Rick

Right mate lets get this straight from the kickoff. The point at issue here is the incredulity of those of us who aren’t American at the fact a ship with, by your statement, a LOT of good years left in her has just been hulked and sunk.

There are those of us here with real experience of our respective nations naval services, who’ve seen the degree to which penny-pinching beaurocrats and inept senior brass degrade and deride the services we feel deeply for, who simply cant comprehend why this vessel, already bought and paid for, couldn’t have been put to better use than a SINKEX.

In that context, from your post you not only state that you have no idea why these vessels weren’t retained in reserve – your words being ‘downsizing is downsizing’ – but actually state that there is defined precedent for, what would be in any other naval service on the planet, the most profligate wastefulness.

For those of us with that ‘other naval service’ perspective seeing ships that could still have a useful life, addressing identifiable capability gaps in your fleet (like littoral ASW in the interim before the defined ‘transformational’ platforms come online) is unfathomable. Its no direct criticism of the USN rather simple commentry on what looks, on the face of it, to be very strange behaviour.

And this is way out of line: “…after all they are American boats right!!!!..”

Yes of course it was a cheap shot – but then when faced with a poster giving out the impression that no ill can be said of his service what do you expect. I am deeply proud of the traditions, achievements and capabilities of my own former service but I am never going to allow the pride I felt wearing the uniform blind me to the problems that the British senior service has!. Some of its decisions have also been unfathomable – go back in the archive of this site and you’ll find articles on nearly every one!. Where they’ve been unjust I’ve corrected some misapprehensions, but, not once has it been necessary to say ‘find documentary evidence or you are not allowed an opinion’!.

You say:

For you may accuse me of such but for eleven years on the internet I have never, ever stated anything like that or that the USN is the “best or has the “best” or does the “best”

but then….

Now I do the vast majority of the posters here will consider those sailors useless by virtue of some undocumented defect(s). But I assure you thats not the case. Not that I will sway anyones virulent anti-USN stand/opinion here.

You are therefore coming across that anyone questioning the USN in word or deed is ‘virulent anti-USN’. The best form of defence may be attack but its not necessary every time – sometimes an objective step back can be a useful first move so you dont try and defend whats not being attacked!.

However I have read all the histories of these ships and except for the brief reference on the CG 51…nothing.

I also have checked with a number of ex-USN and current USN who ALL have nothing but good things to say about these ships. They of course are not necessarilly the ultimate authority so Im quite open to someone providing documentation to the contrary.

Great information. Now we see we have two seemingly-credible sources stating diametrically opposing things – an interesting situation – I for one am curious as to why this particluar vessel was SINKEX’d ahead of older vessels more worthy of the fate. In the RN that would be because the hull was in a particularly bad state or that some event had transpired to bump it up the list – we had a Swiftsure class boat, I’m prob not allowed to say which, that had an ‘unscheduled maximum diving depth test’ on its sea trials that shortened its hull lifespan for example. Ifyou stop ranting and keep chipping in with information like that maybe we can get to the bottom of the issue?.

These ships were were at there mid-life point needed expensive upgrading of their AEGIS systems, had no VLS, needed expensive, extensive structural repairs (as all the ships of this class did and as do most mid-life ships) plus among other things needed expensive alterations to operate SH-60F Helos.

Again good information. I didnt know that the SH-2 Tico’s required sigificant mods to deploy SH-60’s. The structural issues – definitely agree there, but, those projected costs are usually factored into the wholelife budget for the class, least thats how the RN does it, everyone indeed knows that, at mid-life, ships need major work so you budget for best-case early and avoid most of the pain.

Plenty of services have found that, at midlife, the capabilities of their ships are no longer competetive at what they were designed to do. If the upgrade is uneconomical then you simply find another, less costly, use for them – if they have the materiel condition – this being the initial question here I was interested in knowing. I said I was expecting information to come to light on significant hull damage not that I knew it!

You can attack me and/or the US, USN all you want but all it proves is your outstanding capacities for ignorance and arrogance.

Thats the point – the discussion and exploration of events are part of what forums like this are for. If you, as you appear, are far too sensitive ever to hear anything that could be bad about your former service I suggest you confine yourself to a forum just solely of 15 year old warship fans cos, like, American AEGIS cruisers…man…theyre just like the coolest…they got lots of missiles on ’em – way more’n anyone elses ships!!!!. See the point?.

