US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

mnztr wrote:Well the USN has always felt secondary need for such missiles as it always assumes airspace dominance in its conflict equations, the Italians alwasy assume they will be with Uncle Sam if fighting a scary opponent. Russia and the Chinese assume they will be facing either land based aircraft or a CBG or 3. Therefore they are preparing ways to neutralize the centrepiece of that force, at sea, the carrier, for land based, AWACS and Tankers. Take those main pieces out and the US fighting machine starts to struggle. Just like a chess game, the Queen (carrier) Rook and Bishop (tanker and AWACs) ...

The US military is a massive logistics engine, the strategy is built around extending and defending that logistics chain. Rip out the means of projecting that defence and they have to pull back. You are not gonna defeat them completely, but they cannot attack you with full force.

Although I am agreeing with most of what you say I can assure you of just the contrary for what my own country's navy is concerned: our ships are built at the most compelling  constructive standard in NATO and are armed to their teeth EXACTLY because we always considered that in the our main theatres of operations (Sicily Strait, Adriatic sea, Red sea, Hormuz strait and Persian Gulf) each of our ship or task force would be basically alone to face enemy menaces of different nature popping up at very close distance due to the small spaces in which they would have to operate.
The idea of relying to american air cover was not even took into consideration when operating there.

That's was the reason of a lot of ad Hoc designed systems like OTOMAT, DARDO, ASPIDE launcher and all the different version of 76mm gun we introduced, to put it simply american equivalent ones , widely used by other NATO navies were just not enough for what we asked for.

And no, our Navy will not struggle if USN is not around, while others NATO navies (see previous post) are actually struggling even in peacetime due the conflict between their deluded ambition of retaining a long bygone status (see QE and CDG white elephants) and the idiotic idea of compensate such an imbalance adopting cost saving measures of the rest of their own fleet with the result of getting ships not up to their minimum task and so to have their own programs cut in half or even cancelled.

Actual ntroduction of very long range ASM, supersonic or not, transforming the whole Mediterranean in a Green Sea operation scenario would just confirm us in our path.
A path, I repeat, that has always been the most similar to the Sov/russian one between all NATO Navies.

mnztr wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Although I am agreeing with most of what you say I can assure you of just the contrary for what my own country's navy is concerned: our ships are built at the most compelling  constructive standard in NATO and are armed to their teeth EXACTLY because we always considered that in the our main theatres of operations (Sicily Strait, Adriatic sea, Red sea, Hormuz strait and Persian Gulf) each of our ship or task force would be basically alone to face enemy menaces of different nature popping up at very close distance due to the small spaces in which they would have to operate.
The idea of relying to american air cover was not even took into consideration when operating there.

That's was the reason of a lot of ad Hoc designed systems like OTOMAT, DARDO, ASPIDE launcher and all the different version of 76mm gun we introduced, to put it simply american equivalent ones , widely used by other NATO navies were just not enough for what we asked for.

And no, our Navy will not struggle if USN is not around, while others NATO navies (see previous post) are actually struggling even in peacetime due the conflict between their deluded ambition of retaining a long bygone status (see QE and CDG white elephants) and the idiotic idea of compensate such an imbalance adopting cost saving measures of the rest of their own fleet with the result of getting ships not up to their minimum task and so to have their own programs cut in half or even cancelled.

Actual ntroduction of very long range ASM, supersonic or not, transforming the whole Mediterranean in a Green Sea operation scenario  would just confirm us in our path.
A path, I repeat, that has always been the most similar to the Sov/russian one between all NATO Navies.

If you are in these areas, massive amounts of US air power are not very far away. I seriously doubt the US will not assist an Italian ship under attack. Also these are not particulary scary opponents except maybe for Iran. In terms of scary Naval powers you are pretty much limited to Russia or China the rest are friends (Japan, Taiwan, Korea etc etc ) I even seriously doubt Russia would intentionally attack an Italian vessel, I just don't see it happening..nor China. I even cannot see a situation where Iran would attack an Italian vessel  

When those standards were set and those weapon first developed, situation was completely different, Cold War was still full raging when Lupo and Maestrale classes was introduced and we already have had Doria and Vittorio Veneto classes showing a radical departure from other NATO navies. Plus jugoslavia, whith which we had a strictly nationl feud

and we designed and still design our ships to be able to operate in small group and even standing alone, in consideration of the ambiental features in which we expect them to operate, not expecting support neither from our own other ships in the area, let's figure from American CV fleets that have to stay hundreds of miles away from them just to survive.

Obviously, the fact that when they decided to design a class of ships specifically intended to operate in the same operative scenarios they came out with that (those) absolute. cosmic level abomination called LCS, showing how absolute suckers they are when it came to littoral areas operations, is just a proof that we were absolutely right to stand up in our way and that spending those 25% more for our ships in comparison with foreign analogues in order to keep our intended standards.

