4 ms·

If they did that, then the second a war started all of our surface Navy would be wiped out in a first strike.

jessaustin 9y ago
Whereas, on the current footing, all it will take is a bunch of 12-knot cargo ships on autopilot to take them out. Either the captain and OOD should both be court-martialed out, or USA Navy needs to go back to the drawing board.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Yes, because once a decade one of our 400 naval ships has a survivable collision, we should turn AIS on full time.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    [EDIT:] I didn't suggest that, but Lieutenant Commander Michael Kiser, USN does suggest that AIS be used in shipping lanes: https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-navy-can-make-to-improve-safe-navigation https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-nav... Also, there are 274 ships in USN. Also, this cargo ship did not intend to collide with the navy ship. In wartime, we can't make that assumption.
  - kevinr 9y ago
    A single submarine loss (the Thresher accident) was enough to prompt the US Navy to institute the SUBSAFE program, possibly the single most successful safety program in history.
astrodust 9y ago
Considering the size of the US navy, around 430 ships, that's extremely unlikely. There's not enough submarines in the world to sneak attack them all at once.
- civilitty 9y ago
  No one would use submarines for the first strike in a major war unless it was to launch nuclear warheads from an unpredictable location. It would take months for them to get into position, even if the attacker had that many subs and it would reveal sub locations at the start of the conflict. Hitting a ship with a missile is hard because they're usually out of land based radar range but if they all had their transponders on, it would be so much easier, especially since medium and long range missiles are getting increasingly more advanced. I wouldn't be surprised if state of the art recon satellites could pick up a cluster of transponders in a carrier battle group and use that data for targeting. If all an enemy did was take out our aircraft carriers, it would cripple our force projection outside of stationary military bases (which would all be hit in a first strike) and turn the navy into glorified mobile silos. The element of surprise is often the only deciding factor in skirmishes and battles between equal forces so it is paramount that giant, slow, and vulnerable fortresses don't broadcast their position.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    Nukes don't work very well on ships much to the dismay of military planners. There's a new generation of ballistic missile which might work, but they're extremely expensive, have limited range, and are rare. This idea of sinking the entire US fleet in one strike is utterly absurd.

Whereas, on the current footing, all it will take is a bunch of 12-knot cargo ships on autopilot to take them out. Either the captain and OOD should both be court-martialed out, or USA Navy needs to go back to the drawing board.

valuearb 9y ago
Yes, because once a decade one of our 400 naval ships has a survivable collision, we should turn AIS on full time.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  [EDIT:] I didn't suggest that, but Lieutenant Commander Michael Kiser, USN does suggest that AIS be used in shipping lanes: https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-navy-can-make-to-improve-safe-navigation https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-nav... Also, there are 274 ships in USN. Also, this cargo ship did not intend to collide with the navy ship. In wartime, we can't make that assumption.
- kevinr 9y ago
  A single submarine loss (the Thresher accident) was enough to prompt the US Navy to institute the SUBSAFE program, possibly the single most successful safety program in history.

astrodust 9y ago

Considering the size of the US navy, around 430 ships, that's extremely unlikely. There's not enough submarines in the world to sneak attack them all at once.

civilitty 9y ago
No one would use submarines for the first strike in a major war unless it was to launch nuclear warheads from an unpredictable location. It would take months for them to get into position, even if the attacker had that many subs and it would reveal sub locations at the start of the conflict. Hitting a ship with a missile is hard because they're usually out of land based radar range but if they all had their transponders on, it would be so much easier, especially since medium and long range missiles are getting increasingly more advanced. I wouldn't be surprised if state of the art recon satellites could pick up a cluster of transponders in a carrier battle group and use that data for targeting. If all an enemy did was take out our aircraft carriers, it would cripple our force projection outside of stationary military bases (which would all be hit in a first strike) and turn the navy into glorified mobile silos. The element of surprise is often the only deciding factor in skirmishes and battles between equal forces so it is paramount that giant, slow, and vulnerable fortresses don't broadcast their position.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Nukes don't work very well on ships much to the dismay of military planners. There's a new generation of ballistic missile which might work, but they're extremely expensive, have limited range, and are rare. This idea of sinking the entire US fleet in one strike is utterly absurd.