Author Topic: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread  (Read 57324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Buster's Uncle

  • Through art, I
  • Transcend
  • *
  • Posts: 45765
  • €1187
  • View Inventory
  • Send /Gift
  • Someone thinks a Winrar is You!  Because there are times when people just need a cute puppy  Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur  
  • AC2 is my instrument, my heart, as I play my song.
  • Planet tales writer Smilie Artist Custom Faction Modder Downloads Contributor AC2 Wiki contributor
    • View Profile
    • My Custom Factions
    • Awards

Offline Buster's Uncle

  • Through art, I
  • Transcend
  • *
  • Posts: 45765
  • €1187
  • View Inventory
  • Send /Gift
  • Someone thinks a Winrar is You!  Because there are times when people just need a cute puppy  Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur  
  • AC2 is my instrument, my heart, as I play my song.
  • Planet tales writer Smilie Artist Custom Faction Modder Downloads Contributor AC2 Wiki contributor
    • View Profile
    • My Custom Factions
    • Awards

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #437 on: July 15, 2017, 07:41:44 PM »
http://taskandpurpose.com/navy-just-admit-littoral-combat-ship-failure/?utm_content=buffer8f71f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tp-buffer

"Did The Navy Just Admit The Littoral Combat Ship Is A Failure?
By Sarah Sicard on July 11, 2017

After years of cost overruns, underwhelming demonstrations, and debilitating mechanical failures, the Navy appears to be looking to supplement the troubled littoral combat ship program with a new ship to serve the same purpose, but better.
The Navy posted formal requirements for a new frigate design on July 11 under the auspices of the Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program or FFG(X). While the request doesn’t explicitly identify the FFG(X) as a successor to the LCS, meant to replace the its Cold-War era cruisers as small surface combatants, USNI News passive aggressively described the FFG(X) project as a ship “much like the Littoral Combat Ship that currently fills the small surface combatant role.”
More importantly, the RFI stated that proposals should include plans for a production run of 20 ships, with the first keel laid in fiscal year 2020. That 20-ship fleet may fill the gap created when the Pentagon in 2014 announced plans to cut the number of LCSs ordered from Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics as part of a 30-year contract down from 55 to 32 in 2014.

*****************

The article goes on to note the major mechanical problems the Littoral combat ships have been having, the outrageous cost of $1.8 billion/unit, and the fact that they aren't air defense capable.


Offline Rusty Edge


Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #439 on: August 20, 2017, 09:34:57 AM »
And here I was thinking the IJN was already locked up around the home islands at the time of the USS Indianapolis' sinking.

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #440 on: August 21, 2017, 02:42:21 AM »
Well this is embarrassing, AGAIN!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/20/uss-john-s-mccain-collides-with-merchant-ship-in-pacific.html

I really fail to understand how an Aegis destroyer is unaware of the presence of a freighter, and why it can't outmaneuver one. Next war we could be swept from the seas by an aggressive merchant marine first strike.

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #441 on: August 21, 2017, 04:12:10 AM »
Then again, somebody may be deliberately screwing with GPS satellites.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05cgy61

It would make sense. It gives the USA quite an advantage in warfare, and we depend upon it now.

Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #442 on: August 21, 2017, 03:04:20 PM »
Then again, somebody may be deliberately screwing with GPS satellites.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05cgy61

It would make sense. It gives the USA quite an advantage in warfare, and we depend upon it now.


One only need to run a second type of navigation mechanism to check if something fishy is going on. I'd expect a military craft to do so as a routine measure. And its good practice for when things get heated.

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #443 on: August 21, 2017, 07:13:43 PM »
Yeah, we expect them to... some say we don't have much in the way of redundant systems any more.

We also expect them to utilize the Mark 1 lookout as well...

 I would also expect that sonar would notice a freighter or oil tanker before it actually struck, no matter how bad the visibility.

