US Navy Information

I don't know how many of you have an interest in the USN, but I do and this is the best source for day by day information that I know of.

Fleet Tracker Archives - USNI News

It points out that at the moment we will have no active fleet carriers off China as the Regan goes to the Afghanistan and what assets we do have in the area. To put it bluntly the major fleet is getting old and getting harder to keep at sea. We have attempted to "modernize" both the ships and the aircraft the last few years with very mixed results. F35 and Littoral ships come to mind and while the Truman is a good ship, but the keel was laid in 1993, soon to be 30 years ago, and the Nimitz class was put into service in 1975. At the moment the air arm for the carriers consists of F35's and various F18 models. While the F18 is a good plane, the first models entered the fleet in 1980 and were at that time a compromise between what the Navy wanted and what Congress would fund.

In the near future the Navy is going to have to make some major decisions on both its role and its ability to field a decisive fighting force. Its recent actions, both in selecting replacement ships and in operating them in an increasingly political command, have created some doubts about that ability. The dangers faced by the new navy, hyper sonic missiles, ballistic missiles, space and drone based targeting of assets, short range of carrier based aircraft, etc. As well as new mission goals, protecting shipping thru bottle necks like Suez, Arabian sea area, controlling the islands off China, projecting power into the eastern Med, etc, all would indicate that some hard decisions will have to be made. Given the time to get the Ford up, keel laid in 2009, still not totally completed and in even choosing a replacement for the destroyer is still up in the air, it is not a given that the correct decisions will be made or be effective when actually put into operation.

US Navy eyes new design for next-generation destroyer

While we treat it as a thought project and some members of our fragmented society see it as a waste of money, I doubt if we will have either the time, took about 3 years in 1940 to get up to speed, nor the resources, steel came from what are now holes in the ground and played out coal mines and we no longer have major steel or mining resources. Thus some decisions must be made in near future that may well determine if we even have a future. YMMV

The critiques of the military as well as its abilities are well documented and a very deep rabbit hole. We are at a crisis point, new technology of offense has placed severe limits on ability to defend against them. With drones, the old concept of the Kamikaze has become the norm with AI replacing the human pilot and a swarm of 100 replacing the old 3 or 4. In WW2 we couldn't even find the Japanese fleet nor could they find ours, now with drones and satellite observation, we can often track one man and if desired kill him with a drone piloted from 4,000 miles away.

 

Having worked in these areas for a few years, I can tell you that we can't comprehend what is really out there already. I remember Reagan announcing a program that we would be starting and personally knew for a fact that the program was fully operational and deployed. What we know about is a generation removed from what actually exists and is operational. Another aspect of the aging fleet is the serviceability of what we already have, such as the B-52 which is 60 years old but carries 70,000 pounds of payload up to 50,000 feet at 600 mph and can survive a lot of damage. We still have nothing that can project that much hell on a target without going nuclear. The same goes for our aging carriers: It floats, carries launches and recovers aircraft, and some are nuclear. Not a lot to improve upon.
I feel like we are probably advancing more in electronic warfare and the ability to shut down infrastructure rather than boots on the ground conventional warfare, and adding newer technologies such as lasers and railgun systems to conventional proven platforms. If anyone remembers the USS Donald Cook incident a few years ago where a single Russian plane disabled the radar and defense systems on the ship, advanced electronics and high tech aren't always the best bet. An old platform with few electronics would have taken the plane out but the ultra high tech targeting systems on the Donald Cook were rendered useless. We have to maintain a balance to remain effective.
Without saying enough to get my door knocked on, rest assured we are still the superpower in the world and I really don't fear any other country being technologically superior to the US.

 

Floating assets are far more vulnerable now than in, say, the 50s. I've a sneaking suspicion that the whole force needs to be realigned for defensive use rather than suppression of aggression. That scheme, obviously isn't working against major powers and has had limited effect in so called local wars. The little brush fires ignore the fact that we can hose them out of existence and simply keep throwing troubles at their "enemies." (With help from our "friends.") The potential opposition has near parity with us if not already on par in ability to strike from a distance. Yeah, we have a lot of stroke, but the will to use it is lacking.

