I had some dealings with SAIC over a number of years on various maritime and ballistics projects - they had some seriously smart people on their books..
How truly capable is the United States Navy?
- Thread starter Peace4ever20
- Start date
- Status
I had some dealings with SAIC over a number of years on various maritime and ballistics projects - they had some seriously smart people on their books..
This is such a stupid question laden with preconceptions and ignorance (in the literal sense).
Your USN is the world leader in naval aviation with a long history of leadership and excellence.
Your USN is also the world leader in most other aspects of naval warfare, you get that from being the biggest and best resourced.
Take nothing from the RN, they ruled the waves for centuries but that leadership declined after WW2.
Naturally, these generalities are just that. Individual units can be miles apart in professional competency depending upon personnel and experience eg some of the FRAM2 destroyers serving in Vietnam had only 1 or 2 academy officers and the rest inexperienced ROTC officers, the did not perform well.
Small navies such as the RN and Commonwealth navies are all professional, well run navies but they mostly don't have the scope or the higher command experience opportunities that Admirals have in the USN and therefor the opportunity to enhance their command experience at the strategic, higher tactical, world wide level.
There's absolutely no point in pursuing this doubt about the professionalism or excellence of the USN, they are and will continue to be the world leaders across the whole spectrum of naval capability.
Oh dear
Look, there was one famous and much celebrated incident in which one US carrier got done in during an exercise - it sticks out against the tedious procession of all the other examples where the entire task force got stomped flat while the US carrier was over the horizon, stomping some *other* task force flat for exercise. They're the 850 lb grizzly bear and have a 200+ power standard compared to the RN's three power standard. Look, I'm British, I think the RN are brilliant, but seriously, when it comes to blue water carrier ops, the USN wrote the rule book, were way ahead of the RN in RAS, DC, and a pile of concepts we had to pick up on.
Great ships, good weapon systems and sailors that refuse to lay down and die. Just be glad they're on our side, eh?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly it is beginning to sound as though the only way to really get an answer would be for you to serve in the USN.
Otherwise you might wish to read the post on DACT, and extrapolate how areas can apply to naval exercises.
With respect to USN sub operations... a friend of mine who is an ex-USN dolphin and was awarded a medal "for operations north of the Soviet Union..." during the tail end of the Cold War aboard a Los Angeles-class SSN. That suggests that US subs can, have, and do operate in hazardous areas successfully. Given his fairly dismissive attitude towards some of the ASW assets, like when his sub was at periscope depth and a RoNAF P-3 lit up radar warning, but the Norwegian Orion did not attempt to deploy sonobuoys or call in other ASW assets to detect the contact. Or how the crew of his sub at one point was tempted on filling up a garbage disposal canister and 'dropping' it onto a Soviet sub which was ripping up some of the GIUK SOSUS lines. Such attitudes does suggest that USN sub crews have confidence in their abilities.
Given that there has not been any full scale naval engagements since WWII that the US has been involved with against enemy task forces, then there is not really any thing which can be held up as an example of 'proof'. However, one recurring theme that we often refer to, is that combat now is a system-level event, with individual personnel and platforms all fitting in at various levels to combat systems. Along these lines, the US has overall the most complete and comprehensive combat system, with the USN being a significant part of that, and the USN would not fight isolated from any capabilities which the USAF, US Army, USMC, USCG and other government agencies could bring to bear.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The Norwegian P-3 did not react to the presence of the sub at all. Given the time (late 1980's early 90's) and location within the EEZ of Norway in an area where subs heading to or from Soviet/Russian naval bases would transit, had the P-3 detected a sub with the periscope above the surface, it would react or call in other ASW assets to take action, and the P-3's search radar was active since it set off the alarms aboard the US sub.
The Forestall incident was three decades ago and only because the weather was so crap that the USN - fairly enough - decided that it being peacetime that it was worthless to waste the lives of their pilots undertaking such an endeavour. Rest assured that if the exercise meant something and worth the risk then the UK task force would be creamed.
