Article

2007-05-20 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-20 11:24|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top

#1 basically did the same job that C-Courageous will perform, probably in Iraq.

Of course! Iraq has such a LONG coastline.

*sigh*

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-05-20 11:37|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-05-20 11:37|| Front Page Top

#2 This will be a very interesting experiment to see if such a technique would pay off on a much larger scale for littoral conflict. That is, having mother ships with PBs able to patrol a lot of coastline and waterways.

On a wider scale, several such mother ships would be supported by a second echelon of supply ships and oilers, part of a blue water fleet providing them with rear area security and fire support.

I can also imagine another layer of small multipurpose platform ships, just outside of the PB patrol area, that could provide quick local support to the PBs, such as artillery, AAA, mine sweeping or evac.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-20 11:37|| 2007-05-20 11:37|| Front Page Top

#3 This is nothing new, 'moose.

Posted by Pappy 2007-05-20 11:51|| 2007-05-20 11:51|| Front Page Top

#4 Pappy: I know. But has the philosophy been lost in the USN? When I look at those few high priced littoral ships they're developing, it makes me wonder if they've lost touch with reality.

I still hold to the WWII principal that everything destroyer or smaller is an "expendable" vessel. Granted we would *prefer* not to lose them, but the realities of naval war don't care what we would prefer.

In a major naval conflict, numbers balance off quality a lot, as the Japanese learned the hard way. And what with everybody and their brother floating fleets of submarines, I would much prefer, if we are going to lose five ships, that they be five replaceable ships.

To make matters worse, our ships may have to contend with cheap air armadas of drone UAVs, nothing more than flying 1000lb bombs with GPS. Half the countries in the world could crank out such weapons as fast as cars and only twice as expensive.

The next century is going to be interesting.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-20 12:50|| 2007-05-20 12:50|| Front Page Top

#5 what? They couldn't deploy it to Afghanistan? Excellent reporting....Jeebus

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-05-20 13:23|| 2007-05-20 13:23|| Front Page Top

#6 Don't take this story littorally.

*ducks tomatoes*

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-05-20 14:28|| 2007-05-20 14:28|| Front Page Top

#7 When I look at those few high priced littoral ships they're developing, it makes me wonder if they've lost touch with reality.

Your problem is that you are thinking about the Navy, the country and the future. That's the wrong way to look at it. If you think about Trent Lott, Mississippi and shipbuilding, it will all make sense.

Sad, but true.

Posted by Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-05-20 17:35|| 2007-05-20 17:35|| Front Page Top

23:47 Zenster
23:44 Mac
23:41 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:40 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:40 Mike N.
23:35 Zenster
23:28 Zenster
23:28 Rachel Corrie
23:21 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 Natural Law
22:51 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:48 DMFD
22:45 DMFD
22:39 gromgoru
22:32 mhw
22:30 SR-71
22:24 Zenster
22:21 Zenster
22:14 Zenster
22:10 3dc
22:06 gromgoru
22:02 gromgoru
21:56 gromgoru
21:50 Zenster