Comments on: Bad Days for Pirates

By: NTV

NTV — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:37:04 +0000

Re Chief
The Soviets or the Russians wouyld not have allowed the BUFF’s to escape the guillotine if we had tried to renegotiate, they where regarded as nuke carriers and in accordance with reducing the nuke capability needed to go. And like I said they where the pder G and maybe F models with little life left in them. (Remember, they did a lot of low level flying back in the day ‚and thus beat the crap out of the airframe).
Yes, the Spuance class where good ships, but they where meant to be bridges from the Sumner/Gearing/Sherman classes that where reaching mass obselecens at the same time. Unfortunatly the Aiegis sytem was not ready for the Spruance and ASW was a pressing need. This resulted in a very capable ASW ship with limited strike and AAW capability. The strike capability was upgraded with the TLAM VLS system. But the ships where reaacing the max weight and where expensive to operate. When it comes time to cut cost it makes sense to get rid of an entire class so that all the logistics disapear as well.
As for developing new systems, we have to develop them for threats that exist now as well as those that are 20 years down the road. Thats what make things hard, determineing what the threat will be in 20 years.
AS for keeping some of our weapons in production, I think its a good idea, but with respect to airplanes, I think that LO capability is so important that I think we need to focus on building F-22’s/F-35’s and stay away from building F-15’s/16’s/18’s.
Also, its impractiple to restart production of aircraft one the lines have been shut down, all the machines have been reused for other aircraft and most of the knowldge is lost as well. While we could do it the cost would be significnt, even if mission/requirment creep didnt happen.

By: Crusty Old Chief

Crusty Old Chief — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:00:11 +0000

Re: NTV
There may not have been “much life left in them” but there may have been enough to refit and keep them flying as bomb trucks. The treaty with the USSR arguably could have been renegotiated when the USSR went POOF.
As for the SPRUs, I wouldn’t exactly call them “place fillers.” They were a good design that allowed for innovation and development. If we thought there was something obsolete in them we should have replaced or upgraded those things. Decommissioning an entire class of ships in midlife remains unfathomable to me; especially when we do not have replacements for them as yet.
The other bit of this whole mystery is why we feel the need to build entirely new classes of ships, planes, weapons, and systems. We take on enormous risk and cost in developing something that is radically different from its predecessor. During the Cold War it was rational and understandable that staying ahead of the Soviets was a potent deterrent and ultimately a potent weapon in itself.
However, what is the pressing requirement these days for the F22, DDG-1000, CG(X), and what have you that our current range of weaponry can’t handle? Why can’t we extend the production of the F16, restart the F15, build more B1 bombers or even B52s, continue to build DDG51s, etc., etc.?
Surely the cost of restarting the production of an aircraft already in service would be significantly less than working out the myriad bugs in a new one. What improvements could we make in methods and materials that would improve the performance and capabilities of a brand new BUFF?
And we need not beat the dead horse of reactivating the BBs.
Maybe its looking at my graying hair and beard in the morning, but I’ve become rather convinced that new is not always better and that throwing away things just because they’re “old” is unwise.
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: NTV

NTV — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:22:58 +0000

Chief, The B-52’s that where chopped up didnt have much life left in them. Further, most where choped up due to arms control treaties. As for the DD-963’s they where always cheap place fillers anyway.

By: Crusty Old Chief

Crusty Old Chief — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:13:51 +0000

Re: Size DOES Matter
Some have remarked here that this incident makes the case for smaller vessels. I couldn’t disagree more.
These smaller, smarter, “rightsized” vessels that Big Navy has been peddling are snake oil. I write this based on our experiences with the threats that we and our allies have faced in the last twenty years or so. From STARK to HANIT, the survivability of these vessels came not from whizbang weapons systems but size, construction, valor, and no small measure of luck.
STARK survived the Exocet attack because she was well built and had a crew that wasn’t about to let her go under. Had her crew been manned at the levels the MBAs in the Pentagon think to be right, she’d not likely have had the men to fight the fires.
SAMUEL B. ROBERTS survived for the same reasons a STARK after she struck a mine.
COLE was perilously close to sinking and suffered massive engineering damage. A robust design and valiant crew kept her afloat to fight another day.
HANIT was fornute that the ASM which struck her did so on her stern. An amidship strike surely would have been catastrophic.
The common element here is that all these hits happened when the vessels’ crews “weren’t looking.” Our reliance on active systems to defeat threats before they get to the ship are grand in theory but chock full of holes in practice. It is through these holes that brave young men and women get killed.
In theory, STARK should have splashed both MiGs and sent their drivers straight to hell and her CIWS should have splashed both Exocets. In practice however she was running BECCEs, had her CIWS offline, and Murphy took care of the rest.
In theory, COLE should not have allowed a Splodeydope small boat anywhere near her. In practice however such things were the norm and the idea of the topside sentry giving them anything more than dirty looks was anathema. (Why the hell she was in Aden in the first place is another matter altogether.)
A ship of larger size with substantial armor protection might not have been nearly so affected as were STARK and COLE. The larger crews also enable better damage control and fire fighting teams. In an interdiction role, such as JAMES WILLIAMS found herself in, the larger and more robust vessel need worry very little about a lucky RPG hit and has the crew depth to man VBSS teams.
The LCS now being built has none of these qualities and relies on speed and stealthiness to avoid the one lucking round that will sink it. Her tiny crew would likely not be able to fight fires and flooding AND continue to fight the ship.
For now, the decisions on what to buy and when to buy it seems to be directed by MBAs, JDs, and politicians. I pray however that someday soon we’ll stop trying to function like a business and get on with being the Navy our grandfathers left to us.
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: Crusty Old Chief

Crusty Old Chief — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:09:14 +0000

Re: Doc75
I apprehend your meaning now and agree.
I suppose that my first principles with these really big ticket procurement items are:
Do we REALLY need it? Do we really need it RIGHT NOW? Are the suppliers capable of delivering it or are they smoking crack? And, what do we have in inventory that can do the job or that can evolve (spiral development)?
We have permitted our procurement weenies, congressional money whores, and the big military suppliers to wag the dog, IMHO. Requirements don’t seem to have their genesis in reality. E.g., the DD(X)/CG(X) “programs” that continually morph from one design to another without ever getting down to HY80 on the ways.
What’s more we discard like last week’s toys lots and lots of things that still have a lot of life left in them and for which Mom & Dad still haven’t finished paying. E.g., the SPRUANCE class and FFG-7s. How many B-52s have we chopped up rather than rebuild/convert to PGM haulers?
We DO get the spiral development right sometimes; the F16 being a sterling example. Here’s a plane that started a simple “John Boyd” bird that flew and fought superbly. Over the decades its evolved into much, much more without losing its soul. I don’t see any reason why we can’t continue to improve the design and expand its capabilities while also building the F22 in smaller numbers.
Ditto other successful programs: the FA18/EA18, DDG51, C17, C130, et al. Some of our most successful weapons have been continuously improved over many decades: AIM9, AIM7, Standard, Harpoon, Tomahawk, etc.
In the end, I think that we have to have the presence of mind to know when our reach exceeds our grasp. It doesn’t mean that we stop growing and extending our reach, but don’t miss a rung on the ladder either.
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: AG

AG — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:36:05 +0000

My question is: What is a NORK cargo ship doing there? Where is it going? And what is it carrying?
…um? North Korea is a rather politically insular nation, but they do trade with the outside world, and unless the outside world in question is China or Russia or South Korea, that’s going to have to be trade done on freighters. About 20% of their trade, import and export, is with nations outside the big local markets, so you’d expect the occasional ship to be heading off for a long haul.
(Where were they going? Good question. En route to Europe or the Med?)
Sure, every time you hear about some weird suspicious thing coming out of NK it’s shipborne — but that’s simply because it’s the only way to go. There’s a vast amount of legitimate shipping out there, and it seems rather bizzare to immediately start being suspicious of their motives Just Because They’re North Korean.

By: Jack D. Ripper

Jack D. Ripper — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:50:15 +0000

Might be a good time to bring back the Q ships of WWII.

By: dubois

dubois — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:22:07 +0000

Maybe if we intervened whenever and whereever we are, regardless of the platform, we would have more repect on the open seas.
If pirates get wind that we select our targets based on size of vessels in the are, then they will use it to there advantage…ya think?

By: j p Amick

j p Amick — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:15:36 +0000

As A tax Payer and an avid sailor I dont’t care If a destroyer or a f-22 or a 688n Sub respond, a mariner in need,whatever Nation,Should be defended.pirates need to die.no exceptions.
Many Yacht’s with family’s are killed every year and that does’nt include the threats to commercial
shipping. I say respond!!!!!!

By: 22lr

22lr — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:08:22 +0000

Its like the F-22, we have no need for any large war ship right now. But we have them and were using them to good effect. No enemy we face as of right now even has a navy, but we still have multi billion dollar ships because anyday we cold face war with a nation who has a real navy. Id say use them and give the crews real combat experience, ya its not like a real shooting battle but its better than just training. Pirates are a problem and we just destroyed 2, thats 2 less to worry about.