tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7948731543850835972..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Third Offset StrategyComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11652874585491319772016-09-04T12:22:17.126-07:002016-09-04T12:22:17.126-07:00"Your continous underlying assumption ( or pe..."Your continous underlying assumption ( or perhaps just my interpretation of you tone ) that we can in any way "stay still" is misplaced."<br /><br />Where did I say that?<br /><br />I said that this Third Offset is wrong. I didn't say that we should do nothing. I don't mind disagreement but disagree with something I've actually said!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9459272641644301742016-09-04T12:20:32.146-07:002016-09-04T12:20:32.146-07:00"NO Advantage is permenant."
Who claime..."NO Advantage is permenant."<br /><br />Who claimed that?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87191691614284296892016-09-04T12:19:42.395-07:002016-09-04T12:19:42.395-07:00Very few wars are won because one side asks for th...Very few wars are won because one side asks for the other's territory and they willingly give it. Wars are won because the threat of death is there if you don't get what you want. You can't win a war without killing or, at least, the realistic threat of killing. That doesn't have to include total genocide.<br /><br />We've forgotten what real war is. War is killing in order to achieve one's goals. <br /><br />Again, give me one war that was one by means other than killing or threat thereof.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30202189405543486682016-09-04T11:23:06.946-07:002016-09-04T11:23:06.946-07:00Sorry. Im in Peru right now not GB. networks seem ...Sorry. Im in Peru right now not GB. networks seem unrealiable.<br /><br />Please dont think im being "hippy".<br />Death is an unfortunate by product of warfare. But not the point of it.<br /><br />Historically very few wars have been won by genocide. I.e. killing everyone.<br /><br />Its in-efficient.<br /><br />In state on state warfare you concentrate on removing an enemy states ABILITY TO MAKE WAR. This can mean infrastructure. ( Hardware ) and / or political will ( removal of the governing body ).<br /><br />The last war focused on "lethality" as a resolution would have been the first world war. And we all know how that went.<br /><br />Im a little surprised we are having this convosation ?<br /><br />Anyway<br /><br />NO Advantage is permenant. 20th century warfare has been a continous evolution. <br /><br />Your continous underlying assumption ( or perhaps just my interpretation of you tone ) that we can in any way "stay still" is misplaced. <br /><br />As leaders in the field we must speculativly inovate. And as best as possible STEAR the direction of this evolution. Not allow others to dictate the nature of the change. ( too much )<br /><br />Yes states will adapt and overcome. This is natural.<br />But that is not the point.<br /><br />This is an eternal struggle. Not an end game.<br /><br />If you want happy ever after. Try Disney not warfare ;)<br /><br />Please dont misenterprate me as argumentative. Im not. Its just a debate. Ben.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12729830680739249692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63764010849771293912016-09-04T08:43:49.343-07:002016-09-04T08:43:49.343-07:00You're still missing the main premise! An off...You're still missing the main premise! An offset, as defined, has two characteristics:<br /><br />1. A huge advantage (in lethality)<br />2. An enduring advantage<br /><br />An advantage that is not huge (a better bullet, for example) is nice but does not constitute an offset to build an entire military around.<br /><br />A huge advantage that lasts a weeks accomplishes nothing because after that week, you're right back to par.<br /><br />It is highly doubtful that networks and unmanned vehicles are going to produce a huge advantage. At best, they might produce some useful benefits.<br /><br />Networks and unmanned vehicles are absolutely not going to produce an enduring advantage and, likely, will not produce any advantage. Russia and China are certainly ahead of us in electronic warfare and cyber warfare. Russia is well ahead of us in battlefield robotics. Both are as advanced as we are in general unmanned vehicles. WHERE'S THE ADVANTAGE LET ALONE AN ENDURING ADVANTAGE?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4990875456126241612016-09-04T08:33:56.489-07:002016-09-04T08:33:56.489-07:00"Im not sure lethality is really the term.
It..."Im not sure lethality is really the term.<br />Its about winning wars not killing people.<br />The two are not necessarily synonamose."<br /><br />War is absolutely about killing and destroying. Even the case of a mammoth country simply annexing a small one is about the threat of killing. Give me one historical example to support your contention that winning wars is not about killing people.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56601406606720898932016-09-04T08:30:04.270-07:002016-09-04T08:30:04.270-07:00Ben, you're generating two or more duplicate p...Ben, you're generating two or more duplicate posts, consistently. Any idea what's happening?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46959675587247346342016-09-04T07:57:11.745-07:002016-09-04T07:57:11.745-07:00Im not sure lethality is really the term.
Its abo...Im not sure lethality is really the term.<br /><br />Its about winning wars not killing people.<br /><br />The two are not necessarily synonamose.<br /><br />Beyond that. Yes as you say, its about a provable verifyable capability increase providing deterrance.<br /><br />And hopefully stopping wars before they start.<br /><br />I would argue that all weapons require a target. Targeting requires intelligence and intelligence gathering requires data.<br /><br />Now back in the day hundreds of guys with magnifying glases used to paw over photos.<br /><br />Today with ISTAR. AEWAC, SIGINT, drone and saterlite data streaming in real time. <br /><br />Flexable and fastmoving battlespaces. EW and manipulation of the EM environment. And the key precepts of command and control in a blitz krieg arena.<br /><br />'Just' data mining and information processing COULD make all the difference.<br /><br />If you can collate and summerise. Strain out superflous detritase you can strip away the fog of war and increase the speed and accurasy of the desision making process.<br /><br />You cant get enought guys with magnifying glasses, working fast enought, to do this in top end modern warfare.<br /><br />We are talking about prosecuting an entire warfront live here not just a battlefront. Potentially globally. THAT is the advantage !<br /><br />Now dont get me wrong. Maintenance/ training and the rest is 100% critical at all times. But this really is about THE NEXT STEP not the current status que. <br /><br />Staying ahead of the game not just mastering the current one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12729830680739249692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43285366294241558722016-09-03T15:29:45.966-07:002016-09-03T15:29:45.966-07:00I suspect you're still missing the main point ...I suspect you're still missing the main point of an offset strategy. Another commenter put it better than me when he said the previous offsets, nuclear weapons and precision weapons, provided a huge and enduring boost in unit lethality. That's the definition of an offset strategy: a huge and enduring increase in lethality that provides an enormous advantage for us.<br /><br />Thus, the question is not whether some technology is better than what we have (data mining, for example) but whether it will provide a huge and enduring increase in lethality. <br /><br />A Phalanx, to make up an example, that is improved a bit, or even quite a bit, is great to have but does not constitute a huge increase in lethality for our overall military. <br /><br />So, does networking, data mining, and unmanned vehicles which are some of the manifestations of the Third Offset, offer a huge and enduring increase in lethality sufficient to make other countries hesitate to engage us or make them cannon fodder if they do engage? If so, we have our Third Offset. If not, we may have nice improvements but not an offset advantage. Frankly, I don't think those things provide even a bit of advantage and certainly not an enduring one. Arguably, China and Russia are already ahead of us IN OUR OWN CHOSEN OFFSET!!!!<br /><br />Hope this made things even clearer.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33100908627717565962016-09-03T15:02:26.930-07:002016-09-03T15:02:26.930-07:00Ah, thanks for the explanation. Ive been seeing th...Ah, thanks for the explanation. Ive been seeing the term. But failed to get a good grip on the details.<br /><br />Now i know a bit about data mining as its my job. Intellegence wise this is becomming defining. As we have more data now than we know what to do with.<br /><br />But hardware wise are they maybe thinking about concepts like phalanx and full auto aegis ? <br /><br />Both of which enhance weapons capability in terms of speed of responce and action well beyond that of a human. And offset numbers as it were.<br /><br />One means less AA guns per ship required. The other offsets a saturation attack by many adversaries.<br /><br />Is this possibly what they mean ?