USN 2016 Force Structure Assessment

>>32345446

Also:
>almost 40% increase in SSN fleet size

>>32345446
Dirty casual here.

Do our attack subs have any cruise missile capability if modified enough?

>>32345572
I thought they converted a few Ohio Class subs to carrying a shit load of Tomahawks myself. How are they not SSGNs?

>>32345572

Yes, that's the role that the (converted) Ohio SSGNs presently fill. However, the Navy foresees no future role for them (thus 0 Guided Missile Submarines), which should be tolerable as long as they come through on the expansion of the surface combatant force.

>>32345446
>16 more surface combatants.
Moar Zums pls.

>>32345605

You'll get Arleigh Burke Flight Vs and you'll deal with it.

>>32345618
As long as it's got a good AESA, a VLO hull, and MQ-8, I guess I'll manage. The USN is dripping with 2spoopy4u ubertech, but hasn't graced it's line warships with any of it.

>>32345572
Los Angeles and Virginia's both have VLS Tomahawks.

>>32345446

This is stupid. Why does America need a larger navy when it already has the largest in the world? Nice way to increase the deficient and enrich contractors at the expense of the taxpayer.

>>32346004
>why do you NEEEEEEEEEEEEED

Fuck off commie cunt.

>>32346004

50 pls.

>>32345446
The fuck is the point of the 'guided missile submarines' line if there's nothing there ?

>>32347380

Because the FSA reflects what will or should be in the future, with currently operational platforms as the baseline.

>>32346015
That only works with individuals because its their business.

This is taxpayer money, dipshit

>>32345446
>only 10 carriers
>need 12

Hmmmm

>>32349880

They would try to accelerate the introduction of the Fords, I assume.

>>32345572
Yes. Existing SSNs have some Tomahawks on board. New build Virginias are going to have the VPM added soon, which gives the a LOT more of them.

These amphibious warfare ships are all worthless
They should be turned into large surface combatants and replaced with LST's

Then the production of aircraft carriers needs to be doubled, no reason to operate a MINIMUM number of them when they are the core of the fleet.

>>32352534

Carriers take years and years to build. There is an imminent paradigm shift in the way we project air power, in the next fifteen or so years drones are going to start replacing a lot of combat aircraft. It doesn't make sense to make a long-term capital investment in something that isn't suited for the next major global conflict.

It makes more sense to come up with a newer, smaller, cheaper (and more expendable) pocket carrier that is essentially a drone-launching platform. Our aircraft carriers are not assets that the military can afford to lose in a conflict. That's a problem.

>>32352549
> in the next fifteen or so years drones are going to start replacing a lot of combat aircraft.
Considering that there is no drone at all in the conception or design phase to do that, suggests to me you are wrong.

>that isn't suited for the next major global conflict.
Aerial drones still need a carrier to launch from

Yes carriers take years to build, so they should begin a procurement process of 1-2 supercarriers a year starting 5 years from now.

While the Airforce cancels a portion of their F-35A buy, replaced with F-35C which could be transferred to fill carriers in the event of a war.

>>32345446
whats CSG?

>>32345498
Does this mean it will be easy for my nearly 34 year old ass to get accepted?

>>32352534
This is literally the most retarded thing I've read on the topic, and believe me, I've read a LOT of retarded things.

>>32352736
name one problem with it

>>32352747
Because current amphibs are great, traditional LSTs have next to no place in modern warfare, and adding many more carriers would necessitate a vast increase in the number of large surface combatants as each carrier needs 4-8 (the newest thinking is on the high side, 7 or 8) escorts with it at once. However, in order to necessitate that number of escorts is there for the carrier, you need to double that amount of ships in order to make sure they're available. Not to mention needing more for SAGs. Of course, this completely ignores the immense cost of producing aircraft carriers.

>>32352793
>as each carrier needs 4-8 (the newest thinking is on the high side, 7 or 8) escorts with it at once.

Says who? Doctrine?
You could run the carriers in pairs if you wanted, with 8 escorts for the pair

> traditional LSTs have next to no place in modern warfare
The countries that actually intend to do an amphibious operation, like China or India or Russia, have LST's
The Army maintains landing ships, and would be the ones to actually do an amphibious invasion if it was ever needed.

>Of course, this completely ignores the immense cost of producing aircraft carriers.
As opposed to 3 billion dollar subs? Or 3 billion dollar Burke's?
In terms of utility, carriers are far better value than anything else.

File: USN_ships.jpg (3MB, 9996x6664px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 9996x6664px

>>32347411
Well I'm a taxpayer and I want us to have the biggest dick in the ocean.

So are you going to war anyone with these anytime soon? Not some small boy shit please.

>>32352826
Cuba and venezuela need regime change

>>32352831
Do they even have armed forces. In fact that isn't even small boy shit.

12 carriers would mean to deploy 3-4 carriers at all time.

>>32352813
>Says who? Doctrine?
Experience and projections leading to doctrine. If you'd bothered to read the USNI News article on the topic, you can see they make the point fairly clear. And from as reliable a source as you could ask for.
And yes, carriers will likely not work in single carrier groups if the balloon ever went up, but that doesn't mean that the escorts still aren't needed. Hell, carriers might be better suited by having several single carrier groups working in close proximity rather than having them together.

>The countries that actually intend to do an amphibious operation, like China or India or Russia
That's a good joke, comrade.

>The Army maintains landing ships, and would be the ones to actually do an amphibious invasion if it was ever needed.
I'm aware of the Runnymedes, and they do have their place, however what you absolutely fail to realize is that those are not meant for forced entry situations. They would get absolutely murdered if they were attempted to use in such a manner, with the ships sunk with everything on board them. No, forced entry requires standoff. Why do you think modern amphibs have big flight decks for helicopters and V-22s? Hell, why do you think that the V-22 is such a big deal? So you secure a beachhead (significantly larger than just the beach itself) with your regular amphibs. Once that is secure, sure, you can send in vessels such as the Runnymede class to put more shit on the shore, but the same could be said of any RORO capable ship. They have their place, but they do not replace big deck amphibs in any way nor are they viable in a situation where the beachhead isn't already secure.

>>32352813
Whoops, forgot to address your last point.

>As opposed to 3 billion dollar subs? Or 3 billion dollar Burke's?
Virginias run up close to 3 billion. Burkes are closer to two billion. Even assuming that they are in fact three billion, you can still get four of them for the cost of a single carrier. And lets face it, you do NEED those escorts for the carrier.

>In terms of utility, carriers are far better value than anything else.
I disagree completely with this notion. Each of them has their own use, which can not be replicated by any of the others in the same manner or with the same effect.

Anywho, it's been lovely, but I'm of to work now. Talk to you later, fuccboi.

>The US Navy doesn't have something anymore
>it's not relevant anymore for everyone else as well

One could argue that LSTs don't make sense in an American context but it does for other navies.

A ship that can steady transport troops, tanks and trucks to the place of interest can be a quite powerful asset.

>>32352916
But the US does have similar ships. And really, LSTs are no longer usable as amphibious assault vessels, but rather as just more shipping. Shipping that could likely be provided just as if not more efficiently by other RORO capable vessels.

>>32345572
virginias have a couple dozen cruise missiles

>>32352969
>LSTs are no longer usable as amphibious assault vessels

You are repeating your line.

>>32352877
How are helicopters or V-22's going to force entry against defended shores? They are fodder for any sort of air defense.
How is light infantry being deployed by those going to defeat entrenched/mechanized forces fast, such as what is needed for amphibious operations?
Could D-day or Inchon have been done with this strategy? No.

>significantly larger than just the beach itself)
You cannot do an invasion at a BEACH
You need a harbor minimum & likely an existing port.

These are going to be defended, and you can't just avoid them via helicopter landings, they have to be defeated rapidly before they get reinforced, so the actual invasion can happen.

