• 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?

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Why do you say this? Is there something about USNI that distinguishes itself from other venues?
Maybe that it is read around the world by maritime service pros. It is the closest thing to an independant peer review journal we have. I'd rather see it in Proceedings than a blog or web site where all manner of idiotic comments are made by anyone with a neuron coursing through their brain.

It doesn't matter if an idea comes from a shill for a defense contractor. If it is a bad idea put out to the public, it will be revealed. If it has merit it hardly matters it came from someone who gets an honorarium from a company. Again, since when do all good ideas come from the government.
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
Thank you for the reply concerning the container ships - any thoughts on the double hull tanker conversions mentioned? Another article in Proceedings mentioned the same idea https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-01/more-flexible-fleet with a few interesting statistics such as The Persian Gulf Tanker War demonstrated a significantly better survivability rate of larger ships. Of 17 large (over 50,000 tons) tankers hit by Exocet missiles in 1984, none was sunk, 11 were significantly damaged, and 6 were only slightly damaged.

Also mentioned was the 1987 Bridgeton incident. Experience in the Persian Gulf also shows larger ships’ reduced vulnerability to mine strikes. A single Iranian mine nearly sank the 4,000-ton Perry -class FFG Samuel B. Roberts in 1988, whereas the 20,000-ton Tripoli (LPH-10) was able to resume her mine-hunting mission a day after hitting an Iraqi mine in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. A more telling example was the M/V Bridgeton , which not only made port after striking an Iranian mine in 1987—she actually led her escorting U.S. Navy warships out of the minefield because she was judged to be best able to absorb another mine hit. Of note, these survival rates were on ships built to commercial standards with no accommodation for battle damage, and without crews trained for damage control. It is reasonable to suppose that ships of the same size but built to the same Level I+ standard as the LCS and with crews with damage-control training on board would perform even better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeton_incident (Note: The Bridgeton was a double hulled supertanker with a length of 1,158 ft, beam 229 ft and displacement of 400,000+ tons)

As competing budget pressures limit the ability of the Navy to get more hulls into the water, it is good to see the Navy thinking in unorthodox ways.

I'm not really knowledgable about what goes on into designing the guts of a cargo ship, but I would certainly buy that the below waterline survivability of a large cargo ship, built to reasonable standards would absorb mine damage better than a warship. For an impact like that, tonnage matters a lot, and the below waterline compartmentalization should be reasonable, due to the numerous tanks and voids I would expect to be there.

Heavyweight torpedoes, on the other hand, I'm not as convinced. Those are big and pack a big enough punch that I don't think commercial standard damage control will be up to the task.

Also not surprised they weren't too badly damaged by Exocets. Exocet is a small missile with a pretty small warhead.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
web site where all manner of idiotic comments are made by anyone with a neuron coursing through their brain.
Have you seen some of the comments at USNI blog?
It is the closest thing to an independant peer review journal we have.
Yes and no. USNI is a great venue for all kinds of folks to get their ideas out into the ether. That said, there's plenty of absolute drivel published (like the article we're discussing), that captures the attention of starry-eyed folks like Randy, who incorrectly ascribe legitimacy or Big Navy approval. Though it used to be better, from what I've seen over the years, USNI does not exercise much in the way of editorial discretion.

Saying that it's anything resembling peer-reviewed because there's an editor and a comments section is a bit much. I think the best examples have been where a paper is published, then there's a response from leadership. That has happened several times in the past couple years with VADM Burke and CNAF.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
I know all these “zombie” ideas freak out guys who concentrate on current and near-term operations planning but here is the crux of the issue. It took from 2001 to 2008 to design the new DD concept, it then took nearly six years to build...one. It took three years to design and build 175 Fletcher Class destroyers. It took 10 years to build 31 of the Spruance Class with each version taking over a year to finish. So my question is...what enemy is going to give us, say, five years of lead time to prepare for a war with them?

There is nothing wrong with coming up with wild, but obtainable ideas to plus up a war time fleet in event of an emergency.
 

ATIS

Well-Known Member
“Le
I know all these “zombie” ideas freak out guys who concentrate on current and near-term operations planning but here is the crux of the issue. It took from 2001 to 2008 to design the new DD concept, it then took nearly six years to build...one. It took three years to design and build 175 Fletcher Class destroyers. It took 10 years to build 31 of the Spruance Class with each version taking over a year to finish. So my question is...what enemy is going to give us, say, five years of lead time to prepare for a war with them?

There is nothing wrong with coming up with wild, but obtainable ideas to plus up a war time fleet in event of an emergency.

“Lead time” by the enemy, HFS.....that comment just made me pour another Caskmates because half my current two fingers passed through my nose on the laugh.
ATIS
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
“Le


“Lead time” by the enemy, HFS.....that comment just made me pour another Caskmates because half my current two fingers passed through my nose on the laugh.
ATIS
Pour one for me brother!
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I know all these “zombie” ideas freak out guys who concentrate on current and near-term operations planning but here is the crux of the issue. It took from 2001 to 2008 to design the new DD concept, it then took nearly six years to build...one. It took three years to design and build 175 Fletcher Class destroyers. It took 10 years to build 31 of the Spruance Class with each version taking over a year to finish. So my question is...what enemy is going to give us, say, five years of lead time to prepare for a war with them?

