JonesyLet me tell you a little story – David Hart-Dyke, CO of HMS Coventry in the Falklands, went on to serve as Naval Attache to the US in the years after the conflict. At one function he is quoted as declaring to some USN brass that he ‘hoped they, the US, could get their issue with the Soviets resolved properly so that everyone could get back to fighting the real enemy – the French!!!’.
The good Captain was not stating declared UK policy with regard to our closest continental neighbour or even suggesting a course of action he would like to see (at least I dont think so!). He was in fact telling a, modest, joke!.
Some of you may even be chuckling now. Nicolas et al je suis desole! 🙂
This event with the Chinese sounds very, very similar to me. That the comment was passed to the Indian Admiral would be most appropriate as he would also be in a position to see the ludicrosity of the statement!.
USS you state a belief that the Chinese could have a carrier under way before India receives Gorshkov. The simple fact is that, if they wish to develop a full blue-water power projection capability of even modest scale, they will really have to. Even then they are playing catch-up from a hell of a long way back and the deficiency is not in an area where simply the ability to build lots of ships or throw massive amounts of manpower will make any difference whatsoever.
JonesyHmmm paranoia meter go ‘ping’.
Gents stop for a second and think this one through. China, as Distiller so deftly notes, hasn’t got naval power projection out of their front yard yet.
They have no experience building, crewing or deploying a vessel capable of operating fixed wing aircraft. They have never so much as operated a vessel that can operational deploy a rotary-wing airgroup in squadron strength.
They need to learn everything from scratch, they need to make the natural mistakes everyone does when developing a new capability. They need to start rough and polish up their act in aviation ops, battlegroup ops, battlegroup logistics and so many other skill areas its tiring to even think it through all the way.
They are not going to be in a position to ‘take responsibility’ for ‘their side’ of the Pacific for best part of a generation. Know what else…….they know it!!!.
The ‘unamed Chinese officer’ was having a joke with his USN contact and, quite obviously, the USN Admiral saw the funny side and related the story!.
JonesyWell, I wonder if UNREP would be very practical with in the Littorals in support of a small number of LCS’s. As USN AE’s, AO’s, and AOR’s are limited and are generally supporting large blue water ships. While, the USN could construct more of these ships. It would not be cheap nor nearly as flexible as the proposed Mother Ship. Of course new build “Tenders” could also do the job. Yet, they would likely suffer from many of the same shortcomings……IMO
I think that its a given that the only place a small group of LCS would find themselves isolated from the rest of the USN system-of-systems would be on the kind of constabulary duties now being seen off the Somali coast. deploying to such a theatre would be little different than a current FFG doing so.
Otherwise the LCS would have to be the inshore element of a greater force-mix whole. Given that this would have its own organic support elements as standard I cant see why the LCS would need any special support over and above that provided for the rest of the SAG/ARG.
LCS may be able to empty its bunkers in short order but its nothing strikingly different from anyone elses frigate-sized ships. If the CO of a T23 starts doing 28knt speed runs up and down the English Channel he’ll need to RAS more frequently than would be considered routine.
Well, maybe the question isn’t so much that the Mother Ship Concept is wrong. More to the point is the LCS Concept Right???
Thats a judgement call with future history to pass or fail on. For my money yes they have got it right – to an extent.
The high speed requirement as, I think, has been stated is unfathomable and destructive. Following the lessons USN learned trying to fold WHEC’s into the surface groups in the Gulf I find it startling that such a mistake has been made. As they say though…..its not my money!. The ship should either be a patrol asset or a fleet asset – you mix the two and you get a really expensive OPV or a really compromised frigate or, as in this case, both!.
The real value of the LCS is in the garaging/hangar space – for me thats why only the trimaran design makes sense. The UUV/USV/UAV’s will dominate the battlespace. Provided the robots ‘mothership’ can defend itself against modest threats, patrol economically for an extended period, and sustain 22-25knts in SS4 or so, to be able to keep ahead of any significant opposing surface unit that may pop up, little more is really required.
What needs to happen to make LCS work is the adoption of an enabler platform. As above I think they need a flotilla leader vessel which would be something with netcentric master comms, lots of VLS cells, a BIG aviation department, LFA tail and enough space for a good C3I planning cell. For me thats CG(X). Forget DD(X) you really have got enough Burkes to ride shotgun on the carriers and amphibs!.
JonesyClearly, the LCS doesn’t have the Fuel, Stores, or Weapons to maintain a long term presence. That is without returning to base at a great distance away……….Further, as I said the Mother Ship. Could in fact provide Air Support and even Medical Facilities.
Which is what RAS is all about and is normal and routine in every navy that deploys outside home waters.
As has been stated these ships are not FAC’s but oceanic capable frigate sized vessels. Why are they requiring a dedicated mothership beyond USN routine fleet UNREP capability?.
JonesyCarrying on……
In short, carrier aircraft, and shipborne helicopters, were key to NATO.
No, in the opinion of a very generic publication that is some decades old, carrier aircraft and shipborne helicopters were key to NATO.
The SOSUS thing is also misleading and was not the only long-range cueing sensor available to NATO even in those days. The S-3’s were never embarked in enough numbers in CVW’s to do more than modest local search work sanitising the immediate battlegroup environment.
Other than that they would simply be another long-range ASW shooting asset cued by a theatre-search platform just as the Nimrods, Orions and Atlantiques would have been. The only thing to differentiate them would be the tactical flexibility arising from their airbases mobility!.
JonesyYou arrive on station, outside the opponent’s reach. Then, to do your thing, you move in and out of the danger zone quickly. LCS will support mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface boat modules. Mine warfare birngs you close to shore. So will ASW/ASuW, provided you’re hunting coastal subs and FACs (which is what most smaller navies have).
Exactly. So, perhaps, the ‘mothership’ concept is wrong for LCS and what they really need is a traditional ‘flotilla leader’.
Rather than dedicated stores and logistics they need something that can provide comprehensive AAW over the operational area and has the aviation component to keep a good few Firescouts etc up for overwatch on the LCS’s. Sounds like a requirement for CG(X)!.
JonesyI think some may be taking this far, far too seriously!. Obviously the remark was tongue-in-cheek from the Chinese officer…..as in a joke!.
The most shocking revelation may be that the PLAN does issue its officers with a sense of humour!. Good for them! 😀
JonesyAnte,
And your notions about Taiwan being ripe to pick is laughable at best. It reflects on the current British defeatist mentality, something we hear from British generals in Afghanistan while Americans remain confident. The only way Taiwan is going to be part of China is if the people of Taiwan decide to do so, otherwise as long as there is USA it will not happen.
People forget how long the British have been doing things like this and how much experience we have. Dont make the same mistake. The British defeatist mentality as you put it is a recognition of reality borne out of a very long history of watching and participating in those events.
Swerve is quite right. People everywhere love a winner and those who care little for tradition and history, in Taiwan, will see the mainland as an economic powerhouse that is closely related and look for common ground. Some kind of autonomy will always be demanded for the islands, obviously, but the solution to that whole situation became clear when the Chinese economy stepped up and, now, its only a matter of time for the acrimony to be replaced by something more progressive and equitable. Once the political differences have faded Taiwan will have a lot to gain by hitching its wagons to the mainland at that point and very little to lose – that much is glaringly obvious.
There will be no military conflict over Taiwan as the RoC will get what it wanted all along – a mainland open to its political status and economically progressive and the PRC will get to settle the ‘two China’s’ issue and get access to the prime resource on Taiwan – its people and skills.
