The magnitude of delusion that is required to believe in the Navy and Marine’s new vision of warfare is staggering. Here’s yet more evidence. From a Breaking Defense article,
“If we do come to blows with China it’s gonna be very confused for the first 30 or 45 days, and then we must fight in a distributed fashion,” King [Maj. Gen. Tracy King, the Marine Corps’ Director of Expeditionary Warfare] added. (1)
So … here’s a related question. After those first 30-45 days, what are we going to have left in the way of assets to execute this ‘distributed fashion’ of warfare? Surveillance, the foundation of distributed lethality warfare, will be hugely degraded because our satellites will be destroyed, UAVs will have been shot down, and any P-8 maritime patrol aircraft that ventured out will be gone. On the firepower side of things, any LCSes that were in the area will have been sunk, any armed amphibious ships (‘if it floats, it fights’) will have been sunk, our Burkes will be tied up in large numbers escorting the carriers that we learned the hard way need to operate in groups of 4 and require 30 some escorts. What will we have left to distribute? To believe that we’ll skate through the first 30-45 days of high end, very high intensity combat and then begin distributed warfare is delusional.
Tell you what, though, let’s go ahead and delude ourselves about what will happen and just move on.
The Marines seem to vaguely grasp the problem with China’s military rise. Consider this statement,
“The most destabilizing event in the 21st century is going to be when China can achieve conventional parity at a time and place of its choosing,” Maj. Gen. Tracy King, the Marine Corps’ Director of Expeditionary Warfare said during an online event today. “These war games are reinforcing that fact. So when they are able to do that, and when they can decide whether or not we’re going or fight or not, that’s going to be extremely destabilizing.” (1)
So, the Marines recognize that parity confers the ability to choose the time and place of engagement which, as history and military theory notes, is a huge advantage in achieving victory. However, the Navy and Marines then conclude that the way to prevent parity and loss of initiative is to make our own forces smaller and less capable!!!!!!!!!
In an attempt to forestall parity, the Navy and Pentagon leadership are working on a force structure plan that includes more unmanned ships, smaller vessels that would be harder to hit … (1)
Even the Navy has acknowledged that the unmanned vessels they’re calling for will be individually weaker than the manned vessels they’ll be replacing and yet they’re doing it anyway in the delusional belief that somehow these individually weaker elements will form an aggregate that is greater than the sum of the parts. That’s some first class delusion going on there. Taking that concept to its logical conclusion, we’d be better off with ten thousand combat canoes than a fleet of carriers and Burkes.
Wait, though, it gets better.
Having entered the realm of delusion, the Marines are not only holding firm to their delusional ideas but expanding on them! To whit,
“We’re gonna have Marines out there sinking ships,” King said. “You know I’ve even talked to our undersea guys about Marines out there sinking submarines so some of our inside forces can stay hidden and let our adversary worry about me and my hundred guys running around crazy on some island, instead of these capital assets that are really the heart and soul of the joint force.” (1)
Yep, not only will the Marines sweep the seas of Chinese surface naval forces but they’ll wipe out the Chinese submarine fleet, too – and the Chinese will never find them! Is there anything those hundred Marines can’t do? Even the Spartans needed 300 warriors but the Marines will only need 100!
The really striking aspect of all this, aside from the sheer magnitude of the Navy and Marine’s delusion, is that their own studies and war games show that they’re wrong! Read the following statement and read between the lines.
While not going into detail about the force structure study, Schlise [Rear Adm. Paul Schlise, the Navy’s Director of Surface Warfare] said the war games taking place to guide it are showing “the value of some of the manned/unmanned force packages that we’re talking about, but also the value of our legacy forces.”
‘… the value of some of the unmanned’? ‘… also the value of our legacy forces’? Just read between the lines. The war games, even heavily slanted to produce the desired outcomes favoring small, unmanned vessels, are still showing that traditional, heavy firepower forces are far more valuable.
Why are the Navy and Marines embarking on this delusional path? I honestly don’t know or understand the degree of delusion our military leadership is demonstrating but a major chunk of it is certainly budget related.
More unmanned ships, smaller frigates, and other relatively inexpensive vessels would allow the Navy to blow past its previous goal of 355 ships, a number Esper [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] has already said is too low. (1)
Ahh, there it is … budget. More ships. The Navy doesn’t care whether those ships are combat effective. They just care that they can use them to justify a bigger budget slice.
Ten thousand combat canoes … it’s coming! The biggest (and most impotent) fleet the world has ever seen!
Delusion piled on delusion.
 |
The New Capital Ship Of The Navy |
____________________________________
(1)Breaking Defense, “DoD War Games Predict ‘Extremely Destabilizing’ Chinese Military Parity ”, Paul McLeary, 27-Aug-2020,
I am a big supporter of USV/UUV but not as replacements for ships. I have read recently that Unmanned Vessels will not be counted as ships, which I agree with.
ReplyDeleteI see them not as "ships" but as "Drones." Drones that can be underwater covering an area looking for submarines. Drones that can "pretend" to be ships and potentially draw fire. Drones that can light up the radars and beam that information to the true ships.
Not counting unmanned vessels as battle force ships is an initial political move to try to prevent resistance. Shortly after a couple of contracts have been let, you'll see the Navy start counting them because they're going to replace a portion of the Burkes and the Navy can't afford to be seen as allowing the fleet to shrink any further.
DeleteCongress is about as unsupportive of listing them as "ships" as you and I are. So far, I have only seen them listed as "vessels." Hopefully this will continue.
DeleteThey have such potential but not as replacements for ships.
"Defense Secretary Mark Esper told sailors today that heavy investment in unmanned systems would be key to the Navy reaching 355 or more ships and having the lethality and survivability needed if a conflict were to break out with China."
DeleteDear ComNavOps, please stop being so correct.
https://news.usni.org/2020/09/18/esper-unmanned-vessels-will-allow-the-navy-to-reach-355-ship-fleet
I sit here with my mouth open. The Navy can’t navigate a ship without killing enlisted sailors The carrier air wings , I think, have a constantly declining combat radius - and no tankers. And now 100 Marines are going to sink the PLAN. And the Navy will have absolute access to the electronic spectrum for all their unmanned force packages. It continues. My mind is boggled.
ReplyDeleteMy personal favorite was the part about the Marines sinking submarines.
DeleteIt appears that the Navy is now superfluous.
The best part of the whole insanity. And , in connection with a prior post this week, I would like to personally apologize to the then North Vietnamese Army for doing my part in killing so many of their infantry and tank crews with our inadequate 5”/54 gun. If we had only known we would have let Newport News do it all.
DeleteAgain, once the FARPs are established and DCA patrols are set up, there's no reason a Navy MH-60R can't FARP and patrol the littoral chokepoints. Say that big Miyako-Okinawa chokepoint, or the Miyako-Tarama-Ishigaki chokepoint....
Delete"no reason a Navy MH-60R can't FARP"
DeleteSo, more fuel requirements piled on the already ridiculous fuel requirements?
"piled on the already ridiculous fuel requirements"
DeleteYou've made a mountain out of a mole hill. These are islands with INTERNATIONAL airports. Fuel exists on these islands.
"Fuel exists on these islands."
DeleteSure, 'cause China is going to allow a known, fixed location, commercial airport to supply fuel to combatants without dropping a few cruise missiles on them?
So operating out of international Airport is now considered "austere" conditions? ;)
DeleteThose 100 Marines are a bunch of Superman, running around islands, FARPS, sinking ships and now SUBS, taking on the entire Chinese military,wow! If we had an entire battalion of these Superman we could get rid of the other 3 services!!!
"FARP'ing MH-60R helicopters."
DeleteSo, this concept which started out as a few men and a fuel drum has evolved into a base the size of Guam and still the Chinese won't be able to find it, won't notice the dozens of ships supporting it, haven't got weapons to attack it, won't even look for it, and it can relocate instantaneously.
I think we've wasted more than enough time on this fantasy.
You're turning this discussion into a mockery. I'm terminating it. You really should consider finding another blog that would suit you better.
DeleteThe Marines on Submarines, is the beginning of a good idea.
ReplyDeleteHow about instead of Subs landing Marines on islands, we skip a couple steps, and put the ASCMs on the Submarine.
That way the SubMarine(tm) can launch missiles and then move to another island. Saving money on landing craft etc.
Uh … there was no mention of Marines on submarines. The statement was that the Marines would sink subs in addition to ships.
DeleteAs technology advancements, future navy conflictions between superpowers also change. What we talk on today's navy warfare mainly work on fighting regional powers only, not other superpowers.
ReplyDeleteNot just US, Chinese navy also has no firm ideas what future navy battles would be, especially this is first time in Chinese history that it has such a large navy force which is growing. We see Chinese navy also does conflict things to reflect this.
Generals usually fight less wars as they were educated with them.
Military industry complex further confuse people as their top goals are to sell their weapons. They create delusions with allies (same food chain) in Congress so we are bombard with -- if we don't buy XYZ, we are doomed. The reality is that we cannot have all.
A strategic blunder would be terrible.
Well, I won't pile on the USMC anti submarine mission, that's just....whatever.
ReplyDeleteThe crazy part is they going "small", admission that is going to be a 100 "guys" running around on some remote island...well, what the hell are they accomplishing?!? If they are just a nuisance and not firing ASMs or UAVs on planned ISR missions, well, maybe China will just let them run around!
I do find somewhat comforting that at least they think the war will last more than 30 days...would be better if heard they need to build up stocks of ammo and missiles, that would be nice and more useful.
Each unit is a 2300 man Regiment, with two planned in Okinawa and one planned in Guam. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/marine-corps-builds-new-littoral-regiment-eye-on-fake-chinese-islands/
DeleteLet's dispense with the "100 guys" talk. Regarding cache sites, agreed wholeheartedly.
RE: ASW, refueling Navy MH-60Rs is a natural extension of the intention to set up RW FARPs. Not sure why it's somehow controversial that Marines fuel Navy helicopters.
Assuming you read the post, the 100 guys reference was a direct quote from Maj. Gen. Tracy King, the Marine Corps’ Director of Expeditionary Warfare.
