Military Review

Not an easy choice for the US Navy

40
In connection with the change in the country's leadership, the US military, especially the naval, is very painful and apprehensive about tomorrow. The statements that appear in the press (and with censorship in the United States there is complete order, democracy after all), testify to this very clearly.



Admiral Mike Guilday stood out in particular. Chief of the Naval Operations Planning Department of the Operational Forces, among other things.

"I feel that if the fleet loses its head, if we go off course and get distracted from the things we need to focus on, I think we cannot recover in this century."

У fleet The United States has about the same problems as the Russian one: oddly enough, the Americans are also balancing between the need to remove old ships from the fleet and put new ones into operation.

And so the American admiral decided to sound the alarm, because from his point of view, if you continue to delay the construction and delivery of ships to the fleet and overspend the funds allocated for the construction of new ships, then the entire program of updating the US fleet may be in jeopardy.

New technologies are great, but before integrating them into the structures of ships, everything should be thoroughly checked and tested. Otherwise, new technologies will be expensive, but the damage from their flaws will be simply colossal.

It is clear what the admiral was hinting at, and one should agree with his opinion. But still, how similar are their problems to the problems that beset our fleet ...

Gildey pointed to the setbacks with the introduction of the newest ships. Freedom-class littoral ships, Ford-class aircraft carriers, Zamvolt-class destroyers - all of them are behind schedule, moreover, they are seriously behind, we are not talking about months. And how far they cannot meet the budget is generally a topic for another conversation. Unpleasant.

Admiral Gilday said in his speech that the time has come to separate the development of technologies and their implementation directly from the construction of ships. The main emphasis, in his opinion, should be placed on tests, multifaceted and diverse, and only then on the introduction of innovations on ships under construction.

Clever. Moreover, the program for the production of new Constellation-class frigates is on the way for the US Navy. And it is during the construction of these ships that such a principle of innovation will be applied, so as not to condemn new ships to endless repairs and improvements to new equipment.

It is reasonable, especially when you consider that the first ships of the project will have to go into operation in 2026.

Interestingly, Gilday made his report and statements immediately after the Navy released its 30-year shipbuilding plan and document on the future structure of the Navy. The main purpose of the publications can be considered to explain to US taxpayers the goals and objectives of the modernization of the American Navy for a fairly long period.

Again, it is logical, because it is scary to imagine how much money can be "mastered" in 30 years.

Well, the plans, by the way, are quite aggressive. Dismantling of "experimental coastal combat hulls, obsolete cruisers that the Navy has been trying to retire for years and older dock landing craft (LSD)."

It is worth translating. The first four Freedom's are being scrapped.


Behind them are the oldest Ticonderogs. Well, with landing ships-docks, everything is clear for a long time.


Plus, the plan is to condemn the coastal stations "Aegis-ashore". Not in the sense to disassemble, like old ships, but to transfer to the jurisdiction of the coastal forces. Let the ground forces deal with missile defense, and the sailors can focus on their main tasks at sea.

Currently, the US Navy operates one Aegis onshore system in Romania and another is under construction in Poland. Japan was supposed to buy two systems, but canceled the deal last year.

In general, tomorrow the US Navy should look like a solution to the main tasks of the fleet, and not related structures, such as radar stations in Romania.

“If that doesn't get us where we can better control all the seas and project power into the areas of the ocean we need, we have to wonder why we are making this investment.

We should think about getting rid of all that is unnecessary, because this is not something we really need to do. There are ships that we have invested in in the past, or opportunities that we have invested in the past that have not increased our ability to carry out these two fundamental missions (control and use of force - approx).

Needless to say, this plan is more than a serious declaration of the intentions of the American command to put the fleet in order?


But that's not all news.

After years of debate, the Navy and Marine Corps are preparing to seriously consider a program to deploy long-range anti-ship missiles aboard landing craft, which are expected to play a large role in challenging Chinese claims in the Pacific.

For the first time, it was clearly stated that the arms development program would be directed specifically against the PRC, or rather, the development of the Chinese presence in the APR.

Placing a sea-launched strike missile on these small plateaus would be in line with the desire to add more capabilities to the American navy as “China and Russia are pushing their own weapon long-range at sea ”.