>>32352895
>Burkes are closer to two billion.
The new flight III's will be more expensive.
>you can still get four of them for the cost of a single carrier.
It's more like 3, plus you could anticipate reduced costs for Carriers with increased purchases.
>And lets face it, you do NEED those escorts for the carrier.
I'll disagree here, the carrier can escort itself with its aircraft, and Sonar+Radar pickets could be provided by an increased buy of Frigates/LCS
There is also the fact that a nuclear powered carrier is going to have a far longer lead time for construction than a smaller conventional frigates/destroyers/cruisers

So running a carrier heavy fleet in peacetime is obviously desirable.

Just playing that game.

China invades Taiwan.
Based on Taiwanese papers - Taiwan would only be able to hold for one week.

So do you gonna do anything against it? Reconquer Taiwan with Ospreys?

>>32352534
Carrier production could be increased slightly without building more facilities, but we're already working 24/7 building those things. Doubling production would require a lot of funding to build a new drydock, production facilities, and warehouse space needed. Not to mention all the additional trades and engineers. It could be done but will probably cost more than people are willing to pay.

t. aircraft carrier builder

The problem is to have one carrier more avaiable all the time.
You need to build three carriers.

>>32353298
I'm sure the Navy would love to have a second shipyard producing super carriers.

>>32353348
That would be a hell of an undertaking though. Only NNS has the experience and equipment for building super carriers. And a lot of the equipment is very specialized and expensive. Giving a supercarrier contract to another shipyard would take much longer to build the shipyard up for production and cost much more do due to lack of experience.

It's such a niche market I don't see another shipyard opening for production being feasible.

>>32353406
Not just the equipment but the labor. Some of those crane and shop jobs at NNS require apprentice status at a minimum.

>>32353406
They could add whatever they need to build 2-3 ships at a time at Newport News
New drydocks, expanded factories, more employees, etc

I gotta wonder how much labor or equipment are underutilized building one ship per 5 years.

I do see that they WANT to be producing carriers faster, and there is no reason why there can't be some excess ships sitting around in docks so that a reserve exists again.

>>32352572

Carrier Strike Group.

>>32353492
Yeah that's what I was trying to get at with experience, I guess it didn't come across so well. Those trades are damn good at their jobs and do things you hardly find anywhere else. Getting all new guys trained and certified adequately at a new shipyard would be enormously expensive (and there sure isn't anything NAVSEA loves more than certifications).

>>32353560
Labor is much less underutilized than equipment. If you're not working a particular piece of the new ship, then you're working refueling/overhaul or advanced planning work. Equipment would be hard to 100% utilize because a lot of it has limited range of travel. Big Blue can only cover the current carrier dry dock and the platens around it. Any new dry docks would require all new cranes.

We could build faster but that would require more labor, and we just finished recovering from the layoffs last year. Congress doesn't seem to keen on increasing the yearly contract budget, hell I think we're stuck at 2016 funding for 2017. So there goes the advanced planning and long lead work that we needed to keep on schedule for CVN 80(the foundry starts forging the parts years before the keel laying). Congress being noncommittal is probably the biggest cause of slow production and delays.

What is an Expeditionary Support Base?

>>32354019

Basically what it sounds like. A mobile floating base for supporting amphibious and offshore operations.

so, will it be easier to get into the navy than i heard it has been?

>>32354098

Probably.

>>32354019
a repurposed commercial ship that somehow costs 10 times its purchase price]

>>32354374

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.9b9623d38110

>>32346004
Because every ocean is an American lake, and it's vital for our economy and for our interests to ensure that we can fight a war in any theater without inviting war by stripping assets from other theaters.

>>32352826
We're going to blockade China for stealing that aquatic weather balloon.

>>32346004
Because America now is the equivalent of the British Empire 100 years ago. And they had the 2 navy standard- America wants to guarantee that even if the next 2 largest powers gang up agaist them, they can both win and remain the largest naval power, thus guaranteeing control of the seas and vital economic interests.

