US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

And you guys think that you have shipyard problems. Just be thankful you don't have to scrap the 8 reactors in the USS Enterprise. Conventional power for future US carriers perhaps? Read the sorry and expensive tale at

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22607/the-navy-could-need-more-than-15-years-and-over-1-5b-to-scrap-uss-enterprise

JohninMK wrote:And you guys think that you have shipyard problems. Just be thankful you don't have to scrap the 8 reactors in the USS Enterprise. Conventional power for future US carriers perhaps? Read the sorry and expensive tale at

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22607/the-navy-could-need-more-than-15-years-and-over-1-5b-to-scrap-uss-enterprise

The article refers to the Los Angeles class SSN Boise thats been sitting at the quay for 30 MONTHS awaiting repairs and the repairs will cost $400M, equal to the repair and upgrade pf the Kuznetsov. Funny how our forum clowns endlessly troll the K and Russian yards in general, and ignore the fact that the US has its own share of problems

JohninMK wrote:And you guys think that you have shipyard problems. Just be thankful you don't have to scrap the 8 reactors in the USS Enterprise. Conventional power for future US carriers perhaps? Read the sorry and expensive tale at

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22607/the-navy-could-need-more-than-15-years-and-over-1-5b-to-scrap-uss-enterprise

This different, the Enterprise is being decommissioned therefore yes the reactors must be properly destroyed. That is the protocol, just like when the russians decommission nuclear subs they send them to a specific area to safely and properly dispose of the nuclear reactors.

For the Boise it's more of a problem the shipyards are overstuffed we have a much larger fleet then Russia, and the navy is in no hurry as we have all the submarines we need right now.

Does the Us have some issues with shipbuilding sure, but they are few and far between, to try and compare that to Russia just doesn't work.

When it comes down to it we can easily out produce in the naval area it's not even a contest.

And you guys think that you have shipyard problems. Just be thankful you don't have to scrap the 8 reactors in the USS Enterprise. Conventional power for future US carriers perhaps? Read the sorry and expensive tale at

One of the things that always struck me as outrageously negligent about nuclear power is how much of the disposal plans (still!) consist of 'leave it for a few decades & hope someone else comes up with the necessary tech, $$$ & somewhere to put it'

Russia has no shortage of ongoing nuke disposal issues also, though fortunately a bunch of it has been helped along by Western funding & technical aid (even if for not entirely altruistic reasons).

hoom wrote:

And you guys think that you have shipyard problems. Just be thankful you don't have to scrap the 8 reactors in the USS Enterprise. Conventional power for future US carriers perhaps? Read the sorry and expensive tale at

One of the things that always struck me as outrageously negligent about nuclear power is how much of the disposal plans (still!) consist of 'leave it for a few decades & hope someone else comes up with the necessary tech, $$$ & somewhere to put it'

Russia has no shortage of ongoing nuke disposal issues also, though fortunately a bunch of it has been helped along by Western funding & technical aid (even if for not entirely altruistic reasons).

Radioactivity decaying by logarithmic .
Means if they wait 100 years then the gamma radiation decrease by one magnitude.

In 300 years the fuels can be disposed/reprocessed by hand.

For all the forum trolls who think that their pathetic whinging about Russian delays are of epic significance:

https://www.checkpointasia.net/americas-new-ford-class-is-a-study-in-how-not-to-build-a-carrier/

The Navy had expected to have the ship delivered in 2014 at a cost of $10.5 billion . But the inevitable problems resulting from the concurrency the Navy built into developing Ford’s new and risky technologies, more than a dozen in all , caused the schedule to slip by more than three years and the cost to increase to $12.9 billion—nearly 25 percent over budget.

The problems with the ship’s systems, including the catapult, are well-known. But Trump still caught virtually every Pentagon watcher off guard when, in the middle of a wide-ranging Time interview , he said he had directed the Navy to abandon the new “digital” aircraft catapult on future Ford-class carriers. Instead he wants the Navy to revert to the proven steam catapults, which have been in use for decades.

The president is correct when he says there are significant problems with the Ford’s “digital” catapult, but abandoning it in future ships will pose significant problems.

The Ford’s “digital” catapult is, in fact, the Electromagnetic Launch System, or EMALS. It was designed to provide the boost necessary for aircraft to reach take-off speed within the short deck length of an aircraft carrier. In the long run, it is intended to be lighter, more reliable and less expensive than the steam system .

Unfortunately, the EMALS is immature technology, and its development is proceeding concurrently with the ship’s design and development. So far, the program has not lived up to the promises made.

Reality meets NATO propaganda fantasy wunderwaffen.

If the US want's an EMALS they should have built an onshore version and installed the motive components below ground to a converted an air-strip, then test the beejesus outta it before committing to a carrier.. Fast-tracking it in parallel with a CVN build was always guaranteed to be a cost & schedule group wipe.

I´m pretty sure they tested it. Building such a facility brings a lot of money! But it´s a controlled enviroment, like a laboratory, not a working ship.

Hole wrote:I´m pretty sure they tested it. Building such a facility brings a lot of money! But it´s a controlled enviroment, like a laboratory, not a working ship.

Actually, AFAIK they did no such thing, short of R&D testing of prototype components, and the under-performance and severe reliability issues of the Fords EMAL is testimony to that fact. They intended to progress the design while constructing, and sort out the bugs during vessel shakedown, and its proved to be a clusterf*ck.

There is a real possibility that the Ford will need to be painted white and have a huge pair of tusks installed on either side of the bow... Her prestige value to the USN will be on a par with the mighty Zumwalt sans railgunz and smart solid-gold arty shells! or the LCS failed-effort at creating an effective cheap light combatant.

Remove the EMALS & arrestors, hand it over to the Marines for a super Assault Carrier?
Though they'd also have to rebuild the deck to handle F-35B exhaust heat...

Better: remove EMALS, keep arrestors (did they actually get those working properly yet?) build ski-jump & suddenly discover that STOBAR is actually a fantastic idea!

A few billions will solve all this problems. And if they don´t, the western PR machine will pretend that this is the best ship ever constructed. If you question it you are an agent of Putin!

hoom wrote:Remove the EMALS & arrestors, hand it over to the Marines for a super Assault Carrier?

Assault Carriers need to be able to carry vehicles, manpower and munitions and to carry landing craft for delivering them to shore. Nah, either the Ford gets fixed to do the job its intended to do or her White Elephant status will become official.

Assault Carriers need to be able to carry vehicles, manpower and munitions and to carry landing craft for delivering them to shore.

First two America class are without well decks, various other bits optimised for aviation focus.
I imagine you could fit a lot of vehicles, manpower & munitions in the existing hangar, accommodation & magazines of Ford while still carrying more aircraft than an America/Wasp.
Anyway, just making a bit of a joke

But you would need cranes to bring the vehicles onto land.

Actually, AFAIK they did no such thing, short of R&D testing of prototype components, and the under-performance and severe reliability issues of the Fords EMAL is testimony to that fact. They intended to progress the design while constructing, and sort out the bugs during vessel shakedown, and its proved to be a clusterf*ck.

The technologies needed for an EMALS system have a range of other applications and are seriously the sort of stuff you find as you make your way through the black mesa plant in Half Life.

Of course it wont be perfect... it took decades to get steam cats right too... and lots of expensive planes ended up in the drink.

Experience with steam cats means nothing with EMALs, so the Americans are not in a better position to build one than anyone else... in fact it comes to materials and physics... I would say Russia is in no worse a position... except funding... obviously the Americans throw money at problems which can sometimes help.

Hopefully the Russians look at all the applications and have a much broader team working on this and other similar programmes to solve the problems.

There is a real possibility that the Ford will need to be painted white and have a huge pair of tusks installed on either side of the bow...

Possibility... with Kinzhal and Poseiden... that ship has already sailed...

Not to mention the economic collapse Trump is causing...

But you would need cranes to bring the vehicles onto land.

EM cats to throw them ashore... super fast deployment...

Reads quite well. Only first two parts out sofar.

By Dmitry Filipoff

Series Introduction

“Fleet level processes and procedures designed for safe and effective operations were increasingly relaxed due to time and fiscal constraints, and the ‘normalization-of-deviation’ began to take root in the culture of the fleet. Leaders and organizations began to lose sight of what ‘right’ looked like, and to accept these altered conditions and reduced readiness standards as the new normal.” –2017 Strategic Readiness Review commissioned in the aftermath of the collisions involving USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

The U.S. Navy is suffering from self-inflicted strategic dysfunction across the breadth of its enterprise. This series seeks to explore the theme of the normalization of deviation in some of the most critical operations, activities, and attributes that prepare the U.S. Navy for war. Because the U.S. Navy is the senior partner in its alliance activities many of these problems probably hold true for allied navies as well.

Part One below looks at U.S. Navy combat training and draws a comparison with Chinese Navy training.

Part Two will examine firepower relating to offense, defense, and across force structure.

Part Three will look at tactics and doctrine with an emphasis on network- and carrier-centric fleet combat.

Part Four will discuss technical standards.

Part Five will look at the relationship between the Navy’s availability and material condition.

Part Six will examine the application of strategy to operations.

Part Seven will look at strategy and force development, including force structure assessment.

Part Eight will conclude with recommendations for a force development strategy to refocus the U.S. Navy on the high-end fight and sea control.


http://cimsec.org/how-the-fleet-forgot-to-fight-pt-1-combat-training/37873

“This ship is built to fight; you’d better know how.” –Former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke (ret.) at the commissioning ceremony of the destroyer USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)

The training strategy of a military service is one of its most fundamental responsibilities. Training is central to piercing the fog of war as much as possible before combat exacts its price. Training is what forges people into warfighters.

Soon after the Cold War ended the Navy announced a “change in focus and, therefore, in priorities for the Naval Service away from operations on the sea toward power projection.”1 A new operating focus on low-end missions such as partner development missions, striking land targets, and deterring rogue regimes came to dominate its focus. Different training followed. This training and operating paradigm replaced the high-end threat focus the Navy was originally made for in an era of great power competition against the Soviet Union. But the shift was wholesale, and did not attempt to preserve a responsible minimum of important skills that still held relevance. Perhaps worst of all, somehow this shift allowed U.S. Navy training to fall to incredible lows and remain there for most of a generation.

So much valuable corporate memory has evaporated. Extremely unrealistic training exercises starved Sailors of opportunities to learn important skills and prove themselves. And while the U.S. Navy slipped for years its latest rival, the Chinese Navy, made strong gains in the very same skills the U.S. Navy was losing.


http://cimsec.org/how-the-fleet-forgot-to-fight-pt-firepower/37357

The Navy’s tactical ignorance is built into its arsenal. Currently some of the Navy’s most important weapons development programs are not just evolutionary, but revolutionary in the possibilities they open up. This is not due to innovation, but instead many of these noteworthy and foundational capabilities are finally arriving decades after the technologies were first proven, many close to half a century ago. Many of these most crucial weapons are already in the hands of great power competitors such as Russia and China who have had decades of opportunity to train and refine tactics with them.

Good links!

It's official: the CVN-75 is to retire early

China mission killed 1 CVN w/o firing a shot!
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/official-cites-china-as-us-carrier-exits-early/

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's official: the CVN-75 is to retire early

China mission killed 1 CVN w/o firing a shot!
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/official-cites-china-as-us-carrier-exits-early/

This may be just a ploy by the USN to get more money. Congress is unlikely to agree as there is lots of money to go round with a refurb, know what I mean?

Trump is also for saving $; that CVN will be put in reserve & could be reactivated in case Ford is not any good or other adverse developments.

New American Destroyer Zumwalt in Alaska





https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3582725.html

It looks like it is made of brick... I would have thought a stealthy design would try to have as few joins as possible and therefore have fewer but larger surface panels on its exterior.

Of course it wont be very stealthy with those two tug boats attached to it all the time... the propulsion still giving problems?

GarryB wrote:It looks like it is made of brick... I would have thought a stealthy design would try to have as few joins as possible and therefore have fewer but larger surface panels on its exterior.

Of course it wont be very stealthy with those two tug boats attached to it all the time... the propulsion still giving problems?

Looks like floating Alcatraz!

The side cross section of this POS is enormous. And that slant is not going to stop an incoming radar beam from scattering back to the
source even we ignore quantum mechanics. Those tiles are their attempt at RAM coating where they guess what part of the EM spectrum
that their designated enemy will use to scan this tub.

American "wunderwaffe" is all about style over substance and prices beyond insanity. But chutzpah does not win wars.

The new missile will replace the USA and the "Tomahawk" and "Harpoon"

The new missile will replace the USA and the
In the command of the naval systems of the U.S. Navy (NAVAIR) has published a request for obtaining information from potential contractors for the OASuW program.

The service is responsible for material support of air components of the fleet, asks stakeholders to present their achievements and to indicate the approximate cost of creating a new universal missile by 2030. It is reported by the French edition of Air&Cosmos.

As indicated in the aforementioned request, the new product must be capable of hitting both ground and naval targets. It is assumed that the quality of the media will be platforms such as the F-35 (the rocket will be located inside the aircraft and outside the car), F/A-18, P-8 and, in addition, a promising fighter of the next generation.

NAVAIR intends to perform the power plant of the new weapons, different systems, in particular, to navigation, information and military. Also there will be studying its ability to interact with other missiles. So the new product must be able to connect in your face like properties of anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" and winged "Tomahawk".
On the approximate cost of the program is not reported.

https://weaponews.com/news/65349748-the-new-missile-will-replace-the-usa-and-the-tomahawk-and-harpoon.html

So this is how it goes, time after time:

1) Call Russia a broken state at the brink of disintegration and with backwards, rusting military absolutely incapable of facing US military might
2) Order countless programs to update US junk to astronomic prices so they will hopefully manage to do in a decade what Russian armament is doing now
3) Repeat ad nauseam