User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: US Navy Plans To Send More Ships Into The Arctic As It Looks To Establish New Polar P

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496507
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,614
    Points
    858,815
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,190
    Thanked 147,517x in 94,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    US Navy Plans To Send More Ships Into The Arctic As It Looks To Establish New Polar P

    US Navy Plans To Send More Ships Into The Arctic As It Looks To Establish New Polar Port

    A prudent move. Russia is well ahead in this theater.

    The U.S. Navy says it is considering sending surface ships into the Arctic this summer and that it could establish a new strategic port facility in the Bering Sea to support more of those patrols in the future. These announcements come as the ice in the region continues to recede, opening up new maritime trade routes and other economic opportunities, as well as the possibility of conflict over competing interests. This has already prompted America’s “great power” competitors, especially Russia, to dramatically expand their military presence in the far north.

    Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer discussed his service’s plans for the Arctic at a gathering at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 8, 2019. He did not say what ships might be headed for the Arctic later this year or when and where exactly that deployment might occur.



    “As an example, this summer, the [Chief of Naval Operations] and I have talked about having some ships make the transit in the Arctic,” Spencer said, according to USNI News. “We’re just fleshing it out right now.”



    The Navy already has a well-established history of operations above the Arctic Circle. However, it has traditionally conducted most of these operations using submarines or patrol planes, both of which can more deftly avoid the threat of floating pack ice in the far north.
    Read the rest at the link.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Admiral Ackbar (01-10-2019),HawkTheSlayer (01-10-2019),MisterVeritis (01-10-2019),MMC (01-10-2019)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Much has been made of potential Arctic shipping lanes opening up as ice melts and more areas become navigable. An expected uptick in commercial shipping and tourism in the Arctic region has put some urgency on the U.S. Coast Guard’s plans to build a fleet of icebreakers, as well as the Navy’s interest in having a more visible presence in the region.


    “As an example, this summer, the [chief of naval operations] and I have talked about having some ships make the transit in the Arctic. It’s going to be a multi-service task – I think you’ll see the Coast Guard involved. We’re just fleshing it out right now. But what is the purpose of that? We have to learn what it’s like to operate in that environment,” he said.


    Spencer said the Ticonderoga-class cruisers were the last class of Navy ships to be designed with steam systems to remove ice from the ship, and that newer classes are not ice-hardened or equipped with systems to remove ice.


    When the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group operated north of the Arctic Circle for several weeks this fall, the carrier itself handled the environment well, but its smaller escort ships and the supply ships the carrier relied on had a tougher time in the high sea states and icy waters. Similarly, when the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group sailed from Iceland to Norway in October, the larger amphibious assault ship made the journey safely, but the smaller dock landing ship was damaged in heavy seas and had to turn back.


    “I say that tongue-in-cheek, but no, freedom of navigation should be plied up there. We’re going to try to do it,” he said. “We’re going to learn our way.”.....snip~


    https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/nav...ing-lanes-open



    Its definitely going to cost us some money either way. So more spending.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (01-10-2019)

  5. #3
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496507
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,614
    Points
    858,815
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,190
    Thanked 147,517x in 94,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the Coast Guard got appropriations to start building three new heavy ice breakers.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  6. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I think the Coast Guard got appropriations to start building three new heavy ice breakers.

    Our Navy should have their own. Not be relying on the Coast Guard.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  7. #5
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496507
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,614
    Points
    858,815
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,190
    Thanked 147,517x in 94,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Our Navy should have their own. Not be relying on the Coast Guard.
    They can ask for them in their budget request.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  8. #6
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    They can ask for them in their budget request.
    That wont be happening anytime soon with Updating Nuke Subs. Frigates, Destroyers, Carriers and getting a Navy up to 355 ships.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  9. #7
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496507
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,614
    Points
    858,815
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,190
    Thanked 147,517x in 94,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    That wont be happening anytime soon with Updating Nuke Subs. Frigates, Destroyers, Carriers and getting a Navy up to 355 ships.
    That is why they support the Coast Guard doing it.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    MMC (01-10-2019)

  11. #8
    Points: 34,558, Level: 45
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 892
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassYour first Group25000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Admiral Ackbar's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    5002
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    6,897
    Points
    34,558
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    4,270
    Thanked 4,992x in 3,109 Posts
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am not that concerned about the naval capabilities needed for this part of the world. Even if there is no ice the artic will never be a major shipping lane. Will it make some transports quicker for part of the year? Yes.. but the fact is the temps will make operating there difficult.

    Remember Navies don't control territory like an occupation force. The protect approaches to coast lines, keep choke points open. The thing about the Artic is that it is accessed through three and only three very narrow choke points. Access can be denied by jamming up those three approaches.

    This is easily done from below the Artic itself in the Pacific and Atlantic.

    There are no major ports or cities on the Artic coast lines anywhere in the world.

    To me this takes focus away from the important areas of naval operation. The area around Indonesia, The Med, The north Pacific and north Atlantic.

    Not to say ignore it.. but don't worry too much about it. We are in position to close it up like a big lake if we needed to.
    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"----Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Admiral Ackbar For This Useful Post:

    Lummy (01-11-2019),Peter1469 (01-10-2019)

  13. #9
    Points: 34,558, Level: 45
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 892
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassYour first Group25000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Admiral Ackbar's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    5002
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    6,897
    Points
    34,558
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    4,270
    Thanked 4,992x in 3,109 Posts
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wanted to add a map of the region so we can see those choke points. The Bering Straight and the two approaches off Iceland. Baffin Bay will never be a major shipping channel due to other factors.

    Iceland the would be the unsinkable aircraft carrier and deny access to the real game which is the North Atlantic Shipping routes to Russia. The same as Taiwan blocks China from the blue water Pacific.

    Thanks for this thread.. one of the more interesting ones in a while on the forum.

    Map-of-Arctic-region.jpg
    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"----Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Admiral Ackbar For This Useful Post:

    MMC (01-10-2019),Peter1469 (01-10-2019)

  15. #10
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496507
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,614
    Points
    858,815
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,190
    Thanked 147,517x in 94,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Ackbar View Post
    I am not that concerned about the naval capabilities needed for this part of the world. Even if there is no ice the artic will never be a major shipping lane. Will it make some transports quicker for part of the year? Yes.. but the fact is the temps will make operating there difficult.

    Remember Navies don't control territory like an occupation force. The protect approaches to coast lines, keep choke points open. The thing about the Artic is that it is accessed through three and only three very narrow choke points. Access can be denied by jamming up those three approaches.

    This is easily done from below the Artic itself in the Pacific and Atlantic.

    There are no major ports or cities on the Artic coast lines anywhere in the world.

    To me this takes focus away from the important areas of naval operation. The area around Indonesia, The Med, The north Pacific and north Atlantic.

    Not to say ignore it.. but don't worry too much about it. We are in position to close it up like a big lake if we needed to.
    I think the end state is to build one or more military ports/bases to have a limited capability in the region and resource exploration kicks in.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts