tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4123965621047728918..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Battlefield InterdictionComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72297380733071085822015-11-22T06:22:29.032-08:002015-11-22T06:22:29.032-08:00ClarkC, I agree with you. I see very little opera...ClarkC, I agree with you. I see very little operational need for major amphibious assaults given our current enemies and likely warfighting strategies.<br /><br />I've discussed the need for a two tier Navy: a low end peacetime force and a high end warfighting force. You've extended that concept to the Army and Marines. Again, I agree with the caveat of port seizure.<br /><br />The logical extension of your proposal is the greatly reduced need for large, highly capable amphibious ships for the Marines. We would no longer need 30+ major gators and have no need for MEUs/ARGs sailing around.<br /><br />Of course, that still leaves the question of how to get the Army to their high end war.<br /><br />All in all, a nice comment.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69426748931275439602015-11-21T16:46:56.123-08:002015-11-21T16:46:56.123-08:00What if we take a look around the world and decide...What if we take a look around the world and decide that the only places we will land Marines in are not defended by a peer adversary. We are not invading Russia or China. Then, we decide that we would only use the Marines elsewhere and plan for that.<br /><br />I think we need a two-focus military. This seems to be beyond the powers of concentration of fight-the-last-war military leaders, but we need a major land war military and a special forces/COIN military. The major land war military will not be invading Russia or China, but might team up with NATO allies to defend Europe if Putin or someone similar in the future actually attacked.<br /><br />The Marines will have to support operations against way-below-peer enemies and both overland and amphibious assaults against the likes of Saddam's Iraq or present-day Iran, but not as the first day of war spearhead. After a successful air war, they could go in.<br /><br />In other words, when you said in a comment: "First, we need to decide whether we even will attempt assaults. I have grave doubts about that. Let's table that thought and assume that we've decided we need to be able to conduct major assaults." --- I am taking the opposite path to this discussion. Let's not assume we will ever conduct major assaults, because I think those days are over.<br />ClarkCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27129155249826288762015-11-20T09:48:35.956-08:002015-11-20T09:48:35.956-08:00In theory, there is a solution. In reality, there...In theory, there is a solution. In reality, there is none.<br /><br />For starters, a coalition requires a leader, the US, and we have demonstrated no stomach for a confrontation with China, Russia, NK, Iran, terrorists, or anyone else. No leader, no coalition.<br /><br />Given our hesitancy to even name China as a threat, do you really think any country will give us basing rights knowing (or believing - it's the same thing) that we will not stand by them? We issue ultimatums and then don't follow through. Why would anyone think we'll follow through on commitments to protect another country?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81330273588353673392015-11-18T13:37:46.642-08:002015-11-18T13:37:46.642-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20395015430474416762015-11-18T13:35:25.117-08:002015-11-18T13:35:25.117-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49858578861506563042015-11-18T11:51:46.301-08:002015-11-18T11:51:46.301-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67258191978015207222015-11-18T11:05:43.992-08:002015-11-18T11:05:43.992-08:00"... I don't think we can build THAT many..."... I don't think we can build THAT many carriers."<br /><br />You're right. We can't. And that brings us back around to the lack of bases with no reasonable way to get more. As I said, this is a problem that has no solution. There is nowhere to put large numbers of additional bases that we can rely on being available. I don't have a magic answer for this one.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32462960155938853222015-11-18T11:02:45.008-08:002015-11-18T11:02:45.008-08:00It was also painfully obvious which side was going...It was also painfully obvious which side was going to win the Desert Storm conflict. Not much risk to jumping on the Coalition bandwagon for those smaller states! A bit different when joining with the US against China may put you on the losing side.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66083040496157357432015-11-18T10:32:44.941-08:002015-11-18T10:32:44.941-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84492408170139820582015-11-18T09:47:53.648-08:002015-11-18T09:47:53.648-08:00"So the lowest-end, micro-fighter could be de..."So the lowest-end, micro-fighter could be designed to carry 2-4 Stingers."<br /><br />I remain intrigued by the concept but highly doubtful that we can produce a very low end aircraft that can achieve an acceptable exchange rate. Carrying four Sidewinders (or whatever weapon or numbers) is fine but the aircraft still needs to achieve firing position. That means the aircraft needs to have a pretty significant degree of ACM capability and now you're jumping right back into the high cost end of things.<br /><br />No UAV that I'm aware of could have any hope of achieving a kill shot on a manned aircraft. Yes, the idea is that sheer numbers can overwhelm but the exchange rate would be horrific. If it takes 50 mini-aircraft to get one kill, the costs, no matter how low, preclude it.<br /><br />What aircraft would you consider to be a suitable example, capability wise, of a UCAV? F-16? F-4 Phantom? A-4? F-86? Any of those, if built today, would still only allow exchange rates of 1:2 or 1:3 and I don't think they could achieve that. If you get less capable than those, then you're just talking target drones (especially unmanned) with nearly zero chance of success.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69177075999392062632015-11-18T09:37:21.506-08:002015-11-18T09:37:21.506-08:00Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states were peers ...Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states were peers of Iraq. That's hugely different from the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc. compared to China. It's one thing to join a coalition that will gang up on a peer and another thing to put oneself in opposition to a country that could crush you like a bug as an afterthought! Would those countries join in a war against China? Possible, certainly, but highly unlikely. <br /><br />The more pertinent point is not whether any given country will or won't join us but whether we want to base our strategy on the establishment of bases that would be highly suspect in their political availability when the need arises. We need solutions that are 100% reliable when the need arises.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64580030947601177832015-11-18T07:56:03.630-08:002015-11-18T07:56:03.630-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21343019578823750172015-11-18T07:39:51.031-08:002015-11-18T07:39:51.031-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58107215771488724532015-11-18T07:34:47.635-08:002015-11-18T07:34:47.635-08:00"So instead of figuring out how to hide penny..."So instead of figuring out how to hide penny packets around the region, we need to figure out where we can base huge quantities of fighters, and keep them alive, fed and maximizing sorties."<br /><br />Some problems have no viable solution. Such is the case here, for the China scenario. The places where we might like to have bases (Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.) are highly unlikely to allow us to use bases in a war with China. They'll offer moral support, perhaps, but faced with possible Chinese missile attacks and no defense, they'll opt for neutrality. The only bases we can probably rely on are in Japan and SKorea and I have doubts about SKorea. Faced with the prospect of simultaneously having to fight NKorea if they entered a war against China, they might well opt for neutrality, also.<br /><br />So, there just aren't any more places to put bases that haven't already (of course, we could always build artificial islands!). I agree with your statement, in theory. We need to find ways but that's easier said than done and, realistically, may well not be possible.<br /><br />Of course, one alternative is more carriers with larger, more combat focused air wings!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67755012358613279152015-11-18T07:25:39.242-08:002015-11-18T07:25:39.242-08:00The dispersal issue seems, in many ways, analogous...The dispersal issue seems, in many ways, analogous to the carrier issue. Critics argue that the carrier is too vulnerable, too big, too easy to kill, too ... But, to GAB's point, no one has come up with a viable alternative.<br /><br />Fixed airbases are too, well... fixed. They're too vulnerable, too big, too easy to hit, too easy to destroy. But, again to GAB's point, what's the alternative?<br /><br />Dirt roads won't work for modern FOD-prone aircraft. Even if aircraft could operate from a dirt strip, the logistics preclude more than a couple of sorties. The required maintenance, spares inventory, electronics, diagnostics, manning, etc. are just not practical for operating a couple of aircraft per location on an ongoing basis.<br /><br />The answer seems to be to find the balance point between concentration and dispersal. How many airbases can we support before the reality of logistics rears its head?<br /><br />I once read a concept calling for nearby dispersal of aircraft for survival, not operations. The aircraft would be dispersed to parking/hangar locations relatively near the airbase so that the aircraft would survive even if the base were hit. Of course, the inefficiencies in servicing the aircraft and assembling them for sorties would be monumental but it would offer enhanced survivability. Nothing ever came of it as far as I know.<br /><br />Perhaps having a number of low end, basic satellite airfields that aircraft could be dispersed to on a temporary, rotating basis might be a solution. The aircraft could be dispersed and operated from very basic fields for a short time and then returned to the main base for significant maintenance. The dispersed bases would have fuel and munitions but no significant maintenance capability. This would disperse the aircraft (maybe 10-20 per airfield??) while maintaining the central support capability, radar, defenses, spares inventory, etc. Along with that, maybe we should be designing our aircraft to be a bit more robust in terms of their ability to operate from rougher fields. Maybe building aircraft whose engines are FOD'ed by flea larvae isn't the right way to go? The Soviets did this and the idea seemed to make some sense. Just thinking out loud on this one!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2022264351923495042015-11-18T06:57:54.683-08:002015-11-18T06:57:54.683-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21737002451624979242015-11-18T06:35:10.492-08:002015-11-18T06:35:10.492-08:00@Smitty,
I am out of this argument as you have pr...@Smitty,<br /><br />I am out of this argument as you have provided no useful alternative, nor effectively disputed my specific comment on the usefulness of alternative airfields for dispersal in the face of, or aftermath of BM strikes. <br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79994577330842376192015-11-18T05:52:48.348-08:002015-11-18T05:52:48.348-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17301212342734594982015-11-18T05:46:20.053-08:002015-11-18T05:46:20.053-08:00"... small, inexpensive UCAVs that have extre..."... small, inexpensive UCAVs that have extremely low logistics requirements (as well as the attrition tolerance mentioned earlier). Make them more like reusable SAMs than all singing and dancing fighter-bombers."<br /><br />This is one of your more interesting suggestions. I've supported the concept of "throwaway" UCAVs but I've doubted (flat out don't believe) that we could build a UCAV that can achieve an acceptable exchange ratio with manned aircraft. If we build a UCAV with sufficient combat capability it will cost a fortune. If we build a cheap UCAV it will just be target drones that won't achieve a worthwhile exchange rate. <br /><br />The idea of a reusable SAM is worth a little thought. How would it be different in capability than an actual SAM (other than the obvious ability to return)? I ask because SAMs have a historically very poor success rate. So, how would the reusable SAM (r-SAM) be superior in performance? Is there really a point to bringing the r-SAM back after an engagement? Wouldn't most r-SAMs either be shot down or find a target (I'm assuming you mean these to be suicidal - hence, the reusable SAM description?)? Would you expect enough to go out, do nothing, and return, to justify the added cost of the returnability? Would the r-SAM be subsonic, supersonic, or variable? I would think subsonic would be required to maneuver. Would the r-SAM be operator controlled or autonomous? What would you think these would cost?<br /><br />Interesting. Tell me more.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69789455294502407112015-11-18T05:46:05.710-08:002015-11-18T05:46:05.710-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49036461313928652132015-11-18T05:33:05.239-08:002015-11-18T05:33:05.239-08:00That RAND study is hopelessly outdated, focused to...That RAND study is hopelessly outdated, focused to the exclusion of many relevant factors (as is RAND's tendency in these things), and extremely limited in applicability.<br /><br />The only data point in the report that is useful is the 2017 time frame (the rest have already passed) and they get that one wrong by a wide margin. Their conclusions (unsupported by data, by the way - it's a Brief so I assume the main report has actual data) are highly suspect. <br /><br />The casual claim of "high kill ratios" is suspect. There is no reason to believe that we will achieve significantly more than a 1:1 ratio and certainly not high kill ratios.<br /><br />Their list of Chinese AF types doesn't even mention the Chinese stealth aircraft now entering service (J-20/31) let alone the J-11/15/16s that are upgraded versions of Su-XX designs.<br /><br />They do not include consideration of the impact of the three (that I know of) artificial island airbases on the air superiority battle.<br /><br />Did they include consideration of distance on loadouts and loiter/combat time? Chinese aircraft can enter the fight with more fuel and weapons than we can.<br /><br />The overall conclusions, such as they are, are valid though kind of obvious. A typical RAND report.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41782998477846535682015-11-18T05:11:30.865-08:002015-11-18T05:11:30.865-08:00SMITTY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF THE...SMITTY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF THE BLENDER YOU'RE USING TO SCRAMBLE UP ALL THE COMMENTS AND POSTS I'VE EVER WRITTEN TO MAKE A FACTUAL SMOOTHIE. TURN IT OFF FOR A MOMENT!<br /><br />OK, THAT'S BETT...... Ok, that's better. <br /><br />Seriously, you jumbled together lots of independent thoughts and somehow came up with conclusions to argue about that I've never put forth. I'll address some of them in no particular order.<br /><br />You completely misunderstood the Pearl Harbor point. It had nothing to do with battleships. The point was that when the ballistic missiles (aircraft) arrived, the aircraft were lined up tip to tip. This was an historical example of the opposite extreme of dispersal. This was concentration of aircraft at its best (or worst) and the results reflected it. This is just about aircraft dispersal not battleships or any other aspect of Pearl Harbor. This is also not a deep concept. Ultimate concentration is bad. Ultimate dispersal is unsustainable. There's a balance point in between.<br /><br />Tucanos versus Su-XX??? When did I ever say that? Never. I've suggested Tucanos for the low end, peacetime ground support work. I've never suggested Tucanos versus high end fighter jets. If you want to argue, please make it over something I've actually said!<br /><br />You seem to be arguing with me against dispersal of aircraft. Can you find a statement from me advocating dispersal? I can't recall ever advocating dispersal of aircraft to remote strips or whatever. The practicalities (logistics, manning, maintenance, spares, FOD, etc.) would seem to preclude it. In fact, I've explicitly argue against the F-35B remote basing concept.<br /><br />I'll let it go at this. You're probably going to want to throw this comment into the blender, too.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48299706639398543642015-11-18T04:30:09.204-08:002015-11-18T04:30:09.204-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4491472038383908612015-11-17T18:13:41.959-08:002015-11-17T18:13:41.959-08:00Just a little historical perspective ... Pearl Ha...Just a little historical perspective ... Pearl Harbor was the ultimate example of concentrating - the opposite of dispersal. The aircraft were lined up wingtip to wingtip and when the ballistic missiles (Japanese aircraft) arrived, the destruction was devastating. <br /><br />There's an optimum balance somewhere between one aircraft per airfield and every aircraft at one airfield. The balance point would, of course, be determined by the cost of airfield redundancy, logistics, combat effectiveness, survivability, etc. I don't know what the balance point is but a reasonable degree of dispersal of combat assets has been a historical constant.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90747061303036360652015-11-17T18:04:30.157-08:002015-11-17T18:04:30.157-08:00"I'm arguing that we need to focus on win..."I'm arguing that we need to focus on winning, not on part of a force merely surviving, maybe, for a little while, until they are defeated in detail."<br /><br />Not to pile on but wasn't hiding and surviving your suggested model for future air defense systems?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com