4 U.S. Weapons of War That Need to Be Retired Now

What the HELL is up with that?

AboveAlpha

 

I concur.

During the Vietnam War American Navy pilots flying piston powered propeller driven WW ll era Douglas A-1 Skyraiders shot down Mig-17's in air to air combat dog fights.
http://vnafmamn.com/Skyraider_vs_MIG17.html

FYI: The best CAS aircraft ever to fly isn't the A-10 Warthog but the A-1 Skyraider.
http://a-1combatjournal.com/seaskymi.html

 

Correction here, the modern Nimitz class ships typically went form keel laying to active service within 6 years.

The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) had her keel laid in February 1998. She was then launched in March 2001, and then commissioned in July 2003. She then had her first fitting out and shakedown cruises and fully entered for service in the fleet in May 2004.

A little "Nagy lingo" for those who do not know here (not aimed at you AR, but at those who see launched and assume that is when a ship is ready to fight). Keel Laying is when actual construction on the ship begins. Launching is when she is first put into the water and the hull construction is completed, typically about half-way through the construction process. Commissioning is done when the Navy actually accepts the ship, and work is 95-99% completed. After a ship is commissioned you then have a period of 2-12 months for shakedown cruises and exercises to make sure the ship and crew are functioning properly and all systems are working. Yes, at time of commissioning she is a fully capable ship and in emergency can be sent off to war.

It is only when it enters the fleet that it becomes a "real Navy ship".

Now here is some wording I see that is often confused on the other side of the lifetime of the ship.

Reclassified simply means that the 2-4 letter code that designates the class of the ship has changed. The CV-9 USS Enterprise (Carrier Vessel) became the CVA-9 (Carrier Vessel Attack) and finally the CVS-9 (Carrier Vessel Antisubmarine) before she was retired. Generally little has changed in the ship itself, but the mission and role of the ship has generally changed because of latter additions to the fleet.

Decommissioned, that is when a ship is removed from active service. That actually means very little, because some ships have sometimes been decommissioned and recommissioned many times (the USS New Jersey BB-62 was decommissioned 4 separate times). During that time, the ship remains the USS New Jersey.

The final blow is generally when the ship is struck. This signifies that the ship is no longer "theirs", and is being disposed of (sold to another nation, turned into a museum, turned into razor blades, or to be sunk as a target or reef). Being stuck means that now the name is removed from the Naval Register and can be reused as the name of another ship.

This is why there will never be another USS Constitution, there already is one in service of the Navy. The name USS Missouri was only used for the BB-63 until she was struck in 1995 and her name could then be used for the Virginia class submarine USS Missouri (SSN-780).

Hopefully this will help straighten out some people on how long it takes to actually build a ship, and what it means when they are decommissioned.

 

Meticulously clean at all times? When will this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) myth end?
[video=youtube_share;dHwoZ6SS_pY]http://youtu.be/dHwoZ6SS_pY[/video]

9,500rds through an AR with 0 cleaning.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/04/ballistic-radios-10k-round-test-knights-ar-15/

 

There were a lot of USAF Brass who were B!#@HING and MOANING about the use of a non-jet prop aircraft for close support.....the SANDIES.

The Republic F-105 Thunderchief was a supersonic fighter-bomber and had absolutely NO BUSINESS being used in Vietnam.

The F-4 was a flying BRICK at low speeds.

AboveAlpha

 

The United States Naval Contractors have Carrier Construction down to a SCIENCE.

It is stunning the amount of work and effort involved in just DESIGNING A CARRIER and as well designing a SYSTEM of carrier construction such as the way we build carriers in seperate modular compartments and then put them together.

This is why when I hear some Pro-Chinese PLN Members boast about that old Soviet Era Carrier they bought off the Russian's as they are saying they are using it for TRAINING PURPOSES...I get a GOOD LAUGH!! LOL!!!

The ONLY reason China bought that Carrier was so they could put some PLN Sailors on it and parade around the East and South China Seas and in the Sea of Japan because that Carrier has absolutely NO PURPOSE TO IT!!

You can't train a Carrier Crew upon a Carrier that is of a completely different design then the one's you intend to build....and even if you eventually build one....it takes DECADES OF TRAINING AND TRAIL AND ERROR to develop a Systematic Plan just to begin TRAINING of future Carrier Crews.

AboveAlpha

 

The PLAN carrier Liaoning is more of a surface warfare cruiser that has aircraft.

The Liaoning is a former Soviet/Russian Varyag. She was strpped down and the only thing that is original is the hull and superstructure. All of the electronics, fire control systems and even the propulsion system are modern and new.

What the world navies don't know, how does the PLAN plan to use their cruiser/carrier ? The PLAN probably don't even know yet. An airstrike carrier ? ASW ? sea lane control ? amphibious support ? surface warfare ? a training ship for the next three PLAN carriers that are being built ?

The ship is a freaking cruiser armed with the Chinese version of the Russians Shipwreck supersonic (mach 2.5) anti-ship missiles.

The ship is heavily armed for surface warfare, AA and even ASW. The aircraft just gives it an edge if used for surface warfare.

The U.S. Navy has already done the decades of training and trail and errors for the PLAN. That's why the worlds navies are so surprised how fast the PLAN is progressing with their new toy with three more in the pipeline.

The coming naval war with China wasn't suppose to happen for another twenty or thirty years but because of Obama and what he has done to our military, the time line might have been moved to ten years ? The ball is in the Chinese court and will probably remain so for some time. It's going to take trillions of dollars to repair the damage that Obama has inflicted on our military. And Japan, Australia, Taiwan, the PI's and even South Vietnam knows it, it's why they are building more warships. There's a naval arms race taking place in the Western Pacific today.

 

Mach 2.5 Antiship Missiles are hardly a match for the SM-3 ABM/ASAT which can also down Cruise Missiles.

An SM-3 has already shown it's ability to directly strike a tiny target the Hydrazine Booster Tank on a failing Satellite traveling at between 14,500 mph and 16,000 mph AT ORBITAL DISTANCE!!!

The PLN....Peoples Liberation Navy is not a threat to the current existing U.S. Navy.

Not even close.

AboveAlpha

 

I do not take the "Chinese Aircraft Carrier" seriously at all. Not only does it not have any aircraft yet, it is not even really a "carrier".

When it was still a Soviet/Russian ship, it was not known as an "Aircraft Carrier", it was a tyazholiy avianesushchiy kreyser, or in English a "Heavy Aircraft-carrying Cruiser". If you call this an "aircraft carrier", then you would have to call the Iowa class battleships, the Wasp class LHDs, even the Japanese I-400 class submarines "aircraft carriers". Heck, even the B-52 is an "aircraft carrier", as well as the USS Akron and USS Macon.

The main role of an "Aircraft Carrier" is to have aircraft for conducting offensive strikes against targets. The 12-15 strong airwing on the Russian (now Chinese) ship was primarily intended for defense of that fleet from outside threats (specifically US carriers). The last thing they wanted was to end up in a shooting war with the US and have absolutely no air cover for their ships. So they added minimal aircraft capabilities to their cruisers, just enough to conduct a CAP as they try to get out of range of any US ships.

 

The SM-3 anti ballistic missiles are designed and will be used to intercept high altitude ballistic missiles. Supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles like the Sandbox and Shipwreck are sea skimming fifty/twenty or so feet off the sea surface. They also have anti missile EW countermeasures, can change course in mid air.

The way the Russians would use let say the Sandbox would be a 8 missile salvo being fired. Four would target the American carrier and the other four would target the escorts.

The question is, none of these cruise missiles have been tested in actual combat. Just like all of the U.S. Navy's ships CIW systems have never seen actual combat intercepting supersonic missiles skimming just off the water.

The U.S. Navy made a wrong turn back in the 60's and have neglected surface warfare. What anti-ship missiles we have are subsonic and have small warheads.

 

That's what I said, it's a cruiser with a flight deck and some aircraft. It's main weapon is the Chinese version of the Russian Shipwreck anti-ship cruise missile.

It can't be used as an attack carrier. Maybe as an ASW carrier like our former CVS carriers. Might make a good sea lane control ship during peace time. Might be capable of providing some CAS during an amphibious operation. I don't even think the Chinese know what to do with their new play thing.

 

Your right.

I believe they are using the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile for Anti-Ship Cruise Missile Defense.

AboveAlpha

 

From another source, a military related forum. Read the post and questions some asked. I've seen this video before when the Russians first released it last year. What's interesting is a coordinated attack by an anti-ship sea skimming missile and a anti-ship missile coming from above both hitting the target ship at exactly the same time.

I Really Hope Phalanx And Rim-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Work As Advertised

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39772

 

The U.S. Navy is installing the FEL....Free Electron Laser System on the new Ford Class Stealth Carriers as well all Nimitz Class Carriers and Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers will have FEL's.

The Free Electron Laser System on Carriers will be provided power from two A1B Nuclear Reactors and along with a Worldwide Orbital Over the Horizon Targeting System....the FEL is capable of vaporizing targets at the speed of light anywhere on the Planet on the seas and oceans....in the air or space....on ground.....and even underwater.

Discover Magazine states that a Nuclear Power Supplied FEL Beam is capable of vaporizing a 1 cm hole though 1000 feel of SOLID STEEL.

As well the FEL can be frequency adjusted thus is not effected by atmosphere like other Lasers.

AboveAlpha

 

I've seen the Navy's videos of the testing of the laser already on one of our destroyers. Though it was used against a target ship, I was thinking this might be used as a CIW against incoming anti-ship missiles. Looks promising.

There is a drawback with lasers, fog, smoke, weather.

Remember when destroyers use to lay down a smoke screen ? Something that was called obsolete may not be so obsolete.

 

The FEL does not have issues with weather, atmosphere and even SMOKE can be overcome.

Read into how the FEL Beaming Frequency can be adjusted to overcome such things.

AboveAlpha

 

I was hoping you would provide a few links.

But I can do it on my own.

Document: Report on Navy Shipboard Lasers

The following is from the Feb. 7, 2013 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense.

I only copied the negatives but there are a whole lot of positives.

http://news.usni.org/2014/02/28/document-report-navy-shipboard-lasers

Limitations

Potential limitations of shipboard lasers for countering surface, air, and ballistic missile targets include the following:
•

Line of sight.
Since laser light tends to fly through the atmosphere on an essentially straight path, shipboard lasers would be limited to line-of-sight engagements, and consequently could not counter over-the-horizon targets or targets that are obscured by intervening objects. This limits in particular potential engagement ranges against small boats, which can be obscured by higher waves, or low-flying targets. Even so, lasers can rapidly reacquire boats obscured by periodic swells, and more generally might be able to engage targets at longer ranges than certain existing shipboard gun systems. An airborne mirror, perhaps mounted on an aerostat,
11
could bounce light from a shipboard laser, so as to permit non-line-of-sight engagements; implementing such an arrangement would add cost and technical challenges, and the aerostat could be damaged by a misaimed shipboard laser or enemy attack.
•

Atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence; not an all-weather solution.
Substances in the atmosphere—particularly water vapor, but also things such as sand, dust, salt particles, smoke, and other air pollution—absorb and scatter light from a shipboard laser, and atmospheric turbulence can defocus a laser beam. These effects can reduce the effective range of a laser. Absorption by water vapor is a particular consideration for shipboard lasers because marine environments feature substantial amounts of water vapor in the air.
12
There are certain wavelengths of light (i.e., “sweet spots” in the electromagnetic spectrum) where atmospheric absorption by water vapor is markedly reduced.
13
Lasers can be designed to emit light at or near those sweet spots, so as to maximize their potential effectiveness. Absorption generally grows with distance to target, making it in general less of a potential problem for short-range operations than for longer-range operations. Adaptive optics, which make rapid, fine adjustments to a laser beam on a continuous basis in response to observed turbulence, can counteract the effects of atmospheric turbulence. Even so, lasers might not work well, or at all, in rain or fog, preventing lasers from being an all-weather solution.

•

Thermal blooming.
A laser that continues firing in the same exact direction for a certain amount of time can heat up the air it is passing through, which in turn can defocus the laser beam, reducing its ability to disable the intended target. This effect, called thermal blooming, can make lasers less effective for countering targets that are coming straight at the ship, on a constant bearing (i.e., “down-the-throat” shots). Other ship self-defense systems, such as interceptor missiles or a CIWS, might be more suitable for countering such targets. Most tests of laser systems have been against crossing targets rather than “down-the-throat” shots. In general, thermal blooming becomes more of a concern as the power of the laser beam increases.

•

Saturation attacks.
Since a laser can attack only one target at a time, requires several seconds to disable it, and several more seconds to be redirected to the next target, a laser can disable only so many targets within a given period of time. This places an upper limit on the ability of an individual laser to deal with saturation attacks—attacks by multiple weapons that approach the ship simultaneously or within a few seconds of one another. This limitation can be mitigated by installing more than one laser on the ship, similar to how the Navy installs multiple CIWS systems on certain ships.
14

•

Hardened targets and countermeasures.
Less-powerful lasers—that is, lasers with beam powers measured in kilowatts (kW) rather than megawatts (MW)
15
— can have less effectiveness against targets that incorporate shielding, ablative material, or highly reflective surfaces, or that rotate rapidly (so that the laser spot does not remain continuously on a single location on the target’s surface) or tumble. Small boats could employ smoke or other obscurants to reduce their susceptibility to laser attack. Measures such as these, however, can increase the cost and/or weight of a weapon, and obscurants could make it more difficult for small boat operators to see what is around them, reducing their ability to use their boats effectively

Risk of collateral damage to aircraft and satellites.
Since light from an upward-pointing laser that does not hit the target would continue flying upward in a straight line, it could pose a risk of causing unwanted collateral damage to aircraft and satellites.
16

In addition to the above points, a shipboard laser, like other shipboard systems, would take up space on a ship, use up some of the ship&#8217;s weight-carrying capacity, create a load on the ship&#8217;s electrical power and cooling systems, and possibly alter the ship&#8217;s radar cross section. These considerations&#8212;referred to collectively as ship iconsidering whether to backfit lasers onto existing ships, or whether to incorporate lasers into new ship designs. "<

 

The military is not "installing" anything.

This is yet another system that is in test, and they do not even have a working prototype yet! They are not even scheduled for full power tests of the prototype until 2018. And that was announced over 4 years ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/01/20/raygun-breakthrough-revolutionize-naval-power/?test=faces

Why is it the tech nerds go all ga-ga over some announced piece of technology, praising it to the moon, sun and stars before even working prototypes are made? No, the FEL is not being installed on anything, and even if it does work as promised, installation is a decade away at the soonest.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/04/08/future-is-now-navy-to-deploys-lasers-on-ships-in-2014/

Yes, they are testing a laser on the USS Ponce. A low power unit to test and work on the tracking systems and computers. This is not a full power laser, they have yet to build that. They do not even have a working FEL for this purpose yet, that is still a couple of years away, expected prototype as I said in 2018 (if everything works right).

I absolutely love it when some fanboi screams that "XXXX is just around the corner", when in reality it is years away if not decades. They read some press release about a "successful test", not even realizing that test is only one step among many before the equipment is ready to be deployed.

And lasers are not the "ultimate weapon" either, lots of technical challenges to be faced along that route too. Thermal blooming is a major one, as well as the fact that it is not "all weather". Heavy fog, rain, dust in the air, these are just some of the things that would make this about as helpful as one person shining a flashlight on the incoming weapon and another guy farting at it.

 

And this is the killer that has essentially doomed most of the research into weaponized laser systems. The Soviets tried to beat this for decades with various mirrors and coatings, we tried it mostly with playing with the medium the laser passes through and putting them as high (or above) the atmosphere as possible.

This is why the YAL-1 was the most successful test, it was designed to fly at high altitude, eliminating a lot of the moisture in the air as well as the air being less dense. Putting this type of weapon at sea level (with the high humidity, water spray, thicker atmospheric density, etc) and they are going to have even more problems.

In fact, interestingly enough this also is being tested at White Sands. One of the highest and driest test centers in the US. Wanna bet that even when they have the prototype working they will have more problems when they actually try to put it on a ship and use it on the open ocean?

 

Since the the Navy's CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford...CVN-79 J.F.K.....and CVN-80 Enterprise have not gone to Sea Trials yet.....obviously the FEL's are not operational nor have the actual components been installed.

BUT.....these 3 Ford Class Carriers are being built so that the FEL's will be on board when these carriers are declared operational. There is an issue with the LINE OF SIGHT aspect of the FEL.

It seems the United States is going to drop out of the Space Based Weapons Ban to an extent.

The United States will continue to not place Nuclear Weapons in Orbit.

