The sinking of Russia's flagship might
be a bad sign for the U.S. Navy
The Week,
by
Joel Mathis
Original Article
Posted By: MDConservative,
4/19/2022 7:34:54 PM
It's tempting for Americans to get smug about the sinking of the Moskva, the Russian Navy's flagship in the Black Sea. Whether it was destroyed by Ukrainians or — less plausibly — sunk because of a non-combat onboard explosion of ammunition, the result is both a humiliation and a setback for Vladimir Putin's war efforts. If you're cheering Ukraine's defenders, it's hard not to take some satisfaction in that.
But America's fleet might also be more vulnerable than you think.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
SALady 4/19/2022 7:40:19 PM (No. 1132859)
I know two young men who signed up for the Army, stayed in the minimum time they had to, and got out. These were tough and patriotic young men who wanted careers with the Army, but then saw just how "woke" and weak the whole thing has become under the PC garbage they are being subjected to instead of training to fight and kill!!!
They both said that if the US got into a situation like Ukraine, we would make the Russians look like master soldiers. We need to be very afraid!!!
5 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
thomthomp 4/19/2022 7:46:49 PM (No. 1132860)
There may well be manning and equipment problems, but the biggest problem by far has to be woke, incompetent, politically oriented leadership.
18 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Rich323 4/19/2022 7:57:25 PM (No. 1132869)
With the advent of stand-off missile systems, the ROE should be sink any ship or shoot down any aircraft that comes within range of the enemy missile. Shoot them before they can shoot the missile. Otherwise you have to depend on close in defense systems or countermeasures. One golden BB hit on a US craft and you LOSE the propaganda battle.
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 4/19/2022 8:06:11 PM (No. 1132877)
These are all good questions to ask, no doubt. They have been asked MANY times by US military planners for decades, at least.
The USN has for decades developed and deployed multiple defensive systems intended to defeat anti-ship missiles. The USN systems work in roughly three layers the Sea Sparrow system for longer range threats, the Rolling Airframe Missiles for medium to short range, and the Phalanx gun system which fires 75 high velocity tungsten penetrator bullets per second, guided by radar and optical systems which track missiles from around 2-3 miles and closer. This does not consider the defensive systems of the escorting ships which ALWAYS ring our carriers when at sea, and are largely there to defend the carrier. and have the same systems, so there will be multiple "bites at the apple" as any anti-ship missile comes towards a carrier.
Since we haven't been engaged in a battle with this sort of anti-ship missiles "for real", it is unproven how effective these systems actually will prove to be in combat. The Phalanx system is automatic, just needs to be "on" and will then engage and destroy, any threats which are detected by it's sensors. It has been heavily tested, and is regarded as effective. The RAM has been tested in over 150 test flights with a "kill rate of 95%" in testing.
And - in a real, serious war situation, there is always a real likelihood of the loss of capital ships. In the early months of WW2, the USA had a total of seven fleet aircraft carriers, with two in the Atlantic, so only 5 in the Pacific.
We lost Lexington at Coral Sea in May, '42 and Yorktown at Midway in June. In September Wasp was sunk, and in October, Hornet was sunk. So, we lost four aircraft carriers in a single six month period early in the war. We sank six Japanese carriers in that same time period. In a real war, major capitol ships WILL get sunk, that's a given. Imagining otherwise is unrealistic.
On the last day of 1942, the USS Essex, the first of a new class of US aircraft carriers was commissioned, with one new Essex class carrier being commissioned every couple of months until the end of the war, 24 total of these large new aircraft carriers built in about two and a half years.
I doubt that we could come anywhere near that production rate for aircraft carriers today. Essex was ordered in mid-1940, keel laid in spring 1941 [we were not at war] and commissioned the last day of '42. About 20 months from keel laying to commissioning. A bit over one year from the start of the war until commissioning.
The only way you REALLY know how well these defensive systems work is when you are attacked for real.
16 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DVC 4/19/2022 8:16:10 PM (No. 1132885)
RE OP comments.
That was 40 years ago, things have changed a lot, and were just starting to change when the Falklands War started.
British ships had almost no close in missile defenses in the Falklands War. They had developed their own missile defense, the Sea Wolf system, but limited budgets and large shipboard "footprint" kept them from being installed in more than a few ships by 1982.
Phalanx is today installed on most British ships. Sea Wolf missiles were eventually widely installed on RN ships, now being replaced by Sea Ceptor missiles which are more capable.
5 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
chance_232 4/19/2022 8:19:00 PM (No. 1132888)
An aircraft carrier in a war zone would be operating very differently. For starters, the carrier would have a Hawkeye in the air around the clock and would be surrounded by frigates and cruisers. It's unlikely that an adversary could launch two missiles, and both get through while on war readiness. The missiles would have been detected and the fleet take actions to counter it.
However,....... The Soviet doctrine was to launch more than enough to overwhelm the US defenses. One or two missiles getting through can take a carrier out of action, or possibly sink it. What the Chinese and Russians lack in technology, training and experience, they make up for with massive attacks. Where we would launch one or two missiles, they would launch dozens.
The greatest concern that I have regarding the US Navy is over confidence. The US Navy hasn't had to fight the fleet since WWII.
8 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
NorthernDog 4/19/2022 8:21:13 PM (No. 1132890)
Our Navy has been vulnerable for quite some time. A rubber raft with some dynamite nearly took out the USS Cole in 2000.
10 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
rochow 4/19/2022 9:44:43 PM (No. 1132961)
Not to worry. Idi Amin Austin will tell them to step down and take CRT courses whilst he or his equally inept staff will look around for parts or try to have a word with potted plant Brandon!! Or how about explaining it to Blinken blanken or Jake Sullivan???
3 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 4/19/2022 9:58:53 PM (No. 1132981)
Indeed! I just read the article up the page about ''Three U.S. Navy sailors assigned to the USS George Washington aircraft carrier have died within a week.'' It appears they were all women. ???
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
lakerman1 4/20/2022 9:42:47 AM (No. 1133299)
General Billy Mitchell comes to mind, reading this article.
Google him.
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Ribicon 4/21/2022 10:46:04 AM (No. 1134282)
Our greatest defense is the LGBTQ+ banners flown with pride on all US Navy ships. Any approaching missiles veer away in disgust.
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "MDConservative"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
The US Navy depends on aircraft carriers and air power. Missiles are cheap and effective as weapons systems. The British learned that in the Falklands with its loss of HMS Sheffield. That was 40 years ago.