Well, yes, it is worth agreeing, since the growth rates of the Chinese fleet are discouraging, and the Russian fleet has really begun to indicate its presence in the APR, since this is a zone of our interests, in the area of ​​our territorial waters.

Expeditionary Fleet Commander Tracy King took over the loud announcements. In his opinion, at the disposal of the ILC and the expeditionary fleet are very successful landing ships LPD 17, which, unfortunately, do not have enough striking power to protect against possible enemy opposition.


Tracy advocates equipping amphibious ships with anti-ship missiles, not to make LPDs become strike platforms, but in order to increase the real survival of ships in the face of confrontation with other fleets.

The new naval strike missile, which is the result of the Raytheon-Kongsberg partnership, is planned for installation on littorals, that is, coastal warships and on a new Constellation-class missile frigate.

Missile strike weapons have long been a dream of the United States Marine Corps. More precisely, the creation of highly mobile installations of the type of Russian "Balls" so that the ILC could fire long-range anti-ship missiles from land-based land vehicles. This would add more strike capability to the fleet, which supports all Marine Corps operations.


Raytheon received $ 48 million last year to integrate an NSM (Naval Strike Missile) missile into the Marine Corps. Throughout the year, work was underway to explore the possibilities, along with the Naval Strike Missile, Corps experts reviewed the new Lockheed Martin long-range anti-ship missile and the upgraded Boeing Harpoon.

However, the studies are not finished, they are still ongoing.

The ILC is seriously considering the option in which amphibious operations can be carried out without classical support from aircraft carriers, especially the new generation, since the development of the F-35 has been delayed. And more powerful missile weapons "will allow amphibians to move to places like the South China Sea and North Atlantic with better protection."

North Atlantic ... remember.


We recall how the admiral of the fleet spoke above about the need to disable the old Ticonderogs. Removing even half of the 22 cruisers would instantly deprive the US Navy of hundreds of Tomahawk launchers.

Will Constellation-class frigates be able to compensate for these losses? No. They will carry from 8 to 16 missiles of this class, which will definitely not be enough to compensate for the Ticonderogo.

Of course, the use of landing ships in the North Atlantic (read - near our waters) looks more than doubtful, but in the South China Sea it is quite. So, partial compensation for losses from the decommissioning of old cruisers is, of course, possible, but it looks like an act of despair.

Forgive me, but the floating landing stage with the Kalibr launcher in the middle of Lake Pskov looked much more impressive before the liquidation of the INF Treaty than a landing ship trying to portray something like that in the Spitsbergen area, for example.

Somehow this does not fit into the plans announced by Admiral Gilley. Growth of the fleet budget by 4% per year, 355 warships by 2040 ... And landing barges with anti-ship missiles. In the North Atlantic.

But you still have to do something. There are many more holes in the structure of the US Navy than at first glance.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milli, known for his harsh and unexpected remarks in the style of the late McCain, said he was willing to pressure other services to pull out of funding, but to ensure the navy received the money it needed to grow.

“This is a very, very difficult process that we have to go through. It will be ruthless. There will be a lot of bloodletting (in dollars - approx) and a lot more will be thrown. We will have to do this in the coming years, there is no doubt about that. "

When such high-ranking gentlemen say this, you begin to doubt that in the country of the Large Printing Press it is possible to solve all problems in the way they sometimes try to inspire us.

Yes, the Trump administration did its part by drafting and issuing a $ 759 billion defense budget for 2022. And many programs have been cut, especially those involving operations far outside the United States.

The Navy will receive "only" about $ 167 billion of this amount to design and build more than 100 new ships, both conventional and unmanned. This also includes overhaul of nuclear aircraft carriers.

Overall, the cut in external operations costs will help pay for 82 ships and 21 unmanned vessels that the US Navy is currently planning to buy. The increase in appropriations for the construction of ships is indeed taking place. In 2022, $ 27 billion will be spent on shipbuilding, and by 2026 the figure will reach $ 33 billion.

That's significantly more than the $ 19 billion in the 2019 budget, isn't it?

