Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[Randy Daytona]

From the middle of the article:

Enacting costs of $900,000 per job to arrest a declining industry is not, to me, good policy.

You’re arguing economics, which in this case is correct. I am arguing geopolitics - in that I do not think we should be reliant upon our greatest strategic competitor for steel, rare earth metals, medical supplies, etc. There is also the fact that these are solid middle class jobs that we should find a way to keep.

Break.

In addition to the US fleet, allied navies with the UK’s 2 Queen Elizabeth class carriers, Japan’s 2 Izumo “Helicopter Destroyers” and now this:

China, France denounce U.S. nuclear sub pact with Britain, Australia

China on Thursday denounced a new Indo-Pacific security alliance between the United States, Britain and Australia, saying such partnerships should not target third countries and warning of an intensified arms race in the region.

www.reuters.com

Australia to get U.S. nuclear submarine technology as China looms large

As a reminder of the hangar space on those ships carrying F-35B’s:

Queen Elizabeth class (UK): 55,990 sq ft (509' x 110')
Izumo class (Japan): 44,000 sq ft (550' x 80')
Cavour class (Italy): 30,360 sq ft (440' x 69')
America class LHA (US): 28,142 sq ft
Wasp class LHD (US): 18,745 sq ft

 

[number9]

In addition to the US fleet, allied navies with the UK’s 2 Queen Elizabeth class carriers, Japan’s 2 Izumo “Helicopter Destroyers” and now this:

China, France denounce U.S. nuclear sub pact with Britain, Australia

China on Thursday denounced a new Indo-Pacific security alliance between the United States, Britain and Australia, saying such partnerships should not target third countries and warning of an intensified arms race in the region.

www.reuters.com

As an Australian-American (and grandson of a WW2 RAN submariner!) I feel a duty to reply to this.. It's definitely interesting news. You can see some local coverage here from the ABC, which in Australia is not a commercial station but a sort of hybrid of PBS + NPR.

From memory, the RAN uses diesel-electric Collins-class subs of a Swedish design. The procurement and launch phases were not, I would describe, an unalloyed success. In the last couple of the years the RAN explored the idea of using Barracuda-class subs from France. Interestingly, these subs are nuclear-powered by design but (as far as I can tell) the Australian Navy was going to use conventional, non-nuclear power plants.

Obviously that looks to be out the window given they're getting American nuke subs now. In other news, Australia just signed a trilateral (tripartite?) defense agreement with the UK & USA. Australia has a population of only 25 million; the entire Australian Defense Force is about 85,000 bodies or maybe 1/3rd the size of the US Marine Corps.

 

[Randy Daytona]

As an Australian-American (and grandson of a WW2 RAN submariner!) I feel a duty to reply to this.. It's definitely interesting news. You can see some local coverage here from the ABC, which in Australia is not a commercial station but a sort of hybrid of PBS + NPR.

From memory, the RAN uses diesel-electric Collins-class subs of a Swedish design. The procurement and launch phases were not, I would describe, an unalloyed success. In the last couple of the years the RAN explored the idea of using Barracuda-class subs from France. Interestingly, these subs are nuclear-powered by design but (as far as I can tell) the Australian Navy was going to use conventional, non-nuclear power plants.

Obviously that looks to be out the window given they're getting American nuke subs now. In other news, Australia just signed a trilateral (tripartite?) defense agreement with the UK & USA. Australia has a population of only 25 million; the entire Australian Defense Force is about 85,000 bodies or maybe 1/3rd the size of the US Marine Corps.

When you have time, would like to see some photos and perhaps a background of your grandfather’s submarine in the Ship Photo of the Day thread.

 

[Brett327]

Will this go toward a fast attack or SLBM type hull? Would be interesting to see the AoA process that led to this decision. Given all the associated costs and overhead for going nuke, wondering whether it would have produced more capacity if they went with some AIP design. Thoughts?

 

[Pags]

Will this go toward a fast attack or SLBM type hull? Would be interesting to see the AoA process that led to this decision. Given all the associated costs and overhead for going nuke, wondering whether it would have produced more capacity if they went with some AIP design. Thoughts?

The RAN's latest boats were, as I understand but, an unrequited disaster. And I think they were AIP based on a German design.

Edit: or a Swedish design. One can only assume it was assembled via hex key.

Also looks like the RAN was trying to buy French SSNs but that program wasn't going well due to cost and sked concerns.

 

[number9]

The RAN's latest boats were, as I understand but, an unrequited disaster. And I think they were AIP based on a German design.

Edit: or a Swedish design. One can only assume it was assembled via hex key.

Same with the Large Hadron Collider, from memory.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Will this go toward a fast attack or SLBM type hull? Would be interesting to see the AoA process that led to this decision. Given all the associated costs and overhead for going nuke, wondering whether it would have produced more capacity if they went with some AIP design. Thoughts?

There has been some info/speculation on the nuke boards I am on regarding how this will all work. It is thought it would be more fast attack style, and that it could lead to our SY's that do nuclear work having fly away teams to Australia for maintenance. It is my thought it would be easy enough for the Australian subs to deploy, then stop in Guam/Hawaii/San Diego for maintenance periods, what is decided there are many options.