I cant speak for the USN and maybe you lot are all different but if you go on an RN board (try Warships1.com’s) you see a healthy dose of self-analysis and self-criticism of the RN by those who serve and have served. Suppressing, or denigrating discussion of, topics uncomfortable to your sensibilities is always likely to be a solo activity. If you’ve not learned that one in eleven years you’ve not been paying attention.

BTW a quite sincere Happy Birthday for yesterday.

Well, from my sources, the known torpedoes the Chinese use are the Russian 53-65 wake homer and the TEST-71/96 wire-guided torpedo. Neither is good enough to catch a target with a 5nm head start. Both have a stated range of 20km not 20nm.

The USN chappie in the first article discusses wake homing torpedoes so my assumption is that he’s talking about the 53-65 or some Chinese variant thereof.

As PLAWolf states very little is known on the performance of Chinese Yu- series torpedoes except for the external physical similarities some have to other countries torpedoes. I have seen an image of a Yu-4, I think it was, that looked a lot like a TEST-71 for example but that means precisely nothing!. Question is do the PLAN have a first-tier ADCAP/Spearfish comparable HWT? If they do then 5nm IS within the danger zone…as I stated initially….going by known information though it is most definitely not!. Can you guarantee that 5nm isnt inside the minimum range inhibit for the YJ-82?.

Maybe they did choose to surface outside of effective torpedo range. The question would then be what message they were intending to convey by taking such action?. It could be ‘we could have shot you as you went by’ but then there would be nothing to let the USN know for definite that the sub was within range when they went past?. If there was a subtle little demonstration of threat intended, as I said, the SSK surfaces 20,000 yards in front of the group and steams off on a perpendicular bearing. That says ‘you are in our backyard and we can slap you anytime we want’ – had they done that we would definitely NOT be having this conversation!.

So Gollevainen which one are you – alcoholic or suicidal? 😀

Thats what I heard too…reduction of turbulence.

Also the reduction of the whole ‘dark side’ issue from the current CVS’s. Apparently the biggest nightmare for night ops off a CVS is when they end up in a hover off the starboard beam of the ship – on the wrong side of the island. Its known as flying into the dark side and is meant to be very unsettling going from the deck illumination to nothing very quickly.

Edit: It has to be said that Nimrods version of confining all the crabs to the second island so that can have happy chats amongst themselves is an obvious winner that I didnt consider!. I can see the ‘Braveheart-esque’ claims of ‘its my island’ becoming a common shout aboard the CVF’s :dev2:

Thats an interesting thread Pinko – someone called Sea Dog has this nailed so I dont quite see why you’re still attempting to make this the triumph of Chinese Naval technology that it really doesnt appear to be?.

Also dont understand why you’re posting pieces about the USN’s email security policy when they (the USN) are operating in their usual autumn exercise area?. The PLAN dont need to be given much information to stake out a known exercise area, at the right time, and put a couple of units there to see what develops. All the RN needed to monitor Soviet exercise areas was usually their date of sailing!. Monitoring exercises like this is quite commonplace!.

Even when not running war time levels of ASuW as would be case in an ASuW oriented excerise, a carrier battlegroup would still have pretty decent level of passive ASuW operations running as a matter of standard operating procedures

Absolutely not!. SOP’s will not necessarily see a sonar watch set if the ship is not in defence watches. I’d be utterly amazed if any active sonars where transmitting as the ships were not steaming at that readiness condition and active sonar is the best way to catch an SSK making steerageway..

It would also be a remarkably idiotic thing to do for the USN to have its carrier use the same rout time and again when on routine redeployments don’t you think?

No, again, using the same waters repeatedly is a common practise for most navies as it allows for a known-environment benchmark to judge crew and equipment performance against. Soviets did this, we do it (every Thursday actually!) and the Yanks do the same…as demonstrated here.

Anyways, you chose to take that as the closest the sub could have got, but there is nothing that rules out in being a concious choice on the part of the PLAN so as to not be interpeted as a major provocation or cause a major international incident. Because as Mullen says, the ships were in international waters, and there are ‘international regulations about how ships approach each other’ in international waters.

Quite true…..but then I wasnt the one stating that this was indicative of China’s all-conquering submarine capability or that this would send a clear message to the yankee pigdogs! (my own exaggeration to make the point!). I just made the point that this was a very poor choice of position if the intent was to send the message to the USN fleet that a threat existed to them. I rechecked my figures on the torpedo solution btw and using the published speed and range characteristics for the Russian 53-65 wake-homer (10.3nm range @ 45knts) if the carrier steamed on opposite bearing at 25knts the torpedo would run out of juice 2 minutes before impact.

The point about the AShM is valid but how many AShM’s does a Song class carry? 2 maybe 4 perhaps?. What damage do you think 4 medium sized missiles will do to a CVN even if they could be fired within that close a range?. Seems a slightly suicidal attack plan to sacrifice a sub just to scratch a carriers paintwork a bit!. So again the rhetorical question would be what value is there in surfacing the submarine in this, non-threatening, position?.

D.A

A lesser sub got into deadly striking range of a advance US fleet and all you can do is spin it that they missed by 5 miles? Yeah, submarines can only strike if it’s sitting in the middle of the targets. I love the spin about the fleet wasn’t in ASW conditions

This is the point though DA….as shown above 5nm is NOT deadly striking range to the USN fleet. Torpedoes travel at specific speeds for specific periods of time if you fire a torpedo at a target thats too far away to catch then you waste the torpedo its that simple!.

Do you think warships steam around with the crew closed up at action stations all the time?. If so I think you need to talk to a few people about service aboard naval vessels before making asinine comments on a public forum. In this scenario it sounds like an exercise serial was in progress that wasn’t ASW in nature….in this case the passive sonar stations aboard the escorts may not have even been manned!.

I’m afraid Nimrod that document is sorely out of date (seemingly October 2005 according to the entry at the bottom?).

The MoD have removed the requirement for the GR9 to have Storm Shadow. The stated logic was that from land bases the GR4 fleet could carry it and the Harrier would struggle to carry it from a carrier so integrating the weapon wasnt necessary. This naturally ignoring the fact that if a land-base wasnt immediately to hand that there would in fact be no platform at all capable of deploying the RAF’s most advanced weapon!.

The concept of giving the Nimrod Storm Shadow I think is very sharp. The aircraft does have range and has the comms kit and planning space to mount a properly organised long-range multiple CASOM strike.

Where I draw the line with the RAF is that I dont believe that there will actually be enough Nimrods to be tasked solely for such strike roles to provide meaningful effect…token strikes a la Black Buck perhaps, but, nothing of tactical or strategic significance. Secondly I dont believe that the RAF tanker fleet…without a LOT of luck and assistance from ‘friendly bases’ could guarantee that a flight of war-loaded Nimrods could actually operate a global strike role.

Performing the “Nimrod can fly virtually anywhere to where a carrier group might operate ” part of your comment I dont believe is actually feasible and will be less so when this new air-refueling PFI miracle is foisted on the RAF.

Yeah those wasteful politicians. How dare they let the navy get some practice. :rolleyes:

Such is American wastefulness I guess.

By all means give the navy target hulks to sink – there are lots of 30yr old Sprucans for that…but sinking an 18yr old AAW cruiser that could be placed in active reserve status and offer service later as necessary?. Sounds extremely odd to me!.

Harry,

On the angled-deck issue I’m afraid I dont think I follow your point!. The angled-deck has to be there otherwise, if the deck where to be axially laid out, the interaction of a ‘bolter’ and the deck park might be both unfortunate and expensive!.

The Gorshkov already had an angled-deck obviously though, equally obviously, this was for an entirely different kind of launch area over the bows!.

This being the case the angled-deck arrangement is remaining quite rightly – the problem is that the deck width is too narrow to deconflict the short-run takeoff spot for the ski-jump from the landing lane. Perhaps a bow catapult could have allowed for the landing run to be cleared instead of the running-jump layout but it wasnt an option and neither, it seems, was widening the beam with sponsons apparently!. The French Charles de Gaulle CVN suffers the same problem owing to a narrow beam so the Indiand and Russians can hardly be faulted for the situation.

The smallest carrier I’ve heard of launching an F-18 was one of the French Clemenceau boats when the Hornet was being touted to replace the Aeronavale Crusaders.

Broncho,

The Mig-29K’s can safely carry a full tank and centreline drop tank containing 2150 litre of fuel along with almost 4 tonne weapon load. I don’t see a big problem with range or load.

Question is can a Fulcrum-K get off a STOBAR deck in the centreline tank plus 4000kg payload configuration?