• 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?

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
More recycled drivel from The National Interest. There are going to be issues - that's inevitable. They'll get fixed, and we'll all move forward. Buddy is the Airboss on Ford. It works just fine.
 

NavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
More recycled drivel from The National Interest. There are going to be issues - that's inevitable. They'll get fixed, and we'll all move forward. Buddy is the Airboss on Ford. It works just fine.
I read the first page and this is my favorite part "the ships nuclear reactor main boiler", their is no reason to read any further, if this guy can't take the time to get basic information correct how much other inaccurate information is in the article?
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Not particularly specific to either of Randy's two most recent article shares, but in general: I find more and more that the people who write the most, and are the most critical of these programs (i.e., JSF, LCS, DDG1000) typically know the least about the program and, moreover, don't really understand how it often takes incremental steps to develop and mature truly game changing technologies.

Now, there's plenty to be said about the fiscal mismanagement of the programs, LCS and JSF come to mind, but DoD bending over for industry is somewhat separate conversation from whether or not the programs/platforms actually provide value and utility to the end user(s).
 

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
Not particularly specific to either of Randy's two most recent article shares, but in general: I find more and more that the people who write the most, and are the most critical of these programs (i.e., JSF, LCS, DDG1000) typically know the least about the program and, moreover, don't really understand how it often takes incremental steps to develop and mature truly game changing technologies.

Now, there's plenty to be said about the fiscal mismanagement of the programs, LCS and JSF come to mind, but DoD bending over for industry is somewhat separate conversation from whether or not the programs/platforms actually provide value and utility to the end user(s).
Problems with complex weapons systems are nothing new but the cottage industry of "industry experts" who bemoan acquisition conduct for click bait and just to be heard seems to be a new phenomenon. Most of these so-called experts do nothing but complain and don't offer solutions just criticism of the man in the arena.

I wonder how the B-29 and the Battle of Kansas would play these days?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kansas
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Now, there's plenty to be said about the fiscal mismanagement of the programs, LCS and JSF come to mind, but DoD bending over for industry is somewhat separate conversation from whether or not the programs/platforms actually provide value and utility to the end user(s).
That is the bigger concern. Everything seemingly well over budget and behind schedule does not bode well for the future. Spending $22.5 billion for 3 cruisers? Yes, nearly $10 billion was R&D but still, $4+ billion per hull? Likewise the Ford class was so far over budget even the late Senator McCain was asking pointed questions. And the LCS has been disappointing. As we try and increase the size and effectiveness of the Navy, this fiscal mismanagement needs to be resolved.
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
That is the bigger concern. Everything seemingly well over budget and behind schedule does not bode well for the future. Spending $22.5 billion for 3 cruisers? Yes, nearly $10 billion was R&D but still, $4+ billion per hull? Likewise the Ford class was so far over budget even the late Senator McCain was asking pointed questions. And the LCS has been disappointing. As we try and increase the size and effectiveness of the Navy, this fiscal mismanagement needs to be resolved.
"Everything" is a bit of a stretch.

There are quite a few programs that haven't been plagued by the same cost/schedule controversies. However, it is notable that those programs tend to adopt a more incremental/phased acquisition approach.

The programs that have struggled have been massively technologically ambitious affairs (JSF, DDG1000) while also heavily influenced by politics.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
Does Congress want military acquisitions to be (in addition to military readiness) jobs programs or be good bang for the buck?

Pick one or the other, I don't care which one, just be up front about it! If you want it to bring "good" jobs to your district, boost technology in the country, help disadvantaged small businesses get a leg up, or whatever else, then fine- just be up front about where half of the dollars are actually going.

I know, I know, unicorns and leprechauns don't exist.
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
Good article from Proceedings. Whether you call it an Arsenal Ship or perhaps a Q-Ship, an interesting take on how to get more hulls in the water at a cost effective price.

Converting Merchant Ships to Missile Ships for the Win

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/converting-merchant-ships-missile-ships-win

I agree with a lot of it, but I elieve too many Navy officers in planning positions who “do the math” will find it kind of like the Zombie S-3. In other words, there is no need to panic until there is a need to panic
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
I agree with a lot of it, but I elieve too many Navy officers in planning positions who “do the math” will find it kind of like the Zombie S-3. In other words, there is no need to panic until there is a need to panic
It's a cool idea, but before giving it the green light, there would have to be questions answered on the legal ramifications, how that would impact operational employment, and finally several technical issues. In other words, think through what you'd do with it, before we even start framing the technical problems that need to get solved (because for many missiles carried, this isn't just a bolt on solution).

But it is a given that merchant traffic will be greatly impacted by any war involving China or Russia, and Russia has already developed containerized cruise missile systems (and no doubt China would do the same), so it's certainly something worth thinking about.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Once you arm a merchant vessel, it becomes a combatant. It also becomes a combatant that is slow, unable to maneuver, and difficult to defend. It definitely won't keep up with the CSG. Survivability under the conditions that such a platform would likely be used would be problematic.

File this under cool idea, never going to happen.
 
Top