Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

ASW takes a lot of hard work and practice to get right. The West's Navies have devoted years and considerable resources to this. I am not sure when and if the PLAN with no experience to speak of will be able to match this.
 
uk 75 said:
ASW takes a lot of hard work and practice to get right. The West's Navies have devoted years and considerable resources to this. I am not sure when and if the PLAN with no experience to speak of will be able to match this.
Click to expand...
It does, but they get to use their own subs for practice. Which also gets those subs out and operating, which the subs need. Win-Win jutsu strikes again!
 
One problem the PLAN suffers from is the fact it has no secure area to train in. As soon as they put to sea they are potentially under observation from hostile units they may or may not be able to detect. This likely creates huge training problems for them, in that certain tactics and capabilities cannot be used for fear of compromising them. Witness the huge fake carrier dragged down train tracks as a target in the Gobi desert: this is because they fear using actual target barges on water in international airspace will tell the US as much about their anti ship weapons as it tells them.

That has to be a horrible impediment for the PLAN sub force. Only the shallow, heavily trafficked sea of Borai is Chinese territorial waters. There could not be a deep water instrumented range they can use to study their boats sound profile like the USN ranges off Cali, Florida, and the Bahamas. Or if there is, it certainly it is under opponent observation. I can’t imagine how they train or calibrate their boats effectively with that handicap.
 
That RealClearDefense article makes some really odd assumptions about missile inventories. They seem to ignore that large existing inventory of SM-2, and the fact that ships sail with mixed loads of ESSM, SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6. A Burke might only need a dozen SM-6 to go along with its SM-2s and ESSM.
 
TomS said:
That RealClearDefense article makes some really odd assumptions about missile inventories. They seem to ignore that large existing inventory of SM-2, and the fact that ships sail with mixed loads of ESSM, SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6. A Burke might only need a dozen SM-6 to go along with its SM-2s and ESSM.
Click to expand...
Agreed, even I know that SM6 is an adjunct to the masses of SM2 and ESSM.
 
TomS said:
That RealClearDefense article makes some really odd assumptions about missile inventories. They seem to ignore that large existing inventory of SM-2, and the fact that ships sail with mixed loads of ESSM, SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6. A Burke might only need a dozen SM-6 to go along with its SM-2s and ESSM.
Click to expand...

The USN's existing inventory seems perfectly adequate to me, considering how long it will take for any reload of ships once they have expended their weapons. That almost certainly will require a trip back to Hawaii in a conflict. Guam and Japan are also designated loading sites for Mk41s but it seems unlikely these survive in a conflict with the PRC. The only argument I could see for adopting the MSE is if it has superior terminal performance against hypersonic gliders. I don't know if that is the case or not, but I'd think the dual pulse motor and divert thrusters would give it an advantage over SM-2. Outside of that, I don't see the point of adopting yet another missile. There are a couple thousand SM-2s at least and it seem unlike the USN will get the chance to burn through the supply.
 
Josh_TN said:
That almost certainly will require a trip back to Hawaii in a conflict.
Click to expand...

USN has been experimenting with forward reloading. Find a protected harbour somewhere and raft up a combatant with an AE, then reload by crane. It's one rationale for the new Marine organization -- defending those forward logistics bases.
 
TomS said:
USN has been experimenting with forward reloading. Find a protected harbour somewhere and raft up a combatant with an AE, then reload by crane. It's one rationale for the new Marine organization -- defending those forward logistics bases.
Click to expand...

It seems unlikely that is a real capability this decade. It would take dedicated ammunition ships equipped for such, either new builds or merchant conversions. Why the the USN seems to have invested so little effort in this direction is a mystery to me.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems unlikely that is a real capability this decade. It would take dedicated ammunition ships equipped for such, either new builds or merchant conversions. Why the the USN seems to have invested so little effort in this direction is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

They've been exercising it since 2019. They use a commercial crane-equipped ship as an intermediary.

news.usni.org

Navy Tests Reloading Missiles on Destroyer in San Diego Bay, Open Ocean Tests Tougher Task - USNI News

A pairing of a guided-missile destroyer and a supply ship in San Diego Bay last week was the Navy’s latest test to learn how to resupply its warships with missiles during a high-end conflict. The Military Sealift Command-sponsored reloading test matched USS Spruance (DDG-111) with the offshore...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
IMHO, there's a potentially nasty 'gotcha' given the surfeit of drones in Ukraine air-space...

Remember the Pacific War and those Kamikase attackers ??

Incoming !!
You gotta 'honour the threat', even those that seem to be off-target, given they could make terminal corrections...

So, you must shoot at all of them...

Need a 'basic' cruise-missile have a war-head ? Enough ballast to have the same 'look and feel', a pyro to prevent examination, no fussy explosives, a basic guidance package. Perhaps extra fuel so they circle in target area, congesting the Aegis plots...

Send a dozen 'drones' plus a couple of 'live' ones. Your target has to expend twenty defensive missiles. And then another twenty. And then another twenty...

It's the same problem as helos dipping sonar: If sub or sub decoy buoy launches 'surface-to-air', helo must cut and run, popping flares etc.

How many spare 'dips' do ASW team have ? How long to rig a spare, re-calibrate ??

I suppose a parallel would be the late-series 'Tiger' tanks: They ran out of ordnance...
 
TomS said:
They've been exercising it since 2019. They use a commercial crane-equipped ship as an intermediary.

news.usni.org

Navy Tests Reloading Missiles on Destroyer in San Diego Bay, Open Ocean Tests Tougher Task - USNI News

A pairing of a guided-missile destroyer and a supply ship in San Diego Bay last week was the Navy’s latest test to learn how to resupply its warships with missiles during a high-end conflict. The Military Sealift Command-sponsored reloading test matched USS Spruance (DDG-111) with the offshore...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...

I am aware they test such procedures, but they aren't close enough yet to have any long term plan to actually forward base ships capable of this.
 
Josh_TN said:
I am aware they test such procedures, but they aren't close enough yet to have any long term plan to actually forward base ships capable of this.
Click to expand...

Fair. But we can develop a remarkable ability to improvise in an actual conflict. We might surprise ourselves.
 
Josh_TN said:
There is a MPA version of the Y-8 that entered service a few years ago.
Click to expand...
Actually since 2015. With new variant (based on Y9 airframe) entering service this year. There's upward of two dozen airframes in service by now.
aonestudio said:
www.thedrive.com

Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns Of China's 200 Times Greater Shipbuilding Capacity

The Office of Naval Intelligence is sounding the alarm about the huge gap in U.S. and Chinese shipbuilding capacity and its implications.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
Even if that report is taken at face value, USN still has a good decade, if not closer to two decades, before numbers and capability gap comes to such a value that USN is unable to meaningfully operate within the first island chain.
 
So China uses slave labour in their shipyards? Good to know nobody gets paid in China... (we'll ignore the large numbers of unemployed graduates who can't find jobs in China which would seem to indicate the opposite...)
Seriously the level of analysis here is not amazing, even ONI seem to be saying its not an exhaustive analysis of Chinese shipbuilding capability.

And even if Chinese shipyards were using disgruntled unskilled labour the impact on quality control would be horrendous with serious knock-ons for operational readiness.

I would say that - ignoring the period 1940-50 - the USA has been historically quite weak in shipbuilding capacity for commercial and military construction compared to its competitors. But it tends to make up for that in higher quality (and until the 1970s had a pool of resources on which it could call on to rapidly expand). Beyond state control or huge inputs of state investment I can't see the USA catching up. Plus it needs investment in skilled manpower.
Plus basic headlines like "200x more" creates kneejerk reactions. How much does the USA need to grow its industry by? 200x, 100x, 20x? Naval parity is not measured in deadweight tonnage.

China focuses on big grand industrial projects because it can afford to, both in fiscal and manpower terms and for internal grandeur in showing off such achievements. 50 large dry docks is impressive but then China is heavily reliant on large container vessels so it stands to reason that they need the dry docks necessary to maintain them - though they have probably actually overbuilt what they require. Sure they could take a carrier, but then you could say that about any maritime nation which has large dry docks!
 
Clearly the US needs to recapitalize its ship building industry. I’d also argue that changes need to be made to the Jones Act, but that’s too complex and political of a subject for here.

If the US ends up building up a second yard for FFG(X) that can also turn out two per year I think that’s realistically all the US can afford to build and man anyway. There’s no way CVN production is going up, and frankly we aren’t seeing a crash building program of carriers by the PRC either despite the large number of dry docks.
 