As for defeatism wait and see what happens in Iraq once to US surge is wrapped up and the troops leave. If the populace dont have the strength to stand up to the Mahdi’s and fight for their democracy then the US has to stay in place until the value of that democracy is fiercely ingrained into the next generation, who will fight for it, or admit failure. Simple calculus the US extends its stay in Iraq for another decade or two or accept the very probable chance of defeat in pulling out before ‘freedom’ fully takes root.
Remember the old adage ‘you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink’. We’ve learned that lesson over the centuries now its others turn to learn it. When you are a bit older you might understand that better.
JonesyI call total BS on this. It might even be in the Russians’ evil intent to falsify how ‘easy’ it is to track the boats.
Based on what?. The simple fact is that they released the information that they were tracking an Oscar-II, during an exercise serial, from a very long way off. That is the only point being made here.
How do the modern SSN from UK and France compare with the improved LA Class SSN?. Being part of NATO they must be inolved in lot of exercises and would have checked each other , how do they fare against USN submarines ?
Jonesy any idea?
Again see the earlier point I’m sorry Austin. The submarine community calls themselves the silent service for an number of reasons. One of which is that they dont say much to those who haven’t worn the dolphins.
You can get some idea from the development generation, equipment levels and the suchlike but its a very long way from telling the whole story. In technology terms the later 688I’s and T-class are close and are a few steps on from the French boats. There is some natural advantage that will be derived from that.
USN and RN policy differs on what the make up of a good submarine CO is. The USN put far more weight on engineering and technical capability wheras we tend to look for good tactical and man-management skills. That said every time I hear of a USN candidate going through the RN Submarine Command Course (the infamous ‘Perisher’) they’ve always aquitted themselves well.
Beyond that sort of generalisation there isnt much to be said unfortunately. Anyone who can answer your question, with serious credibility, would’nt be interested in doing so in a public forum.
JonesyOkay, let me rephrase. The stories are meaningless facts (or rather, merely, statements of specific cases).
The USN “slipped up” – okay right, who cares? Was the Kursk staying silent on purpose? No. I’d bet not. What I’m suggesting is the “other side” hasn’t said what they were doing during the incident. So, who cares? This says nothing of the USN capability to track an Oscar-II that was TRYING TO STAY HIDDEN. The Kursk might have been simply testing out weapons.
Hardly meaningless or something to wave a dismissive hand at.
The vessel was under exercise conditions and, usually, a boat would wish to be competetive when training. That said, naturally, it cannot be quantified what specific operational conditions were set through the exercise serial. Beyond the fact of course that, at some times, the vessel would have been closed up in their equivalent of defence watches and at other times it would have been under routine peacetime steaming conditions. Tracking of the boat, even at routine steaming, from the ranges discussed is still a significant commentry on USN capabilities.
JonesyThe stories are hardly facts either. Are there specific numbers? Does the “losing” side of the statement confirm the facts? Do side X know what side Y was even doing during situation Z? You know what I mean?
It will be interesting to see if any official statements on the Yasen are received, which is meant to be a direct Seawolf competitor.
Absurd statement. How can you have an official comment on something that no-one of any senior rank would be allowed to comment on?!.
As for the ‘losing side’ confirmation thing precisely how would they know they were being tracked to provide such confirmation – unless they admit they were counter-tracking?. Now go back to square one and the mantra not to reveal ones own capabilities!.
Also see that I wrote the USN slipped-up when they released the fact that they were tracking the Kursk from several hundred km’s off before she sank. Whether you agree about the factual nature of the information or not that was the information released.
JonesyVery compact looking launcher assembly also if whats shown in the image is representative.
JonesyAustin
It seems that US still retain a fairly large advantage over Russia on detection and tracking. Do you have some comparisons between i.e. I688, Akula I, Akula, Akula II, SeaWolf and Yasen?
Here it seems that the American edge was falling and it seems that USA was pressed to develop the Sea Wolf. Any comparison with Akula II and Yasen?
Party pooper time I’m afraid!.
The only people who could answer that, with credibility, would be operators from the submarine community and they do not talk for very clear OPSEC reasons. You tell the world that, for example, the Akula-II is noiser than a big pile of noisy things having a party and then the ‘other side’ knows something about your capabilities that they probably didnt before.
You want the other guy to think he’s as quiet as a ghost because that way he’s confident in his systems. If you are routinely tracking him from 100,000yds off you are happy you can accomplish your mission and will do as much as possible to ensure that happy state of affairs lasts as long as possible!. If that means you speak with forked-tongue and say that ‘yep, we’ve never gotten a sniff of one of those Akula’s’ then thats just fine with all concerned!.
Obviously the same works in reverse. It serves the Russians just as well to confirm that they’ve never gotten anywhere near a track on a US, UK or French SSBN for the same reason.
Few credible facts, regarding current generation boats, have entered the public domain that I am aware of. One was a slip by the USN that indicated they could track Oscar class SSGN’s from a suprisingly long range which came to light during the Kursk tragedy. Plus a comment which came from a USN operator about 8 or 9 years back on warships1 that indicated that, under certain circumstances, Akula-1’s discretion rate was no real improvement over Vic-III. It being pointed out that Vic-III wasnt a bad boat by any stretch. Thats about it for genuine and, IMO credible, publically available material.
JonesyJust to correct you, Varyag HAS been in drydock since she arrived in China; a few years ago now but she was drydocked to be sandblasted and painted. After this initial drydoking she emerged with her hull in PLAN grey and her island in red primer. I’ve always assumed her island was left in primer to preserve it until work stated on fitting it out. In this respect Varyag is in similar condition to Vikramaditya in Russia, as her island is currently also a hollow shell according to photos in circulation.
Right you are. Had I thought to check up on shoddy memory I would have found it occurred May 2005. Even so thats 4 years alongside the pier since the last proper under hull inspection. When a ship is stationary for long periods you do get much more severe fouling below the waterline than a ship that routinely tools about at 25knts for the obvious reasons. I’d still suggest that it is quite possible that this drydocking is nothing more than routine maintenance and simple good ship husbandry.
As to the whole propulsion issue, a ship is built from the keel up and boilers and turbines are installed at an early stage, before the upper decks are built over the top….and I think it more likely that her Boilers and turbines were left in situ, but in an unfinished state, with much pipework and wiring including control systems left undone.
I would agree with that assessment. In this case though I think the PLAN would wish that it werent the case if they want it to ever move under its own propulsion!.
Installed but unconnected the steam turbines, if they’ve not had careful and loving servicing, after this time will likely be siezed solid. The boilers may be largely functional, but, there will be hundreds of valves/seals that will need close inspection/replacement. In many ways it may be easier to have started with empty spaces and a soft patch in the hull alongside!.
JonesyI’m saying that the idea of preservation is illogical. They can do all the preservation and study they need when it’s not in the dry dock. Clearly, they had no problem preserving it. So, either they are doing this as a grand illusion or they are trying to put this back in service. I’m just a little disappointed that you have this view, since I think you’ve followed Chinese naval shipbuilding for a while now.
I’m not sure I understand this comment clearly?. For all vessels there are routine maintenance jobs that require the hull to be out of water to complete. Someone commented that this ship had been in Chinese yards for 7yrs. In 7yrs I dont recall the last time she was drydocked.
If its been that length of time, including the delivery transit, that she’s not had her hull coating or the stern seals/seacocks etc inspected and serviced then it is to be expected that drydock time would be scheduled. That would be just to preserve the ships watertight integrity.
The issue will be how long she stays in dock for. It is by no means straight-forward that this period is definitely either a Chinese maskirovka or clear evidence of the vessels progress to PLAN service entry. Clearly there is some purpose intended for the vessel going forwards and, regardless of whether that is to be a fleet unit or merely just one more floating casino, the under-hull maintenance would be necessary.
Sign In