I wonder if this will lead to Australia sending their personnel through our pipeline (NPS and NPTU) especially if they utilize the S9G or some variation.

The USN has the ability to set them up quite well with training and hands on experience not just with the training pipeline but with putting some of those sailors on US subs to get actual underway operational experience.

 

[Brett327]

Update - Read a story this morning that the proposal is for 8 SSN type boats.

 

[SynixMan]

Virginia Class is on time and under budget. Seems like sharing that design or a derivative with our biggest ally in the Pacific is a win for all involved (except the French, but they’ll slow their temper tantrum soon enough).

 

[Spekkio]

Will this go toward a fast attack or SLBM type hull? Would be interesting to see the AoA process that led to this decision. Given all the associated costs and overhead for going nuke, wondering whether it would have produced more capacity if they went with some AIP design. Thoughts?

It's for SSNs. AIP is an ineffective design criteria for forward deploying submarines in the pacific theater.

It's good to see that we are starting to lay the foundation of building up allies in the western pacific. I think that our unwillingness to take sides in the love / hate triangle between S. Korea, Japan, and China has boxed us into a strategic hole where we need to build a force that can unilaterally take on China, in contrast the strategy with Russia where we rely on NATO allies.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Virginia Class is on time and under budget. Seems like sharing that design or a derivative with our biggest ally in the Pacific is a win for all involved (except the French, but they’ll slow their temper tantrum soon enough).

Isn’t our biggest ally in the Pacific Japan by a long shot?

 

[Hair Warrior]

Isn’t our biggest ally in the Pacific Japan by a long shot?

Well…
-AUS and JPN are both needed to counter PRC, partly because of geography, but mainly because neither is big enough to take on China alone
-we have different information sharing agreements with each, and (at the unclassified level) we do share a lot with AUS
-AUS has been an ally for far longer (WW1, WW2, ANZUS)
-the Australian military has a different culture and authorities than Japan’s self-defense force; AUS is more expeditionary in nature, and their SAS/special forces are on par with ours in terms of training rigor (but not in size or resources); AUS contributed significant troop numbers to the OIF/OEF coalitions
-the reason we have so many bases in JPN can be traced to post-WW2 and their inability to say no; this doesn’t mean we’re unwelcome there, but we never occupied AUS after the war the way we did JPN, and many of those bases in Japan persist

 

[Griz882]

Isn’t our biggest ally in the Pacific Japan by a long shot?

In truth that would be South Korea.

Hip Shot Comparison...

KOREA - 600,000 personell, 1580 aircraft, 234 ships, 2600 tanks, 14,000 AFVs, 6800 artillery 575 rocket launchers.
JAPAN - 250,000 1480 155 1000 5500 675 100
AUS - 60,000 425 48 60 3000 54 0
NZ - 9000 47 11 0 435 24 0
PHL - 125,000 179 103 4 600 297 0

Of course one could note that Korea will be busy with that Korea but then again, so will the US and China. In fact, I might even predict that the only significent land fighting in a war with the CHYCAPS will be in Korea with some smaller stuff around the Philippines. Also keep in mind that the list above is active duty only. If you rolled in reserves the number would climb by 3,100,000 (nearly all being Korean). We could also argue that Vietnam might want to get involved against an agressive China as well (add another 500,000 uniformed personnel). Note on the numbers above, not all the ships are "warships" and not all the aircraft are "tactical," but they all have a job to do in the event of a war.

 

[Griz882]

Ooops...I forgot Tawian!

165,000 active duty (1,655,000 reserve)
739 aircraft
1160 tanks
8750 AFVs
1407 artillery
115 rocket launchers

In any case when you add up actual allies with "nations who won't have an option to sit it out" you have a pretty substantial blocking force to worry the CHYCAPS with.

 

[Randy Daytona]

In truth that would be South Korea.

Hip Shot Comparison...

KOREA - 600,000 personell, 1580 aircraft, 234 ships, 2600 tanks, 14,000 AFVs, 6800 artillery 575 rocket launchers.
JAPAN - 250,000 1480 155 1000 5500 675 100
AUS - 60,000 425 48 60 3000 54 0
NZ - 9000 47 11 0 435 24 0
PHL - 125,000 179 103 4 600 297 0

Of course one could note that Korea will be busy with that Korea but then again, so will the US and China. In fact, I might even predict that the only significent land fighting in a war with the CHYCAPS will be in Korea with some smaller stuff around the Philippines. Also keep in mind that the list above is active duty only. If you rolled in reserves the number would climb by 3,100,000 (nearly all being Korean). We could also argue that Vietnam might want to get involved against an agressive China as well (add another 500,000 uniformed personnel). Note on the numbers above, not all the ships are "warships" and not all the aircraft are "tactical," but they all have a job to do in the event of a war.

Griz,
I think that Treetop might have meant who is our most important ally in the Pacific. South Korea and Taiwan, while having large militaries, are consumed with defense and lack the ability to project power.

Australia is a very close and traditional ally of the US, but until this submarine deal lacked significant military capability to concern China.

That leaves Japan with a very capable blue water navy and air force able to confront China.

Finally, there is India due to both its strategic location between China and Persian Gulf oil as well as its hostility and willingness to exchange blows with China.