# When was the U.S. Navy at its most powerful? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 27, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164 "2012-02-27T17:38:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/141 "2015-09-09T16:11:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To further illustrate the point, there’s a [Great Debates thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=670771&highlight=halsey) about the Battle of Leyte Gulf in which the U.S. Navy plain couldn’t find a whole damn Japanese battle group, and was sent on a wild goose chase that very nearly had significant consequences for the battle. If that happened 70 years ago, what assurance does the legacy navy have of ever seeing its modern opponent today? **Especially considering that the old navy’s radar would be useless**. Bolding mine. Although I agree with your overall point I question the bolded part. Modern naval vessels are mostly non-stealthy. Some are a bit that way; most are not at all. Compared to the signature reduction done in current combat aircraft, naval stealth is in its primitive infancy. Which leaves jamming and other EW techniques. Without knowing a bunch of specifics, we can’t say for sure that modern EW equipment covers the frequency ranges used by WWII radar. It might, but without certain knowledge I’d be reluctant to make a categorical statement like that. In general over the years radar tech has moved upwards a lot in frequency = downwards in wavelength. There is now some movement in the opposite direction as a counter-stealth measure, but that’s real minority specialized stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/142 "2015-09-09T16:19:31Z")
Calling for an expansion of our navy is a textbook example of a stupid political issue. There is no need for a larger navy; we have complete global naval dominance. Our navy is far more powerful than any possible combination of opposing navies we might ever have to fight. But if some candidates are able to sell the argument that our navy is “weak” we’ll end up spending literally billions of dollars to build unneeded ships. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/143 "2015-09-09T17:13:08Z")
I’d you look at the article from \*\* Elendil’s Heir\*\*, you will see some effort to justify it in terms of our ability to protect force around the globe, to serve as support for staging of other assets, and to accomplish our mission goals. They state in those terms there is a need for more hulls, and more importantly, what it means if we don’t, since budget is a real issue. Basically, we will have to do more with less, as the platitude says. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/144 "2015-09-09T17:25:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Calling for an expansion of our navy is a textbook example of a stupid political issue. I’ll stay away from the debate/opinion part of the comment, but it deserves to be recognized that some of the calls for increasing the size of the fleet are very, very expensive propositions. For example, John Kaisch has called for increasing the carrier fleet to 15 from the current 11. The new Ford-class carriers cost about $11 billion each, and take more than five years to build. It would simply take a long time to build five additional carriers alongside those currently planned. Construction simply can’t be sped up as though you’re building a five new buildings instead of one new one, for the main reason that one can’t simply go down to the Navy Exchange and buy a nuclear reactor. But in addition to that, we would have to add carrier air wings, which would cost in the general neighborhood of $5 billion to build the additional airplanes. Then the Navy needs to get larger, because tens of thousands of sailors aren’t exactly sitting around waiting to find something to do. Then there’s all the associated ships that go along with the battle group – about $1.5 billion per destroyer, and there’s a few of those, another $2.4 billion each or so for more subs, and shoot, we don’t even build cruisers anymore. Gov. Kaisch’s plan is a really, really expensive proposal. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/145 "2015-09-09T18:22:31Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Little known factoid – the US submarine force constituted about 2% of the Navy, but sank more than half of the Japanese ships sunk during the war. And that was with shitty defective torpedoes for the first 3 years. And a [train](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Barb_%28SS-220%29), and a [bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tang_%28SS-306%29) and some trucks as memory seems to prompt… ---