In the long run, we can say it now by having some of those above mentioned ship still active and running after more than 35 years of service, it's also the most economically wise choice to do.

mnztr wrote:Well the Italian carriers were using British planes. Carriers are kinda useless in a European conflict as land based planes, missile and subs would take them out pretty quick. For power projection they are kinda useless. even the Argies cam pretty close to beating the UK. with similar carriers. If they had more Exocets, properly fused their bombs and recharged their torpedoes properly it woulda been carnage. The only European countries that can really defend themselves are France and the UK, because they have nukes. End of story.

No.
Harrier II is an american plane and we acquired them in the IIplus configuration i.e. the one with radar, that was the result of a joint development program partecipated from its beginning by us and Spain as full partners while Bae was just a subcontractor in the production of original model...

With exception of the first three all ours were assembled in Italy at Caselle.

Note however that our first carriers dates to twenty/thirdy years before the arrival of Harrier i.e. the Doria Class and the Vittorio Veneto like first russian ones were Moskva class, another similar parallel development followed by another one i.e. the Garibaldi and KIEV classes, both carrying STOVL planes and an heavy conventional armament at the same time.

That's because of what about carrier, we like Russian doesn't look at them for power protection but as a support of the rest of our Navy.
Good for a real world superpower, good for us also.

And because of that, actually we have a well balanced and functioning navy, capable to meet its own intended spectrum of mission and actually expanding both it than itself while France and UK having both acquired power projection carriers to support their deluded great power status obsessions are actually struggling even to ensure them a decent escort with the remaining part of their surface fleets.

Now, back to topic or moderators would get angry.

Maritime patrol aviation of U.S. Navy fully re-equipped with Poseidon P-8A aircraft

On May 28, 2020, the U.S. Navy announced that they had completed the rearmament from Lockheed P-3C Orion aircraft to the new Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, of the last, 13th, its VP-40 Fighting Marlins based combat patrol squadron at Whidby Island Air Force Base (Washington State). This marked the complete rearmament of the regular parts of the American maririme patrol aviation with R-8A aircraft.

The VP-40 squadron, which has operated Orion aircraft since 1967, surrendered nine of its full-time R-3Cs in 2019, and since November 2019 began re-equipping and retraining on the R-8A, completing it on May 14, 2020. Earlier, by the end of 2019, the re-equipment on the P-8A was completed by the VP-46 squadron.

Now the U.S. Navy aviation has 13 combat patrol squadrons on the new R-8A base patrol aircraft - including six uadrons (VP-1, VP-4, VP-9, VP-40, VP-46 and VP-47) 10th wing (control on Whidby Island) on the West (Pacific) coast of the United States, and seven squadrons (VP-5, VP-8, VP-10, VP-16, VP-26, VP-45 and training VP- 30) to the 11th wing (control in Jacksonville) on the East (Atlantic) coast of the United States.

Now, several R-3C Orion aircraft serving in regular parts of the US Navy remain only in the special secret reconnaissance squadron VPU-2 Special Projects Patrol Squadron. It was previously reported that VPU-2 was also supposed to be re-equipped on the P-8A, starting from the end of 2019, however, according to the latest data, this did not happen. In addition, until 2023, the R-3C Orion aircraft will remain in the reserve patrol squadrons - VP-62 in Jacksonville, and VP-69 on Whidby Island. Also in service for a few more years will remain aircraft radio and electronic intelligence ER-3E ARIES II.

Lockheed P-3 Orion aircraft in the R-3A (P3V-1) version began to enter the U.S. Navy aviation in 1962.

In total, the U.S. Navy plans to receive 120 R-8A aircraft, of which about 110 have been delivered from 2011 to the present.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4044446.html

EMALS failed again: http://www.ng.ru/news/681228.html?print=Y

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/boeing-rolls-out-first-f-a-18f-block-iii-super-hornet-advanced-strike-fighter/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/asia/us-aircraft-carriers-pacific-china-intl-hnk-scli/index.html?utm_term=1592217354658cefc923753a7&utm_source=Five+Things+for+Monday%2C+June+15%2C+2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=215610_1592217354660&bt_ee=ITEQ95zIPORPEitBQokb8r8WmLMfgFgerS45RHjU7D2I80lM1G%2BCrrdqaWwS3ak5&bt_ts=1592217354660


Even if the USS Nimitz later joins them in the W. Pacific, China can still saturate them & taiwan with 100s of B/CMs.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/navy-brings-massive-carrier-power-to-taiwan-strait-south-china-sea

