US Navy News and updates

T

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
Last edited:
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Tsavo Lion said:
Investigation Faults Navy in Fitzgerald Collision: Report If this is being leaked, it's a safe bet that the investigation will say the same officially. The crew on the bridge should have been aware of the situation better than anyone else in the area & acted accordingly to avoid danger.
US Navy accepts and operates defective ships If not fixed, perhaps later the USS Ford could be turned into a helicopter carrier/command ship?
Click to expand...
The USS Ford already carries helicopters and operates considerable C3I capabilities. Or are you suggesting the USN convert its CVNs into something less?

If so, why?

For what operstional advantages?
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Tsavo Lion said:
Investigation Faults Navy in Fitzgerald Collision: Report If this is being leaked, it's a safe bet that the investigation will say the same officially. The crew on the bridge should have been aware of the situation better than anyone else in the area & acted accordingly to avoid danger.
US Navy accepts and operates defective ships If not fixed, perhaps later the USS Ford could be turned into a helicopter carrier/command ship?
Click to expand...
They'll get her fixed and working - there'd have to be intervention from Congress to let the carrier totals slip any further in any event.


The defects they're referring to can all be resolved.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Lockheed have been given a US$86.5 million order to manufacture 23 production LRASM to be used by USN F-18 and USAF B-1 aircraft. Lockheed also announced that it has tested fired a modified LRASM from a USN shipborne launcher. It didn't state whether or not this was the Mk-41 VLS or another launcher type.
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
While it's not explicitly stated as Mk41 i'd say it's a pretty reasonable guess. Could you imagine what an AB would look like with 24 quad launchers installed? ;)

Turns out it was a deck mounted launcher! Does it suddenly look eggy in here or is it just me?
 
Last edited:
C

colay1

Member
I have serious doubts about this approach. Firing cruise missiles at the Chinese mainland is one thing but ballistic missiles? If the war hadn't gone nuclear by then, incoming BMs would likely push things over the edge.The Navy doesn't have to do everything by itself. The AF has B-2s and later on the B-21 that could be called upon. Not even mentioning the costs this would entail.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/fight-fire-fire

Fight Fire with Fire

A potential option to enhance deterrence and bring an early offensive capability against A2/AD strategies is to “fight fire with fire” and take conventionally armed intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) to sea. 3 Although there have been a small number of recent articles discussing the development of a land-based Pershing III IRBM for operation by the U.S. Army coast artillery, taking IRBMs to sea is an option that has not been publicly examined (at least since the 1960s). 4 It is, however, a future fleet architecture option discussed in the MITRE Corporation’s report to Congress of July 2016. 5 There would be many difficulties, cost, and risks, but as national security professionals, we owe it to the American people to discuss and debate this option.
 
M

Milne Bay

Active Member
colay1 said:
I have serious doubts about this approach. Firing cruise missiles at the Chinese mainland is one thing but ballistic missiles? If the war hadn't gone nuclear by then, incoming BMs would likely push things over the edge.The Navy doesn't have to do everything by itself. The AF has B-2s and later on the B-21 that could be called upon. Not even mentioning the costs this would entail.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/fight-fire-fire

Fight Fire with Fire

A potential option to enhance deterrence and bring an early offensive capability against A2/AD strategies is to “fight fire with fire” and take conventionally armed intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) to sea. 3 Although there have been a small number of recent articles discussing the development of a land-based Pershing III IRBM for operation by the U.S. Army coast artillery, taking IRBMs to sea is an option that has not been publicly examined (at least since the 1960s). 4 It is, however, a future fleet architecture option discussed in the MITRE Corporation’s report to Congress of July 2016. 5 There would be many difficulties, cost, and risks, but as national security professionals, we owe it to the American people to discuss and debate this option.
Click to expand...
How can anyone tell what kind of warhead a ballistic missile is carrying?
In most cases the missile must be assumed to be nuclear prompting a nuclear response. This has all the ingredients of a conflict growing exponentially with the consequences for everyone quite extreme
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Milne Bay said:
How can anyone tell what kind of warhead a ballistic missile is carrying?
In most cases the missile must be assumed to be nuclear prompting a nuclear response. This has all the ingredients of a conflict growing exponentially with the consequences for everyone quite extreme
Click to expand...
The same can be said of the DF-21. Western Navies cannot assume its carrying a conventional warhead either IMO

Perhaps as a public effort to further deterrence that should be stated that a Df-21 launch would be considered as a potential WMD launch and dealt with at a similar level
 
C

colay1

Member
Vulcan said:
While it's not explicitly stated as Mk41 i'd say it's a pretty reasonable guess. Could you imagine what an AB would look like with 24 quad launchers installed? ;)

Turns out it was a deck mounted launcher! Does it suddenly look eggy in here or is it just me?
Click to expand...

LRASM successfully launched from VLS in 2016.

https://americansecuritytoday.com/usaf-navy-award-lockheed-martin-lr-anti-ship-multi-video/


On July 21, 2016, the third successful surface-launched LRASM test was conducted from the USN SDTS at Pt. Mugu Sea Range, CA.

This test proved the missile’s ability to load mission data using the modified Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS+), and align mission data with the moving ship and launch from the MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS).

During the test, LRASM exited the VLS launcher, cleanly separated from its Mk-114 booster and transitioned to the cruise phase.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Milne Bay said:
How can anyone tell what kind of warhead a ballistic missile is carrying?
In most cases the missile must be assumed to be nuclear prompting a nuclear response. This has all the ingredients of a conflict growing exponentially with the consequences for everyone quite extreme
Click to expand...
They'll know once it lands is the answer - and given that a DF21 launched against a carrier fleet will have either hit the target or been intercepted a long time before a strategic decision could be arrived at, I don't think it's so much of a factor.

Even if a nuclear weapon were used against a target, the response would likely be measured and not a global one.It'd be pretty damn *serious* but not a reflex, launch under attack scale of effort.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
StobieWan said:
They'll know once it lands is the answer - and given that a DF21 launched against a carrier fleet will have either hit the target or been intercepted a long time before a strategic decision could be arrived at, I don't think it's so much of a factor.

Even if a nuclear weapon were used against a target, the response would likely be measured and not a global one.It'd be pretty damn *serious* but not a reflex, launch under attack scale of effort.
Click to expand...
The problem with such a weapon in reality is it is a nuclear capable MRBM. There is no way to determine what sort of warhead it is carrying and no time to discuss what a proportionate response should be.

The most likely US response to people firing nuclear capable ballistic missiles at them will be to reply in kind...

Personally I think it wouldn't do the world one bit of harm right now, for the US to remind the world just how many SLBM / ICBM's it maintains and the capability it has to wipe any other nation in the world off the map, if it so chose.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agreed, any nuclear attack on a US target, be it at sea or on land, will result in a nuclear response and it will be bigger.
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I fully expect the US to at least engage in a nuclear counterforce strike when one of their carrier groups is hit by a nuke.

But I seriously doubt the US would initiate this kind of response before a weapon hits and they are certain it is a nuke. A cruise/anti-ship missile as well as a torpedo or a bomb could just as well contain a nuke and one doesn't start a nuclear exchange just for the chance of a single asset (like a CVBG) being targeted with a nuke. This is not a massive first strike armed at your population and/or nuclear forces where it is about launching or loosing one's own nukes.

As for reminding the world. I thought that Matti's response was of the right kind.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Waylander said:
I fully expect the US to at least engage in a nuclear counterforce strike when one of their carrier groups is hit by a nuke.

But I seriously doubt the US would initiate this kind of response before a weapon hits and they are certain it is a nuke. A cruise/anti-ship missile as well as a torpedo or a bomb could just as well contain a nuke and one doesn't start a nuclear exchange just for the chance of a single asset (like a CVBG) being targeted with a nuke. This is not a massive first strike armed at your population and/or nuclear forces where it is about launching or loosing one's own nukes.

As for reminding the world. I thought that Matti's response was of the right kind.
Click to expand...

Agreed, IMO the new UN Sanctions, approved 15-0, will result in the desired Effect on the DPRK/Kim. CHINA seems to be more willing in the recent days to also mitigate the DPRK brinkmanship. Ideally all sides want to keep,this from getting kinetic.

If the sanctions fail, why not consider a Naval style blockade?

- Allow humanitarian shipments in only
- Nothing is exported
- get UN backing
- force The PLA to make a decision
--close the land border and look like they're helping the peaceful settlement
--lose face and political capital by supporting the DPRK
-its summer there, no worries about cold for the civilian popufor now
-if the DPKR shoots first at an Allied naval vessel
-limit allied response to that vessel(S) only
- do not escalate(as the DPRK may wish)
Be prepared for a negotiated settlement disarming the DPRK
-consider a "nuke free" zone in the peninsula
 
T

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
A naval blockade won't be approved by the UN- the RF & possibly PRC will veto it.
A unilateral blockade won't work as NK exports could be taken overland to Russia & then shipped by rail to its Caspian, Black & Baltic Seas ports &/ trucks to its ports on the Sea of Japan. China may also allow the same with her ports on Yellow, E./S China Seas. I doubt we can/would want to blockade all those, as it escalate into a real naval war around Eurasia!
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Unless China joins it, no blockade or embargo would be meaningful. Russia doesn't matter. It's only a few per cent. Last I heard, China takes most DPRK exports (90%?) & its imports mostly either originate in or are shipped through China, & even if originating elsewhere could be replaced by Chinese products.

So unless you blockade China . . . .
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
swerve said:
Unless China joins it, no blockade or embargo would be meaningful. Russia doesn't matter. It's only a few per cent. Last I heard, China takes most DPRK exports (90%?) & its imports mostly either originate in or are shipped through China, & even if originating elsewhere could be replaced by Chinese products.

So unless you blockade China . . . .
Click to expand...
Don't need to blockade China, no if the USA blocked all Chinese made products into the US that alone should hurt the Chinese, but also star a trade war. How would win that?
 
T

the concerned

Active Member
With the US navy getting closer to having a functional laser. Would it be better to deploy the first ones on the carriers as they are all nuclear powered so have the energy to support them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top