The other question that I've always found fascinating is wondering how an opposing superpower would manage the USA after defeating us in battle, or we capitulated without firing a shot as I think bidumb might do. An occupying force would have no end of difficulties. Do you suppose (say) Putin or Xi would allow continued drain on what would then be their assets by uncontrolled border crossings?

 

For me the best days of my life was when we as a Nation built 41 Boomers in 6 years.
The information follows and was called the 41 for freedom.
For a country boy it was an amazing time to be a crew member from keel laying to commission. The list follows and I am still proud to say I was involved in 3 of the advanced technological giant undersea boats.
41 For Freedom - Submarine Force Library & Association
In only 6 years the US built a sea a force of 41 submarines which protected the US for years and drove Russia bankrupt.

41 For Freedom
August 11, 2017 admin Submarine History
The name “41 for Freedom” conjures images of greatness, power, and the beginning of something new. In last week’s blog, we talked about SSBN 598 as the beginning of a group of submarines that would take submarine development in a new direction. The USS George Washington was the first in a group nicknamed the “41 for Freedom.” These 41 submarines were revolutionary, not just for the US Navy but Navies around the world. The furious pace in which submarines were built in the 1960’s was a major component of the United States Strategic Triad. This triad consisted of land based ballistic missiles, strategic bombers and submarine launched missiles. The idea of the nuclear triad was to reduce the possibility of an enemy to destroy all a country’s nuclear defenses; an idea that was considered an imminent threat during the Cold War. All 41 submarines created during this time were named for eminent figures in American history, giving the nickname a double meaning. Not only were these SSBN’s being created to keep and preserve our freedom from Soviet threats, but they were named for men who had played a role in America’s rise to greatness.


Figure 1 USS Thomas Edison

From 1960 to 1966, the U.S. Navy launched 41 “boomers.” A boomer is slang for a Ballistic missile submarine that operates on a two-man crew system. The Blue and Gold crews rotate on approximately 100 – day intervals for the ship to remain on a continuous patrol. There was usually a 3-day turnover period on each end of a deployment period. Crews would be flown from their home bases to their deployment site and perform a 30-day refit followed by a 70-day deterrent patrol. The home base for the Atlantic fleets were Groton, Ct and Charleston, SC with the Pacific Fleet based at Naval Base Pearl Harbor. From 1960-1969, each SSBN carried 16 Polaris nuclear missiles. In 1969, SSBN’s were converted to carry the more accurate Poseidon missiles which would change again in 1979 when the Trident I missiles were created. For many visitors to the museum who are not familiar with submarine history, they wonder what is the difference between an SSN and a SSBN. The most obvious difference is the use of ballistic missiles onboard an SSBN. The SS denotes submarine, the B means ballistic missile and the N denotes that the submarine is nuclear powered.

The original 41 SSBNs could fire missiles thousands of kilometers from their targets and were extremely quiet making them difficult to detect. Compared to an SSN, the SSBN was designed for specific strategic attacks. Their primary mission was nuclear detection making them a major weapon during the Cold War. Their use has been dominated by the United States and Russia, in part due to the 1950’s and the threat of nuclear attacks. The USS George Washington was built in response to Russia’s use of Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite. The 41 submarines were built to carry the Polaris A-1 missile. The Polaris was developed to complement the limited number of medium range systems that were in use throughout Europe. Before Polaris’s creation, the systems in place lacked the range needed to form a major attack on Soviet targets. In the 1950’s and 60’s few systems were available that could destroy missile systems, making SSBN’s an asset to nuclear deterrence. One of the newest features in the new class of submarines was to the ability to launch while submerged which allowed them to remain a safe distance away and survive from retaliation. Despite the long range of the Polaris missile, the Atlantic- based fleet still needed closer stations to be effective. In 1961, the US was permitted the use of a base in Holy Lock, Scotland and in 1969, Naval Station Rota in the Bay of Cadiz. To cover the Pacific zone, a base was established in Guam in 1964. By 1972, with the creation of the Poseidon missile, the 10 older SSBN’s that were in use were primarily assigned to the Pacific Fleet with the 31 upgraded boats assigned to the Atlantic Fleet.