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12729830680739249692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45776714318892873332016-08-30T19:20:41.612-07:002016-08-30T19:20:41.612-07:00I'm on board; though to be fair how much more ...I'm on board; though to be fair how much more life do the Ohio's have in their hulls? (It may be a lot, I don't know, but they aren't young platforms). <br /><br />But if there isn't alot I don't see a problem with adding 4 SSGN's to the follow on SSBN that they are planning; or maybe, to keep things cheap, that is where buying foreign AIP subs with VLS could help. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61061811717617612642016-08-30T17:26:14.854-07:002016-08-30T17:26:14.854-07:00@CNO
The defense industry will always try to dic...@CNO <br /><br />The defense industry will always try to dictate prices and products. Doing so is economically rational for them because they maximize their profits (at least in the short to medium term). <br /><br />The military brass have an inherent interest in pleasing a private for profit industry in exchange for a lucrative career after they retire. It is a major conflict of interest in the brass - are they agents of the defense industry or of the people?<br /><br />It's the same problem that politicians face really. <br /><br />Also, if it makes sense to have in house design, then why not take the next step and have in house manufacturing, at least for some items that are procured? It's quite common for functions in the military that are outsourced to cost more after they are outsourced, not less.<br /><br />@Nate Dogg<br /><br />A thorough study of the German and Nordic models are warranted. They seem to have a much more vibrant standard of living than we do here in North America. <br /><br />They have a much more vibrant manufacturing sector as well in the civilian world. I've said it before - it does no good to have a powerful military if America's manufacturing heartland becomes the Rust Belt. That's a serious threat to national security.<br /><br />To be honest, I have become increasingly convinced that a Nordic Social Democracy is superior in terms of average living standards for the typical middle class citizen. Actually given the declines in living standards, there are articles claiming the US is no longer a middle class.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15507056857848650572016-08-30T12:17:04.815-07:002016-08-30T12:17:04.815-07:00"Use Harrop as model"
Did you happen to..."Use Harrop as model"<br /><br />Did you happen to notice the price tag of $10M each? To deliver a 50 lb warhead on a one-way trip?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28200621567931759232016-08-30T12:03:07.028-07:002016-08-30T12:03:07.028-07:00"The only thing I can see being a major issue..."The only thing I can see being a major issue at that point is getting enough launchers."<br /><br />Which is why retiring the 4 SSGNs with their 150 or so missiles, each, is a very questionable decision.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3179305984813636142016-08-30T11:56:57.645-07:002016-08-30T11:56:57.645-07:00Valid point on my falling prey to the upsel. I kin...Valid point on my falling prey to the upsel. I kind of like the simple strategy in terms of bang for the buck. It still leaves the issue of maybe targeting, but as an assault option I like it alot. <br /><br />The only thing I can see being a major issue at that point is getting enough launchers. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10743719829850281622016-08-30T06:56:41.304-07:002016-08-30T06:56:41.304-07:00You don't need stealth if you have sufficient ...You don't need stealth if you have sufficient numbers. To be ridiculous, if you launch a thousand Tomahawks at a single target, you can have them emit giant honking beacons with their exact co-ordinates. So what if a hundred get shot down. The remaining 900 will do the job. The enemy hasn't got enough anti-weapons.<br /><br />Adding stealth and greater AI is going down the path of fewer and more expensive which, in turn, leads to still fewer and still more expensive which ... is exactly the route we've gone and it's failed! And now you're proposing to do it again! You see how easy it is to fall prey to the lure of a "little more" added to each platform or weapon?<br /><br />Instead of one supremely capable, uber Tomahawk that costs a gazillion dollars and we can only make one of, why not make a thousand that are dumber than dirt, easily detected, cost next to nothing, and totally expendable, are utterly reliable, and will simply overwhelm any possible defense. K.I.S.S.