However, there is one interesting point here that can make a difference. Biden's team may have a vision for the defense budget, which it is expected to unveil in April.

Given the very attitude of the new US president to foreign policy issues, it is entirely possible that the defense budget could be significantly revised.

Looking forward to April, this month can bring a lot of news and surprises.
Author:
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mykhalych
    Mykhalych 18 January 2021 05: 56
    +9
    "The first four Freedom's are being scrapped ..."- the Americans are clearly "being modest." We can say that a whole type of warships, both already delivered to the US Navy, and those still under construction, the so-called Littoral combat ship (LCS) of the Freedom type, will be scrapped. And it's not that they're useless. And not at the prohibitive cost. And not even that the gearboxes of the ship's main power plant (GEM) cannot withstand the maximum stroke, and with the speed of 47 knots, which was the ridge of this project, he will never be able to walk - they also resigned themselves to this. But at the end of 2020, it turned out that they generally cannot move faster than a dry cargo ship for more or less a long time. That is, it is not just scrap metal, it is also almost stationary scrap metal. To complete the picture, do not be lazy, do not be embarrassed and go : https: //vz.ru/world/2021/1/12/1079616.html
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 18 January 2021 09: 50
      0
      The "Freedom" type shouldn't have been done at all.
      There is nothing interesting about them.
      The Independence trimaran is much better as demonstrated.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 18 January 2021 12: 56
        +2
        They're equally shitty. The only difference is - very bad or really bad))) so that, in the near foreseeable future, the mattress Navy expects a serious "failure" in the surface component, and if the "Ticonderogs" also go to waste, then completely.
    2. sevtrash
      sevtrash 18 January 2021 11: 16
      +4
      Americans are experimenting what they can afford. The level of economic development, more precisely, allows. Therefore, they and leaders in most of the weapons, experiments give them information, experience, new mistakes are born, if these mistakes are understood and used for the better. Interesting, of course. Especially when you look from the outside and know that all this is not directed against your country.
  2. Crowe
    Crowe 18 January 2021 06: 34
    +15
    The Navy will receive "only" about $ 167 billion of this amount to design and build more than 100 new ships, both conventional and unmanned.

    Schaub I lived the way you become poor!
    1. apro
      apro 18 January 2021 07: 13
      -17%
      Have you tried to work?
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 18 January 2021 08: 41
      +1
      I looked at the photo where they were sailing in formation and immediately remembered:
      ... "They float beautifully ...
      Who?
      There, the group in striped swimsuits ... "
      laughing
  3. KKND
    KKND 18 January 2021 06: 51
    +2
    Forgive me, dear Author, what made you ̶п̶е̶р̶e̶o̶b̶u̶t̶'̶s̶ya̶ change your mind? You have published a whole series of articles that Russia does not really need a fleet, and now write:
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    and the Russian fleet really began to indicate its presence in the APR, since this is a zone of our interests, in the area of ​​our territorial waters.

    Here I will quote you in your article dated 07.09.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX. "Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?"
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    Russia naturally needs a fleet. One that will protect the shores and coastal areas from any encroachments. The fleet that will actually threaten to strike a potential enemy with nuclear warheads.

    But to play expensive toys such as cruisers-aircraft carriers ... Let's still take seriously the issue of "flag demonstrations". And let's estimate how economically profitable they are.

    Sorry, but an old ship showing a flag to third countries like Venezuela is not a great maritime power. It is laughter through bitter tears.

    Does it not work that your opinion has changed under the influence of some "factors" to the opposite? what
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 18 January 2021 13: 06
      +2
      Quote: KKND
      Does it not work that your opinion has changed under the influence of some "factors" to the opposite? what


      if only not substances ...
    2. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 18 January 2021 21: 06
      0
      umm ... what you write:
      Quote: KKND
      You have published a whole series of articles that Russia does not really need a fleet, and now write:

      and then you quote:
      Quote: KKND
      Russia naturally needs a fleet. One that will protect the shores and coastal areas from any encroachments. The fleet that will actually threaten to strike a potential enemy with nuclear warheads.

      But to play expensive toys such as cruisers-aircraft carriers ... Let's still take seriously the issue of "flag demonstrations". And let's estimate how economically profitable they are.

