US Navy Woes

[tomahawk6]

To stop gazing at sailors breasts new rank insignia have been adopted.  ;D

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/11/02/navy-oks-new-uniform-rank-tabs-after-sailors-say-camo-caused-uncomfortable-gaze.html

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I had to check carefully to ensure that wan't a duffelblog headline

 

[dimsum]

To stop gazing at sailors breasts new rank insignia have been adopted.  ;D

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/11/02/navy-oks-new-uniform-rank-tabs-after-sailors-say-camo-caused-uncomfortable-gaze.html

They're in the same position, right?  So it's "gaze for a shorter amount of time", not "stop gazing"  :nod:

Also, does anyone else find this exchange below hilarious? 

Complaint:  "I am uncomfortable staring at a female's chest to see her rank," the sailor said. "It's hard to identify even from just a few feet away. ... Why can't we go back to ranks on eight-point covers or somewhere different on the uniform blouse?"

Answer:  Same location, same size, but full-colour on a black background 

:facepalm:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Secretary of the Navy Announces the New Constellation-class Frigate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRnx26mW5A

 

[OceanBonfire]

They're in the same position, right?  So it's "gaze for a shorter amount of time", not "stop gazing"  :nod:

Also, does anyone else find this exchange below hilarious? 

Complaint:  "I am uncomfortable staring at a female's chest to see her rank," the sailor said. "It's hard to identify even from just a few feet away. ... Why can't we go back to ranks on eight-point covers or somewhere different on the uniform blouse?"

Answer:  Same location, same size, but full-colour on a black background 

:facepalm:

The USAF found a better solution months ago:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/07/23/air-force-tweaks-ocp-nametapes-insignia-for-easier-reading/

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2285483/name-rank-service-and-badges-will-be-more-identifiable-on-ocp/

 

[MarkOttawa]

Carrier woes--start of major article:

No Margin Left: Overworked Carrier Force Struggles to Maintain Deployments After Decades of Overuse

Navy aircraft carrier operations are up 40 percent this year over last year, even as the service has fewer available for tasking due to maintenance and acquisition challenges.

From January through Oct. 31, U.S. carriers had spent a combined total of 855 days at sea – 258 days more than all of 2019, according to a USNI News analysis of carrier deployments over the last five years.

That heavy carrier usage makes 2020 the busiest year for the carrier fleet since the Arab Spring, forcing some carriers to stay on station for record-length deployments and conduct double-pumps even as others are sidelined and can’t contribute to the workload.

The National Defense Strategy in January 2018 called on the military to prioritize building up readiness and lethality for a future fight over routine low-end operations today, giving the Navy something it hadn’t had in almost two decades: a reprieve from keeping an aircraft carrier in the Middle East.

Since 2001, the Navy’s presence in the Middle East grew and plateaued to support a times a two-carrier presence there, with the sea service never seeing much of a break to come home and reset the way the Army and Air Force did during lulls and withdrawal periods. For two years, in 2018 and 2019, the Navy was allowed to drop from 25 percent of carriers operating at sea in 2017 to just 20 percent and then 16 percent. 2019 saw the lowest carrier usage rates in 25 years, after years of carriers being overworked and seeing subsequent maintenance challenges.

But then 2020 reversed that trend.

Today, the Pentagon is using up aircraft carrier readiness faster than the Navy can generate it.

The pace requires several carriers being asked to do double-pump deployments – two back-to-back deployments overseas without a major maintenance period in between – or curtail maintenance periods. This heavy use, paired with a backup at the East Coast aircraft carrier repair yard and the service being down a flattop due to the delayed entry of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) to the fleet, is putting significant strain on a small number of carriers while others are laid up and not contributing to the workload. It also calls into question whether the Pentagon will allow the Navy to redirect its spending and attention to modernize for a potential fight against China, or whether the service will continue to be bogged down by combatant commander demands such as providing heel-to-toe carrier presence to sail in a tight box of water off the coast of Iran.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News in a recent interview that he was trying hard to keep deployments to about seven months, personnel tempos to about a two-to-one dwell-to-deployment rate, and ships coming into maintenance on time so they can leave on time.