As much as possible increase submarine production that appears to be our biggest technology overmatch we have at the moment.

This is not a political statement but just the fact, we spent $6 trillion extra dollars during two or so years of COVID can we not find an extra $50 billion each for 1) naval buildup 2) fighter/bomber buildup 3) nuclear weapons buildup?

But I guess we should repair what we have first. Behind paywall
www.bloomberg.com

Nearly 40% of US Attack Submarines Are Out of Commission for Repairs

Delays at naval shipyards mean that nearly 40% of US attack submarines are out of commission for repairs, about double the rate the Navy would like, according to new data released by the service.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

Tangential to the topic
defensescoop.com

In major reorg, Pentagon forms new Force Development and Emerging Capabilities Office

DefenseScoop was briefed on the intent behind this restructure and aims for the new office.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com
 
Last edited:
Circling back to the issue of reloads...would it be at all practical to load USNS auxiliaries with containerized launchers similar to what the US Army is adopting? You could simply drop them on the top deck like regular cargo. A number of large medium speed Ro/Ros should be amenable to this, as well as some of the crane ships. You could perhaps fit a couple dozen TEU sized units, which would translate to ~100 missiles. Tomahawk has a sufficiently long enough range you could keep these far out of easy reach. You could also have some just loaded with empty containers as decoys. It wouldn't allow for defensive fire but it would allow surface combatants to focus on defensive loadouts if the offensive cells were moved further back to other ships. It would tie down cargo ships normally used in other roles, but only a handful would be needed to have a significant impact and in a peer conflict it seems unlikely there would be a major US Army deployment anyway.
 
bobbymike said:
But I guess we should repair what we have first. Behind paywall
www.bloomberg.com

Nearly 40% of US Attack Submarines Are Out of Commission for Repairs

Delays at naval shipyards mean that nearly 40% of US attack submarines are out of commission for repairs, about double the rate the Navy would like, according to new data released by the service.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
Click to expand...
It's normal to have 1/3 of the fleet out for repairs, and depending on how they phrased the other 7% that could be ships that are out of overhaul and post-overhaul sea trials with stuff to fix. 1/3 at sea, 1/3 in overhaul, and 1/3 in workups to go to sea is the normal rotation.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's normal to have 1/3 of the fleet out for repairs, and depending on how they phrased the other 7% that could be ships that are out of overhaul and post-overhaul sea trials with stuff to fix. 1/3 at sea, 1/3 in overhaul, and 1/3 in workups to go to sea is the normal rotation.
Click to expand...
Well the Navy said “it is double what it would like” so while [unfortunately] this is behind a paywall this seems like it’s a significant concern.

Besides this isn’t the only news article, more like there’s been hundreds, discussing the real problem of repair, maintenance and readiness of the sub fleet.
 
Lc89 said:
The Jones Act of 1920 should simply be repealed.
Click to expand...

I should probably keep my foreign nose out of US affairs ... but I'm curious as to how repealing your Merchant Marine Act would help over the longer term with the topic subject - that of building more surface ships provided with more offensive punch.

Governments regulate to have some desired effect upon industry. Industry then games that revised system to maximize their quarterly profits (as they are enjoined to do). If industry declines to provide the State with an unprofitable service, government is compelled to provide that service itself ... which, I'm led to believe, is anathema to the majority of US citizens.

What am I missing?
 
Apophenia said:
I should probably keep my foreign nose out of US affairs ... but I'm curious as to how repealing your Merchant Marine Act would help over the longer term with the topic subject - that of building more surface ships provided with more offensive punch.

Governments regulate to have some desired effect upon industry. Industry then games that revised system to maximize their quarterly profits (as they are enjoined to do). If industry declines to provide the State with an unprofitable service, government is compelled to provide that service itself ... which, I'm led to believe, is anathema to the majority of US citizens.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
That the US has almost no small shipbuilders in terms of coastal freighters. The "Lakers" are fairly large freighters even by oceangoing standards.

All the freight that would go by sea tends to go by truck or train, instead.

From 1980 till March 20, 2023, the US went from 250 coastal freighters to 91.
 
And as I understand it, the big deal with the Jones Act is that it only prohibits Foriegn Made and Flag vessels from doing Interstate work.

Aka shipping stuff from New York to Florida.