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #444 on: August 23, 2017, 11:57:23 PM »
Maybe this is the key issue-  http://taskandpurpose.com/fitzgerald-mccain-sleep-deprivation-navy/?utm_content=buffera0280&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tp-buffer

"In 2015, the RAND Corporation published a two-year survey on sleep in the military, and the findings were dire. It showed “a high prevalence of insufficient sleep duration, poor sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and nightmares” across the military — particularly in the fleet.

RAND found that out of all military communities, the Navy alone had one significant red flag: Sailors “with prior deployments had greater sleep-related daytime impairment than those without a prior deployment.” This is especially problematic for surface ships, which lean heavily on mid-level officers and petty officers with prior underway experience to conduct bridge and combat information center watches that are critical to safe navigation. "

"The problem is significant enough that when one sailor responded to the McCain collision by sharing her daily work schedule and sleep problems on Reddit this week, the thread exploded with hundreds of commiserating comments from vets of the surface, sub, and naval air communities.
“I averaged 3 hours of sleep a night” on a destroyer and cruiser, the sailor wrote:
I have personally gone without sleep for so long that I have seen and heard things that weren’t there. I’ve witnessed accidents that could have been avoided because the person was so tired they had no right to be operating heavy machinery, including an incident in which someone got descalped and someone else almost losing a finger.
The responses, from veterans and civilians, were wrenching. “I work for an airline,” one commenter said. “If we operated on this schedule they would [shut] us down so fast we couldn’t even look.”

-------------------------------------

Well, if this is more of a factor than it has forever been, at least this part of the problem is solvable. Sailors take their beds with them wherever they go, unlike other service branches. I read that the 3-star Admiral in charge has been recalled.


Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #445 on: August 24, 2017, 02:31:19 PM »
In short, those who serve are literally serves. Particularly in the fleet.

Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #446 on: August 25, 2017, 05:52:43 PM »
If I understand what is said in some of the articles pertaining the former 7th fleet CO, he was due to retire anyway in a month's time.

I wonder what this will do to his pension since he appearantly didn't finish his career?

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #447 on: August 25, 2017, 10:23:05 PM »
He probably has leave that he can apply towards it, or he will have other some other busywork until retirement.

Offline Geo

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #448 on: August 26, 2017, 03:26:22 PM »
IOW, no skin of his nose. Whether he's directly responsible for a general 'plague' of fatigue on the ships formerly under his command or not.

Offline Rusty Edge

Re: Rusty's Naval/Military History thread
« Reply #449 on: August 28, 2017, 06:07:21 AM »
I'm reading a book entitled- "the Mosquito Fleet". ( I'll update this post when I finish the book ). It's an operational history of American Patrol Torpedo boats in all theaters of WWII.  I'm not finished yet, but I get the distinct impression that serving in one was unnecessarily dangerous, and not just because their primary weapon was the crappy MK VIII torpedo.

Why? Because their main national identifier was the stars & stripes flying from a pole at the back. No prominent white stars on the foredeck, or sides.  Yes, they had a flares as a recognition signal, but they were usually mistaken for tracer fire. So they took a lot of friendly fire, from the Allies, from aircraft of all service branches, and from navigation mistakes getting forces from Nimitz's command and MacArthur's in the wrong zones. Sometimes they got frustrated and fought back, and they shot down planes because they carried twin 40mm Bofors on the stern, and plenty of .50 cal machine guns for their size.

 

* User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?


Login with username, password and session length

Select language:

* Community poll

SMAC v.4 SMAX v.2 (or previous versions)
-=-
18 (6%)
XP Compatibility patch
-=-
9 (3%)
Gog version for Windows
-=-
76 (29%)
Scient (unofficial) patch
-=-
27 (10%)
Kyrub's latest patch
-=-
14 (5%)
Yitzi's latest patch
-=-
85 (32%)
AC for Mac
-=-
2 (0%)
AC for Linux
-=-
5 (1%)
Gog version for Mac
-=-
10 (3%)
No patch
-=-
12 (4%)
Total Members Voted: 258
AC2 Wiki Logo

* Random quote

You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive. You must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge but concrete and profitable applications as well.
~CEO Nwabudike Morgan 'The Ethics of Greed'

* Select your theme

*