The Ship Model Forum

This sort of improvisation is one of the key qualities of the US armed forces, then and now.

...as proven during the Gulf War when we hurriedly made a hardened underground bunker buster bomb from an old 6" cruiser barrel, stuffed it full of explosive and stuck a smart head on hit, and whang they never knew what hit 'em. Pity Saddam wasn't inside when it was dropped, it would have obviated the Iraq War.

Distances travelled just to get to the operations areas, speed required to maintain station within the carrier screens, northern runs, getting to the operations area, and staying there as long as needed without outside support is part of the multi-mission capability.
The mix of abilities is what continues to keep the nukes the best bang for the buck for the US.

Seasick wrote:The USMC and USN have been able to take care of the delays in the F-35 with the center barrel replacement (CBR) program. The CBR replaces a critical component of the aircraft's frame that can extend the life of the aircraft considerably F/A-18C with excessive stress grounding them have been put back in to service very sucessfully. Older F/A-18A have also been pulled out of storage and have been put through the CBR program. They return to service with designation F/A-18A+ fit with the engines used in the F/A-18C/D along with newer avionics used in the F/A-18C. Along with the deliveries of Super-Hornets to the USN and the CBR program the USN and USMC will have all the Hornets they need.

This sort of improvisation is one of the key qualities of the US armed forces, then and now.

The USMC and USN have been able to take care of the delays in the F-35 with the center barrel replacement (CBR) program. The CBR replaces a critical component of the aircraft's frame that can extend the life of the aircraft considerably F/A-18C with excessive stress grounding them have been put back in to service very sucessfully. Older F/A-18A have also been pulled out of storage and have been put through the CBR program. They return to service with designation F/A-18A+ fit with the engines used in the F/A-18C/D along with newer avionics used in the F/A-18C. Along with the deliveries of Super-Hornets to the USN and the CBR program the USN and USMC will have all the Hornets they need. The AV-8B however is a different beast. There have not been enough Harriers for a very long time. The WBush administration anticipating the imminent deliveries of the F-35B in 2004-2005 (ha!) decided to run the Harriers in to the ground.

It all well and good for those countries who can afford to operate the SSN. Added to that is the cost of refueling and then once the sub reaches it's end of useful service then cost of deactivation also play's into the scheme.

Also we tend forget the lesson of the fleet submarines of WW2 and the role they played in unrestricted warfare. As of late the USN's SSN's are having problem's detecting the Diesel Sub's on exercises off of the east coast. To say one is more effective is not looking at the advantages the diesel has over the SSN. In the long run the USN will have to build Diesel submarines to supplement the role of the SSN's.

Also on to the QDR, failing to mention in this discussion is the fact that the Enterprise is to be decomissioned soon, so the USN can strike one carrier already.

As for the F-35, the program management on this project has had problem's with cost overruns and delay's. Granted the aircraft do preform as expected. Maybe that's why congress basicaly told them to get there act together or else recently....More over the F-35 is NOT in production nor is it likely in the near future if the manufacture cannot get it's cost/delay's reduced as per the DOD contract agreements.

Regards
Dave

The only reasons the USN would need an SSK:

1. The USN would want to have a submarine to patrol the Great lakes. (Didn't say these were good reasons.)
2. Conduct patrols in rather confied bodies of water where long endurance is not required. The Baltic, the med, the red sea, arabian (iranian) gulf, straits of malacan.

If your going to go in to the blue water you would be insane to pick a SSK over an SSN.

The only realistic operation for a USN SSK would be to patrol the Grand Banks, and without the Cold War its not necessary.

This argument reminds me of the arguments in the late 70s over spending huge $$$ on new Tank systems like the Abrams.. The popular belief among armchair generals etc was that the USSR was making excellent tanks at twice the rate and nearly equal grounds as a combat tool..then we should also..
This so called expert opinion was laid to waste in both Gulf Wars..The monuments of this so called capable soviet tank system still litter the landscapes of Kuwait and Iraq!

Being a early 70s Cold War Submariner the same opinions were being made about the Soviet SSNs...They were highly over rated.. The US was operating Boomers in Ivan's back yard (Barents Sea) at will.. The Soviet counter threat was almost nill and very imp[otent.
To say that a modern SSK is a better choice over a modern SSN is to be ignorant of the capabilities of both classes of submarine. When a Country posses a large surface fleet with worldwide capability it also needs protection like the protection only a SSN can provide..The capabilities that if were public would surprise most so called arms experts. It's not all about costs..It's all about how much is security and survival worth to a nation.

True, but if any of these wanna-be powers, like China, really wants to be a big power they'll have to come out of that cave and then they'll need something more than a couple of SSK's if they really want to engage supply routes to US or control anything except their own territorials. Chinese cheap units are expendable, but in any conflict they will not remain so. They only have a certain amount of well trained people, for example sub crews, they're already in old cans for most of them and hence in a disadvantage compared to any SSN. They can lose one, two or three against one SSN, but after a while it will get quite annoying if they still didn't kill that SSN... They lost one, two or three old ships, but they also lost those crews, so replacing these old things will become difficult after a while, although they do have the building capacity.

Since the US is the primier naval power and controls the sea for all practicle purposes, they are unlikely to see much use for Conventional submarines. The Nuclear boats have the all around capabilities and ranges that the USN needs to maintain sea control. But a likely opponent of the USN isn't going to need to be on par with the USN as far as Nuclear boats go. They would seek to control local areas and deny the USN entry to them. For that job the Conventinal boat ,specialized for it's particular area of operations and goal of sea denial , is a quite good choice. In exercises, they have a real habit of gaining firecontrol solutions that would sink the opponent if the weapons systems were activated.
Second tier powers would find good use for a modern fleet of conventional boats and a few smaller Nuclear boats to match any regional powers that might be. Used in conjunction with Land Based Naval Air and anti ship missiles both air, land and sub launched would be enough to make me nervous were I planning Carrier Operations anywhere near the Chinese Mainland.
High Technology weapons systems are well within the reach of many nations. I wonder myself at how large a lead the USN really has. We outspend everbody by leaps and bounds, but does a high tech anti shipping missile really cost that much? Or a superior conventional boat with both topedoes and anti shipping missiles.
This is just my personal guess, but I think the power that is engaged in simple sea denial has a huge advantage. He spends only on weapons to kill big surface ships and big nuclear submarines. He only needs to succeed say one out of 10 tries. The large surface force, the carrier group, needs a near 100% success rate in it's own defence. And that won't be easy to obtain. It remains to be seen, but big surface ships may be simply big slow targets.

Bob B.

Yes Chuck, but the article's author was using that argument as to why the US should get SSKs instead of SSNs, which is what I'm arguing against. It makes perfect sense for countries who only have a localized naval interest to employ SSKs - that I do not doubt.

Timmy C wrote:I was focusing on the latter half of the sentence. To say that the Germans used U-boots to their satisfaction(?) in WWII means that the US would also be satisfied with using SSKs now is simply ridiculous. Did Uboots have to deploy for half a year along with carrier task groups? Did they have to shadow other countries' SSBNs? Would the US be willing to us Milch-cow supply subs to resupply front line subs?

No, but an opponent like the Chinese could draw inspiration from the Uboat campaign and wage a SSK commerce war against Japan, and with the assistance of land based airpower, a sea denial compaign against US carrier force, using small, cheap SSK designes that dispense with pretenses at multi-purposes, and are highly optimized instead for, say month long deployment with small crew and high automation, minimum sensor suite, that could be mass produced and are individually expendable, like the modern equivalent of type VII.

Correct Timmy,

also, US wouldn't be building SSKs that cheap either. First you have to design them, then build, your working people just earn a LOT more than any Russian welder and US quality and safety demands are just that little bit higher than the Russian or Chinese standards. In the end you'd end up building them maybe at half the price of the Virginia or, at best, at the same price as the U212 and then it is still the question whether you really want to sacrifice your performance for that price. As Timmy mentioned, the demands for an SSN are very different from the demands of a defensive SSK in coastal waters or even an ocean going SSK like the Japanese subs.
And the tonnage difference is also stupid, German subs just didn't carry the load of equipment currently carried on a Virginia.

They can lose the two carrier groups though, won't be too much of a problem. Money is a big issue nowadays, and if you want to save, that would be one of the better ways. It's about time that the rest of the world does something too don't you think? If Iran really is such a problem, then the people who really think it's a problem should solve it too. I'm looking at the countries in the region. If they aren't scared enough to solve it, then why would US do it for them? Same counts for North Korea, if Japan is too scared, then they can go in and do something about it, with or without Chinese help. US doesn't have to hold everybody's hand.

I was focusing on the latter half of the sentence. To say that the Germans used U-boots to their satisfaction(?) in WWII means that the US would also be satisfied with using SSKs now is simply ridiculous. Did Uboots have to deploy for half a year along with carrier task groups? Did they have to shadow other countries' SSBNs? Would the US be willing to us Milch-cow supply subs to resupply front line subs?

TimmyC, what part of the quote is fallacious? From what I could find, the cost of a Virginia is 2 billion dollars. A Kilo is 200-250 million (or at least the Chinese bought some for that price). One source says the U214 is 1/5 the cost of a Virginia. The part about the WWII German U-boats is true according to the TV documentaries I've seen. (BTW, I think the Holocaust occurred too. I've visited the museum in Washington, DC. Just being humorous, not sarcastic.) The 1/10th quote may be a little exaggerated, but we could buy very capable non nuclear submarines for a fraction of what we are paying for nuclear subs. (We could be buying good enough subs that actually are superior in some environments for less money.)

The world is building conventionally powered submarines at prices 1/10th the cost of a Virginia class, and the often used endurance argument for submarines is a load of crap when one considers how Germany operated off the US coast in WWII with submarines that came in at less than 1000 tons.

That is possibly the most fallacious argument I have ever read.

Seasick wrote:After reading whats above read this:

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... ality.html

Very interesting. Thanks for the counterpoint. That's the sort of exchange we need in these discussions.

jack

I'm getting some bad feedback on this article on other boards, and nobody else is confident about this story.

The USN has sufficient aircraft, the USMC going to an all F-35B force is still less expensive than the mixed F/A-18C/D and AV-8B fleet they have now. The most likely event is that the number of deployable carrier groups be reduced and carriers spend more time in port between deployments in maintance. Makin island has a much lower fuel bill than other WASP class ships and is turning a few heads doing so. The Navy's purchase of the F-35C will probably be delayed to allow funds for the USMC to switch to the F-35B. The USN would most likely bridge the shortfall with additional Super-Hornets and more center-barrel repairs for F/A-18C and F/A-18A+. The center-barrel repair has been very effective and can turn back the clock on airframes of F/A-18C and A+

The earlier F/A-18A have been retreived from the desert and given a refit into the F/A-18A+ configuration. They get the same model of engine from the F/A-18C and upgraded avionics and have been used very effectivly.

Read this:
http://www.informationdissemination.net ... ality.html

I would say this QDR event maybe short sighted. The likely carriers to be Decommissioned are the Enterprise and the Nimitz. What the QDR and Congress do not say is the cost of de-fueling these carriers which is time consuming and more expensive then keeping the carriers in reserve or active.

As for Naval AirCraft as far as I know the F/A-18 is stilll production, the current model is the Super Hornet. So how do you account for the short-fall in naval fighters? The F-35 is not a sure bet to begin with as long as the cost over runs continue and the price keeps going up.

My guess something is going to change, as to what time will tell.

Regards
Dave

After reading whats above read this:

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... ality.html

I've been saying that we spend more than anyone else & can't afford to keep this up. On top of that we are in a recession and have even less money to pay for all the things Americans want their government to do. My state pays for pre school child care (?) Elected public officials love giving their constituents everything they ask for. And too many Americans need jobs right now. We need to prioritize how we spend our money. We do not need 11 carriers unless we want to start more trouble elsewhere in the world. Hopefully we can exit Iraq so that we can concentrate on Afghanistan. We should never be engaged in more than one war at a time again. Moreover, carriers are looking to be more & more vulnerable with the proliferation of AIP submarines and cruise missiles. They no longer have fixed wing anti-submarine warfare aircraft and have short range CAP and short range attack aircraft. What good are the carriers if we don't have enough capable aircraft for them?