But as the FEL cannot use Conventional Mirrors for Targetting as they melt do to the power of the beam....an Orbiting Over the Horizon Targeting System of many Satellites using a PRIZM COMPOUND EYE system similar to an Insects eyes for targeting.

You are correct that the FEL is not yet a working system on all Carriers and Ticonderoga Cruisers as planned...YET.

But there does exist LAND BASED NUCLEAR POWERED SUPPLIED FEL'S.

As well we do have a number of Particle Beam Weapons.

The Soviet's concentrated the majority of the Missile Defense Efforts on the Development of Particle Beams as they knew atmosphere hampers the use of Lasers.

The difference with the FEL is that it's FREQUENCY can be variably adjusted thus overcoming such atmospheric issues.

The Soviets....never one's big on SAFETY...lost a large number of their best Scientists working on developing Particle Beam Weapons as Particle Beams not only can destroy their intented targets but they also have a NASTLY HABIT of irradiating those firing such a weapon.

AboveAlpha

 

December 10, 2014
U.S. Navy Allowed to Use Persian Gulf Laser for Defense

>" PENTAGON — The U.S. Navy has declared an experimental laser weapon on its Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) in the Persian Gulf an operational asset and U.S. Central Command has given permission for the commander of the ship to defend itself with the weapon, the head of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) told reporters on Wednesday.

The 30 kilowatt Laser Weapon System (LaWS) was installed aboard USS Ponce this summer as part of a $40 million research and development effort from ONR and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to test the viability of directed energy weapons in an operational environment, said ONR Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder.

“The captain of that ship has all of the authorities necessary if there was a threat inbound to that ship to protect our sailors and Marines [and] we would defend that ship with that laser system,” Klunder said.
“It would be [used] against those [unmanned aerial vehicles], slow moving helicopters, fast patrol craft.”

As part of the development program, the Navy developed rules of engagement (ROE) for the use of the laser weapon in a year of negotiations with Pentagon leadership, Klunder said.

“At the end of the day it came right out from the [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and the [Secretary of Defense] notebook and we were approved and CENTCOM has the responsibility and given the authority to the skipper of that ship,” he said.

ONR showed off a video in which the LaWS system — mounted on the ship’s super structure above the bridge — disabled a small Scan Eagle-sized UAV, detonated a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) and burned out the engine of a rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB).

Klunder did not give details on the ROE or the ranges of LaWS..."<

continue -> http://news.usni.org/2014/12/10/u-s-navy-allowed-use-persian-gulf-laser-defense

Yes, there's video of a laser taking out the OBM on a raft .

 

Seeing as how the first prototype test of the FEL will not be conducted until 2 years before the JFK is to be commissioned, I see no way in hell that would be possible.

2 years from first prototype to first installation? Sorry, not gonna happen short of WWIII. The actual expected first installations are not expected until 2025 at the soonest, the year the new Enterprise is expected to be commissioned.

There is an old saying, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch". This is not even in prototype yet, and even the Navy admits it is a decade away at the absolute minimum. Yet you continue to go on as if it is a fully working system that is going to be installed in the immediate future.

Look, I am done with this. If you want to continue to believe this is something going into service next year, I can't stop you from believing so. But forgive me if in 2025 the year comes and goes and I laugh at these pronouncements of yours. Because in my long experience with the military, maybe 15% at most of these kinds of projects come in at the scheduled time at best (and that is working with proven technology).

For a completely new technology like this, I expect 25-50% over expected delivery date.

 

You are basically right and wrog as well.

As far as any announcement that full capability of use will not be announced for some time.....absolutely correct.

But there exists systems....very operational and very lethal currently ready.

The FEL is of course powered electrically as I had to explain to another member...No...it is NOT Nuclear Powered...it is supplied electrical power from the Nuclear Reactors.

I have never said this system will be announced ready and operational next year but rest assured there are positioned versions of it on land and a few on ships.

The Ford Class two A1B Reactors will not only supply powerr to the ship but as well will power the new Mag-Lev Catapult System to lauch aircraft as steam catapults are a thing of the past as far as new Carrier designs.

But make no mistake....this system will become operational.

AboveAlpha

 

So much attention for my humble person. Looking at your butthurt is enjoyable. Keep it up.

 

Back under the bridge... Shoooo.