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4876284591027859432016-08-30T06:47:11.781-07:002016-08-30T06:47:11.781-07:00Think what a penny could do to an entire city if, ...Think what a penny could do to an entire city if, through some miracle of chance, it were to placed in exactly the right location to cause a cascading series of power failures resulting in a catastrophic shutdown of an entire city and, possibly, an entire country. I think we should make pennies our Third Offset Strategy.<br /><br />Look, no one is arguing against pursing cyber efforts. They can only help. This post is about the wisdom (or folly) of making network/cyber/unmanned the basis of our military for next few decades to come.<br /><br />Unlike nuclear weapons which were a sure outcome when detonated or smart weapons which were a pretty sure outcome when launched, cyber is very much a hit or miss affair. It depends on just the right vulnerabilities being present, is very hard to deliver, may or may not work, is unpredictable in its results, and is relatively easy to recover from. Again, not the basis for an entire military strategy.<br /><br />Setting all that aside, as was made clear in the post, an offset strategy should result in a significant and enduring advantage. This does not. Arguably, our enemies are more advanced than we are in this realm, having already demonstrated widespread and significant hacking and cyber attacks against us. There is neither a significant advantage (they can do the exact same thing to us that we can to them - no advantage) nor an enduring one.<br /><br />Reread the post and focus on the main premise not one small aspect.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77162083733923263952016-08-30T06:36:04.475-07:002016-08-30T06:36:04.475-07:00Have a little faith??!! Do I need to go through t...Have a little faith??!! Do I need to go through the litany of incredibly poor decisions the military has made over the last few decades? There's not much basis for faith there!<br /><br />Setting aside the absurdity of the "have a little faith" appeal, the reality is that the game changing nature of nuclear weapons were obvious to everyone as was the ability to utilize smart weapons. The game changing nature of network/cyber/unmanned is far from obvious and, quite the contrary, has many serious flaws and questions. That's not what you want to bet your military future on!<br /><br />There is an overwhelming amount of historical and logical evidence that this is a poor decision.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20498410623679496392016-08-30T06:28:34.583-07:002016-08-30T06:28:34.583-07:00I struggle with that. I've tried looking at th...I struggle with that. I've tried looking at the other side, but I can't see why we would need a UCLASS to do the strikes over a moderately smart Tomahawk in swarms. Even if you bump up the price to $3million to have enhanced AI and a stealthy case, it would give you a ton of capability without the added complexity needed to bring the platform home. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83287608475287979972016-08-30T06:21:13.664-07:002016-08-30T06:21:13.664-07:00"Related to this, the military has also misma..."Related to this, the military has also mismanaged force numbers resulting in a catastrophic reduction in the number of defense industry companies. This has stifled competition and increased prices."<br /><br />I think that this is a massive issue. We have 1 main surface combatant, one small surface combatant that is supposed to pick up 3 roles, and 1 'fighter' for 3 services. <br /><br />If you are a defense contractor you win that contract or realistically lose the ability to produce that type of product. <br /><br />When we had an interceptor, long range attack aircraft, short range/light attack aircraft, COD, ASW, and some rebuilds of existing airframes for tanking, there were multiple contracts that companies could bid on. Don't win the F-14 gig? Go for the F-18. Don't win that? Try for the S3....<br />That allowed companies like Grumman, Vaught, Lockheed, etc. to have a shot. And having multiple companies allowed them to realistically compete. <br /><br />Same with surface combatants. We used to have DDG's, FFG's, CG's, MW, .... etc. Now we have only DDG's and LCS's being built.<br /><br />Now, once the F-22 got cancelled, it was win the F-35 contract or.... don't build fighters anymore. Didn't win the LCS competition? Oh well, because there isn't going to be an MW ship or ASW ship contract you can go after if you are a smaller yard. CVN's or SSN's? So big or complex only a couple companies can do them. <br /><br />Add defense industry lobbying and general officer level complicity on top of all that (I get a little sick in my mouth every time I hear Brad Byrne talk about the LCS like its the Iowa, or read about an admiral who went to work for LM) and you have a badly broken system. But its not surprising because if you have that ONE CONTRACT to go for, you'd better pull out all the stops to get it. 