There is nothing wrong with coming up with wild, but obtainable ideas to plus up a war time fleet in event of an emergency.
Sure, nothing wrong with ideas. Also nothing wrong with pointing out their shortcomings and bad assumptions upon which they're based. If there's an "emergency," I.E. unforeseen MCO with a peer adversary, it's going to be over way before any of these "wild but obtainable" ideas could ever be fielded. You go to war with the fleet you have. If there's a gap in capability, or capacity, you address that as part of your shipbuilding plan according to the resources the government is willing to provide.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
I know all these “zombie” ideas freak out guys who concentrate on current and near-term operations planning but here is the crux of the issue. It took from 2001 to 2008 to design the new DD concept, it then took nearly six years to build...one. It took three years to design and build 175 Fletcher Class destroyers. It took 10 years to build 31 of the Spruance Class with each version taking over a year to finish. So my question is...what enemy is going to give us, say, five years of lead time to prepare for a war with them?

There is nothing wrong with coming up with wild, but obtainable ideas to plus up a war time fleet in event of an emergency.
Fletcher class was designed starting in 1939. It's huge numbers were because they were the current DD design when the Two Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940. Kind of an outlier because the US was preparing for a two front war and the safeties had been taken off of the acquisition system. That could still happen today, but it would require the right amount of threat and the correct resources applied to make happen.

Good ideas can certainly come from outside of the government. To think otherwise is silly. Good ideas can also come from within the government. To think otherwise is equally silly. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how good of an idea it is, if govt dollars aren't applied to it in the real world then it's not policy. There are certainly lots of crazy things we could do in the event of an emergent crazy situation. But we're far better off keeping a weather eye on the horizon and expanding our numbers and capabilities to exceed those of our adversaries as we did in WWII. We didn't beat Japan and Germany with zany ideas (though there were plenty of them), we beat them with forward thinking and producing good equipment in good quantity. Essex CVs, Hellcats, radar, subs, shermans, P-51s, and B-29s weren't crazy plans; they were well thought out solid programs that were built in useful numbers.
 
Last edited:

ATIS

Well-Known Member
We didn't beat Japan and Germany with zany ideas (though there were plenty of them), we beat them with forward thinking and producing good equipment in good quantity. Essex CVs, Hellcats, radar, subs, shermans, P-51s, and B-29s weren't crazy plans; they were well thought out solid programs that were built in useful numbers.

Above points valid but missing one critical item: We had, as a nation, the political and military will to conduct unconditional war on the enemy with public backing. All the weapons were just instruments. Today that might not be the same.
ATIS
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Above points valid but missing one critical item: We had, as a nation, the political and military will to conduct unconditional war on the enemy with public backing. All the weapons were just instruments. Today that might not be the same.
ATIS
Yeah...going to war might “trigger” the enemy and we can’t have that...
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Above points valid but missing one critical item: We had, as a nation, the political and military will to conduct unconditional war on the enemy with public backing. All the weapons were just instruments. Today that might not be the same.
ATIS
On 6Dec41 the nation did not have that political will. Throughout the 30s and early 40s the country was politically divided and there was a strong isolationist movement epitomized by Lindbergh and the America First group. All that had changed by 8Dec. Regardless of the political will there were smart people who saw the coming storm and started to get prepared in a meaningful way.

If it comes to fighting a foe with merchies armed with missiles then we're no longer in a peer fight, we're fighting a superior enemy. We need real useful ideas that keep us superior or at the very least peer, not a bunch of easy business development ideas that will help someone businesses bottom line but will leave the USN in a bad position. Every dollar spent on an S-3 or a missile merchie is a dollar that could've gone in to CV -78, MQ-25, F-35, DDG-51 BLK III, NIFC-CA, SSNs, FA-18 BLK III, NJG, or LRASM to name a few. Every dollar or minute that the USN spends running analyses to show that these aren't good ideas is time and money wasted on an analysis for something else.

WWII was won with equipment that was on the drawing boards in 1939 not by crap from the 20s or 30s.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We had, as a nation, the political and military will to conduct unconditional war on the enemy with public backing. All the weapons were just instruments. Today that might not be the same.
I’m curious how you might characterize our fight against AQ after 9/11, particularly at the outset. Granted, being a non-state actor, it’s an imperfect comparison, but if you define total war as seeking out your enemy and destroying them wherever you find them and accepting nothing short of unconditional surrender or annihilation, the fight against AQ is probably the closest you get since 1945.

I would also offer that it’s challenging to engage in total war with another nuclear power without blowing up the planet. This is probably the single greatest influence on why total war is likely a thing of the past.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
I’m curious how you might characterize our fight against AQ after 9/11, particularly at the outset. Granted, being a non-state actor, it’s an imperfect comparison, but if you define total war as seeking out your enemy and destroying them wherever you find them and accepting nothing short of unconditional surrender or annihilation, the fight against AQ is probably the closest you get since 1945.

I would also offer that it’s challenging to engage in total war with another nuclear power without blowing up the planet. This is probably the single greatest influence on why total war is likely a thing of the past.
Seriously? No.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Fletcher class was designed starting in 1939. It's huge numbers were because they were the current DD design when the Two Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940. Kind of an outlier because the US was preparing for a two front war and the safeties had been taken off of the acquisition system. That could still happen today, but it would require the right amount of threat and the correct resources applied to make happen.

Good ideas can certainly come from outside of the government. To think otherwise is silly. Good ideas can also come from within the government. To think otherwise is equally silly. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how good of an idea it is, if govt dollars aren't applied to it in the real world then it's not policy. There are certainly lots of crazy things we could do in the event of an emergent crazy situation. But we're far better off keeping a weather eye on the horizon and expanding our numbers and capabilities to exceed those of our adversaries as we did in WWII. We didn't beat Japan and Germany with zany ideas (though there were plenty of them), we beat them with forward thinking and producing good equipment in good quantity. Essex CVs, Hellcats, radar, subs, shermans, P-51s, and B-29s weren't crazy plans; they were well thought out solid programs that were built in useful numbers.
Yes, an no. That was a very unique time when the world was at war and the US (or anyone there with half a brain) realized we were going to join in and needed to prepare. This was combined with the final stage of a federal spending plan designed to put people to work. Today we won’t have that luxury. I highly doubt China will wage a two year war with Japan while the US considers joining in.

As for crazy ideas, WWII was filled with them ranging from rhino tanks, coastal steamers as spy ships, paddle-wheeled aircraft carrier for training, McCloskey ships and on to Mulberry harbor units. None of these things existed when the war started, but all had an important roll to play.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Have you seen some of the comments at USNI blog?

Yes and no. USNI is a great venue for all kinds of folks to get their ideas out into the ether. That said, there's plenty of absolute drivel published (like the article we're discussing), that captures the attention of starry-eyed folks like Randy, who incorrectly ascribe legitimacy or Big Navy approval. Though it used to be better, from what I've seen over the years, USNI does not exercise much in the way of editorial discretion.

Saying that it's anything resembling peer-reviewed because there's an editor and a comments section is a bit much. I think the best examples have been where a paper is published, then there's a response from leadership. That has happened several times in the past couple years with VADM Burke and CNAF.
And a paper published, where, is commented on by O-7+, and that is peer review? Who here, raise your hands, has seen the studies and replies by VADM Burke and CNAF Brett mentions above? … Just what I thought. No doubt, any official comment from big Navy is useful. BUT, that is, in fact, Big Navy. They have their own influences, limitations and failings.

I respect and find obvious value in the opinion of an active duty flag officer. But how many of his subordinates are going to publicly say he is wrong? That there is a better way? Therein is the value in the opinions of retired guys some here so casually brush away. Lets balance BUPERS' opinion on a fitrep enhancement with that of 3 retired O-6's, 1 retired O-8, 5 recently separated O-3s and O-4s and maybe even a few courageous active duty O-3s. Only place that happens is in the pages of Proceedings.

I have seen some of the drivel in comments on the USNI blog. But I specified I thought blogs were not useful in this regard. Anyone with a computer can reply to the USNI blog and there is virtually no editorial control. Replies are instantaneous. That is the nature of a internet forum (he says as he writes on an internet forum). I was talking about Proceedings, the paper publication. A traditional journal of a specific profession. I don't know what you call a publication that is read throughout the world by interested and professional parties of the subject matter, takes contributing articles, often on controversial or out of the box ideas and issues, and subjects the author and their article to critical review by peers within the profession. By definition, that is a peer reviewed publication. With that said, one can criticize their editorial control, but that is the case in all professional journals. Someone has to be the gate keeper. Can't publish everything that comes across the transom. They sponsor and moderate symposiums. They would publish the aforementioned paper you covet and the reply by the relevant flag officer, or, like in the past, sponsor a symposium to discuss it.

If Big Navy is interested in a perceived problem in the Navy, is it more useful to read a paper published, again, where, researched by a one or two individuals with their personal conclusion, to be reviewed by one or two O-7s and above, or is there value in a broader distribution and public review by hundreds of individuals within the profession, stake holders, that might find flaws in the research and/or have a different conclusion? I think that is a no brainer. Your white paper should be published in Proceedings and your O-7 should reply therein.

I am guessing we share the desire to see more scholarly work in Proceedings. But, the vast majority of what they publish are contributions. They publish the best they get. And some of that is going to be from the wardroom and deck plates. It has its own value but is usually not very scholarly. I'd like to see a movement to have more of the official white papers and studies, that are often not read by more than a couple dozen people, published in Proceedings. Alternatively, the War College and NPS can expand their official publications to include more circulation and peer review/comment.
 
Top