How good is the US Navy?

[gf0012-aust]

Stay on topic folks - note the the topic title.

I'll give everyone 4 hrs to clean up their responses - after that the non topic stuff will be edited by one of the mods.

avoid the geopolitics thanks.

 

[amatsunz]

Ok, trying to get back to topic, Having read the artical that kicked this tread off, What to people think of the outcome of The Canadian Upholders Vs The US SSNs In The shallows? The Upholders are generally regarded as the best of the conventional subs, are they quieter at low speeds than the US boats or (if they are) is the US Sonar equipment superior enough to negate this? would love to hear you ideas.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ok, trying to get back to topic, Having read the artical that kicked this tread off, What to people think of the outcome of The Canadian Upholders Vs The US SSNs In The shallows? The Upholders are generally regarded as the best of the conventional subs, are they quieter at low speeds than the US boats or (if they are) is the US Sonar equipment superior enough to negate this? would love to hear you ideas.

I'll make a comment that needs to be considered in context.

In 1999 I attended a few briefings where the RAN was looking at how to resolve the issues of the Collins Class - which at that stage had a lousy reputation due to various political and construction/design issues.

There was serious discussion given to acquiring the Upholders rather than continue on with another 2 Collins. The view was that the Swedish built boat should be scrapped as the swedes had absolutely stuffed up the nose section to a point where the boat was regarded as defective and unsuitable for anything but moored training. No's 7 and 8 would be cancelled. In place of number 1, 7 and 8 we would get 4 Upholders and thus maintain numbers as well as have a reserve.

At that point, the then chief of navy stood up and gave a 45min dissertation on why the Upholders were rejected as fill ins. Canadian Naval Staff were present. I'm not going to go into what was said on a public forum, but needless to say, anyone present at that conf would remember his words whenever the Upholders appeared in the news media.

At this point in time - I would say that an Upholder would struggle to win out against a nuke in blue water.

caveats.

• canadian sailors have always had a very very good rep. they're aggressive and capable - and certainly would have been scoring against the Sovs in the nthn atlantic if there had been a shooting war.
• good training, good sailors means more than good boats.
• a good crew in an average boat will be a nightmare for an ordinary crew in an excellent boat

2nd major sequence of caveats:

• Collins was able to be turned around due to a number of issues - some technology related, some work practice related. The class however has always continued to suffer on public perception due to the vigorous and unwarranted attacks made by Oz media. Those in the know, know that its rubbish - so its kind of irrelevant.
• Upholder is going through similar things - with time they'll get back up to an efficient and potent threat platform - not to be sneezed at at all.

I'll make a really bold statement.

If the Upholders were not in their current state, the USN would have been highly unlikely to lease the Gotland. I know of quite a few blokes in the USN who were dissappointed at the failure of the Upholders to be used as aggressors against their vessels.

Gotland has been leased for a number of reasons:

• its regarded as a mini-me version of Collins - and it doesn't have the stealth/sig management suite - but it has AIP which is more relevant for a smaller non fleet sub
• the crew are highly trained and familiar with littorals work around fjords etc... a water test that is similar to chinese waters around macau, HK etc...
• the USN got a good deal as the swedes needed the cash stream (alhough I personally think that they should have bought the entire Danish sub sqdn "in toto") instead.

can Upholders do it today? - possibly, but with considerable diffculty. I think the nukes sonar suite and combat suite would make a meal of it.

can Upholders do it tomorrow? - well, the USN is not standing still - and IMV their current upgrades put them a generation ahead of anyone else at the technology level.

but, anythings possible.

 

[Supe]

• Collins was able to be turned around due to a number of issues - some technology related, some work practice related. The class however has always continued to suffer on public perception due to the vigorous and unwarranted attacks made by Oz media. Those in the know, know that its rubbish - so its kind of irrelevant.

I think that's just lazy journalism rather than a pointed effort to sling mud. Unfortunately, the mud has stuck so I do come across the Collins = Lemon comment from time to time. The problem is, there is not easily accessible information to the contrary - other than the 'Collins did well against the USN in an exercise'. But there are no details as to why the Collins have become the stellar platform that it is becoming. It sort of makes it hard to refute the naysayers without pointing to achievements and current facts on performance of the Collins. You're doing your part (guerrilla PR?) for the Collins supported with logic and interesting anecdotes but the Gov needs to do more.

Something's amiss at RAN if they aren't effectively communicating to the public (YO! taxpayer!) that the investment is paying off. It's a bad thing to have in the public mind a perception that the Collins are duds. It causes resentment, people question the worth of having them at all and all these negatives need to be nipped in the bud or there might be political capital made on NOT buying the next class in some future election/procurement round. Meaning. We could end up without a Sub fleet because of the disaster that the Collins was perceived to be.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You're doing your part (guerrilla PR?) for the Collins supported with logic and interesting anecdotes but the Gov needs to do more.

The ultimate irony of course is that RAN is quite happy for a potential enemy to think otherwise.

Just a couple of hints.

• In the last 5 years of Underwater Warfare Confs I've attended, all of the major miltech companies have had articles promoting the fact that their gear is on Collins (even the Swedes have the cheek to promote Collins as their success when we had to fix their stuff ups with local solutions)

• I've had people from EB, NG and Boeing (they do have involvement with subs) tell me that they regard it as the best conventional in the world - in fact I had one bloke from EB proudly show me a report he'd written 8 years prior stating that in his view it would be the best fleet and HK conventional in the world. He was using it as an argument that the USN should buy into ASC so as to get access to local knowledge. He argued 9 years ago that the problems that the press were getting loud about was irresponsible and demonstrated a complete lack of appreciation of ship building issues - and this was from an outsider.

• The much touted Visby was "tuned" by the Australian company that built the sig management system for Collins. The swedes were having trouble lowering the acoustics and we were contracted to retune the hull.

The tech developed to sig manage the Collins is in 3 other navies, and it's on 2 nukes for trials. We've had 4 navies get rejected who wanted to buy the sig management solution, but we were concerned about jeopardising the technology and having it leaked,

As far as politics goes though, when the AWD selection process was on, Steve Bracks came out in public with some absolute rot about the subs and quality of build. I got so cranky that I wrote up a 2 page response and hauled him over the coals for being ignorant - he shut up after that and didn't complain about ASC or the Collins anymore.

So, we get caught between a rock and a hard place, let a potential enemy know that we can smack them on our terms, let the public know that they got more than their monies worth - let navy know that its not good enough them knowing what we can do at a combat and technology level in service - but also "advertise" externally a bit more. Its a fine line.

You can't exactly come out in public and say - look we know that this other countries submarine is as noisy as buggery as its decibel rating was xx higher than ours and that we followed them for 400km and they didn't know we were there. The yanks and the poms follow other countries subs routinely and you never hear about it - as they don't care what people think about them, They just get on with the job.

WRT to this issue about the USN - I've yet to come across any serving officer in the USN who talks up their capability.

In fact, most officers in most navies are consumate professionals and don't give a toss about internet chatter. Some of the stuff thats promoted as fact about capability is absolute rot - and I suspect that people like RickUSN and Weasel just gag in their chairs at some comments.

on a side note, there's a particular class of Kilo that is nicknamed "the Kenwood" needless to say, its decibel levels are somewhat tragic .

 

[Supe]

The yanks and the poms follow other countries subs routinely and you never hear about it - as they don't care what people think about them, They just get on with the job.

My fear (and it may be irrational) is that if we allow for the rot that is printed to be seen as fact, then there might lead to a position that the RAN really doesn't need such an expensive asset. NZDF lost their Skyhawks in part due to public and political perception that they just weren't worth it.

I frequent non-defence forums and you get the occasional big talker saying we don't even need a Submarine fleet. If this guys thinking that, then there's going to be others of a like mind. That concerns me. You need to manage perception - this doesn't require specifics on capability.