Even despite less than half the carrier fleet being available for tasking, Gilday said he thought the Navy has “been fairly successful in that.”

But, he added, “the real world gets a vote, right? And so particularly with Iran and in CENTCOM, there have been real-world issues that have come up that have caused us to keep an aircraft carrier and a strike group on station. And you know, those are things that you can’t specifically plan for, you have to react to.”

State of the Carrier Fleet

The East Coast has just one deployable carrier for the next year.

Due to maintenance logjams and the years-late entry of Ford to the fleet, U.S. Fleet Forces Command will only have USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) – the second oldest carrier in the fleet at 43 years old, with a history of maintenance challenges – to meet any operational requirements that arise. Fresh off a deployment with 200 days at sea without a port call due to the coronavirus pandemic, Eisenhower is slated to deploy again early next year, two defense officials confirmed to USNI News. No other carriers will be available to deploy from Virginia until at least the second half of 2021.

Though the West Coast fleet doesn’t face the same challenges as its Atlantic counterparts, it too will rely on a double-pump deployment – sending USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) back out after a deployment in the spring that was marred by a COVID-19 outbreak – to fully cover the Joint Force’s requirements of the Navy carrier fleet, Navy officials have confirmed to USNI News...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-margin-left-overworked-carrier-force-struggles-to-maintain-deployments-after-decades-of-overuse

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

Carrier woes--start of major article:

Mark
Ottawa

To be fair, this issue has been brewing for a few years now.  The senior leadership of the USN has been well aware of their carrier usage & challenges with maintenance programs between deployments for years.

Now has just become the time the issues are starting to come knocking, in terms of physical availability of the ships.


I may be wrong, but I think this issue was preventable.  The USN doesn't need a bloody super carrier in the Persian Gulf at all times - especially TWO.

During Iraq?  Quite possibly.  But since?  No.


They have bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, and Turkey.  Not to mention Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Turkey all have capable air forces of their own. 

They could have had a 'mini carrier' in the Persian Gulf if need be, and let the big boys rest & undertake their maintenance periods.  There is a war with China coming up sometime in the somewhat near future, and that conflict will ACTUALLY require carriers.


:2c:

 

[MarkOttawa]

Perhaps the one, and then two, Royal Navy carriers (with USMC F35Bs on board as well as RAF/FAA planes) can help--along with Marine Nationale's CDG.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

USS Blue Ridge to sail on for another 18 years (will have 68 years of service at retirement): https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/uss-blue-ridge-the-navy-s-oldest-operational-warship-turns-50-in-japan-1.652268

How many years can a CPF last, says every accountant working on the RCN's books...

 

[MarkOttawa]

How well will targeting work? Note last para at quote, whole lot of potentially costly duplication:

The US Navy is moving to put more ship-killer missiles on submarines

The U.S. Navy is pushing ahead with fielding more anti-ship cruise missiles on submarines in the Pacific, the head of U.S. Navy Submarine Forces said Monday.

As the U.S. fleet grapples with the rising threat of China’s expanding Navy, which now has more ships than the U.S. Navy’s fleet on both coasts combined, the service is packing its submarines with longer-range weapons, including the forthcoming Maritime Strike Tomahawk, Vice Adm. Daryl Caudle said.

“We’re increasing our range and how we deliver kinetic effects,” Caudle said. “Long-range torpedoes, of course, because that’s our clandestine weapon, but also bringing back Harpoon in the Pacific. We’ve tested that capability — we know it works. The weapon, as everyone knows, has limitations, but still gives us some stand-off capability. And we’re also pressing hard to get the Maritime Strike Tomahawk building as well.”

Adding the Maritime Strike Tomahawk, with a range of about 1,000 miles, will greatly extend the reach of its submarines in the Pacific.

The Maritime Strike Tomahawk is one of three Block V variants of the Navy’s stalwart cruise missile currently in development. The anti-ship missile, which incorporates a new seeker, is slated to start coming online in 2023.

A Navy brief says the Maritime Strike Tomahawk’s new seeker “enables the capability to hit moving maritime targets through mid-course guidance via third party or seeker mode, to a terminal seeker area of uncertainty.”

U.S. Navy and senior defense leaders have long pointed to submarines as the ace up its sleeve in a potential conflict with China, though the numbers of submarines in the fleet is declining as the Los Angeles-class attack submarines are decommissioning. The Navy expects to drop from around 50 today to 42 attack boats by the late 2020s. The service is exploring extending the service life of up to five of its LA class to blunt the worst effects.

There is a growing consensus among military leaders that holding off the Chinese fleet is an imperative in any potential conflict, with the Air Force, Marine Corps and even the Army investing in anti-ship missiles…
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/16/the-us-navy-is-moving-to-put-more-ship-killer-missiles-on-submarines/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

With a new administration that will be hostile to spending money on the military the USN better learn to live on a budget.

 

[CBH99]

How well will targeting work? Note last para at quote, whole lot of potentially costly duplication:

Mark
Ottawa

The advantage the US has (potentially) are allies in the region with good subs of their own.  The Japanese & the Australians both have capable submarine fleets, and while not particularly large - will give the US a solid hedge in regards to their own numbers.

Also, the US has - I believe - committed to start building 3 new submarines a year, from the current two.  (I looked for an article to confirm this, but couldn't find one.  I swear I've read that in numerous sources though?)




What are people's thoughts about the development and construction of the new Columbia class SSBN's? 

(I feel like it is a bit of an unnecessary waste of money, as they could instead look into a modified version of the already deadly Virginia class, which already has missile tubes.)

 

[tomahawk6]

An Aegis destroyer intercepted a test ICBM of its new block III standard missile.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-destroys-icbm-using-new-interceptor-missile-for-first-time-1.652417

 

[tomahawk6]

Trying to stay relevant SECNav floated the reactivation of 1st Fleet to be based in Singapore.

https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/navy-secretary-pitches-1st-fleet-revival-in-western-pacific-possibly-based-in-singapore-1.652617

 

[tomahawk6]

Why not Thailand or S. Vietnam [cam ranh bay]

 

[CBH99]

Thailand or somewhere in southern Vietnam would make more sense, tactically speaking.

It is going to be a fleet without ships though, other than perhaps a few LCS.  I imagine that until the USN can fill out their numbers a bit more, any assets assigned to their AO will be on assignment from 7th fleet.



If nothing else, it signifies that India is going to be a much more important partner for the US moving forwards.  I'm not entirely sure why Pakistan was Uncle Sam's preferred partner in the region in the first place. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Cam Ranh Bay has a nice harbor [the US built].

 

[dimsum]

It is going to be a fleet without ships though, other than perhaps a few LCS. 

So, like 2nd Fleet in the North Atlantic then.

 

[tomahawk6]

Another job for a Vice Admiral. ;D

 

[Spencer100]

The advantage the US has (potentially) are allies in the region with good subs of their own.  The Japanese & the Australians both have capable submarine fleets, and while not particularly large - will give the US a solid hedge in regards to their own numbers.

Also, the US has - I believe - committed to start building 3 new submarines a year, from the current two.  (I looked for an article to confirm this, but couldn't find one.  I swear I've read that in numerous sources though?)

https://news.usni.org/2020/11/18/navy-confident-it-could-build-3-virginia-ssns-a-year-though-more-study-needed-on-shipyard-capacity





What are people's thoughts about the development and construction of the new Columbia class SSBN's? 

(I feel like it is a bit of an unnecessary waste of money, as they could instead look into a modified version of the already deadly Virginia class, which already has missile tubes.)