Future maritime security
Hey, I’m over on Forbes.com, talking about the need to secure the Alaskan EEZ and what may be another Navy attempt to avoid shock testing the USS Ford. Let me know what you think!
I am also wondering if the SECNAV is going to say anything interesting when he speaks–and takes moderated questions–from the safe confines of the Brookings Institution later on Wednesday. Maybe one day–maybe when all the Ford’s elevators are working–our SECNAV will take audience questions again.
Previous post: US Navy Declines To Party With PLA(N)
Next post: Secretary Spencer Needs To Stop His Business Analogies
Contact Craig Hooper:
Email Contact: craig.hooper@nextnavy.com
Disclaimer:
This is a personal endeavor. The content available on NEXTNAVY.COM is solely the opinion of the author and does not represent the opinions of his employer(s).
RECENT REVIEWS:
A stakeholder on "Running on empty":Recent Publications
"The U.S. Needs a New Public Shipyard," DefenseOne, January 16, 2019.
"It took Comfort 39 Days to Get Pierside in Puerto Rico: That's a National Security Problem," DefenseOne, November 6, 2017.
"Marine National Monuments are Defense Assets," DefenseOne, September 19, 2017.
"Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture for the U.S. Navy," Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2017.
"The real game-changers of the Pacific Basin," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, April 2011; 137
"China at sea," Hoover Digest, March 2011; 2.
"Running on empty,"Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, October 2010; 136: 60-65.
"Nobody asked me, but...the Olympia needs our help," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, July 2010; 136: 10-11.
"'Get off the fainting couch': Stop worrying and start managing the Chinese ASBM threat," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, April 2010; 136: 42-47.
"Ospreys mean less at home," The North County Times/The Californian, January 3, 2010.
"America’s fading legacy in the Pacific," The Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2009.
"Preparing for the next big quake," The Berkeley Daily Planet, April 30-May 6, 2009; 11(5); Page 13.
"The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: A poster child for next-war-it is?," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, November 2008; 134: 22-26.
"To win hearts and minds, give Coast Guard new hospital ships," National Defense Magazine, November 2008; 93: 28. With James Doblow
"Don’t hate San Francisco! Engage, don’t estrange," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute. October 2007; 133: 64-68.
"Going down with the ships," The Washington Post, March 5, 2007.
""LCS: A step, not an end - correspondence," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute. February 2007; 133: 6-7.
"Communicable Disease Control in California," White Paper for 2007 California Health Strategy Summit. With R.J. Melton and G. Rutherford.
"The peril of power: Navigating natural gas infrastructure," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute. June 2006; 132: 40-44.
"Emerging issues in natural gas security: Does perception management mask reality?," In Proceedings of Environment Canada’s 29th Arctic and Marine Oilspill (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa 2006: 517-524.
"Protein engineering: Security implications: The increasing ability to manipulate protein toxins for hostile purposes has prompted calls for regulation," EMBO Reports June 2006; 7: S14-17. With J. Tucker.
"A Gunboat Navy for the 21st Century—correspondence," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute December 2005; 131: 64-65.
"Biology on the battlefield: Rethinking the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention," The Yale Politic. December 29, 2005.
"The mosquito can be more dangerous than the mortar round: The obligations of command," Naval War College Review, Winter 2005: LVIII, Vol. 1. 77-87. With Arthur M. Smith.
"Building a fleet for coastal rescue," The Boston Globe, January 4, 2005.
"Harbor Safety," The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine, October 12, 2003.
"Projecting biomedical security," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute July 2003; 129: 63-66.
"Strategic biodefense: A call to reinvent the hospital ship," Navy Medicine March-April 2002; 93: 31-35.
"Poxvirus Dilemmas—correspondence," New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 339: 2027-2028.
"Think Small," Foreign Affairs 1998; 77 (3): 158. Letter.
{ 1 comment }
comments on the web re: in lieu of shock trials
>Electromagnetic elevators work like Maglev trains. The magnets that move the elevator must always be in a fixed distance to the rail. That requires that the rails are kept very straight. But ships are rather flexible structures that flex and twist all the time. The idea to put electromagnetic rails into them is conceptually misguided. The Ford will need new elevators before it can be put to use.
>The weapons elevators are critical for a fighting ship, and they’re buried in the bowels of the monster where they’re at their deepest. If the systems don’t work out because of inherent instability of the bearing along the magnetic rail, once more the question arises what kind of mindset allows for such blunders. I suspect it’s got to do with a modular planning which is not regarded as an artificial and essentially incomplete dissection of a whole and its parts, but rather as a feasible pragmatic approach that can get a hold on any problem in the end.
>The LCS had reduced shock testing. In written testimony for the Senate Armed Services committee, Dr. Michael Gilmore, director of operational testing under the Secretary of Defense, said that the shock trials for the Independence and Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships were conducted at “reduced severity” due to concerns about the possibility of damage. “The Navy argued that the reduced severity approach was necessary because they lacked specific test data and a general understanding of how the non-Grade A systems . . . would respond to shock,” he wrote.
Comments on this entry are closed.