**Author:** ![Emphant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Emphant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emphant)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/146 "2015-09-10T01:43:47Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You should also consider that any modern surface combatant will have helicopters that can drop the same lightweight torpedoes that you mention, so the range of the weapons is greatly more than where the ship happens to be You would never try to sink another ship with helicopter torpedoes. Also, a good number of surface ships can’t carry a heliccopter detachment, more specifically flight 1 DDGs. Ships do carry torpedoes these days for anti sub warfare but if you ever found out a sub was close enough to shoot it, it would have already shot you first and it would be too late. There is a lot of other misinfomation in this thread. Modern surface ships don’t carry anywhere near 120 tomahawks. Also, the anti ship variant has been discontinued for over 10 years. If it ever somehow came to an actual fight between today’s Navy and the WW2 Navy, it would be all planes and subs. It’s unlikely the cruisers and destroyers would shoot any missiles and they would never even think of coming into gun range. Destroyers and cruisers don’t carry a lot of harpoons, no more than 8 and usually 4, so if anything they’d fire sm2 missiles but that seems like a waste when you have planes and subs. Radar signature and all that is largely irrelavent. The ships would never get close enough. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/147 "2015-09-10T14:09:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I know it’s a three year old post, but I think you misremembered the story. There have never been F-14s in the Air Force and certainly not in North Dakota. Also, their role was to intercept threats to US fleets, not to the US mainland. He was probably an F-15 pilot. Good catch. It was likely a F-15. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Little known factoid – the US submarine force constituted about 2% of the Navy, but sank more than half of the Japanese ships sunk during the war. And that was with shitty defective torpedoes for the first 3 years. It should be noted that while this is true for their total ships, the percent loss of IJN ships due to subs was considerably smaller, with still an impressive 30%. It should also be noted that the problems with the Mark 14 were isolated by Sept. '43, 21 months after the beginning of the war. > [@Ravenman](#): > > To further illustrate the point, there’s a [Great Debates thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=670771&highlight=halsey) about the Battle of Leyte Gulf in which the **U.S. Navy plain couldn’t find a whole damn Japanese battle group** , and was sent on a wild goose chase that very nearly **had significant consequences for the battle.** If that happened 70 years ago, what assurance does the legacy navy have of ever seeing its modern opponent today? Especially considering that the old navy’s radar would be useless. My bolding. A more careful reading of that thread will show that it would not have had a significant difference and that this summary does not describe the premise of the OP. The modern navy would have to be completely drunk to allow the WWII version to close within range of its planes, let alone the battleships. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/148 "2015-09-10T15:09:01Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > A more careful reading of that thread will show that it would not have had a significant difference and that this summary does not describe the premise of the OP. Okay, you got me. I was being a little too dramatic about the possible consequences. I attempted to illustrate that a modern navy has so much better situational awareness than in years past, and I guess I used a poor example. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/149 "2015-09-10T15:34:24Z")
Since helicopters are a major difference between today’s Navy and the Navy of the past, I’m wondering about the following which is pertinent to possible military capability gaps: Can helicopters carry and launch anti-ship missiles with warheads in the 100-300kg range? What’s the highest out-of-ground-effect altitude ceiling on the common types of helicopters? I’m seeing some helicopters come in at 40M$+ per unit. They must have some fancy electronics. Do some of them have AESA radar and DRFM jamming? ---
**Author:** ![Emphant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Emphant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emphant)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/150 "2015-09-10T17:14:36Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Since helicopters are a major difference between today’s Navy and the Navy of the past, I’m wondering about the following which is pertinent to possible military capability gaps: > > Can helicopters carry and launch anti-ship missiles with warheads in the 100-300kg range? > What’s the highest out-of-ground-effect altitude ceiling on the common types of helicopters? > > I’m seeing some helicopters come in at 40M$+ per unit. They must have some fancy electronics. Do some of them have AESA radar and DRFM jamming? Helicopters can carry anti ship missiles but it’s unlikely you’d ever use them like that…anything a helo could shoot at would likely be able to shoot back. Ew capabilities are classified and anyone who knows the answer isn’t going to tell you. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/151 "2015-09-10T19:14:13Z")
> [@Emphant](#): > > Helicopters can carry anti ship missiles but it’s unlikely you’d ever use them like that…anything a helo could shoot at would likely be able to shoot back. 1. Not if there’s a spotter helo far away and a shooter helo closer & below the horizon. 2. If the possibility of being shot back at made it unlikely that a platform would be used, hardly any platform would be used. It just doesn’t follow that because the target could shoot back, a helo would be unlikely to be used against it. > [@Emphant](#): > > Ew capabilities are classified and anyone who knows the answer isn’t going to tell you. You’ve got to be taking the piss. Some aspects of EW are like you describe but whether or not a platform has AESA or DRFM is quite often\* openly available information. I could have just as well asked whether or not the F-35 has AESA or DRFM. Do you think it would still follow that “anyone who knows the answer isn’t going to tell you”? - I said “often”. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/152 "2015-09-10T20:01:53Z")
Michael, The USN has used the Penguin ASM in the past on both SH-2s and -60s. AIUI, they’re transitioning to the Longbow Hellfire for use on the Littoral Combat Ship and the MH-60R helicopters it carries. Standoff range for either missile is sufficient to stay out of most AAA and small naval SAM systems that’ll be on the sorts of targets the LCS is likely to run into, like small patrol craft/militarized speedboats. MH-60R and S have a pretty sophisticated surface search radar suite. (AN-APS 147 or 153) They were intended to find SSK masts and snorkels, so small craft should be fairly easy to find. I’d link, but this phones a pain and Google should give you the answers you seek. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/153 "2015-09-10T20:39:38Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Michael, > > The USN has used the Penguin ASM in the past on both SH-2s and -60s. AIUI, they’re transitioning to the Longbow Hellfire for use on the Littoral Combat Ship and the MH-60R helicopters it carries. Standoff range for either missile is sufficient to stay out of most AAA and small naval SAM systems that’ll be on the sorts of targets the LCS is likely to run into, like small patrol craft/militarized speedboats. > > MH-60R and S have a pretty sophisticated surface search radar suite. (AN-APS 147 or 153) They were intended to find SSK masts and snorkels, so small craft should be fairly easy to find. > > I’d link, but this phones a pain and Google should give you the answers you seek. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Emphant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Emphant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emphant)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/154 "2015-09-10T22:13:05Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > 1. Not if there’s a spotter helo far away and a shooter helo closer & below the horizon. > > 2. If the possibility of being shot back at made it unlikely that a platform would be used, hardly any platform would be used. It just doesn’t follow that because the target could shoot back, a helo would be unlikely to be used against it. > You’ve got to be taking the piss. Some aspects of EW are like you describe but whether or not a platform has AESA or DRFM is quite often\* openly available information. > I could have just as well asked whether or not the F-35 has AESA or DRFM. Do you think it would still follow that “anyone who knows the answer isn’t going to tell you”? > > - I said “often”. Well why would you use a helo to shoot anti ship missiles? Why wouldn’t you use harpoons or sm2s from a ship or asuw missiles from a plane? Now you are asking the targeting helo to be a target itself. Either helo can only be so far away, otherwise hitting the wrong target becomes a risk. Also, where are all these helos coming from? You want a ship to risk both its helos? I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that your scenario isnt how things are done. You are correct, the radars on a helo probably are open source. Im not sure what they carry these days. I was referring specifically to the jamming question. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/155 "2015-09-11T12:48:20Z")
> [@Emphant](#): > > Well why would you use a helo to shoot anti ship missiles? Why wouldn’t you use harpoons or sm2s from a ship or asuw missiles from a plane? Now you are asking the targeting helo to be a target itself. Either helo can only be so far away, otherwise hitting the wrong target becomes a risk. Also, where are all these helos coming from? You want a ship to risk both its helos? It would be ridiculous of me to say that using two helos would be more effective than a modern destroyer or a planes from a carrier battlegroup. However, in some situations they may be more efficient such as when 1) dearer assets are allocated to other tasks or 2) the commander prefers to directly expose two helos rather than a destroyer and he doesn’t want to get a carrier within plane range of the target. I was also thinking of the possibilities for other navies for which the cheaper way may be the only way. > [@Emphant](#): > > You are correct, the radars on a helo probably are open source. Im not sure what they carry these days. I was referring specifically to the jamming question. I think one can deduce from your response whether or not 40M$ helicopters have DRFM or not : ) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/156 "2015-09-11T13:20:01Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > I think one can deduce from your response whether or not 40M$ helicopters have DRFM or not : ) What $40 million helicopters are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/157 "2015-09-11T13:32:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What $40 million helicopters are you talking about? The Seahawk MH-60R is supposed to be about 40M USD according to Wiki, which, as an anti-sub helo, may well not have DRFM, I will admit. Others in the same price range may well, however. I’ve been unable to find the unit cost of the HH-60H. The only hint as to its cost is that: “the HH-60H is the primary combat search and rescue (CSAR), naval special warfare (NSW) and anti-surface warfare (ASUW) helicopter.” and " It carries various defensive and offensive sensors, it is one of the most survivable helicopters in the world.[citation needed] Sensors include a FLIR turret with laser designator and the Aircraft Survival Equipment (ASE) package including the ALQ-144 Infrared Jammer, AVR-2 Laser Detectors, APR-39(V)2 Radar Detectors, AAR-47 Missile Launch Detectors" Its EW must be nifty. If the statement about it being one of the most survivable helicopters in the world is true, the main way that a navy helo could achieve that is obvious enough. > **[Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_SH-60_Seahawk)** > > The Sikorsky SH-60/MH-60 Seahawk (or Sea Hawk) is a twin turboshaft engine, multi-mission United States Navy helicopter based on the United States Army UH-60 Black Hawk and a member of the Sikorsky S-70 family. The most significant modifications are the folding main rotor blades and a hinged tail to reduce its footprint aboard ships. > The U.S. Navy acquired H-60 helicopters under the model designations SH-60B, SH-60F, HH-60H, MH-60R, and MH-60S. Able to deploy aboard any air-capable frigate, de... ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/158 "2015-09-11T13:45:10Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > The Seahawk MH-60R is supposed to be about 40M USD according to Wiki, which, as an anti-sub helo, may well not have DRFM, I will admit. Yeah, with the associated ground equipment, trainers, etc, that looks about right. But for apples-to-apples, I’d say that $30 million is probably a better answer to “how much to buy one Romeo?” > [@](#): > > I’ve been unable to find the unit cost of the HH-60H. I’m pretty sure it has been many years since one of those were purchased. The Navy has been buying Romeos and Sierras for quite some time. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/159 "2015-09-11T14:02:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yeah, with the associated ground equipment, trainers, etc, that looks about right. But for apples-to-apples, I’d say that $30 million is probably a better answer to “how much to buy one Romeo?” > > I’m pretty sure it has been many years since one of those were purchased. The Navy has been buying Romeos and Sierras for quite some time. True. However, it is rather unlikely that the Sierra has less fancy electronics than its direct predecessor. That is not the US way, is it? Since you’re a man who’s a fan of black birds and you reside in/near DC, perhaps you can offer an educated guess as to why a helo could end up costing that much and whether or not the people who have clout over procurement would wish to have DRFM onboard. Also, any idea as to what kind of altitude a helo optimized for spotting from high altitude could reach? One of the nice things about helos in naval warfare is that they can get close enough to get a good radar signal and play peekaboo over the radar horizon. ---
**Author:** ![Emphant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Emphant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emphant)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2015, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164/160 "2015-09-13T02:48:40Z")
In actual combat, that’s a great way to get your helo shot. As soon as it turns its radar on any warship will immediately know its there. Don’t get me wrong, helos are the single most useful and practical weapon system on a warship…jusst not for the stuff you think they should be used for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-u-s-navy-at-its-most-powerful/614164.md?page=9)