Which is largely done by Barges with the Ships design for heading out to the likes of Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico being spec for those routes and being bad everywhere else.

Like there is case for it killing the short inter coastal shipping. But again that is often done by small 10k tonners or barges at most in Europe or Asia.

It basically useless for Navy usages since the ships for those usage cases are basically the opposite of Naval needs.

And the Jones Act does ensure multiple sailer and regulation rights are followed, which is by large the reason why all attempts to date to repeal it has failled..

Honestly will not fix the issue anyways.

Just make it worse.

Cause you know what the Few companies that ship around the US will immediately do?

Replace all their Expensive US built ships with cheap Asia built ones. Killing what little busy the US Shipyards get.

Straight up no one will buy US Ships cause their build cost makes them too expansive compare to Asia built ones.

So what needs to be done is make US ship compatived with the Asia yards. And that is woryth another post of its own.
 
Firefinder said:
And as I understand it, the big deal with the Jones Act is that it only prohibits Foriegn Made and Flag vessels from doing Interstate work.

Aka shipping stuff from New York to Florida.

Which is largely done by Barges with the Ships design for heading out to the likes of Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico being spec for those routes and being bad everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Having read through the wiki article, it seems like the important fix would be to generally exempt the non-contiguous states and territories from the Jones Act, to make it a bit cheaper to ship things to and from them from the US. Having to use US-flagged ships in the Caribbean or up the Inside Passage is one thing, but a Seattle-Hawaii haul is deep ocean shipping, and I don't know how much stuff regularly makes that trip there. I know very little makes the trip back but cases of canned pineapple and maybe some coffee beans.
 
bobbymike said:
This is not a political statement but just the fact, we spent $6 trillion extra dollars during two or so years of COVID can we not find an extra $50 billion each for 1) naval buildup 2) fighter/bomber buildup 3) nuclear weapons buildup?
Click to expand...
That argument only works in North Korea or equivalent military dictatorship. In a first world democracy - military spending isn't the first and foremost priority unless it's WWIII
 
donnage99 said:
That argument only works in North Korea or equivalent military dictatorship. In a first world democracy - military spending isn't the first and foremost priority unless it's WWIII
Click to expand...
Really don’t understand the point you’re making or why anything in my post would bring to mind North Korea arguably the most repressive dictatorship on the planet.

Funds are allocated in a democracy through legislative action. How is simply asking for a reasonable amount of additional defence spending $150 billion about 57/100th of one percent of GDP) reminiscent of a dictatorship?

Saying it would be politically difficult, sure, but “only in a dictatorship” not making the connection.
 

Attachments

  • 613A3EE4-19BB-4687-A31F-A6069F07F539.jpeg
    613A3EE4-19BB-4687-A31F-A6069F07F539.jpeg
    72.5 KB · Views: 7
Scott Kenny said:
Having read through the wiki article, it seems like the important fix would be to generally exempt the non-contiguous states and territories from the Jones Act, to make it a bit cheaper to ship things to and from them from the US. Having to use US-flagged ships in the Caribbean or up the Inside Passage is one thing, but a Seattle-Hawaii haul is deep ocean shipping, and I don't know how much stuff regularly makes that trip there. I know very little makes the trip back but cases of canned pineapple and maybe some coffee beans.
Click to expand...
Issue with that is they only use US ships cause they HAVE TO.

If given the chance every single US ship company will switch over to Asian built ships cause they are cheaper to buy.

Like why will they buy a 30 mil US built hull from Mobile when they can buy the same hull from Japan for 20 million?

Then you get into the Flag bit of the Jones Act.

Which is the only reason why the like five Ship companies flagged in the US are still in the US.

Cause if that goes away, by the end off the month they be moving their head quarters straight to the nearest Tax Haven like Panama. Cause it cost less to run there.

Repealing the Jones Act Will not help.

You need to make the US and its yards profitable to work with.

And that requires change an insane amount of things from how we do labor to taxes. It be easier to switch back to the old Naval Yard system.
 
Firefinder said:
Issue with that is they only use US ships cause they HAVE TO.
Click to expand...
Right. And frankly it's not particularly cost-effective to have a ship that costs that much to operate only go to Hawaii every so often (though depending on just how much Dole exports, it may be that the ships are emptier going to Hawaii, now that I think about it)


Firefinder said:
It be easier to switch back to the old Naval Yard system.
Click to expand...
No complaints from me, the USN needs at least one additional shipyard on the west coast that can do nuclear maintenance. Too bad there's only 3 states to deal with and none of them like the military much.
 
bobbymike said:
Really don’t understand the point you’re making or why anything in my post would bring to mind North Korea arguably the most repressive dictatorship on the planet.

Funds are allocated in a democracy through legislative action. How is simply asking for a reasonable amount of additional defence spending $150 billion about 57/100th of one percent of GDP) reminiscent of a dictatorship?

Saying it would be politically difficult, sure, but “only in a dictatorship” not making the connection.
Click to expand...
because you comparing spending to sustain an entire populace thru a global pandemic and national economic shutdown to that of peace time military spending. The logic doesn't compute unless you are a military dictatorship that do not see economic and quality of life of the populace as important.

Also, comparing individual item spending to GDP is a nonstarter. You can make anything look small that way.

US military spending is triple that of china. 3% of our bigger GDP to that of 1.7% of china's smaller GDP.

Reforming and fighting waste is what we need. Not more spending. Encouraging bad behaviors expecting better results is not sanity.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right. And frankly it's not particularly cost-effective to have a ship that costs that much to operate only go to Hawaii every so often (though depending on just how much Dole exports, it may be that the ships are emptier going to Hawaii, now that I think about it)
Click to expand...
In doing so kills any none naval deep ocean shipyards the US have.

Cutting US ship building capacity to a quarter of what it is.

Cause unless they regularly get USN dollars...

No one will buy ships from them.

Cause you can get the same hull for less money and less time from Asia.

Repealing the Jones Act will not save US Shipyards.

Only kill them faster.
 
donnage99 said:
because you comparing spending to sustain an entire populace thru a global pandemic and national economic shutdown to that of peace time military spending. The logic doesn't compute unless you are a military dictatorship that do not see economic and quality of life of the populace as important.

Also, comparing individual item spending to GDP is a nonstarter. You can make anything look small that way.

US military spending is triple that of china. 3% of our bigger GDP to that of 1.7% of china's smaller GDP.

Reforming and fighting waste is what we need. Not more spending. Encouraging bad behaviors expecting better results is not sanity.
Click to expand...
Still have no idea the point you’re making or maybe you lack the ability to understand the point I’m making.

As for comparing items to GDP are you serious? You will see discussion on public allocation of resources on pretty much a daily basis on 1) healthcare to GDP 2) social spending to GDP 3) infrastructure to GDP 4) R&D to GDP 4) Education to GDP 5) Defense to GDP, I mean they talk about fast food spending to GDP and on and on and on. it’s one of the main ways you can assess any economic sector vs. national production. We could compare just to federal government spending at its still only 2%.

Also no one is saying spending reform and fighting waste shouldn’t continue it’s only been talked about my entire life but that’s not my point.

But if you think China truly only “officially” spends 1.7% of its GDP on defense were probably finished with any further discussion on the topic.

Have a good’n
 
bobbymike said:
Still have no idea the point you’re making or maybe you lack the ability to understand the point I’m making.

As for comparing items to GDP are you serious? You will see discussion on public allocation of resources on pretty much a daily basis on 1) healthcare to GDP 2) social spending to GDP 3) infrastructure to GDP 4) R&D to GDP 4) Education to GDP 5) Defense to GDP, I mean they talk about fast food spending to GDP and on and on and on. it’s one of the main ways you can assess any economic sector vs. national production. We could compare just to federal government spending at its still only 2%.

Also no one is saying spending reform and fighting waste shouldn’t continue it’s only been talked about my entire life but that’s not my point.

But if you think China truly only “officially” spends 1.7% of its GDP on defense were probably finished with any further discussion on the topic.

Have a good’n
Click to expand...
Again, nothing changes the fact you're comparing spending to prevent the collapse of the state vs that of single military item spending in peace time.

Comparing single item spending to GDP and tallying them up for budgetary and accounting reason is different from what you did. The problem is you comparing single item spending to GDP in order to make it seem small as an argument. That WAS your point. I understood it not sure if you thought it thru.

Second, unless you have some insider knowledge on chinese true spending you don't have an argument and I agree there's no need for further discussion.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom