SSGNs Take Significant Step Towards Rejoining the Fleet


PDA






280PLUS
January 6, 2006, 04:13 AM
SSGNs Take Significant Step Towards Rejoining the Fleet
Story Number: NNS051222-11
Release Date: 12/22/2005 11:25:00 AM


From Team Submarine Public Affairs

BREMERTON, Wash. (NNS) -- USS Ohio (SSGN 726), the Navy’s first modern guided-missile submarine, took a significant step towards rejoining the fleet Dec. 19, when it arrived at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., with a broom atop its sail to signify its clean sweep of the ship’s initial sea trials.

Ohio's Commanding Officer, Cmdr. Michael Cockey, expressed satisfaction with the ship’s performance and noted its great potential.

“It’s great to be completing an arduous overhaul and conversion period and moving on to demonstrating the tremendous capability this ship brings to the fleet. The Ohio crew will be pioneers in tactics and employment of this amazing class of ships.”

“SSGNs will provide us with one of the most capable and versatile strike options in the Navy,” said Rear. Adm. William Hilarides, program executive officer for submarines. “We are eager to have Ohio and her sister ships rejoin the fleet.”

Ohio is the first of four fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to be converted into SSGNs. Prior to the conversion process, each boat unloaded its complement of Trident Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. Twenty-two of the 24 missile tubes on each boat are being retrofitted to carry up to seven Tomahawk cruise missiles, for a maximum load out of 154 missiles per boat. The remaining two tubes are being converted into Lock-in/Lock-out chambers for use by Special Operations Forces (SOF).

Each SSGN will be able to carry and support up to 66 Special Operation Forces for an extended period of time. These ships will have a specialized planning area, physical fitness equipment, and laser shooting ranges for use by the Operators. Further, SSGNs will be able to carry two Advanced SEAL (Sea, Air, Land) Delivery Systems, two Dry deck Shelters, or one of each using the lock-in/lock-out chambers as their docking sites.

“The ability to carry a large Special Operations Force, coupled with its Tomahawk strike capability and inherent stealth characteristics make SSGN a unique and powerful platform for combatant commanders to carry out a variety of missions,” said Capt. David Norris, SSGN program manager (PMS 398).

In addition to the strike capabilities of SSGNs, the submarines will also have improved Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance equipment, enhancing their ability to carry out clandestine operations.

Due to its size and layout, SSGNs offer expanded living and training space for embarked SOF. This space includes increased bunk capacity, as well as improved training and physical conditioning areas that allow the SOF operators to maintain their high operating capacity.

Another advantage of SSGNs’ size will be its ability to carry an increased payload. In the future, this capacity will allow for the launch and recovery of unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). As new capabilities and equipment are developed, they can be inserted relatively easily into SSGNs thanks to its Open Architecture computing systems and the related ability to rapidly integrate new technologies and payloads. SSGN can also offer significant opportunities to serve as a test platform to develop future weapons, sensors and operational concepts.

“The added payload capacity of the SSGNs gives us mission flexibility and future capability options unlike anything we have ever had,” added Norris.

The SSGN conversion program is the first truly transformational program in the Navy. President George W. Bush made reference to it in his May 2001 commencement address to the U.S. Naval Academy, and since then, the program will go from the first boat entering the shipyard to the last boat being delivered back to the fleet in less than five years. SSGN embodies a new level of adaptable warfare that is suited for today’s security environment.

The three other submarines undergoing the SSGN conversion process - USS Michigan (SSGN 727), Florida (SSGN 728), and Georgia (SSGN 729) - are all slated to rejoin the fleet by 2007.

If you enjoyed reading about "SSGNs Take Significant Step Towards Rejoining the Fleet" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
benEzra
January 6, 2006, 09:45 AM
The SSBN-to-SSGN conversion instead of scrapping the subs was a good idea. Glad to see they pulled it off.

IRONFIST
January 6, 2006, 10:56 AM
I'm all for Tomahawk missiles and SEAL teams on subs, they are very versatile, but couldn't they have left a tube open for just one nuclear weapon? A nuke is like the ultimate back-up gun... you never want to use it, but it's nice to know it's there if you ever need it.

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 11:14 AM
Leaving one tube for a Trident might constitute a treaty violation or force us not to build a newer SSBN as the boat would probably still be considered a SSBN.

Igloodude
January 6, 2006, 11:19 AM
I'm all for Tomahawk missiles and SEAL teams on subs, they are very versatile, but couldn't they have left a tube open for just one nuclear weapon? A nuke is like the ultimate back-up gun... you never want to use it, but it's nice to know it's there if you ever need it.

Tomahawks still have the possibility of carrying nuclear warheads, I believe.


And... 154 of them on a single launch platform (that doesn't need to devote tubes to Standard, VL-ASROC, or anything else? :eek:

monsternav
January 6, 2006, 11:21 AM
Leaving a tube capable of launching a Nuke would definately count in treaty numbers. Anyway another ICBM is only a few minutes away, no matter where you are :)

Plus, you can still stick a nuke in a Tomahawk (I think).

IRONFIST
January 6, 2006, 11:27 AM
Well after learning that, I wonder then whether some of those Tomahawks will be carrying nukes or not. The article doesn't really say one way or the other. I would just prefer that they have the nuclear option with them, thats all.

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 11:29 AM
Tactical nukes aboard naval vessels were removed during Bush I's administration.

IRONFIST
January 6, 2006, 11:38 AM
That's just GREAT! We're practically disarmed! What the hell are we supposed to use in combat... sporks and harsh language? I'm just kidding:neener: , but I really had no idea about the tactical nukes, I learn something new here everyday because of the intelligent and helpful folks on the board. Thanks...

SSN Vet
January 6, 2006, 11:41 AM
FYI...

TLAM-N...Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear. Not a Trident-D SLICBM, but it will do the trick

SUBROC....a submarine torpedo tube fired rocket....was like a nuclear depth charge, mounted onto a rocket, shot out of a torpedo tube. It's was removed from inventory and scrapped years ago (off loaded them from my first boat in '89).

We always felt that the chances of the launch platform surviving the SUBROC launch were pretty slim, as it's range was only about 25 nautical miles.....point the ship away from the target, laund the SUBROC over the shoulder, go deep and run like h#ll.

But if Ivan's SSBN was cycling missle tube in preparation for raining nuclear hell fire on mom and pop's....ya did what you had to do.

relationship to the topic of fire arms....after the nukes we're off, the duty officer was no longer required to carry a .45 and the Torpedo Room Security watch was secured when in port.....Liberty Call, Liberty Call!

WT
January 6, 2006, 12:36 PM
What a waste of taxpayer's money! Over $225,000,000 to make a gold plated taxi for SEALs. Spending that kind of money on a 20 year old rattletrap that is deaf, dumb and blind at high speed. A disgrace!

How combat effective will be those special forces types after being cooped up in a beer can for 60+ days?

How will they get to shore from a boat as big as a WWII heavy cruiser? The effin' ASDS doesn't work worth squat. Guess they will play Richard Widmark and swim 20 miles to shore.

How fast can the OHIO travel across the deserts of Iraq? How can the OHIO get to Afghanistan?

By the way, who the heck is the USN preparing to fight?

The Navy spending that kind of money when our Marines and Soldiers do not have an adequate source of batteries for infantry radios .........

It would be nice if the Navy started pulling its weight on the War Against Terrorism. Not too much to ask ..... maybe it is.

benEzra
January 6, 2006, 12:50 PM
I'm all for Tomahawk missiles and SEAL teams on subs, they are very versatile, but couldn't they have left a tube open for just one nuclear weapon? A nuke is like the ultimate back-up gun... you never want to use it, but it's nice to know it's there if you ever need it.
That would compromise the SSGN as a tactical/specops platform, and would require that one much newer SSBN be scrapped to make room for the 1-Trident SSGBN.

SSBN's need to be spending their time hiding and being quiet. A Trident can't be used as a tactical last-ditch defensive weapon, so it does the sub no good having it, and it doesn't do the nation any good since we already have the real trident subs on patrol.

These older Ohio's were going to be scrapped IAW a treaty with the Russians, so converting them to SSGN's satisfies the treaty requirements while giving us much more tactical and specops delivery capability than we had before. I also expect the SSGN's to maybe replace the Halibut in some of those deep-covert-salvage type missions that sub did. I strongly suspect the remodeled Ohio's are set up to piggyback DSRV's, whose primary design mission is actually deep covert salvage; their rescue capability is real, but that wasn't the only reason they were built.

280PLUS
January 6, 2006, 01:31 PM
SUBROC....a submarine torpedo tube fired rocket....was like a nuclear depth charge, mounted onto a rocket, shot out of a torpedo tube. It's was removed from inventory and scrapped years ago (off loaded them from my first boat in '89).

We always felt that the chances of the launch platform surviving the SUBROC launch were pretty slim, as it's range was only about 25 nautical miles.....point the ship away from the target, laund the SUBROC over the shoulder, go deep and run like h#ll. We, the "targets" had ASROC which were also nuke capable. Our launch procedure was quite similar except at launch we were supposed to bend over, place our heads firmly between our knees and kiss... Well, you know the rest.

I'm assuming they went the way of the SUBROC which I hadn't known were removed from the inventory.

Technosavant
January 6, 2006, 01:47 PM
What a waste of taxpayer's money! Over $225,000,000 to make a gold plated taxi for SEALs. Spending that kind of money on a 20 year old rattletrap that is deaf, dumb and blind at high speed. A disgrace!

How combat effective will be those special forces types after being cooped up in a beer can for 60+ days?

How will they get to shore from a boat as big as a WWII heavy cruiser? The effin' ASDS doesn't work worth squat. Guess they will play Richard Widmark and swim 20 miles to shore.

How fast can the OHIO travel across the deserts of Iraq? How can the OHIO get to Afghanistan?

By the way, who the heck is the USN preparing to fight?

The Navy spending that kind of money when our Marines and Soldiers do not have an adequate source of batteries for infantry radios .........

It would be nice if the Navy started pulling its weight on the War Against Terrorism. Not too much to ask ..... maybe it is.

The Ohio and her sisters can put swimmers right off the shore of Iran, China, North Korea, or other trouble spots, and it can do it silently. The boats may no longer be top of the line, but they are still very capable.

The Navy is planning for things that might come. You have to plan for stuff like what is currently happening, as well as a few steps in advance. Or do you think NK is going to play nice all of a sudden?

I'm all in favor of the change. This gives us the ability to insert covert forces into a wide array of places without the permission or knowledge of a possible hostile power, as well as the ability to drop a Tomahawk right into their laps hundreds of miles inshore, and it does all this without necessitating the creation of a completely new submarine.

SSN Vet
January 6, 2006, 02:43 PM
Covert presence is absolutely necessary.

The SSN's were there eavesdropping on radio com's and uploading live satellite link of the Republican Guard's conversations to the theatre commanders through the whole show in Desert Storm.

Better yet they were there weeks before the flat tops..... an nobody new it!

Oh and buy the way.....Cruise missile strikes from afloat AND submerged platforms were the first punch in both Desert Storm and the current Iraq war. And Naval Aviators pulled their fair share of the strike and close combat support missions .

And just who the heck is going to fly these missions when Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah (or the dictator of Turkmenistan, or the dictator of Uzbekistan) decides that he doesn't like the USAF bombing his co-religionist from airbases in his country.

And who the heck is going to keep that big fat flat top afloat to launch those F/A-18s when Iran puts their Kilos class submarines to sea. (Oh please don't tell me that a Destroyer can find a competently manned, new generation SS...which the Kilo is.....not a chance).

Also...

I've personally practiced covert insertion ops from an SSN with the Navy SEALS, and Army Special Forces. The stuff they can do is amazing! Hundreds (if not thousands) of pre-planned and pre-trained missions...ready to go, with equipment pre-staged and waiting. Pick one and execute it tonigt...In and out without anyone knowing….hours later….KABOOM!!…an American IED…what a concept!

As far as fit for combat goes...there's room for the best stair climbers and exercise bikes (purchased out of the crews MWR $) on every Ohio class ship in the fleet. Hey even Bubble Heads have to pass the PRT and will be passed over for promotion if there full body service photo shows a spare tire on board).

How about some Geo-Political reality!!!

Look at the globe sometime and see how many countries have coastline. Would you like to have the option of reaching out and touching them...without CNN telling the world about it before hand. Did you know that Syria has a port? Would you like to be able to shut it down and cut off their supply of anything heavier than a pick up truck? With no advance warning....or evidence that you were even there.

Granada, Haiti, Libya, Sudan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan (why was it so important that Pakistan give us fly over permission?...where were we supporting the Northern Alliance from?...it took a year to negotiate the first two land airstrips....one of which has since been shut down)......SSN's were there FIRST? Carriers came only when the waters were safe!

What was Iran going to do with there F-14's in the opening minutes of the Desert Storm air strikes? Where they going to help their co-religionist fight off the great satan? The earliest alert of those planes going airborne was visual observation of their afterburner from an undetected periscope. Or did somebody forget that they call it the Persian Gulf for a reason? Why do you think Iran spends top dollar for Soviet Kilo class submarines? (they have at least 3 or 4.... I guarantee it's not to sink oil tankers...you can do that from you living room with a economy Silkworm missile….made in China).

What does the future hold???

If you count WWIII as the global war on terror (a.k.a. Militant Jihadist)...who do you think WWIV is going to be against?

You bet your socks it will be China when they get tired of waiting to reclaim Taiwan and all their $$. (Oh by the way, the Chinese Nationalist in Taiwan have been our ally since 1940 and along side Japan, Australia and South Korea are the only real pro-west democracies in the pacific theatre....should we leave them hanging out to dry?)

Does anybody realize that China has a lot of coastline?....an ever-growing naval power? (the only real means of power projection there has ever been in the history of modern warfare). and btw...thanks to our fellow citizen and government employee Wen Ho Li at Los Alamos....the Chinese have the blue prints to the best ICBM in the world....the Trident D-4....which they are developing with the $$ and technology Bill Clinton gave them for "commercial" jet engines. (paid back of course to the DNC via. Charlie what's his face..boy was Ross Perot ever spot on with that one....cover up via. Janet Rino).

China also has SSBN’s by the way….fortunately they’re not very good…YET! Try to stop that incoming "round" with your .45 ACP!! (my loose link to the topic of handguns...along with my reference to our pal Janet).

SAC won't know it's been launched until 4 min. before it vaporizes your hometown!!

As for the Ohio class being a rust bucket....there are only two platforms on earth that have any chance of finding and stopping one.....the Sea Wolf and the new "economy" SSN (the Virginia class)....and that's a pretty slim chance at that.

Finally.....as far as the $225,000,000 spent keeping one awesome platform from being de-fueled, de-contaminated and then cut up into razor blades (which isn't free btw)..that's only a fraction (1/32) of the $8 Billion the feds have committed towards the initial wave of shoveling doo-doo (literally) out of the streets of a certain below sea level city…(and not $1 to upgrade to the levee in that number).

No offense to my Southern Countrymen (more Patriots per capita down south than any where else I know)....but re-building that city is going to bankrupt this nation.......which is how the Soviet Union fell after floundering in Afghanistan....which is exactly the strategy Bin Laden has to break the back of the USA.

Money doesn't grow on trees.....so we better spend it on the REAL military hardware that can protect us from our REAL enemies.

My 2 cents

Leatherneck
January 6, 2006, 03:09 PM
Good rant, SSNVET; and welcome to THR. I agree. Once the ASDS is improved, the dual-threat SSGN platform will give the COCOMs a lot of flexibility. It's a rational use of the old tubes for the new mission environment.

TC

stevelyn
January 6, 2006, 04:19 PM
I'm all for Tomahawk missiles and SEAL teams on subs, they are very versatile, but couldn't they have left a tube open for just one nuclear weapon? A nuke is like the ultimate back-up gun... you never want to use it, but it's nice to know it's there if you ever need it.

We have other subs that can and are used for nukes. Besides, Tomahawks are nuke capable.

ETCss Phil McCrackin
January 6, 2006, 04:54 PM
I'm glad I decided to eat lunch before I pitched in to this topic. SSN Vet managed to say most of what I was thinking, thereby saving me the typing. And I hate typing.... As you can imagine, it is a topic near and dear to my heart.

Preacherman
January 6, 2006, 05:01 PM
WT, you really need to change that record... You've effectively discredited yourself in every comment you make about the Navy, in many previous threads. You're always negative, never positive, and come across as bitter and vindictive on anything and everything to do with the subject. If you want your comments to be taken seriously, you need to be more balanced, and provide evidence to support your arguments. Until then, not many will be listening.

buzz_knox
January 6, 2006, 05:03 PM
If history teaches us anything, it's that the first step towards fighting the next war is to defeat those who want to fight the last war.

With the mentality of some, we wouldn't have jets because the prop planes were good enough to win WWII and were all that was needed. No thought is given to the fact that even as you deal with current problems, you have to prepare for the future. And the SSGN program gives a fantastic capability to deal with future concerns, as well as an incredible ability today.

Old Dog
January 6, 2006, 05:11 PM
WT, somehow just knew you'd be showin' up to bash the Navy again.
How will they get to shore from a boat as big as a WWII heavy cruiser? The effin' ASDS doesn't work worth squat. Guess they will play Richard Widmark and swim 20 miles to shore.We'd tell you ... but then we'd have to kill you. Seriously, have you no knowledge of SEAL delivery vehicles?
How combat effective will be those special forces types after being cooped up in a beer can for 60+ days?It's possible to stay in shape aboard these boats, believe it or not.
The Navy spending that kind of money when our Marines and Soldiers do not have an adequate source of batteries for infantry radios ......... That's bullcrap, and I think you know it. The funding for the SSGN projects isn't taking slices out of the Army/Marine Corps pie as far as funding basic consumables necessary for combat.
It would be nice if the Navy started pulling its weight on the War Against Terrorism. Not too much to ask ..... maybe it is.WT, you really have no idea what the Navy is doing these days, do you?

Coronach
January 6, 2006, 05:24 PM
Ah, WT is at it again. :D Always good for a chuckle.

I remember saying for years, back in the early 90's, that the ultimate "arsenal ship" concept was a SSBN converted to carry cruise missiles. It is stealthy ("rattletrap" Yeah. Right.), powerful, immune from all but the most skilled and concerted attacks. The use of them as SEAL drivers is good, too...IIRC the USN used to use Sturgeon-class subs and an older boomer to shuttle the swimmers around, too, so this gives them a doubly effective platform for the cost of conversion only. That's almost un-government-like in its cost-savings. ;)

As to being "cooped up in a beer can", this assumes:

1. The SEALS stay aboard the boat for the whole trip to and from, which would not have to be the case.

2. They are losing room in the conversion from SSBN to SSGN, which I really doubt is the case. WT has obviously never seen the internal layout of a SSBN. While it is not exactly roomy, it's also not like there's no room to exercise. As far as subs go, they're pretty spacious. I would actually be startled if they didn't have rudimentary fitness facilities, given their new mission.

Mike

ETCss Phil McCrackin
January 6, 2006, 07:59 PM
As far as being "couped up", yeah, the last 3 months was pretty crappy, (I just got back in late Dec) but I still managed to lose 10lbs and saw a decent increase in strength using a combination of the Eliptical, Treadmill, Free Weights and 15 minutes per workout on a heavy bag. Now, I'm not high speed like SEALS, (I'm kinda medium speed...) but there is plenty of capability for PT underway.

Also, the only space lost during the 'GN conversion belonged to us boat drivers. The spaces which had to do with Strat Weapons mostly went for Spec Ops Support. So actually, the HSLD guys get an increase in room from the other (Seawolf, Virginia, 688, or 640 class ships) platforms.

WT
January 6, 2006, 08:24 PM
Tell me with a straight face that we need supercarriers, battleships, and nuclear submarines to fight 3rd and 4th world countries.

The ROOSEVELT website is proud of the fact they launched 4,000 sorties to drop 28,000 lb of weapons. That's about 7 lb/sortie. A couple of A-1 Skyraiders would work better.

Tell me how a special forces team will practice infantry squad tactics, rappelling, position assaults, etc. in the confines of a submarine.

Okay, so they are not in the boat for 60 days. Then why do we need a super expensive nuclear submarine to transport them? We could rent a couple of AIP's from Sweden or Germany - keep them stationed in Japan - which our USN can't do with a nuclear submarine (we did get special dispensation for one of our carriers).

A Marine infantry major personally told me his men didn't have enough batteries for their radios. He came home last month.

We have 1 or 2 ASDS which don't work well and cannot be deployed. We have a few Mark VIII SDV's that are slow and limited - hence the Richard Widmark comment.

You guys claim to be in the know. Instead of attacking me, tell THR what the heck the Navy is doing re WOT? Please don't claim OPSEC.

I admit having a strong dislike to the current practices and leadership of the US Navy. You guys want to attack me personally, that’s fine. I can handle it. However, I challenge you to come up with any defense for the massive, super expensive fleet we have set up to fight imaginary maritime enemies.

riverdog
January 6, 2006, 08:55 PM
Ahh, China, imaginary :rolleyes:

Kharn
January 6, 2006, 09:26 PM
WT:
The ROOSEVELT website is proud of the fact they launched 4,000 sorties to drop 28,000 lb of weapons. That's about 7 lb/sortie. A couple of A-1 Skyraiders would work better.The carriers keep launching planes 24/7, even when they're thousands of miles away from the war zone. Missions also happen where no ordnance was dropped, even though they were over hostile territory. And, even in a war zone, at least half the planes in the air at any given moment are either protecting the carrier or are support aircraft for the other aircraft in the air.

Kharn

Preacherman
January 6, 2006, 11:13 PM
WT, you really need to remove your foot from your mouth before pontificating... :rolleyes:

The ROOSEVELT website is proud of the fact they launched 4,000 sorties to drop 28,000 lb of weapons. That's about 7 lb/sortie. A couple of A-1 Skyraiders would work better.

Let's see now. Typical all-day, every-day carrier flight missions:

1. Helicopter transfers of personnel and freight to and from other ships and shore bases;

2. COD (Carrier On-Board Delivery) cargo flights, in and out;

3. Helicopter search and rescue crews to support flight operations;

4. Air-refuelling tanker operations;

5. Patrols of the carrier battle group's airspace and environs, to see who dat out dere;

6. Electronic surveillance flights (e.g. Hawkeye AWACS aircraft) to keep an eye on a several-hundred-mile radius of airspace around the carrier battle group, plus others nearer to the enemy positions to control aircraft combat operations;

7. Training flights to re-qualify pilots or maintain their qualifications;

8. Flights to and from friendly countries for aircraft maintenance at USN shore stations;

9. Flights of Navy aircraft to USAF stations ashore, where they're refueled, bombed-up, and sent into enemy territory for a mission (often happened during both Gulf Wars);

10. Exercises, where large numbers of aircraft will be launched and recovered to test various wargaming scenarios, provide training to other ships in the carrier battle group, etc.;

11. Routine anti-submarine patrols to protect the carrier battle group.

And we haven't listed a single combat mission so far...!

(And, BTW, I wonder how long a Skyraider, great plane though it was, would survive at less than 200 knots air speed, fully loaded, in an air-defence environment like today's?)

ETCss Phil McCrackin
January 7, 2006, 01:15 AM
Ok, I guess I’ll have to do some typing after all, crapola… Anyway I guess I can start here;

Tell me with a straight face that we need supercarriers, battleships, and nuclear submarines to fight 3rd and 4th world countries.

The US Navy is in the business of providing Power Projection, and the ONLY platform which can truly project power is the modern supercarrier. No other vessel, including the VSTOL carriers of other nations, can influence world affairs the way a carrier battle group can. When the bleeding hearts demand we put a stop to the mass kitten stompings taking place in Southwest Nowhereistan, and none of our “Allies” in the EU or Asia, will let us use airfields for combat missions, then the only option for air superiority is a haze grey airfield which can deploy to support virtually any theatre.
Battleships, well they’re not used anymore, so I’ll skip to nuclear submarines.

For openers, where do you think a large portion of the Tomahawks launched during every major conflict in the past 15 years came from? Submarine launched cruise missiles are a staple for every foreseeable conflict throughout the world, and the SSGN boast the capability to have 154 SLCM’s available from just one platform. And that platform, due to its nuclear propulsion, has a loiter time limited only by the crew, and after 80 or so days can be relieved on station by one of the other GN’s operating in that region.

Tell me how a special forces team will practice infantry squad tactics, rappelling, position assaults, etc. in the confines of a submarine.


It’s not as though the spec-ops guys practice diddily squat inside the belly of a C-130 or C-141. They run table-top exercises and perform mission planning en-route to the target onboard a ship the same way they do on an aircraft.

You guys claim to be in the know. Instead of attacking me, tell THR what the heck the Navy is doing re WOT? Please don't claim OPSEC.

As far as the GWOT goes, it’s not necessarily a conflict well suited to the US Navy’s mission, however;
1. The aforementioned carrier task force, available for combat missions virtually round-the-clock.
2. The involvement of Naval Special Warfare is a no-brainer.
3. Submarines and surface ships alike providing on-demand cruise missile tasking and high value asset (SSBN and CGN) protection.
4. Finally, the low profile, no glamour, thankless job of Strategic Deterrence. Provided by such icons of American pride as the USS Kentucky (SSBN 737 Blue). Sniff, sniff… -Anchors Away plays softly in the background……..



Oh, and then there's;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy

Or maybe, India, Iran, or North Korea.....

carebear
January 7, 2006, 01:43 AM
No, no, he's right. Let's destroy or let rot everything in the inventory designed for conventional warfare against major powers. Screw innovation and planning for the next one. It's a long American tradition that served us so well prior to 1812, WWI, WWII and Korea.

We won't know what we'll need til we need it. Let's wait to build it til then.

Waitone
January 7, 2006, 06:10 AM
The current conflict may be fourth generation warfare but you'd be delusional to think it couldn't drop back into third generation in a heartbeat. Taiwan, Korea and the Middle East spring to mind without serious thought. Has it occured to you that the reason North Korea is behaving itself is because of boomers somewhere on that side of the world, not to mention all the other kinds of things that may be going on which don't get reported. All three theaters feature lots of water and the need for beaucoup firepower. Frankly, I'm happy to see the Navy get with the program. Afghanastan would have been a different fight it it were not for the flattop playing like an airfield for assorted grunts. Power projection is the name of the game and carriers and subs do just fine.

Coronach
January 7, 2006, 06:25 AM
What I always enjoy is listening to people say:

1. There is not a single navy out there who can challenge us!

2. We don't need all this stuff!

That's the logical equivalent of sawing off the branch upon which you sit, between you and the trunk. :scrutiny:

There is currently no navy out there that can take on the USN, toe to toe. This is precisely because we have overwhelming force, and developing a navy to counter it would cost billions. Keep drawing down the USN's strength, however, and sooner or later someone will look at what it would take to achieve parity and say "Yeah, we have enough Yuans to buy that." The currency noted is a hint about who might say such a thing.

Note, btw, that the strength has been drawn down, and note also that with global reach come global commitments. It is no coincidence that North Korea chose to pipe up the first time back while Mr. Clinton was fighting a war in the Balkans, conducting peacekeeping operations in Haiti and whacking Saddam Hussein over the head in the gulf. Petty tyrants note when CVBGs are in a different ocean.

Should we develop proper equipment for brownwater ops and dealing with 3rd world pests? Absolutely. It's pure silliness to send in an AEGIS cruiser to deal with clowns in speedboats with RPGs. But it is just as silly to erode the very capability that keeps us decades in front of everyone else in the bluewater fighting game.

Oh, and we no longer have battleships in the active fleet. They were deemed too expensive to retain on active duty.

Mike

Preacherman
January 7, 2006, 06:14 PM
Another point on the 28,000 pounds of bombs dropped by the Roosevelt. In times past, a given target would be attacked by a section or flight of aircraft, each dropping several "dumb" bombs, so that it would take (say) 10,000 to 20,000 pounds of bombs to destroy it. Nowadays, the aircraft are loaded up with terminally guided munitions. A grunt on the ground (or another aircraft nearby) puts a laser designator on the target, or provides precise GPS co-ordinates of the target. The pilot sets the guidance system accordingly and launches a single bomb - often a 500-pounder, but with the newer stuff coming into inventory, as little as a 250-pounder. That one bomb, placed in exactly the right spot, eliminates the target. Other times, a homing missile will be used, instead of a bomb. So, that 28,000 pounds of ordnance represents at least 56 targets if 500-pound bombs are assumed - more if a Maverick or something like that was launched. In older times, it might mean no more than one or two targets destroyed.

buzz_knox
January 9, 2006, 09:44 AM
Guys, did you all have a straight face when refuting WT's bogus claims? Because, you know if you didn't, he'll just say those fact don't count.

If you enjoyed reading about "SSGNs Take Significant Step Towards Rejoining the Fleet" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!