Most remembers the time Woodward - after losing most of his TF - pretended to be a ferry to sink the Coral Sea, it worked, but next time they ran it the UK lost everything in one strike.
What you've been listening to is crusty Brits who love to hang onto every time the UK has beaten the US at something because they know how over-the-top the capability is of the USN, that's why they remember these incidents so well!
Another thing people like to do is go 'but Astute bested the New Mexico in trials!' Because of the COs comments, well, the commander in New Mexico said the same thing about the New Mexico.
How many times do submarine exercises show the sub being killed publicly? Never. But you darn well know it does happen.
Most remembers the time Woodward - after losing most of his TF - pretended to be a ferry to sink the Coral Sea, it worked, but next time they ran it the UK lost everything in one strike.
What you've been listening to is crusty Brits who love to hang onto every time the UK has beaten the US at something because they know how over-the-top the capability is of the USN, that's why they remember these incidents so well!
Another thing people like to do is go 'but Astute bested the New Mexico in trials!' Because of the COs comments, well, the commander in New Mexico said the same thing about the New Mexico.
How many times do submarine exercises show the sub being killed publicly? Never. But you darn well know it does happen.
USN subs used to regularly penetrate green water - and into the big harbours of the sovs/russians
eg look up USS Parche
Parche was medaled up due to capability
eg look up USS Parche
Parche was medaled up due to capability
Echoes from the distant past perhaps, a hangover from the early days of the nuke Navy and Adm. Rickover. Back in the day, he was said to have wielded an iron hand in the selection of sub captains, putting engineering excellence as a top priority over tactical skills. Perhaps there may have been some truth to this then but the Rickover era is long past and the performance of US SSNs which excelled in the undersea cat-and-mouse game uring the Cold War should be indicative of the Yanks' skill as sub drivers.
Mixed. Exercises can be geared for, against or neutral to any of the parties involved putting them in positions which compromise their ability to do what they would do simply to test what they would do if that happened, in which case they may lose, leading to better processes in that hamstrung position *or* better processes to prevent that occurring.
The overriding point is that you can't say any group generally does well because there are so many motivations behind exercises, to find faults just as much as to prove things that work.
US sailors - both sailors and submariners - are well trained and have excellent equipment. Be thankful they are on our side.
The overriding point is that you can't say any group generally does well because there are so many motivations behind exercises, to find faults just as much as to prove things that work.
US sailors - both sailors and submariners - are well trained and have excellent equipment. Be thankful they are on our side.
as has been said earlier, refer to the principles around DACT and extrapolate them to maritime exercises.
exercises are designed to force or focus on a training outcome.
someone can "win or lose" in the blue/red scenario but the desired outcome may well have been to force a situation of losing so as to emphasise a training requirement
exercises are designed to force or focus on a training outcome.
someone can "win or lose" in the blue/red scenario but the desired outcome may well have been to force a situation of losing so as to emphasise a training requirement
Indeed, there are so many different motives with various depths which impact the scenario, the 'players' and the geography to a degree (limiting exercise area for example) in so many different ways it's far more in depth with in depth consequences than a Top Gear style 'which is best'.
EXSSBN2005
New Member
Sorry for being so late to the party but it has been a busy several months.
1) does the US Navy play with a "handycap" on sub exercises - yes, typically you don't show anyone, even friendlies, everything you can do to the absolute best of your abilities, noisemakers during games and such (its impressive when the CO of another sub calls on the gertruide "dang you got a quite sub when you turn off the noisemakers"). I can't speak about surface ships as we only rarely got to play vs them, but I would assume they place the same style of restrictions on them during games vs foreign navies.
2) To what extent would it be possiable to prove you know the difference between fighting vs engineering a submarine, almost always when we are fighting its about noise dampening / reducing your self emitted noise transients, if you know where the other guy is, your weapons systems are aimed and ready to shoot them, and he doesn't even know your there you usually win. :flame
I'm sure a sub *could* kill a carrier but that country will more than likely be a smoking ruin if the politicians would get out of the way of the military planners and tell them "go forth and win", since WW2 that hasn't happened in the US Navy much less the rest of the military.
1) does the US Navy play with a "handycap" on sub exercises - yes, typically you don't show anyone, even friendlies, everything you can do to the absolute best of your abilities, noisemakers during games and such (its impressive when the CO of another sub calls on the gertruide "dang you got a quite sub when you turn off the noisemakers"). I can't speak about surface ships as we only rarely got to play vs them, but I would assume they place the same style of restrictions on them during games vs foreign navies.
2) To what extent would it be possiable to prove you know the difference between fighting vs engineering a submarine, almost always when we are fighting its about noise dampening / reducing your self emitted noise transients, if you know where the other guy is, your weapons systems are aimed and ready to shoot them, and he doesn't even know your there you usually win. :flame
I'm sure a sub *could* kill a carrier but that country will more than likely be a smoking ruin if the politicians would get out of the way of the military planners and tell them "go forth and win", since WW2 that hasn't happened in the US Navy much less the rest of the military.
Is that you again Peace4ever? Sock puppet account?
You want to kill a sub? Send a Virginia. You want to sink a skimmer? See above.
It was Peace4ever who brought up examples of USN units being bested as apparently being key evidence as to why the USN was crap.
Those opinions have been blasted out of the water.
Two comments, one on the supersonic/subsonic debate for missiles - if you make a missile which is supersonic, then either range or payload has to be sacrificed to get a bigger motor on the same missile. That's just physics. Supersonic and hypersonic missiles do cut down on reaction time but that works both ways, and if you're hypersonic, you're not jinking around or really able to do much to correct your course.
The USN has been training against supersonics for decades and the RN used to routinely engage sounding rockets in tests with Sea Dart and Sea Wolf back in the 70's so the basics of making your missile meet their missile for drinks and a chat are well established.
I'd be more worried about NSM than Brahmos personally. I'm not counselling complacence, simply pointing out that the USN knows about the threat and AEGIS was built around dealing with massive saturation attacks by multiple Soviet bombers dropping several missiles each.
The USN has been training against supersonics for decades and the RN used to routinely engage sounding rockets in tests with Sea Dart and Sea Wolf back in the 70's so the basics of making your missile meet their missile for drinks and a chat are well established.
I'd be more worried about NSM than Brahmos personally. I'm not counselling complacence, simply pointing out that the USN knows about the threat and AEGIS was built around dealing with massive saturation attacks by multiple Soviet bombers dropping several missiles each.
Thread closed.
The Mod Team notes that Peace4ever20 started two threads namely, 'How truly capable is the United States Navy?' and 'Surface Warfare Training'.
Our members, in good humour and patience responded with concise and detailed replies over three pages, in both threads. Yet he has ignored or disregarded all relevant information provided in them. His posts shows that Peace4ever20 has learned nothing from those prior replies. In fact, it is clear that he has also learned nothing from the replies in this thread. The only thing that is clear, is his ability to ignore all information that does not fit his preconceived paradigm.
Our patience with him is not unlimited and the Mod Team will not allow this pattern of behaviour to continue. He is on short finals.
3rd and final Warning issued.
The Mod Team notes that Peace4ever20 started two threads namely, 'How truly capable is the United States Navy?' and 'Surface Warfare Training'.
Our members, in good humour and patience responded with concise and detailed replies over three pages, in both threads. Yet he has ignored or disregarded all relevant information provided in them. His posts shows that Peace4ever20 has learned nothing from those prior replies. In fact, it is clear that he has also learned nothing from the replies in this thread. The only thing that is clear, is his ability to ignore all information that does not fit his preconceived paradigm.
Our patience with him is not unlimited and the Mod Team will not allow this pattern of behaviour to continue. He is on short finals.
3rd and final Warning issued.
- Status