>>32353019
>How are helicopters or V-22's going to force entry against defended shores? They are fodder for any sort of air defense.
>How is light infantry being deployed by those going to defeat entrenched/mechanized forces fast, such as what is needed for amphibious operations?
>Could D-day or Inchon have been done with this strategy? No.
>>significantly larger than just the beach itself)
>You cannot do an invasion at a BEACH
>You need a harbor minimum & likely an existing port.
>These are going to be defended, and you can't just avoid them via helicopter landings, they have to be defeated rapidly before they get reinforced, so the actual invasion can happen.
D-36 hours, the Air force and Navy shatter the enemy IADS and crush the enemy air force.
D-24 hours, the Air force and Navy attack power, transport, and communications infrastructure.
D-12 hours, the Air force and Navy start suppressing every coastal defense point identified by photo-reconnaissance, thermal emission or radar return
D-30 minutes, helicopter gunships and CAS jets sweep ahead of the transport helicopters and V-22s.
D-0, helicopter transports and V-22s disgorge their soldiers and air mobile equipment at strategic points and important targets, navy engineers start deploying a floating pier and portable breakwater, heavier equipment starts to offload immediately and move forward to support the air mobile troops.

>>32354651
So what exactly will a Wasp/America class ship being doing?

>>32345446

Shame that that Small Surface Combatants number is going to be accounted for by 52 pieces of shit.

>>32352816
The oceans dick is commercial fleets. Warships are irrelevant just decoration on the wall.

>>32354651
>D-30 minutes, helicopter gunships and CAS jets sweep ahead of the transport helicopters and V-22s.
And they run into dense HMG fire/Manpads forcing them to back off because no you can't spot camoflaged enemy forces by air/satellite.

>navy engineers start deploying a floating pier and portable breakwater
And its all wiped out by a rocket barrage from a camoflaged MLRS site 100 km out.

Meanwhile the air mobile forces that were landed are being wiped out by enemy heavy units.

>>32356090
>And they run into dense HMG fire/Manpads forcing them to back off because no you can't spot camoflaged enemy forces by air/satellite.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Airplanes especially have next to nothing to fear from those. Any enemy heavy forces trying to move in force will be interdicted by fast air. This would mean that your airmobile forces only have to worry about enemy dismounts or the occasional heavily attrited remnants of heavy formations, probably arriving in piecemeal.

>And its all wiped out by a rocket barrage from a camoflaged MLRS site 100 km out.
Which was sited long ago and destroyed. Or, if he's using 100 km range missiles, intercepted by on station destroyers or cruisers.

The airmobile forces hold their ground until heavier forces make their forwards, at which point in time they take the lead.

>>32354724
Directly spearheading the invasion

This is why they carry two hover craft, and 2,000 Marines, and most importantly the F-35B

I imagine it going as follows after >>32354651 has posted

D+2Hours
Any counter attacks are obsorbed and repelled due to heavy CAS/Gunship Support
D+4Hours
LCACs begin replenishing the airborne force/landing Tanks and other AFVs
D+8 hours
Armored Units start pushing more inland, mopping up whatever resistance survived the plethora of air strikes
D+24
beach held, Army units start reinforcing Marine Battalions, gunships/fast movers start going after any logistic units or depots In preparation for the Army's push

Or something like that

>>32355999

>>32357309

Merchant fleets did more today than warships have done in the last 60 years. Deal with it.

>>32355999

Yup, and the US had 1/3 the merchant fleet of the UK, 1/4 of that of China.

The US isn't even in the top 20 of merchant tonnage. Hilarious considering they rely on sea imports.

File: buffed_hedgehog.jpg (351KB, 627x1067px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 627x1067px

>>32355999
is this a joke or something?

>>32357611
Consider what happens in a global conventional conflict. Think about how many of those "flag of convenience" merchies reregister their hulls as hostilities become inevitable.

There may not be a ton of US flagged vessels currently mostly for trade and tax dodge reasons, but trace those ownerships back to parent companies. You will find that all those Panamanian, Liberian and Marshall Island flagged vessels (the top three by both Gross Register and Deadweight Tonnage) disappear overnight. Then you start seeing a fuck ton more US, Chinese, Japanese, EU, etc. flags.

Literally the same thing happened before WWII.

>>32357625
No. The last major surface action was the Falklands which were strategically irrelevant.

Commercial shipping is how countries survive. I didn't realise people didn't understand this.

The US can have as much ABM defences as it likes, but if wallamart vanished overnight more people would die in the following weeks than would die from any NK/ chink / Russian nuke.