      Sorry, but an old ship showing a flag to third countries like Venezuela is not a great maritime power. It is laughter through bitter tears.

      where is the logic? belay
      And how does this relate to the problems of the American fleet, what is the article about?
  4. Cowbra
    Cowbra 18 January 2021 06: 59
    +5
    It would be sucks for us if they took up their minds and stopped spanking expensive non-working models. Fortunately, this will never happen. Let the command not, let the designers, the power and capabilities that need to be built - are. They do not decide everything. There is a weapons lobby. Now there is an obvious bias towards Raytheon, and Raytheon makes only missiles (which did not prevent them from winning the competition to develop a replacement for Bradley, gee-gee-gee) - that means there will be barges with missiles - and I don’t bark here! He is an admiral, panimash. In Raytheon they sneeze their senators - tomorrow you will wake up as a cabin boy
    1. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 18 January 2021 12: 35
      -1
      I thought that the Klimkins and Timoshkins were the only ones who were panicking, but no, there are enough of their all-fledged admiralists across the ocean! am
  5. Semenov
    Semenov 18 January 2021 07: 07
    +27
    The US Navy has about the same problems as the Russian one: oddly enough, the Americans are also balancing between the need to remove old ships from the fleet and put new ones into operation.

    Really. The only difference is that it is desirable for our Navy to be able to cover BMZ, and the American Navy wants to control the world's oceans.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 18 January 2021 08: 26
    0
    Not an easy choice for the US Navy

    Not our problem!
    When they make a choice, it can become OUR problem!
  7. APASUS
    APASUS 18 January 2021 08: 45
    0
    Once again, an attempt to achieve the allocation of funds for the mythical backwardness of the US Navy. They would curb their appetite, otherwise Zumwalt alone stands like the floor of an aircraft carrier, and they still cannot find application. And there are a dozen such projects for the Navy.
  8. kamakama
    kamakama 18 January 2021 10: 28
    0
    Sawing and rollback exists there as well as here. Let it be in a slightly different form, complicated (you need to work with public opinion, create external threats, etc.) - but there is
  9. timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 18 January 2021 10: 52
    -1
    destroyers of the "Zamvolt" type


    Please stop calling Zumwalt Zamwalt. That, according to the rules of the English language, Zumwalt actually reads "Zumwalt" is one story.
    The fact that Elmo Russell pronounced his last name "Zumwalt" out loud, and passed with it from birth to death is another story.
    Do not confuse.
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 January 2021 11: 37
      +2
      Please stop calling Zumwalt Zamwalt. That, according to the rules of the English language, Zumwalt actually reads "Zumwalt" is one story.
      The fact that Elmo Russell pronounced his last name "Zumwalt" out loud, and passed with it from birth to death is another story.

      Elmo Russell Zumwalt

      Zumwalt is written, Zumwalt is read. smile
    2. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A 19 January 2021 13: 47
      0
      The fact that the admiral pronounced his surname aloud in the manner of the German ancestors Zumwalt does not mean that he did not respond to Zamwalt and, in general, he might have hoped that the Russians would call him Triumfalt.
  10. Bradley
    Bradley 18 January 2021 12: 25
    +1
    I'm waiting for Timokhin to compare the new American corvette with our 20380.)
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 18 January 2021 13: 22
      +4
      How long have the USA got corvettes? And they will lose to the frigates Constellation in seaworthiness. Yes, helicopters will live better on Constellation, and there will not be 20 tons of fuel.

      But if you face it, the Guardians (20380/20385) are a very good replacement for petrels (1135/11356). These are not corvettes in the conventional sense of the word.
      A corvette to replace Albatrosses / Gadflies should be made on the basis of Karakurt. To be cheap and cheerful.
      1. Bradley
        Bradley 18 January 2021 14: 15
        +1
        Ahh, yes, exactly, frigates, not corvettes. My mistake.
        Then I would compare with 22350.)

        Yes, we need a new turntable, our own Sea-Hawk.
        1. shahor
          shahor 18 January 2021 17: 51
          0
          Quote: Bradley
          Then I would compare with 22350.)

          Well, an American will be 2000 tons larger ...
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 18 January 2021 19: 49
      0
      The constellation is a frigate, not a corvette.
      1. Bradley
        Bradley 18 January 2021 21: 17
        +1
        The constellation is a frigate, not a corvette.

        We are waiting for the article ..)) You are a savvy person, it is a pleasure to read you. I hope you can write something about them.)
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 18 January 2021 22: 24
          0
          It's too early. In short, this is the "dried" Arleigh Burke - a ship that performs the same tasks, but smaller and cheaper, and worse.

          For example, I just do not understand why Americans need them in principle.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 18 January 2021 23: 08
            -1
            A relatively cheap, massive frigate. A proven project, no surprises, if there is a lag then small. If necessary, you can set up a mass production.
            Instead of Perry, they did not do anything worthwhile, but his tasks remained. Chasing destroyers to patrol sea routes, display the flag, guard ships, etc., to put it mildly, is unreasonable. This is still the main task of frigates.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 19 January 2021 00: 41
              +1
              So they have no threats, for which they did "Perry"
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik 19 January 2021 00: 46
                -1
                So it appears. China is gaining momentum, there is a danger, and the fleet has been built for years, if not decades. If you don't start now, tomorrow will be too late. After the collapse of the USSR, the US Navy was engaged in projects, they could afford it, now they don't.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 19 January 2021 09: 47
                  0
                  So Constellation is not the best option
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 19 January 2021 09: 53
                    -1
                    Why? FREMM is an excellent project, produced in series, changes for FFG (X) are small.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 19 January 2021 13: 40
                      0
                      For an escort, it is excessive in terms of URO and REV and insufficient in terms of watchmen.
          2. Simple
            Simple 19 January 2021 11: 20
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            For example, I just do not understand why Americans need them in principle.


            Well, not from a good life.

            As "workhorses" for little money, without headaches - for example.
            The defense budget for the fleet of 167 billion (in light of the fact that they want to "squeeze" the latest "fashion" drones into the fleet, a scam with which it is not known how much money will fit) is not enough for the Americans.
            Therefore, we decided on a cheap (but with proven technology) ship. That is to say, funding for these ships was allocated until someone made up their minds and "buried" the same money for a scam with drones with an unknown result.

            My opinion.
  11. voronin
    voronin 18 January 2021 13: 38
    +18
    if we go off course and get distracted from the things we need to focus on, I think we cannot recover in this century

    The beginning of anxiety. Of course, they are still far from the seam.
  12. Niko
    Niko 18 January 2021 14: 18
    +2
    Well what can I say ..... the toad is known to be the most terrible beast: it can strangle anyone. In general, to envy the rich and healthy: this is normal
  13. shahor
    shahor 18 January 2021 17: 38
    +1
    The author confused something with the new frigates, believing that they will carry no more than 16 Tomahawks. 16 is the number of launchers for NSM type missiles (at the first stage). There are 32 PUs for tomohawks. Plus - PU for SAM. The composition of equipment and weapons for the frigate has been formed, there is a reserve of 100 tons. A trifle, of course, but nice. You can do something else ... attach something useful to the warship. The Italians on frigates of this type are armed with 8 coffee machines.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 18 January 2021 22: 41
      0
      Mk 41 with 32 cells, Mk 49 with 21 anti-aircraft missiles RIM-116 RAM, 16 launchers for rgm-184
      57 mm cannon
      Laser machine
      1. shahor
        shahor 18 January 2021 23: 09
        +1
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Mk 41 with 32 cells, Mk 49 with 21 anti-aircraft missiles RIM-116 RAM, 16 launchers for rgm-184
        57 mm cannon

        Thanks for the clarification. The author of the article for inattention is censure.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 18 January 2021 23: 10
          -1
          Solidarity completely. Apparently he took some of the FREMM projects, without specifying that the project for the USA is different.
          By the way, the reserve for the laser was left, therefore this caliber of the Art installation.
  14. Simple
    Simple 19 January 2021 12: 00
    0
    Admiral Michael Gildey's interview with DefenseNews:

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/08/17/top-us-navy-chief-talks-connecting-tech-recovering-from-accidents/