames one side might be representing a specific opposition unit and have artificial capabilities or restrictions compared to what it really has. I've seen this done several times when playing against a soon to be deploying carrier group.

What good would it do if the USN always won the training exercises?

wasn't intending to be dismissive of the french, they're actually more blue water than the russians. ie they can sustain away from home with minimal grief

the russians are still deploying with tugs (and the tugs are earning their keep)
I'd put the French ahead of the Russians as well. As much grief as I've seen the CdG get on some forums it is under way a lot and has taken part in more than its fair share of strikes.
The Russians still deploy with tugs and most of their ships can't make fresh water either. Looking up close you also get the impression most of their launchers are painted shut.
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A lot of the exercises you hear about an SSK getting a "shot" at a carrier or other HVU is a scripted event. Usually it is to simulate a choke point transit where the HVU has limited speed and maneuverability, also it is to force the "enemy" sub and the HVU within torpedo range of each other. Such exercises are used for crew training on both sides and help to develop tactics.

Often in these wargames one side might be representing a specific opposition unit and have artificial capabilities or restrictions compared to what it really has. I've seen this done several times when playing against a soon to be deploying carrier group.

What good would it do if the USN always won the training exercises?
Heh. Reminds me of running a SAG in a live ASW exercise (US SSN simulating OPFOR) a few years back where after we'd localized the contact, and had both MPRA and helos with ordnance available to drop, a good solution from fire control for a VLA shot...I was told to send in a frigate to take an over the side torpedo shot. Why? Because the FFG needed the training check in the box to demonstrate OTST shot proficiency.
Training-isms. :el
 

Quiller

New Member
Full Spectrum ASW

I'm sure most of you have seen the book, but in June USN Captain James Toti published a very brief but cogent summary of the US Navy's commitment to "full spectrum ASW" on the US Naval Institute website. You can read it here:
The Hunt for Full-Spectrum ASW.

Obviously the keys he discusses are the ranges of options available to the US Navy to deal with submarines in real war. As many of you have basically said, exercises are designed to compartmentalize battle actions for learning purposes, and do not reflect overall operational reality. For instance, one of the threads refers to strike assaults (most likely by naval air or cruise missiles) against submarine port facilities. Even if those facilities were heavily damaged AFTER a pack of diesel subs left port, where the heck are those subs going to return to for resupply? And naval forces would be actively looking for them, probably not as much in the open ocean, but in the likely choke points and transit areas back to port.

So clearly the ASW capabilities of the USN or any other Navy depends not just on hunting difficult-to-detect targets in deep blue water (which many of the publicized exercises seem to involve) but on a range of tactical and strategic operations in the battle space. Subs have to emerge from somewhere and return somewhere ---- particularly diesel subs.
 

colay

New Member
A SSK skipper's worst nightmare is in the works. This thing is designed to tirelessly shadow it's prey, 7X24 for weeks on end, negating it's stealth advantage. May as well put back to port.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV)

Navy Anti-submarine Warfare Drone Begins Construction

7 July 2014 - An autonomous unmanned vessel designed to track quiet diesel-electric submarines spanning miles of ocean depths for months at a time with minimal human input is now under construction and is expected to set sail for testing in 2015. Leidos (formerly SAIC), has begun construction on ACTUV (Autonomous Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel) under a Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) program for the design, development, and construction of a vessel originally conceived for an anti-submarine warfare mission.

"ACTUV's advanced sensor technology should allow for continuous surveillance which, combined with the vessel architecture and design, is expected to provide autonomous safe navigation supporting Navy missions around the world," said Leidos Group President, John Fratamico.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top