tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3745266024884621613..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: War and IsolationComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34747848420087790332015-01-20T17:59:54.145-08:002015-01-20T17:59:54.145-08:00A more forgotten aspect of combined arms is the fo...A more forgotten aspect of combined arms is the forgotten unmanned weapon: not drones, mines. Mines can be laid to deny or slow down supplies or reinforcement to islands, block enemy ports, create chokepoints, or even for barriers to protect friendly territory from invasion. And they can be used in any theater: Block Soviet...uh, I mean Russian port Crimea, placed as a barrier against Chinese invasion of the Spratleys, etc. If we felt the need to punish Iran for it's nukes, rather than a ground war, air force assets could hit pipelines and naval assets mine their harbors denying them the ability to sell their oil.<br />And as mentioned more then once above there are the two-legged mines call Navy Seals who could put charges on an enemy ship's hull, sinking it as it leaves port...but most would assume it was a mine and wait to check. <br />Indeed, just placing a handful of mines, with one going off, and the enemy will have to carefully sweep just in case which keeps enemy assets out of the conflict for a while....and sometimes the lack of just a few ships can lead to situational dominance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52047431704351202292015-01-20T14:08:57.237-08:002015-01-20T14:08:57.237-08:00I'm not looking for a court-martial. ;)
His i...I'm not looking for a court-martial. ;)<br /><br />His ideas were generated during the formative years of airpower. A such, they were simple in their zealotry. We've learned a lot since then.<br /><br />I don't think 80-100 new bombers are sufficient. If we are even a bit off in our attrition modeling, we could lose that entire force before we know it. <br /><br />If that 100-120 is backed by a large number of long-range UCAVs and long-ranged FB-22-class fighter bombers, I might feel better. <br /><br />A large number of F-35As doesn't fill me with confidence, but it's better than nothing.<br /><br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77300105497432903072015-01-20T12:33:44.118-08:002015-01-20T12:33:44.118-08:00Smitty, for sake of discussion, let's say we a...Smitty, for sake of discussion, let's say we accept your views on air power. Do you see the 80-100 new bombers that the AF wants to build as replacements for the B-52 and B-1 as being a sufficient quantity along with the 19 B-2s we have, to wage a major war? A total bomber force of 100-120 seems a bit thin to me.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37377491848148386902015-01-20T12:29:58.271-08:002015-01-20T12:29:58.271-08:00History did! - to an extent. He preached air powe...History did! - to an extent. He preached air power over land and sea, believing that air power was the only determining factor. He utterly dismissed aircraft carriers in favor of purely land based air. An interesting man, for sure, and accorded quite a bit of recognition!<br /><br />Perhaps history will judge you as kindly! ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46638196293415941942015-01-20T12:10:14.713-08:002015-01-20T12:10:14.713-08:00History vindicated Billy Mitchell's ideas. ;)History vindicated Billy Mitchell's ideas. ;)B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25397850106927642452015-01-20T12:02:44.863-08:002015-01-20T12:02:44.863-08:00The A10
Yes, it shouldnt be looked at in isolation...The A10<br />Yes, it shouldnt be looked at in isolation, but, if it needs a dedicated Jammer, AWACS, S/DEAD and WVR/BVR fighter pair to escort it on target, its sucking up a lot of resources for 6 anti tank missiles and a pop gun.<br /><br />Real Gun<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777_howitzer<br />Toy Gun<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger<br /><br />I find it really difficult to reconcile the viewpoint that the F35 cant survive in the face of a modern IADS, but somehow the A10 can.<br />Yeah, its got a Titanium Bathtub, but I can show you pictures of Burlington Bathtubs that have been mangled.<br /><br />"The A-10 also doesn’t operate in a clearly unfavorable situation. The A-10 is not tasked with penetrating the heart of an enemy’s capital city. That’s someone else’s job."<br />The problem is, where the ground forces most need CAS, is likely to be where the enemy has the most massed air defences. If Russia decided to swarm the Baltics, it would be the three spear tips charging the three capitals that would have the most and the newest air defence gear.<br />The A10 might be able to punish the feints, diversions and just plain old sacrifical strikes, that have limited air defence, but the three vital armoured thrusts that actually matter, nope, couldnt touch them, and the NATO forces arrayed on D1, 2 and 3 cant hold without massed air support.7TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88353027620014458112015-01-20T11:03:07.844-08:002015-01-20T11:03:07.844-08:00Well, Billy Mitchell, you're welcome to your o...Well, Billy Mitchell, you're welcome to your opinion! :)ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86580099445906438032015-01-20T10:58:34.706-08:002015-01-20T10:58:34.706-08:00Super Hornets carry SLAM-ER today. JASSM/LRASM po...Super Hornets carry SLAM-ER today. JASSM/LRASM possibly tomorrow.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24325323288365503412015-01-20T10:55:06.161-08:002015-01-20T10:55:06.161-08:00The only useful roles I see for an SSGN(X) are con...The only useful roles I see for an SSGN(X) are conventional deterrence (marginal value owing to their limited capacity) and hitting a handful of early-conflict, pre-planned targets. <br /><br />Yes, they have SPECOPS capabilities, but do we really need to spend $7 billion per SSGN(X) for a SPECOPS boat? Just put SPECOPS on Virginias.<br /><br />Hitting 154 aimpoints just isn't worth $7 billion either. <br /><br />We can hit those missile-worthy, assault targets with SLAM-ER, JSOW, SDB, JASSM, HARM or JDAM. No need to tie up $21-28 billion worth of subs to hit a max of 450-600ish targets. <br /><br />All land bases are vulnerable, but we can and have flown bombers from CONUS. <br /><br />We need to SEAD/DEAD the enemy to the point where we can use JDAMs.<br /><br />We capped production of Tomahawk missiles at 4000.<br /><br />OTOH, Boeing has delivered over 250,000 JDAM kits. <br /><br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65058380871998026012015-01-20T08:35:29.866-08:002015-01-20T08:35:29.866-08:00"I don't agree that Tomahawk shooters are..."I don't agree that Tomahawk shooters are now the primary long ranged weapons of the fleet."<br /><br />If not, what is? Maybe you're suggesting that Hornets with cruise missiles (are Hornets certified for a cruise missile?) are the long range weapon? ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83889352660093252152015-01-20T08:07:49.591-08:002015-01-20T08:07:49.591-08:00Smitty, no problem. You've always been a reas...Smitty, no problem. You've always been a reasonable and respectful commenter and I appreciate that. Continue firing away!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44184404508080652452015-01-20T08:05:51.284-08:002015-01-20T08:05:51.284-08:00Smitty, we're specifially addressing a given a...Smitty, we're specifially addressing a given assault in this bit of comment. For a single, major assault I assume we'd make every effort to have three or four of the SSGNs available and their total missile inventory would certainly qualify as a large pulse.<br /><br />For a given assault, the number of missile-worthy targets will certainly be finite and limited. Three or four SSGNs would cover any foreseeable assault requirement.<br /><br />For a sustained (months and years) bombardment of mainland China we'd certainly need bombers that can reload and reattack on a short cycle. On the other hand, we have nowhere near the missile inventory to sustain such an effort for very long.<br /><br />An SSGN is the ultimate in survivable. Assuming they launch in the middle of an enemy ASW force, they will be long gone and undetectable by the time any ASW forces can reach their launch position. Even worst case, if a nearby ASW asset happened to be on the spot and pounced, an SSGN is still a very, very difficult target to find.<br /><br />Have you considered the vulnerability of bomber bases? China may not possess the ability to hit all of them today but in the relatively near future they will have their own fully functional SSGNs. I would think China would devote considerable effort to hitting known bomber bases in some manner. To be fair, sub bases would be vulnerable, also but the subs are only sporadically present. We've grown used to fighting "away" and have given little thought, I suspect, to what happens if an enemy decides (correctly and wisely!) to bring the fight to us and attack our home bases.<br /><br />You seem intent on making the SSGN/Bomber discussion a one-or-the-other proposition. Both will have roles to play. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16826965827815919612015-01-20T06:38:24.073-08:002015-01-20T06:38:24.073-08:00;) Sorry CNO. I woke up on the wrong side of the...;) Sorry CNO. I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I will try to temper my sarcasm. I enjoy your site and the discussions we have here.<br /><br />I completely disagree with the assertion that carriers exist to escort Tomahawk shooters. If this is truly the case (and i don't believe it is), then we need neither.<br /><br />Long-ranged aircraft are far better cruise missile shooters. <br /><br />I, of course, have read the post you linked. I agree with your assertion that the carrier air wing has to improve. I don't agree that Tomahawk shooters are now the primary long ranged weapons of the fleet. They are still, and always will be, bit players. They just can't generate the volume of DMPIs, the necessary range, or the variety of effects. And they can't find their own targets.<br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76783403736780035832015-01-20T06:25:41.446-08:002015-01-20T06:25:41.446-08:00"large pulse" is debatable.
Six B-1s ..."large pulse" is debatable. <br /><br />Six B-1s can launch a similar-sized pulse in one sortie using JASSM-ERs. <br /><br />However unlike SSGNs, the B-1s can launch the same pulse every couple days, from basing half way around the world.<br /><br />In your war against China scenario, there will be tens or hundreds of thousands of fixed, easily identifiable, cruise missile targets if we choose to hit the mainland.<br /><br />Firing 150+ cruise missiles from an SSGN takes time. During that "indiscretion" period, SSGNs are vulnerable to detection and attack. They are not invulnerable unless they don't shoot. <br /><br />If an SSGN(X) costs as much as an SSBN(X), they are a waste of money. Buy more bombers, or converted, cruise missile-shooting transport aircraft. They at least have utility outside of a single, drop-in-the-bucket, pulse of missiles, followed by a several week wait for the next pulse.<br /><br />Just MHO.<br /><br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82001577504369627792015-01-20T06:11:32.678-08:002015-01-20T06:11:32.678-08:00John & Smitty, even during WWII when we had un...John & Smitty, even during WWII when we had unlimited soldiers and ships (at least compared to today) we didn't invade an island every week. Major assaults were months apart. In any realistic scenario (kind of the point of this post!) there would be months of prep time - more than enough for subs to reload and move to the next target. <br /><br />The time between assaults is going to be lengthy, if for no other reason, because we simply don't have enough ships, planes, and soldiers to conduct weekly assaults. Any argument focusing on assaults and the time required to reload subs is invalid and incomplete. A major assault will involve every asset we can bring to bear: SSGNs, bombers, surface ship Tomahawk shooters, the small amount of ship gunnery we bring to bear, etc. The discussion is not an either/or for subs or bombers. Both will play vital roles. Again, this was the point of the post - to discuss things in the context of a complete scenario. <br /><br />SSGNs will offer an undectectable and near totally survivable strike platform able to launch a large pulse - quite a beneficial capability. To trivialize that capability is to fail to consider the larger tactical and doctrinal setting.<br /><br />Another aspect to the cruise missile/Tomahawk issue (whether launched from bombers, subs, or surface ships) is targeting. We just aren't going to find that many clearly defined targets suitable for cruise missiles. After we crater an airfield and hit some obvious buildings and whatnot, then what do we do for targets? Cruise missiles aren't really practical against moving targets. History (including very recent) demonstrates that finding clearly defined targets, even in a concentrated area, is very difficult (Israel-Hamas, for example). The Serbia/Bosnia conflict ran out of targets after a week or so. Our Iraq/Afg conflicts have never had more than the occasional clearly defined target worthy of cruise missiles. Desert Storm had an initial pulse but targeting then gave way to manned air. Unless we want to use $1M-$2M Tomahawks as blind area bombardment munitions we'll have only a limited number of cruise missile-worthy targets in an assault. This underscores the need for a large explosive, sustained ship gun support capability - but that's another topic.<br /><br />As I urge in the post, consider these questions in the larger context. Don't isolate discussions.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90252811933680432352015-01-20T05:49:15.475-08:002015-01-20T05:49:15.475-08:00Gray, well reasoned. On a related note, Gen. Schw...Gray, well reasoned. On a related note, Gen. Schwarzkopf had a very dim view of spec ops forces in Desert Storm, believing that they would only get in the way and have to be rescued while producing little in return. For what it's worth.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67119815137276108522015-01-20T05:45:02.593-08:002015-01-20T05:45:02.593-08:00Glad to amuse you. That's why I'm here. ...Glad to amuse you. That's why I'm here. See, <a href="http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/02/aircraft-carrier-what-future.html" rel="nofollow">Aircraft Carrier - What Future?</a>ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85275386693939198862015-01-20T05:36:44.564-08:002015-01-20T05:36:44.564-08:00John L... weeks. if not a month or more.
Tomah...John L... weeks. if not a month or more. <br /><br />Tomahawk shooters in the form of SSGNs and Burkes will never be more than bit players in strike warfare. <br /><br />Even if you find a way to reload them at sea, you'll still be better off putting the same cruise missiles on aircraft. <br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15857519225303298362015-01-20T05:31:53.297-08:002015-01-20T05:31:53.297-08:00Even if that works, you probably don't want to...Even if that works, you probably don't want to only conquer one island. How long does it take for the submarines to travel back to base, reload and get to the next island?John Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38705185997503141912015-01-20T04:35:16.595-08:002015-01-20T04:35:16.595-08:00Never fight a war you don't intend to win. We...Never fight a war you don't intend to win. We've done nothing but that for so long that I fear it has really dulled our ability to fight a real war.<br /><br />We've let rise this notion that somehow war can be this sterile, antiseptic evolution where nobody gets hurt. We can pick out which window of the building we want the missile to go through, but we can't control who is sitting on the other side of that window. <br /><br />Military forces do two things well--kill people and break things. War--real war--is all about killing people and breaking things. And inevitably some of the people who get killed, and some of the things that get broken, are yours.<br /><br />You need to plan for that, and past the extremely theoretical level, it's not clear that we do. The LCS is the perfect product of our thinking. It can't kill anybody or break anything, but it looks menacing and boy is it fast.CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59773795099427965392015-01-20T04:19:49.044-08:002015-01-20T04:19:49.044-08:00CNO said, "...and carriers now exist to escor...CNO said, "...and carriers now exist to escort the Tomahawk shooters."<br /><br />Hilarious. What evidence do you have of this? B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39798754689082183912015-01-20T01:40:37.926-08:002015-01-20T01:40:37.926-08:00Since there is no political appetite to land force...Since there is no political appetite to land forces into mainland China including Hainan island, I think this applies to Naval Special Warfare (NSW) too.<br /><br />They may play a role in recapturing islands taken by the PLA if PACOM is in a rush (most likely for political reasons). Missions could be inserting covertly before the Marines and JGSDF make their amphib landing. <br /><br />There are various Chinese facilities built on disputed islands in the South China Sea. Instead of lobbing a $1.2M Tomahawk, it could be a ripe target for SEALs to go back to their underwater demolition team (UDT) roots. <br /><br />In conclusion, I think NSW would make a big bang in whatever mission they execute but their utility across the wider theater of conflict would be limited.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06071097874226346341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30128440998126564402015-01-19T20:16:22.849-08:002015-01-19T20:16:22.849-08:00Gray, regarding carriers, I've written a numbe...Gray, regarding carriers, I've written a number of posts on carriers. You might want to check the archives via the keyword "Aircraft Carrier".<br /><br />Briefly, carriers are pricing themselves out of existence, carriers should be smaller given the shrinking air wings, and carriers now exist to escort the Tomahawk shooters.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7634460145619284252015-01-19T20:13:27.061-08:002015-01-19T20:13:27.061-08:00Gray, glad you enjoy it and welcome aboard. Feel ...Gray, glad you enjoy it and welcome aboard. Feel free to contribute!<br /><br />You bring up a great topic. I don't mention Special Warfare because I just don't know enough about their activities and capabilities to intelligently discuss it.<br /><br />That said, my vague impression (which someone could easily change my mind about) is that Spec Ops is more useful in peacetime than war. The kind of focused, narrow operations are most effective during peace. Once a shooting war starts, that kind of operation tends to take a back seat to large explosions, so to speak.<br /><br />Still, there may be a role for Spec Ops in countering Chinese expansion efforts via sabotage, surveillance, and the like. In a Chinese war, there may be a role in disrupting some of the small outposts that China is looking to set up.<br /><br />Maybe you have some thoughts of your own on this topic?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42069022700127723152015-01-19T19:32:06.641-08:002015-01-19T19:32:06.641-08:00CNO, a great blog you are running. I have been lur...CNO, a great blog you are running. I have been lurking for a short time and I'm enjoying all your posts (whether I agree or not). <br /><br />Speaking about the combined arms approach, what roles and contributions the Special Warfare community would bring in a conflict with China? I have notice very little mention of these guys in articles and other blogs discussing this scenario. It is quite sad that a lot of people forget that the Special Warfare community and Marines are part of the Naval service and operate in the maritime domain.<br /><br />I also like to ask about your thoughts on the recent carrier debate held at the USNA.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06071097874226346341noreply@blogger.com