undefined | Better HN

0 pointscolechristensen3y ago0 comments

Happens a lot.

It's also a problem with the Navy.

More, smaller, near-coast ("littoral") ships would be much more effective tools for wartime and for maintaining peace on the seas. There are some. Acquisitions has been fraught with problems and weighty opinions of captains and admirals who want to feel important on enormous ships. Enormous ships which aren't as useful in the day to day operations in the Navy and would be extremely vulnerable at war with modern weaponry.

A lot of what gets done around the world is heavily influenced by how a decision will influence the feelings of people in power.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

trhway3y ago· 2 in thread

>would be extremely vulnerable at war with modern weaponry.

the point of those enormous ships is to minimize the chances of war happening.

>More, smaller, near-coast ("littoral") ships would be much more effective tools for wartime

Russia lost the big ship on the Black Sea and have the situation you're describing - ie. their fleet is several missile frigates, and such their situation is very weak. The fleet can't really operate. (And with recent successful attack on a Russian airfield in Crimea the air support for those remaining ships is expected to dwindle which will be a clear show case of how [in]capable fleet without air support (which we do actually know since WWII really), and that air support usually, until you operate near your shores, can only come from aircraft carriers)

rocqua3y ago

Frigates are much, much bigger than litoral ships.

trhway3y ago

The US litoral ships are 3500 tons 115m length. Russian Black Sea frigates 4000 tons 125m (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Grigorovich-class_frig...) Black Sea is deep everywhere, ie. there is no "litoral" area where those frigates wouldn't be able to operate due to their size. And their roles there are currently mostly those of "litoral" ships, like the land attacks.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse