Tag Archives: navy

Your Weekend Reading Assignment- The ONI Assessment of the People’s Liberation Army Navy

The Office of Naval Intelligence has issued an assessment of the Chinese Navy (often referred to as PLAN) as well as its various Coast Guard type quasimilitary adjuncts.

Here’s some helpful graphics showing ship classes as well.

One more.

There’ll be a quiz shortly after Load HEAT on Monday.

H/T to Spill

1 Comment

Filed under China

Operation Crossroads

We posted yesterday about researchers finding the former USS Independence, a light carrier that had served in World War II, and was later a target vessel used in atomic testing. She actually survived not one, but two atomic blasts, with considerable damage, but no loss of hull integrity. She was scuttled primarily because decontaminating her proved to be too difficult.

Immediately after World War II, the US realized it had the ultimate trump card in the atomic bomb, but was surprised to find just how little it knew about what the weapons could, and more importantly, could not, be expected to do to targets, particularly military targets. The Navy especially was concerned about what effect nuclear weapons would have on the future of naval warfare. Scientists as well needed to conduct research into the basics of weapon development. They had very little information to work with, as only three devices had ever been detonated, and rather obviously, very little scientific data was available from the two used in combat.

And so, even as the US was working to build an inventory of nuclear weapons, it chose to expend two in a test program at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Further, the Navy arranged a target array of about 90 of virtually every type at varying ranges from the intended ground zero. The first weapon, Able,  was an airburst, dropped from a B-29. The second shot, Baker,  was a shallow underwater burst, with the device suspended by cables from a small ship.

Grab a cup of coffee, this is going to take a bit. The first video is quick, and shows the Baker shot in color.

This video is about 42 minutes long, and shows the set up and effects of both Able and Baker.

What’s astonishing is just how few ships were actually sunk. Ships only a few hundred yards from the burst survived with relatively little damage. The Able shot, being an airburst, left relatively little fallout. The Baker shot, however, was a radiological mess, heavily contaminating virtually every ship in the array.

The major wrecks at Bikini, Saratoga, Nagato, etc, are in quite shallow water, and can be dived with regular scuba equipment.

1 Comment

Filed under navy, nuclear weapons

The Last of the Gunfighters was a pretty decent bomber.

The Vought F-8 Crusader is famous as the last US Navy fighter designed with guns as its primary armament. It was also famous for eschewing the prevailing notion of the day that future air combat would be missile oriented, and dogfighting would be a thing of the past.* 

The earlier models of the F-8 carried the guns and the Sidewinder. But starting with the F-8E, two wing pylons were added, each with the capability of carrying either a 2000lb Mk84 bomb, or a Multiple Ejector Rack with a variety of ordnance.

It’s easy to see how the adaptability of the F-8 convinced Vought they could design and build an attack plane derived from the F-8 as a replacement for the A-4 Skyhawk, what eventually became the A-7 Corsair II.

 

*The truth is, it’s a little more nuanced than that. ‘sader drivers spent their fair share of time practicing radar intercepts just like their Phantom cousins, and even had their own radar guided missile, the AIM-9C Sidewinder, which was less successful than even the Phantom’s AIM-7D.

4 Comments

Filed under navy, planes

LOCUST

Or Low Cost Autonomous UAV Swarming Technology, brought to you by the fine folks at the Office of Naval Research.

ONR has taken an existing low cost expendable UAV system called the Coyote and is looking to repurpose it. Coyote is pretty interesting in and of itself. It was designed to be launched from the existing sonobouy tubes of patrol planes and ASW helicopters, and provide full motion video back to the launching plane. You might, for instance, want to take a close look at a particular building or terrain feature, but not put your big expensive airplane at risk by being too close to small arms fire. Simply pop out a Coyote, and let it take all the risks. And the Coyote is cheap enough that you don’t have to worry about recovering it. It flies for 90 minutes or so, and then simply crashes. And it is low tech enough that the enemy can’t really exploit any that it recovers.

Of course, once a drone has been designed for one method of employment, particularly one designed for containerized launch, finding other ways to use it is pretty easy. ONR is looking at methods to allow multiple UAVs organize themselves, and operate autonomously. That is, the operator just has to give general instructions, not actually hand fly each drone remotely.

The clip below shows a test of autonomous operations, and a notional use of a swarm for ISR and strike. It seems to me that the issue with such a system is less the autonomous control of the swarm, but the bandwidth required to transmit the information back to the launch platform, and finding a meaningful way to exploit that full motion video. Indeed, that’s been one of the real challenges of using UAVs is that there is so much video streaming that it’s impossible for it all to be seen. Now instead of one or two streams coming in from a Predator or Reaper, consider 10 or 20 streams coming in from a swarm. How do you know what to look at?

Mostly I just like hearing the thoooomp as the Coyotes are ejected from their launcher.

3 Comments

Filed under navy

PC- Nope, not Political Correctness.

The United States Navy has traditionally shunned smaller ships. It has also traditionally found them pretty handy in every war.  Let’s take a look at the smallest named combatants in the current inventory, the Cyclone class PCs.

The Cyclone class PCs, or Patrol Coastal, were originally intended to support SEAL teams, replacing the early PB MkIII class 65’ patrol boats. To speed procurement, an existing design sold to foreign navies was adapted to US standards.

The PC is 179’ long, has a beam of 25’, displaces 331 tons, and has a speed of up to 35 knots. Powered by four Paxman diesel engines, at a 12 knot cruising speed, they have an endurance of about 2000 nautical miles. The crew of five officers and 24 enlisted man an armament of two Mk 38Mod2 stabilized 25mm guns, and a collection of various other smaller machine guns, such as M2 .50cal and M240 7.62mm guns. There is currently a program to provide the PCs with the BGM-176 Griffin missile for a more robust anti-surface capability.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/pc-1-soc.jpg

The 14 ships of the class were commissioned between 1993 and 1996. Unfortunately, even before deliveries were complete, it became apparent they were rather poorly suited to their intended special warfare role. And as noted, the Navy traditionally shuns smaller ships. And so, by 2000, the US was already looking to divest itself from the PC program. The lead ship of the class, PC-1 Cyclone,* was decommissioned, and transferred to the US Coast Guard. Three additional ships were also transferred. Cyclone herself was subsequently transferred to  the Philippine Navy.

The Coast Guard was not thrilled with the poor endurance and high fuel consumption of the ships, but given how few ships they had, they took what they could get.

In the meantime, after the attacks of 9/11, and especially the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US Navy found itself ever more concerned with maritime security operations in the Arabian Gulf (or Persian Gulf). Much of that consisted of providing security to Iraqi oil facilities in the gulf. In addition, interdicting smuggling, providing force protection for friendly forces, and simply keeping an eye on shipping in the region were critical tasks.  And when it comes to tasks like that, a single ship, no matter the type, can only cover a relatively small geographic footprint. That is to say, numbers matter more than combat power. And while we have a large navy, it would be impossible to deploy sufficient cruisers, destroyers and frigates to the region to effectively fulfill those mission. 

And so the Navy soon found the PC as quite valuable in these missions. The  three ships still with the Coast Guard were transferred back to the US Navy and placed back into commission.  And rather than deploying the ships for six to nine months in the region, followed by a lengthy transit back to the US, the Navy decided to permanently base the ships in the Gulf, and simply rotate crews on a scheduled basis. Right now, 10 of the 13 ships are stationed in the Gulf. The remaining three are supporting (similar) operations in the Caribbean while based out of Mayport, FL.

In spite of being in very high demand in the Gulf, the PC community is still something of the red-headed stepchild of the Surface Warfare navy. Naval Special Warfare has pretty much given up on them, and Surface Warfare is focused far more on the DDG-51 Burke and getting the LCS program to resemble something like a useful asset. The ships have gone through an extensive rehabilitation, but they were designed for a  service life of 15 years, and rehab can only stretch that for so long.

There are limitations to the ships as well. To steal a comment from a piece over at CDR Salamander’s :

We also need to remain cognizant of all that is wrong with what is small.

-Vulnerability. Small surface craft have historically proven to be extremely vulnerable to attack from the air. Employing them prior to gaining aerial supremacy could have costly consequences. Due to their limited size, single hits from most current air- and surface-launched missiles would be a mission kill and likely kill or wound a significant percentage of the crew. Recoverability and damage control suffer due to small crew size and limited space and weight for DC equippage.

-Limited Payload. Size constraints limit magazine capacity. Stability issues when mounting things like ASCMs topside. A robust logistics train needs to be established to keep them properly armed in the even hostilities break out.

-Endurance. This is a killer. It dramatically increases the footprint we would need to effectively operate. In lieu of that, some sort of tender would need to be developed. Again, logistics train into theatre issues.

That’s all very true. Unfortunately, the commenter urges a much larger replacement, in the corvette sized category. Which bumps up against the LCS program. The Navy simply won’t look at anything that close in size.

And further understand, these PCs are incredibly vulnerable to any but the most modest threats at sea. Against any other real warship, they are facing near certain destruction. But that is the whole point. The PC, as used today, is intended to release expensive warships for those missions that need a warship. The PC is relegated to far less risky, but still necessary missions. And it does those mission as a much, much lower cost, in terms of ship cost, operating cost, and in manpower needed to crew the ships.

Matthew Hipple, who usually writes at CIMSEC, teamed up with some fellow PC community officers to pen a piece in USNI’s Proceedings magazine to sing the praises of the PC:

PC capabilities come with comparatively low costs in manning, resource consumption, and payload. The footprint in personnel and resources is minimal. In raw numbers, a guided-missile destroyer (DDG) is crewed by enough sailors to man ten PCs—a second Forward-Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) PC fleet. For a year’s regular operation, the FDNF PC fleet uses less fuel than a deployed DDG under way for two months. Additionally, PCs need no tugs, no cranes, and only minimal line handlers for entering port. These austere characteristics are ideal for commanders seeking operational and engagement opportunities.

The PC’s payload also makes it comparatively advantageous for some operations and engagement. Beyond merely “being there,” presence is observing the pattern of life and engaging local forces. Day-to-day observation, security, and engagement do not require platforms with Tomahawks or a well deck. From South America to the South Pacific, PC-type vessels are the preferred option for the regular business of maritime security. In this light, a guided-missile cruiser or DDG might not be only an over-application of resources for engagement but also less compatible. For a small footprint, PCs are an unobtrusive and complementary member of the local civilian and military maritime community.

One of the issues facing the PC community is that, as noted, the ships are getting old. And the Navy has no Program of Record for replacing them. In the comments at CDR Salamander’s, as always when discussing ship programs, there are a ton of suggestions for what the “perfect” PC replacement program should be. The problem is, all the nice stuff most folks want costs a lot of money. Every time you add a capability to a ship, be it a weapon, a sensor, additional manpower, speed, endurance, it adds to the size and cost of the ship. And as you drive up the cost of the ship, you both reduce the numbers of ships you can possibly buy for a given slice of the shipbuilding budget, and you inexorably increase pressure to add even further capabilities to a ship. After all, if you’re going to build a ship n sized, should it also include x system, just like every other ship class that size? Pretty soon, you find yourself going from a 300 ton patrol ship, to a 2500 ton corvette, and suddenly, you start to grasp how the Navy ended up with the half billion dollar LCS.

My own preference would be to see a virtual repeat build of the current Cyclone class. Failing that, I’d actually accept a considerable step down in capability, and buy 25 or so of the Coast Guard’s new Sentinel class patrol boats.

 

 

 

 

*All ships in the class received wind themed names.

3 Comments

Filed under navy, ships

Jet Bombers Go To Sea

One of the Lexicans tipped me to this, from the National Museum of Naval Aviation.

Douglas’ A3D (later A-3) Skywarrior was the largest plane ever operationally deployed aboard carriers. Earlier attempts by the Navy to field a nuclear capable bomber at sea were… marginal at best. Some P2V (later P-2) Neptunes were intended to be launched as nuclear bombers, but no attempt was made at providing a capability of recovering them aboard. The later North American AJ (later A-2) Savage was a hybrid propulsion bomber, with twin reciprocating engines, and a small jet engine embedded in the tail. It was not a terribly successful aircraft.

About the time the A3D started entering into squadron service in significant numbers, advances in nuclear weapons reduced their size to the p0int where smaller tactical aircraft, such as the AD (later A-1) Skyraider and the A4D (later A-4)* could carry nuclear weapons. The widespread adoption of in flight refueling also meant smaller strike aircraft could reach well into the heart of the Soviet Union after launching from the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

The A3D, with its great size and payload capacity soon found itself adapted to roles beyond the nuclear strike mission. Variants would serve as tankers, electronic warfare platforms, reconnaissance jets and even as transport. A-3s did fly a handful of conventional strike missions during the Vietnam war, but rarely ventured into the contested skies above North Vietnam.

A-3B_VAH-4_dropping_Mk_83_bomb_Vietnam_1965

The last Navy A-3s finally retired in the early 1990s.

6 Comments

Filed under Cold War, navy, nuclear weapons, planes

F4D-1 Skyray Operating Procedures

There’ll be an open book NATOPS quiz, and a closed book EP quiz at the next AOM.

2 Comments

Filed under planes