>>32353058
>So do you gonna do anything against it?

No. Taiwan is only of sentimental value and rightly belongs to the mainland. Large countries have the right of power to conquer their lesser neighbors.

No American can articulate any benefit to the American public from fighting over Taiwan. The sooner Beijing absorbs it the better for all concerned.

>>32357769
>the better for all concerned.
Why don't we ask Hong Kong how that worked out for them? Oh, right...

>>32357749
>Consider what happens in a global conventional conflict.

Why? we wont see another one in the foreseeable future.

>hink about how many of those "flag of convenience" merchies reregister their hulls as hostilities become inevitable

Didnt happen in WW2.

>You will find that all those Panamanian, Liberian and Marshall Island flagged vessels (the top three by both Gross Register and Deadweight Tonnage) disappear overnight.

Didn't happen in WW2

>Literally the same thing happened before WWII.

But it didn't. If you had any idea about the subject then you would already know there were vast amounts of commercial shipping that flocked to neutral countries to continue doing business.

>>32357611
>doesn't even know what flag of convenience or open registry are
>commenting on merchant naval matters at any level

Fuck, but you are one lazy son of a bitch

>>32357762
>but if wallamart vanished overnight more people would die in the following weeks than would die from any NK/ chink / Russian nuke.

Citation needed. The US imports toys, not survival needs. We export enormous quantities of food. The world needs our food, we don't require any imports for actual survival.

We used to depend on oil imports. They are now only a logistics convenience for oil refiners. We have ample oil and natural gas, and in an emergency could begin a crash program to use more coal of which we have more than a hundred years worth. We can also import more oil from Canada.

I defy you to find one import the US population cannot survive without. Do it now or fuck off. Consumer electronics are not necessities, and the US has chip fabs. Foreign automobiles or other manufactured products are not necessities.

>>32357819
>thinks companies would change their flag of convenience in wartime when it is most convenient to remain neutral

I'm in the Merchant Navy, i know how it works. feel free to type your opinions from the sidelines.

>>32357769
t. Lee Ping Zheng

>>32357786
>Why don't we ask Hong Kong how that worked out for them? Oh, right...

HK is too small to matter. America matters. China matters. The rest are chaff who can adapt and profit if they are wise.

>>32357801
>Didnt happen in WW2.
Are you retarded or just historically illiterate?

>But it didn't. If you had any idea about the subject then you would already know there were vast amounts of commercial shipping that flocked to neutral countries to continue doing business.
17 US owned ships only did this to continue trading military hardware across the Atlantic and avoid violating the US Neutrality Act before they joined the war, after which they were reflagged US to enable them to participate in USN/RN protection and eventually convoys.

The only US "owned" ships registered in Panama during the war were captures and prizes which were flagged down there to better facilitate resale to help keep the DoD funding rolling in.

>>32357835
production means nothing if you can't distribute, commercial shipping isnt solely for international trade dumbass.

Also being an exporter of specific crops doesn't mean you don't import major foodstuffs en masse.

>>32357839
>I'm in the Merchant Navy
But you've clearly failed to read even basic naval history. Congrats. You're an expert on exactly nothing.

>>32357869
>17 US owned ships

>The only US "owned" ships registered in Panama

I can't believe i'm witnessing this stupidity. You literally have no idea how this industry works do you?

>>32357869
And let's not forget that the shine was off Panama as a FoC even in the 30's due to unrest over US bases and Canal ownership/control issues. That's why Liberian registry was opened up, but not until AFTER WWII.

>>32357879
The US doesn't need to distribute to SURVIVE on a wartime footing.

Importation of foodstuffs does not make those foodstuffs SURVIVAL NECESSITIES. I defy you to find even one imported food item the US cannot survive without.

>>32357900
>I can't believe i'm witnessing this stupidity. You literally have no idea how this industry works do you?
You made a claim that an easily confirm-able historical phenomenon did not exist. I corrected you. Now you're trying to strawman this truth by making it seem as if I was referring to current trends.

Go fuck yourself.