The American public are in love with their military and so it's never going to come into question, the worth of maintaining their sub fleet. Australia doesn't have the deep, embedded cultural admiration of the military the Americans do, so the Gov has to justify to much greater extent than American pollies do, the worth of a capability or procurement of certain assets.

So, we get caught between a rock and a hard place, let a potential enemy know that we can smack them on our terms, let the public know that they got more than their monies worth - let navy know that its not good enough them knowing what we can do at a combat and technology level in service - but also "advertise" externally a bit more. Its a fine line.

Is there a solution to that? The Navy must be vigiliant against its own smugness, lest the capability be yanked out from under them. Obviously not under the Howard Gov but political climates change and so do PM's.

Could you summarise your letter to Bracks on the most pertinent points? I will understand if this is not possible if confidentiality is an issue.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Could you summarise your letter to Bracks on the most pertinent points? I will understand if this is not possible if confidentiality is an issue.

a small part of what I wrote:

apols to everyone else for the temp hijack


I find it appalling that a Politician of high position would not only discolour the truth about capability, but also proffer those falsehoods in the public domain where rights of reply may not be available by people in the service or in industry who know better. That is appalling politics, it is venal and sends a very bad impression not only internally, but also to people that will be involved with future weapons development in this country. It raises alarm bells about political proprietary as well as appropriate behaviour.

This country managed to deliver a submarine that is incredibly well regarded; it did this in the face of other companies with a history of submarine building - and with a relative minimum of grief. To compare the technological achievement of the Collins against the ANZAC Class (which the USN has effectively rated as large Ocean going Cutters) is almost comical. I assume that in the interest of objectivity that you are aware of the legion of problems associated with the building of the ANZACs? If not, I suggest that you get your advisers to do their homework - better still, they should talk to people who are assigned to them, the DMO staff who have been involved, and the opinions of some in Industry about flawed construction processes in the early construction stages. The vessels were sub standard structurally and were appalling in cost to capability. They were certainly not regarded internationally as lead benchmark vessels or impressive in their footprint, in fact in real terms the Singaporean vessels are 1/3rd of the size and greater in firepower by some margin. You will however, not see anyone say that in public as it's unseemly and unprofessional. However, in background noise, the ANZACs are disparagingly referred to as "gunned up" fishing boats.

Bear in mind also that although local political sledging is good value to look as though you're doing something for the state, it sends a very bad message about cohesiveness. I can assure you that comments such as yours create unwelcome attention and do nothing to add value to whatever contribution they seek to engender.

You do not only the State of Victoria a disservice, but you create tension in the minds of those in the service who can't respond, and those overseas who some of us regularly have to deal with. Although political football is good sport at the local level, it is best left to the province of those who manage local councils rather than those who represent states. Trivialising and clearly misrepresenting the magnitude and very clear successes of the Collins Class Submarine project and trying to draw an apparent association with a surface warfare vessel that is not highly regarded (except with the most recent changes made under the ultimate direction of the current DoD) is blatant sophistry.

In future, please get your facts a little more accurate before jumping on the wagon of state promotion.

 

[rickusn]

GF:

Been reading your comments and concur..

BTW thanks for this but it wasnt necessary. I was just getting used to being universally hated. LOL:

"Some of the stuff thats promoted as fact about capability is absolute rot - and I suspect that people like RickUSN and Weasel just gag in their chairs at some comments."

But this is by far the best:

"The yanks and the poms follow other countries subs routinely and you never hear about it - as they don't care what people think about them, They just get on with the job."

Been there. Done that.

Unfortunately at times I do take the discussion talk far to seriously.

Some type of character flaw I guess. LOL

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF:

Been reading your comments and concur..

patriotism and parochialism are the ugly opposing blades on the damocles sword.

on one side you'll look good, and on the other you're an absolute muppet.

which is why at the end of the day everyone has an opinion, and like sphincter muscles, everyone has one.

I agree that its a bit hard to shut up and not take things too seriously though... sometimes my teeth just want to shear through that "bit" and go "but but thats crap because we know that..... blah blah blah"

oh well.

 

[rickusn]

More people like you around would be refreshing.

But alas youll just have to get used to the idea of being an exception.

 

[Wild Weasel]

GF:

Been reading your comments and concur..

BTW thanks for this but it wasnt necessary. I was just getting used to being universally hated. LOL:

"Some of the stuff thats promoted as fact about capability is absolute rot - and I suspect that people like RickUSN and Weasel just gag in their chairs at some comments."

Hold on sec, was that directed at me? And if so, why?

I'm not waving any flag, for the US or otherwise. I'm just a fanatic for defense tech. Is it somehow wrong that some of the most fantastic military technology is more than a bit US-centric?
BTW; Not that it's at all important, but I'm not a yank, either. I puposefully choose not to mention my own nationality, for the express purpose of avoiding the kind af labeling and false impressions that tend to arise in these sorts of forums. That said, I will say that I currently work and study in the United States.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hold on sec, was that directed at me? And if so, why?

I'm not waving any flag, for the US or otherwise.

My comment was not geared towards defending americans or supporting flag waving, it was an issue of professional opinions.

 

[rickusn]

Weasel it was meant as respect for you.

I also concur with your statements.

Far to often discussions devolve into absolute nonsense not based on facts or reality.

For me I can never get enough accurate and reliable info.

The Russian and Chinese navies are the toughest. And are so important in world naval affairs these days.

India, Japan, UK and France are major players.

Italy and Spain continue to hold their own with new construction.

Austrailia, Canada, Germany need to continue modernizing existing ships and have new construction plans in various stages of realization.

S. Korea has an excellent revitalization and growth program underway.

The Netherlands while very capable continues to shrink and thats a shame.

Other navies while important, especially the larger navies of Greece and Turkey, Taiwan & Brazil, are lacking in some warfare areas particularly AAW and aviation capable ships or in the case of Taiwan also submarines. Many also have older ships of dubious value.

If I missed any nation that should have been mentioned my most humble apologies.

 

[abramsteve]

Being from Adelaide, it does me well to finally hear good coments on our dear Collins class Subs!!!

 

[Rich]

"""""""The American public are in love with their military and so it's never going to come into question, the worth of maintaining their sub fleet. Australia doesn't have the deep, embedded cultural admiration of the military the Americans do, so the Gov has to justify to much greater extent than American pollies do, the worth of a capability or procurement of certain assets.""""""""

Im not going to get into cultural,social, or Political issues here as they are against the rules. But this is clearly a statement made by someone who doesnt live here. "Most" Americans, probably the same % of those Australian, could care less about their military. And a good % of those plain dislike it. Most however, less the flag burners, see the need for it. There are in fact very few fellow Americans I know that even know a thing about our military capabilities. Heck, Im a Policeman and when I go to roll call Im the only veteran there.

Just a clarification. Lets not get into stereotyping here without facts.

 

[Supe]

The American public are in love with their military and so it's never going to come into question, the worth of maintaining their sub fleet. Australia doesn't have the deep, embedded cultural admiration of the military the Americans do, so the Gov has to justify to much greater extent than American pollies do, the worth of a capability or procurement of certain assets.

Im not going to get into cultural,social, or Political issues here as they are against the rules. But this is clearly a statement made by someone who doesnt live here. "Most" Americans, probably the same % of those Australian, could care less about their military. And a good % of those plain dislike it. Most however, less the flag burners, see the need for it.

Just a clarification. Lets not get into stereotyping here without facts.

et tu Brutus? Pot calling kettle black?

Since you mention percentage points and facts, how about offering some data to back them up? Reasonable people understand that a generalisation by its definition does not mean all people. There are always going to be segments of society that have strong opposing opinions.

There are in fact very few fellow Americans I know that even know a thing about our military capabilities.

That's true of any country I should imagine - that is the average citizens understanding of the capabilities of their military. I myself am woefully ignorant on capability of ADF (reading some of my compatriots posts I am reminded of this). Being ignorant of military capability does not infer apathy toward the military.

The strong perception I get from Americans (empirical mode), is that they are (on the whole) have a favourable attitude toward their military. Yes, there was Vietnam - there was also GW1 as a counter. Recall the media going on ad infinitum how 'the spectre of Vietnam has been vanquished'. Victory was in the air and America and the world saw first hand just how potent the U.S military was. (The Pentagon and the administration had learn't a thing or two on managing perceptions via the media). I have read/watched/heard comments from Americans questioning the worth of making war on Iraq but seldom is there loathing or ill-will towards directed towards members of the military. It is usually reserved for Bush and Cheney.

The Reagan administration was highly influential with bringing the military back to the forefront of the public imagination (if popular entertainment is anything to go by, then the 80's was an intense period of the military falling back in favour with the public) and renewing it as a positive force, that served a worthy goal. A bulwark against Communism and a 'beacon for freedom'. (my recollection of Reagan rhetoric is a bit rusty here). What was it, a 500 ship Navy before GW sr became president? Reagan ushered in the era of revitalised defence spending and related R&D, spending enormous amounts of money in the process. How would this level of spending and buildup have been possible without public support and a culture that supports its military? You can't operate a successful military in a societal vacumn. Contingent on the wellbeing of a military is acceptance and appreciation from the wider community.

Perhaps 'love' was a too strong word so I've inserted 'favourable attitude', though the polls manifest it as 'confidence'. The public mood towards its military can fluctuate and this may be so in the U.S in regards to Iraq but I still contend that the U.S military is still held in high esteem by most members of the public.

source

Nonetheless, Americans continue to support the military, believe in its importance and express confidence in it as an institution. According to Gallup, in June 2000, 64 percent of Americans had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military as an institution; 7 in 10 Americans polled in May 2000 believed it was important for the U.S. to be No. 1 in the world militarily. As of February 2001, Harris Interactive showed confidence in the military was high (44 percent) relative to other governmental institutions, such as Congress (18 percent) and the White House (21 percent).

from Defenselink.mil - gallup poll

WASHINGTON, June 3, 2005 – The American public has more confidence in the military than in any other institution, according to a Gallup poll released this week.

Seventy-four percent of those surveyed in Gallup's 2005 confidence poll said they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military - more than in a full range of other government, religious, economic, medical, business and news organizations.

The poll, conducted between May 23 and 26, involved telephone interviews with a randomly selected sample of 1,004 people 18 and older, Gallup officials said. Those surveyed expressed strong confidence in the military, with 42 percent expressing "a great deal" of confidence in the military and 32 percent, "quite a lot" of confidence. Eighteen percent said they have "some" confidence, 7 percent, "very little," and 1 percent, "none."

Yeah, it's from the Military but it is a Gallup commissioned poll so there's going to be a certain level of credibility to it.

 

[Rich]

Who cares about Polls? I'd like to see the Polls when we were raging across Iraq in an armored juggernaut, and then, look at the Polls today. The general public is flakier then a bowl of corn flakes and polls dont automatically generate policy. My only qualifications is 48 years living here "well minus a year or two overseas in the war corp". Ive seen every inch of this country, and remember the Vietnam years.

This goofy view in the rest of the world that we consider ourselves "Romans","lording over Rome", and with love of all things military is ridiculous. Some of you non-Yanks have been watching to many Hollywood movies.

At best Americans have antipathy towards their military. They have no experience with it and it really doesn't concern them. Only a very few have anything to do with it in anyway. It was the "600 ship Navy" back in the Reagan years, I think we ended up with about 612. Then one day we woke up and there was no Soviet Union and the military has been shrinking steadily since then. Tho it is still without peer.

My name aint Brutus and I dont have a pot. Believe what you want. Im getting back to naval matters because im sure this is about to get locked.