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

[Spekkio]

The movie Deepwater Horizon perfectly describes the Navy's material management and risk decision-making process.

 

[Griz882]

The movie Deepwater Horizon perfectly describes the Navy's material management and risk decision-making process.

Just run another negative pressure test.

 

[taxi1]

Bob Gates tells us how it is.

It is such a breath of fresh air to hear a non-moron weigh in.

 

[Flash]

There is a demand signal for a larger surface combatant. The Burkes have limited range and limited magazines, so even though the carriers are nuclear powered, the escorts are not. And yes, I expect any future cruiser / strike cruiser / battlecruiser / battleship to have substantially larger magazines. The Navy needs both large and small combatants, not either/or - even if that means purchasing from civilian and international shipyards. Time is of the essence. And as a sidenote, with the Zumwalts called destroyers- but at 16,000 tons as big as a WW2 era heavy cruiser - do any of the Navy’s classifications make sense? (Don’t get me started on naming conventions)

There is a huge difference between the demand signal and the proposed 'battleship', if we needed something NOW then a nuclear-powered cruiser like the one proposed is NOT the solution, not even close. Especially when it would likely take as long to build as a CVN given our shipyard capacity and the fact it is a brand new design with brand new weapons.

As for nuclear power, we've done fine without nuclear-powered escorts for over 30 years when the US Navy decided it wasn't worth it. I am doubtful the math has changed since then.

 

[sevenhelmet]

There is a huge difference between the demand signal and the proposed 'battleship', if we needed something NOW then a nuclear-powered cruiser like the one proposed is NOT the solution, not even close. Especially when it would likely take as long to build as a CVN given our shipyard capacity and the fact it is a brand new design with brand new weapons.

As for nuclear power, we've done fine without nuclear-powered escorts for over 30 years when the US Navy decided it wasn't worth it. I am doubtful the math has changed since then.

I see the problem as one of focus. The Navy's got so many good ideas, and they want to entertain them all, so nothing ever gets done on time. It's the classic entrepreneurial trap- the bottleneck is always with implementation, so you have to pick your biggest priorities and focus on those, at the expense of other good ideas.

DJT and his administration have not done the USN any favors by chumming the water with more good ideas.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I would say yes, drone warfare has already revolutionized warfare. Drone and counterdrone capabilities are now the first (and deadliest) thing infantry forces will encounter on the battlefield. The side with the most capable (and numerous) drones is going to have an asymmetric advantage. This includes uncrewed armored vehicles, surface ships, and combat aircraft as well.

Interesting article- 96% of casualties from drones sounds unreal, wonder how close that number is?

All non-drone militaries are obsolete

All warfare is drone warfare now.

www.noahpinion.blog