Furthermore, if you had any clue what happened with commercial shipping during WWII, which is the closest analogue we have to how the US government might respond RE: economic/trade policy during an existential threat, you might not be so eager to make yourself a complete moron online.

>>32357908
>The US doesn't need to distribute to SURVIVE on a wartime footing

So the food magically moves to where it needs to be without any commercial involvement just because there is a "war footing" ? Don't be a retard, compare the number of trucks wallamrt has compared to the US army.

>Importation of foodstuffs does not make those foodstuffs SURVIVAL NECESSITIES

yes it does, overproducing a specific crop doesnt mean the entire food chain is secure.

>I defy you to find even one imported food item the US cannot survive without

Salt.

kill yourself.

>merchie shows up, dickwaves about muh merchie marine
>gets everything wrong
>gets corrected
>gets assmad
>gets corrected more
>tries to claim expertise because he maintains diesel engines which happen to be on floaty things
>gets buried
>now in full damage control

Doing God's work, /k/.

>>32357933
No. You clearly have no concept of how shipping works. The ships are not "US owned" and pretending to be part of another country, they BELONG in the specific country. regardless of who owns the company, the ships belong to, and pay taxes in the country they are registered in. There's no switching whenever it's convenient.

Do you even know why so many ships are registered in neutral countries? WW2 and tax.

The us has a pathetic number of merchant ships. accept it or fuck off.

File: tumblr_static_tumblr_static_filename_640.jpg (20KB, 400x222px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x222px

>>32345572
>>32345599
>>32345930
>>32350538
Why does the USN still call them SSNs when they are obviously SSGNs? Hell, they deliver TLAMs all the time but there hasn't been a torpedo shot in anger in decades.

Have a 688i - itself an SSGN labeled as an SSN

>>32357960
>samefagging your own incorrect argument

>>32357945
>Salt.
While the US imported 21.2% of the world's export salt in 2012, the US also produced 37,200,000 tonnes of salt, 14.4% of total World production in 2012. These numbers have since gotten closer, with the US opening more domestic production as export salt becomes more expensive.

The US is only a net importer of salt because it is produced so much more cheaply in foreign markets. Not because the US lacks salt production or resources. It's the same exact story with rare earth production. Why would the US want to eat into strategic rare earth resources AND completely fuck up the environment in our own country when China is willing to do it for half the price and none of the environmental impact?

Spend more time reading and learning, junior.

>>32358011
>theoretical production is the same as production
>i'll call him junior to pretend that i'm not BTFO on every post

>>32358011
>The US is only a net importer of salt because it is produced so much more cheaply in foreign markets. Not because the US lacks salt production or resources.

Prove it. because seeing as i sail the ships bringing salt to your obese shores, i know you're talking shit.

The world survives on commercial shipping, warships do nothing but waste money and feed egos.

>>32357967
>The ships are not "US owned" and pretending to be part of another country, they BELONG in the specific country. regardless of who owns the company, the ships belong to, and pay taxes in the country they are registered in.
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
This is about the biggest load of bullshit I've read on /k/ in a long, long time.

>There's no switching whenever it's convenient.
Jesus. 5 seconds looking around, and what do you know?
First one that caught my eye:
Planet Ace, built 1992, been flagged Panamanian, Mashall Islands and now back to Panamanian, changed hands through 8 different companies, only two of which were actually separate corporate entities.

Do you have any fucking clue how hard it is to reflag a vessel?
>Start shell company LLC, C-corp, whatever in desired state
>"sell" ship from one corporate entity in former flag country to one in new flag country (though the vessel never leaves YOUR ownership, it disappears from one set of books and reappears in another)
>register vessel with new flag

This process literally takes less than three weeks on average.

File: salt production US by year.png (84KB, 1000x995px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1000x995px

>>32358027
>>32358060
>Prove it.
Ok. Pic related, and next...

File: production price index rock salt.png (33KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x400px

>>32358027
>>32358060
>>32358121
There. Now go forth and finish your research on a financial index site.

>>32358060
We import salt because the butthurt surplus you provide is cheaper.

>>32357972
Because the SSGN is a specific type of ship which those SSNs are not. Sure, they have Tomahawks, but they are still optimized as attack submarines. SSGNs are missile submarines. They used to carry nukes, now they carry conventional weapons.

>>32358060
Have some salty and other proof. IDGAF how impressed you are with your cargo. Check da stats straight from usgs below.
>>32357945
>yes it does, overproducing a specific crop doesnt mean the entire food chain is secure.

For survival the US doesn't need to import "the entire food chain" or to export. We could retarget cropland used for cornohol production to foodstuffs easily. We produce more than enough grains alone to feed our population in a war situation. We can feed ourselves and any neighbors who bring money.

Salt being imported doesn't necessarily imply that the imported percentage of our salt consumption is necessary for survival. We produce far more salt domestically than we import, so a "salt embargo" would be a mere inconvenience and increased prices would incentivize more domestic production.

https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/salt/mcs-2013-salt.pdf

Salt for highway deicing consumed about 41% of total salt sales. The chemical industry accounted for about 39% with salt in brine representing about 94% of the type of salt used for feedstock. The chlorine and caustic soda manufacturing sector was the main consumer within the chemical industry. The remaining markets for salt, in declining order, were distributors, 8%; food processing, 4%, agricultural, 3%; general industrial and other uses combined with exports, 2% each; and primary water treatment, 1%.

Import Sources (2008–11): Canada, 37%; Chile, 36%; Mexico, 9%; The Bahamas, 5%; and other, 13%.

Note Canadian and Mexican salt production. If every merchant ship in the world sank tomorrow the US would still have more than enough salt for survival and food use. There'd be a bit less to dump on winter roads, but urea is a thing. Try again. What imports, especially seaborne, can't the US do without in a wartime scenario?

>>32358152
>Canada, 37%
and...
>>32358060
>ecause seeing as i sail the ships bringing salt to your obese shores
We're arguing with a fucking Leaf.

Abandon ship, pun intended.

>>32357967
>didn't know about flags of convenience
>didn't know about open registry
>doesn't know how companies shell game ships around to reflag them
>"knows" about the industry

Comedy gold. Keep him going, lads.

>>32358140
>but they are still optimized as attack submarines
What does this mean, when every type of target except other subs and merchant shipping, would be engaged with TASM instead of a torpedo?

And yes I know TASM is gone, just talking about it because it, not Mk.48, was the primary anti-surface weapon system on the 688i.

>>32357967
>The ships are not "US owned" and pretending to be part of another country, they BELONG in the specific country.
>The us has a pathetic number of merchant ships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flags_of_convenience
>591 US-owned ships flagged in other countries, and that doesn't even count the US-corporate owned subsidiaries in the EU, Japan and elsewhere which own ships flagged in open registries

I don't know shit about this subject, but 15 minutes with google rapidly showed you're a fucking idiot.

>>32358181
Flags are fun but national security matters more than foreign ships selling non-essential foreign toys.

Assuming Sum Yung Gook flags his junk with the Stars and Stripes, what strategic or tactical justification merits his personal escort and protection by the US Navy?

Any ship not crewed by Americans is a ship the US should not miss. There are vanishingly few of those. Lloyd's of London can take care of the rest. Americans don't seem aware that we provide protection for our economic enemies who don't have to defend their own sea lanes. As an American I don't benefit.

The US would be better off building dedicated Naval military sealift and shitcanning the Merchant Marine as currently organized.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbowman/2013/12/03/is-the-american-merchant-marine-a-zombie/#b1b571a60c14

International maritime trade is almost purely a foreign affair. The US has no survival necessity behind protecting it. All we do is provide "naval welfare" to our economic enemies. Everyone we trade with is wealthy enough to field some sort of navy, but we do it for them instead.

>>32358221
>>591 US-owned ships flagged in other countries, and that doesn't even count the US-corporate owned subsidiaries in the EU, Japan and elsewhere which own ships flagged in open registries

If they aren't US flagged they merit no US protection because their owners are parasites. Let the EU and the Japs protect them.