The American fleet will withdraw the first four ships of the LCS type

As the American edition of Defense News reported in David B. Larter's article, "US Navy's first 4 littoral combat ships to leave the fleet in 9 months", according to a statement by Admiral Mike Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations (Commander) of the United States Navy on June 20, 2020 years, the first four American "littoral" warships - LCS 1 Freedom, LCS 2 Independence, LCS 3 Fort Worth and LCS 4 Coronado - will be withdrawn from the US Navy on March 31, 2020 and transferred to conservation. All of them were commissioned from 2008 to 2014.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4076448.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/03/politics/us-navy-south-china-sea/index.html

Nasty fire in San Diego

Details remain limited, but the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) is burning pier-side at Naval Base San Diego. Aerial footage shows thick smoke billowing from the ship's hangar deck as firefighting crews have moved in to try to halt the blaze. Reports state that an unknown number of sailors have been hurt as a result of the fire.

Fire crews from across San Diego have been called in to fight the fire, which some sources state emanates from below the waterline. Loud booms have been heard coming from the ship, but it isn't clear what exactly is causing them.

LHD-6 is one of only nine of the assault ships. The fire looks as if it has really got a hold. There are fire ships pumping water at the ship's side.

Live footage, looks nasty:




Best comment came already: "Damn, that's a lotta smoke, she almost looks like admiral kuznetsov underway."

Just in case some of the usual local fanboys start getting ahead of themselves

Kuznetsiv then the chinese ship... maybe that an answer from Russia and China.

Joke apart, I don't understand why they can't stop a fire before it get that strong. I mean the fire start small so the guy working there can use a fire estinguisher quickly and call help very fast. The ship even if bug is not a city and in two minutes more people can come and help.

I wonder what would happen if it's a oniks that explode inside ? Will it burn united states .

Isos wrote:....Joke apart, I don't understand why they can't stop a fire before it get that strong. I mean the fire start small so the guy working there can use a fire estinguisher quickly and call help very fast. The ship even if bug is not a city and in two minutes more people can come and help. ...

It's Sunday, they most likely just had skeleton crew

By the time anyone noticed it was probably already flaming big time

I remember when I was in the army one of the bulldozers we had sitting in the parking lot just caught fire all by itself, sunlight plus lubricant leak or something and it was off


Hopefully this will finally get all the online fanboys to STFU about fire on Russian ships, both sides have eggs on their faces now

Otherwise known as a disaster for the USN.

Chris Cavas
@CavasShips
·
2h
BHR recently completed a major dry docking overhaul at BAE Systems in San Diego and moved back to 32nd Street Naval Base in February,

Looks pretty bad. Reports say 18 sailors and 45 firemen have been hospitalised so far. And the vessel next to it, USS Fitzgerald is in danger of catching fire as well

Cyberspec wrote:Looks pretty bad. Reports say 18 sailors and 45 firemen have been hospitalised so far. And the vessel next to it, USS Fitzgerald is in danger of catching fire as well

Same USS Fitzgerald that took a ride on the bow of container ship and now a vessel docked next to it gets roasted?

Superstitious folks would think it is cursed and sailors are very superstitious lot

Joke apart, I don't understand why they can't stop a fire before it get that strong.

Burning like an old church in France...

On a ship there are lots of flammable things and access is not straight forward... obviously in bit open areas like a hangar deck a fire in a corner would be easy to see... even though a large area like that will rapidly fill up with smoke, but in more confined areas the place will also fill up with smoke so you might not be able to get within 50m of the things that are actually burning because of the smoke... are you just going to pick up a fire extinguisher and run into the smoke and hope you come across the flames before you run out of breath... oh and by the way when you do run out of breath you need to get back out of the smoke to get a clean breath... do you remember the way? 5m in to the smoke it will be dark so you will have to guess where you are going... if you are working on this ship how familiar are you with the layout... you probably still carry a map to find your way but you need to be able to see the map to use it...

People die in fires on land... on a ship with restricted access and narrow walkways and lack of fire exits makes things much more dangerous...

They're moving the Fitzgerald and another destroyer away to prevent them catching fire as well

The Fitzgerald was moved a few hours back, she was only at the pier a dew days after completing her major repairs. Likely to have her superstructure smoke damaged.

Someone claimed that the BHR will be the first surface ship loss in service in the USN since WW2. The Navy aren't saying that she will burn down to the waterline but it certainly looks like she will end up a burnt out hulk. There is a lot of fuel on board currently under the fire.

At least no deaths and only a few injuries.

Perhaps Trump ordered it in a fit of rage when he learned of the fire on the Kuznetsov and the fire on that Chinese ship... we need our own fire and it had better be bigger than everyone elses....

That tug spraying water on the outside surface trying to cool the metal is a little sad...

Looks like the bridge area is on fire too.... damn...

If the metal is too hot the ship will collapse because the metal loose strenght.

Looking how all is burning it will quickly be used as a target ship for training.