Figure 2 USS Kamehameha

The last of the 41 SSBN’s was the USS Will Rogers, commissioned in 1967. In 1976, the keel was laid for the USS Ohio, which saw a new class of submarines being built. The Ohio- class boomers were the largest ever built by the US Navy, measuring 560 feet long and displacing 18,700 tons submerged and carry a crew of 157. This new class of SSBN’s were designed to carry the new and more advanced Trident II missiles In 2002, the USS Kamehameha was decommissioned, the last of the original “41 for Freedom: submarines still in use. At almost 37 years old, she held the record for the longest service lifetime of any nuclear-powered submarine. Beneath this story you can find the complete list of the 41 submarines that made up the “41 for Freedom.”

The “41 For Freedom” SSBN’s :

George Washington class

• USS George Washington (SSBN-598)
• USS Patrick Henry (SSBN-599)
• USS Theodore Roosevelt (SSBN-600)
• USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601)
• USS Abraham Lincoln (SSBN-602)

Ethan Allen class

• USS Ethan Allen (SSBN-608)
• USS Sam Houston (SSBN-609)
• USS Thomas A. Edison (SSBN-610)
• USS John Marshall (SSBN-611)
• USS Thomas Jefferson (SSBN-618)

Lafayette class

• USS Lafayette (SSBN-616)
• USS Alexander Hamilton (SSBN-617)
• USS Andrew Jackson (SSBN-619)
• USS John Adams (SSBN-620)
• USS James Monroe (SSBN-622)
• USS Nathan Hale (SSBN-623)
• USS Woodrow Wilson (SSBN-624)
• USS Henry Clay (SSBN-625)
• USS Daniel Webster (SSBN-626)

James Madison class

• USS James Madison (SSBN-627)
• USS Tecumseh (SSBN-628)
• USS Daniel Boone (SSBN-629)
• USS John C. Calhoun (SSBN-630)
• USS Ulysses S. Grant (SSBN-631)
• USS Von Steuben (SSBN-632)
• USS Casimir Pulaski (SSBN-633)
• USS Stonewall Jackson (SSBN-634)
• USS Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635)
• USS Nathanael Greene (SSBN-636)
  
  Figure 3 Figure 3 41 For Freedom Poster. Available at the museum store. All proceeds from the store go to preserving submarine history. http://store.submarinemuseum.com/Poster-41-for-Freedom-6825

Benjamin Franklin class

• USS Benjamin Franklin (SSBN-640) converted to carry the Trident C-4 ballistic missile
• USS Simon Bolivar (SSBN-641) converted to carry the Trident C-4 ballistic missile
• USS Kamehameha (SSBN-642)
• USS George Bancroft (SSBN-643) converted to carry the Trident C-4 ballistic missile
• USS Lewis and Clark (SSBN-644)
• USS James K. Polk (SSBN-645)
• USS George C. Marshall (SSBN-654)
• USS Henry L. Stimson (SSBN-655) converted to carry the Trident C-4 ballistic missile
• USS George Washington Carver (SSBN-656)
• USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN-657) converted to carry the Trident C-4 ballistic missile
• USS Mariano G. Vallejo (SSBN-658) converted to carry the Trident C-4 ballistic missile
• USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659)

 

Remember a poster from late 60's early 70"s titled photo of Polaris carrying submarine on patrol. Beautiful surface shot of waves and a couple gooney birds, nothing else. Very well proved its point. Loved it as sea art and as effective response to USSR.

 

Naval warfare is or has entered an interesting stage in its history. Actually, all warfare has as proven by the kamikaze drones or javelin missiles against armor. "Money is the muscles and sinews of war" and the ability to pay for and quickly produce the instruments of war is the winning edge. For example, does want 1 each M1 Abrams (~$9 million in today's money) or 51 Javelin missiles (~$175,000 each)...

The aircraft carrier replaced the great battleship and I wonder if the day of projecting power with these great carriers is now also gone, too expensive, too venerable and too slow to produce especially since it has to have its own armada to protect it also.

Furthermore, missile technology advances have made the great carriers even more venerable and we haven't spoken about drone aircraft that can and will replace piloted aircraft which will be able to perform way beyond the human element and can be produced much, much cheaper and faster. So, yes, even piloted fighter aircraft will be replaced. Also, cyberwarfare can and will make these huge carrier groups much, much less effective.

As an amateur military historian, I believe the navy's first and foremost future will be submarines, seems a no brainer to me. The day of the carrier is almost done and, like the day of the battleship, it's only the diehard ship masters that refuse to see the writing on the wall. Just my 2 cents...

 

And was the strangest looking of the bunch. And the only Model I built.

 

Military history totally fascinates me, some of the major events in one war become totally meaningless in the next. The use of the mine ball allowed 5 or 6 shots per minute in a rifled barrel and tied to the steam ship, railroad, and telegraph made the Civil War one of most deadly up to that time. ^Then smokeless powder, the recoil system of the French 75 cannon, the machine gun, barbed wire, trench warfare and such created WW1. The aircraft, tanks, radar, mass mobility, etc created the deadly WW2. The wars since then have shown that total war is a total failure. The actions of Iraq, etc show that it is impossible to win a modern war against the powers the major armies have, and instead we have had a series of asymmetrical wars in which the goal of the weaker party is to wear down the will of the major power and just be too much of a political, moral, and economic cost to continue the war. We have fallen victims to this type of warfare several times in spite of the fact that our existence as a nation was created by this type action towards the British. Don't know if submarine, stealth tech, or space tech will be the next revolution, but WW2 type actions with massive troop movements, atomic and missile weapons, and drone type weapons used by major powers would lead to no real winners and just larger failed states..

 

The Navy screwed the pooch back when they built the Burke's, Ticonderoga's, and Oliver Hazard Perry class ships. They completely changed not only how our ships would fight, but changed how they could be used. In those years, they didn't see a war being fought, only small hyper aggressive conflicts that would be decided quick and then done, so the ships could be cycled fast and rejoin the fleet. Gon were the gun boats and their abilities to get stuck in and stay in, find were the abilities to stay in the fight for long periods with out replenishment, and gone were the ships that could out handle anything any enemy could bring to a fight.
The Ships were all poor designs and they have proved extremely costly to maintain, and the upgrades haven't really improved them much.
The Navy further fucked up in choosing to build the DDX program, and worse, the Littoral Class boats, all are complete royal fuckups. Dad told them a long time ago, but they went and did it anyway.
Gone are the Cruisers, and even more lacking, the Battle Ships whose armor and big guns allowed them to sail in close and rain hell down upon anything they could reach. They are big, and they are expensive, but running the old girls would actually be cheaper then the three top shelf world class fuckups we have been paying for now!
The Navy needs to pull it's thumb out and get Real men to design new destroyers, ships that can actually do the job with out answering to comity, and they need to bring back the Battle Wagon, but with a twist, half big guns half missiles, big radar, and thick armor. We need to bring back the big guns, we need Cruisers and Destroyers that don't just rely on missiles, but have guns and can get stuck in and hold the line! We are not fighting large scale fights anymore, but smaller quick moving fights and we are also fighting in a time where high tech is getting easier to counter, and there goes your investment, and then what? Stealth was a waste of time, took Russia 4 years to defeat it, all the while, 16 inch shells could be lobbed ashore and there is no counter to those!

 

I have been helping Dad with his work for the Navy, helping decide the future of the destroyer class ships. what they will be able to do, what they will look like and how they will be used. the Navy has a YUGE problem in having congress critters pulling certain strings to get their wishes instead of actually doing what the navy needs for now and the future. The best proposal I have seen brings back the best of the 50's through 70's destroyer capabilities. with added littoral combat capabilities and over the side special ops capabilities added to their already complex do it all designs. this new design seems to blend it all together into a pretty slick platform and if built, should do very well! They need to be able to fight against swarms of small gun boats as well as air borne drones , still be able to deal with subs, and their traditional screening roll within the fleet. As it stands, it should work and should last, and if they listen to those who know how to actually use destroyers, it should have armor! As it stands, the design has guns and missiles, has a very good sensor suite and exceptional anti submarine capabilities, with all the other desirable things that were lost with the switch to all missile boats!
The Cruisers are an even more complex issue, and many think the Cruiser is a bad idea. Some of us know better,, and the navy needs to design the cruisers to better fill the gap left behind when the Battle Ships were pulled from the fleets for good! That has never been properly handled, and the cruisers suffered under those conditions, as did the destroyers who lost a big chunk of their screen.
Battle Ships are a whole nother deal, some say they are dead, made impotent by aircraft and missiles, while others ( like my self) say that Battle Ships still have an important roll to play! I say we build 6 new ones, and leave the old ladies tied along side, build them using the very best of everything we have available, and let the guns to the talking when the time comes! There is NO COUNTER to a Battle Ship in existence, and it would take a YUGE investment in time and tech. for any enemy to come up with a counter to them!
I say bring back the big guns, and let them do what they were meant to do!

 

A couple pilots I knew played with the Navy in the late 50's in the Gulf of Mexico. Were in F-102's that had at that time a missile called the MB1 and later the Genie. Low on deck, often around 50 feet at high speed, radar off and in home on jam mode with scope pointing to the ships radar location. Missile had no guidance system and you just blew squibs to set detonation distance. Flew several birds, some with radar on some with it off, boats were had, don't show radar and no defense possible, show radar and you were dead meat for low level. Turn radar on for a couple seconds and set range and bearing, launch and get out of there. I expect today the information could be sent by data link and the F102 replaced by drone or missile that flew into boat. If hit 1.5 kt warhead went off, if you missed, 1.5 kt warhead went off. Kind of think that would ruin their day. As I understand, I just loaded the dummy missiles as an A/1c, they were told to quit playing and get back to testing the air to air accuracy of the missile. Have no idea what can be done today, that was a couple Majors playing head games, not the USAF or USN, and with 0 budget in 1960.

Would seem that some sort of picket ships with defense and jamming tech will be needed to protect capital ships, as used in WW2 against the German glide bombs and Japanese suicide bombs. Manned or unmanned, don't know. but expect to lose some to pertect major resources.

 

I constantly think of a friendly argument I had while working at J2 USEUCOM with my friend a Navy LCMR who was a carrier flight commander but was doing some Joint time there at EUCOM. I guess this was late 90's before 9/11. I tried, unsuccessfully, to point out what Cyber warfare would be like in the future, since I worked systems, I was more astute to what technology the future held. We also just had some of our first drone flights so the writing, as I saw it (and I did see it correctly) was on the wall. I told him, sooner rather than later, cyber warfare and unmanned drones (not to mention missile technology) would make the great carriers obsolete if not truly cut back their scope of operations. Boy-oh-boy! That went up like a lead balloon and the entire staff got into it, taking sides. LOL! The fact that cyber warfare can misroute fuels, screw up logistical orders and spare parts, and hurt about every part of operations that determine if that carrier aircraft flies was beyond their comprehension at that time. This is not even considering drones which can turn and fly at speeds far exceeding human capabilities, weighs less due to lack of pilot and their necessary equipment so fly farther and carry more armament or land based ship missiles that are so cost and production time effective they can blot out the sun. It made for a very interesting conversation and I have often thought Billy Mitchell must have had the same type of conversation about carriers vs. battleships in the 1920's... The carrier group does one thing well, it projects power, but its modern day vulnerabilities will be shown with great loss of life...and soon. Unfortunately, this is what it will take to change current thinking.
Just my 2 bits...

 

a Phalanx CIWS in every yard! drone problem rendered moot...

 

This is why I keep saying, they need to bring back Gun Boats biggly! Cant shoot down bullets, and cant really defend against them ether! Imagine a Destroyer/Cruiser screen of gun boats able to shoot down drones and missiles as well as bombardment of shore and near shore targets! Such a screen could protect a carrier better then they do it now, and at much less cost! Kinda what they did in WW-II but with much better fire control! Now, Add in the Big Battle Wagons with their fire power, and abilities to get stuck in and hold a line, and you have a very powerful strike group that cannot be turned back or countered!

 

I love watching the 16" guns fired.
Nothing but pure awesomeness!

 

I got to see ether the New Jersey or Mighty Mo fire a broad side from about 3000 feet up and about half mile back, even then, you could feel the concussion of those big guns! NOTHING in the world can equal that!

 

I was a mile away on a destroyer, the deck shifted only a foot. I Did love it