>>32358219
Attack boats are meant to be stalking everything silently before moving in for the kill. They are relatively agile, all things considered, and need to be high speed. They tend to be slim and sleek. Contrast this with SSBNs, who are supposed to just skulk around until they fire their missiles. Those missiles require a lot of space, and compromise the stealthiness (especially at "speed" rather than practically drifting) and agility of attack boats

I'm going to disagree with that notion. To be certain, it was an extremely effective tool, but the torpedo was still the primary means of attacking targets. Using AShMs against old Soviet equipment might work, but against a foe who has proper defensive tools, one needs to generate enough mass in one place to break through. That isn't going to happen in modern times.

I'd also raise the opinion that US SSNs were optimized more for fighting other submarines than stalking Russian surface vessels, but that's neither here nor there. I'd also mention that TASS did not make use of the vertical launch tubes, but rather shot out like a torpedo, hence the name.

>>32358279
>The US would be better off building dedicated Naval military sealift and shitcanning the Merchant Marine as currently organized.
But they do have one in addition to the Merchant Marine. The Merchant Marine picks up the slack and provides bulk when required.

>>32358279
>As an American I don't benefit.
Don't be a fool. Trade goods headed for or from the US pass through every major sea artery in the world, and every single minor one in the world at two production set removes. Unrestricted sea trade is an enormous part of what keeps the US economy and US companies at the head of the pack collectively, and thus in the driver's seat of the world economy (which then drives military and security decisions the world over).

Spend less time reading Alex Jones tier tin foil asshattery and more time paying attention to your macroecon classes.

>>32358279
>The US would be better off building dedicated Naval military sealift and shitcanning the Merchant Marine as currently organized.
The US Marine Sealift Command is:
>the largest DoD-owned/operated sealift organization in the world
>encompasses a second class of long term contracted merchant vessels
>is designed to expand enormously almost instantly in case of war with long-standing contractual clauses with several massive US corporations operating shipping

The US not only already has that, but is practically the only ones in the world to have it that big unless you count China's dubious claims of pressing commercial-standard vessels into fleet UNREP roles in case of war.

>>32358353
>I'd also mention that TASS did not make use of the vertical launch tubes, but rather shot out like a torpedo, hence the name.
Every USN sub since the Providence, commissioned 1985 as the first of the VLS-equipped Flight II 688s (and one of the oldest USN SSNs currently in service), was equipped with 12 Mk41 strike length VERTICAL LAUNCH tubes loaded with Tomahawks, possibly ASROCs, and other goodies. The only exceptions were the three Seawolf class boats, which had larger torp tubes, two more of them and much larger magazines for launching everything from their torp tubes.

>>32358672
You are aware that the Tomahawks were not the primary antiship weapon, right? Tomahawks aren't very good at the job, anyways. Instead, they shot Harpoons out the torpedo tubes.

>>32358881
>You are aware that the Tomahawks were not the primary antiship weapon, right? Tomahawks aren't very good at the job, anyways
Tomahawks haven't been anti-ship since '97 when the UGM-109B was withdrawn from service. Finally, in 2014, the -109E Block IV 'hawks were upgraded for AShM duties again, and look to be pretty damn good. Even better for the fact that they're all-purpose, so you don't need a different dildo to plug a different target class.

Since the 80's, USN SSNs have always used their VLS cells primarily for land attack. That's no secret, and it includes the Ohio-class SSGN conversions. Perhaps that will change with the -109E and LRASM procurements. Probably not, though.

As for tube-launched 'poons, those were always meant for emergency OH FUCK events against incoming ASW escorts, one-in-a-million opportunity against vulnerably enemy capital assets and commerce raiding. They were never part of a considered SAG-hunting strategy. Generally, enemy SAG/escort assets were always supposed to be carrier air wing bait, with SSNs picking off targets of opportunity, providing intel and recon when they weren't facefucking enemy boomers, attack boats and missile boats.

>>32359083
I'm well aware, anon. I'm responding to someone who believes that they were the submarine's primary anti-ship weapon.

And yes, the torpedo tube launched Harpoons were very valuable assets which allowed a submarine to strike at a target before getting much too close for comfort. As you said, this is especially useful for hitting enemy escorts.