'Exaggerate', Lobby, promise jobs to general officers, whatever. Billions are at stake. <br /><br />I'm not sure how to fix it. My worry with government owned defense is that you've completely eliminated any competition at all. I think in part the government is responsible our current situation. I've read that in the 90's there was a concerted effort on the part of the government (2 administrations) to pare things down so we could 'enjoy' the 'peace dividend'. <br /><br />How do we fix all this? Maybe do a bell type break up of the defense contractors, coupled with changing the force composition ( going back to purpose built platforms)? I do like CNO's idea, but I think it has to be combined with breaking up the current contractors and finding a way to reign in lobbying. <br /><br />Alot easier said than done, but something has to be done if we are going to go down the path of sustainability. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2556804958273593852016-08-30T06:15:55.705-07:002016-08-30T06:15:55.705-07:001. B2, instead of a bomb truck, its a drone truck....1. B2, instead of a bomb truck, its a drone truck. How many 10's of tons can the B2 deploy?<br /><br />2. Use the Harrop as a model. It is the munition. Explosives coupled with kinetic energy. Drill 30 drones one after each other into the same point on a carrier, so 20kg charge multiplied by 30 and and cycled release, you'll drill a hole clear to the bottom of the ship. Nothings going to recover from that.<br /><br />3. Thats the trick isn't it. You dont have pilots, humans i mean, its a multi thread multi core processor. ITs exactly what a computer can do. Your home PC has a CPU that has at least 2 cores on it, and each one likely has at least 4 threads on it. Thats 8 concurrent calcs at incredible speed.<br />Thats nothing, your crappy old video card has a GPU, not CPU, it can do hundreds of concurrent calcs. Pure number crunching is its thing.<br /><br />4. Again, Use Harrop as model. Its got plenty, both EW and radar/thermal. Swarm, networked to satellite and awacs telemetry, etc etc etc etc<br /><br />Not trying to be obstinate. Playing devils advocate to your negating the drone swarm.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58224888104871867502016-08-30T06:07:46.219-07:002016-08-30T06:07:46.219-07:00Think what cyber has the capability of doing.
Shou...Think what cyber has the capability of doing.<br />Should it work and be effective enough to knock out a cities utilities, and transport infrastructure, thats an awful lot of devastation and expenditure afflicted on your enemy, with near impunity, and virtually no one to retaliate against. We're so reliant on all our megainfrastructure which is completely reliant on networked computer systems, that it is possible to make a city almost uninhabitable. <br />That sounds like nearly the threat of a nuclear strike. With the added bonus that you leave the infrastructure intact. Which makes it even more of a deterrent than nuclear weapons.<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50674702787531708722016-08-30T06:03:57.196-07:002016-08-30T06:03:57.196-07:00US private arms industry is heavily subsidised and...US private arms industry is heavily subsidised and patronised by US government, and you're right. Middle class sees no discernible benefit from it.<br />Conversely, the German private industries are subsidised by government, but not so heavily patronised, and lots of their sales are foreign. German middle class is fairing better than the US one. So, its not universally bad, just, US execution and methodology is flawed. Perhaps a study of the german model is warranted.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22384270133351310122016-08-30T06:00:18.071-07:002016-08-30T06:00:18.071-07:00Somehow, in some unexplained way, this human-machi...<br />Somehow, in some unexplained way, this human-machine collaboration is going to overcome numerical and explosives deficits. <br /><br />Yes, correct, despite your sarcasm, thats exactly what they're planning.<br />As an example, during dessert storm, 3% of all munitions expended were smart bombs, yet in post war assessments, they were found to have caused 76% of effective damage/casualties caused.<br /><br />Expect theyre counting on similar asymmetric capability.<br />Whether you believe theyre capable of doing it, well, they made nukes and smart bombs work. Have a little faith.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44020230287188580292016-08-30T00:53:59.366-07:002016-08-30T00:53:59.366-07:00This is starting to make the rounds on the financi...This is starting to make the rounds on the financial sites.<br />http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-29/pentagon-weapons-buyer-orders-review-of-new-carrier-s-troubles<br /><br />dwcoope2noreply@blogger.com