DeleteThe part that is really disturbing is they don't seem to understand or won't declassify (which is normal) where and what China will do when they "mass" and "achieve conventional parity at a time and place of its choosing,” their forces attack first, which seems to be implied to me. What is the target? Our carriers? our bases? what's left?
ReplyDeleteGoing back to history, this is basically: USN knows Japan is going to attack and not doing anything to protect Pearl Harbor and the carriers and instead building some new insignificant USMC force to scare the Japanese....is this new USMC scaring the Chinese? I doubt it....
I think 30-45 days is wildly optimistic. Intelligent planning and careful execution by the Chinese, along with political maneuvers to deny allies and basing, will destroy or degrade/mission kill any WestPac units within 48 hours.
ReplyDelete"Pearl Harbor Episode 2" will see us with no functional carriers in WestPac, probably anywhere between the IO and Hawaii, and any surface fleet going west into battle will have to be formed up on the West coast.
Not sure what 100 Marines will do before, or after that...
Exactly. 100 guys running are not going to run a lot without support. And what about casualties? I mean running around on terrain is bound to get some ankles sprained, not to mention enemy fire. Also note the urge to use marines' missiles to attack ‘enemy ships while protecting things like US carrier strike groups'. That sounds like an identity crysis running amnok.
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, this looks to me like a bad sum of correct data. Marines correctly understand they cannot be a full featured army along with an accompanying airforce (with 60t tanks and 20t stealth jets), so they naturally try to reinvent themselves. Instead of coming to terms that they must be AN OCEANGOING NAVY'S expeditionary force, meaning LIMITED LIGHT infantry fighting WITHIN navy's umbrella, they are always coming up with some SOCOM version of themselves. This looks to me as if Marines are left in vacuum to find out a missions for themselves, and they always find wrong ones. Like an old Soviet joke about bicycle factory workers, complaining that no matter how they assemble the components they are producing, it always results in a machine gun.
Also, US Navy has a big share of the blame for this, because it won't demand an appropriate mission from it's Marines and do it's part to support it with properly equiped ships. Only then the synergy works.
"Ten thousand combat canoes … it’s coming! The biggest (and most impotent) fleet the world has ever seen!"
ReplyDeleteComNavOps, I think you missed the point. Stealth is what will win the day for Miss Marines. With a radar signature the size of a sailboat, the Chinese will never realize they are there till it's too late. Then they will paddle all the way back to Okinawa, VICTORIOUS.
I think we need to figure out how to WIN the war within 30-45 days, rather than worrying about what will be left after that time. Of course, I think we need to figure out how to win, period. We haven't really fought to win anything since WWII. For the life of me, I can't figure out what we are trying to do at this point.
ReplyDeleteIt's not possible to win a major war in 30-45 days. The vast resources of China ensure that they can last far, far longer than that. That's one of the truths that we have to come to grips with - that a war will be very, very long. It took four years to beat tiny Germany and Japan. Why would we think we could beat China in a month?
DeleteIt's not hard to predict what will happen. Both sides will throw their best equipment at each other for the first year and then both sides will be down to second rate stuff (why did we sink our Spruances, scrap our carriers, etc.?) and victory will go the side that can best gear up their industry for war production. War is always a logistics exercise, ultimately.
CDR Chip,
DeleteThere are numerous potential wars with different off ramps/resolutions. If we're talking Taiwan, the war's over as soon as the ROC Army wins or loses the ground fight. Everything else the ROC, PRC, US, etc. do either enables or disables that, but cannot be itself decisive. If we're talking SCS, then war will probably look very different with very different off ramps.
"I think we need to figure out how to WIN the war within 30-45 days"
DeleteShort of a massive preemptive nuclear strike or some massive unexpected internal collapse in China, not happening.
Then again I don't see a full-fledged peer war breaking out anytime soon.
Maybe a proxy mess in NKorea?
OK, I admit I was exaggerating about winning in 30-45 days. But I would like to see some thinking going into how to win sometime. I'm just not at all certain that we have any thoughts about how to win at all. And if our idea of how win is to put 100 Marines on an island to sink submarines, I hate to break the news, but that ain't happening.
DeleteI don't think we'll see a peer war for some time, and if we are smart we can use that interval to shape things more to our liking. But right now we don't seem to have a clue about objective or strategy, and the stuff we are throwing up against the wall to see if it will stick simply won't.
Only way I see a war with China "lasting" 30 to 45 days is not even that long, it's maybe whoever gets in the fist shoot with the "mostest" and the war is over before it's started, maybe a few days to a week tops:
Delete1. China hits first and sinks a TF carrier or 2, escorts are gone, amphibs are gone, any POTUS is going to have to wonder if it's worth going for more (maybe retaliating with a nuke?) or just accepting "defeat". If it's bases in Japan or Guam and they are gone, same thing, does POTUS have the backing of the country or not? What about Japan or US allies? It's not all military action, it's what is the mood of the country and what are the Chinese going for? Taiwan? More islands? They feel the apple is rotten and falling off the tree and why wait, US being an empty shell? How does the US public react?
2. China puts in the first punch, misses or US forces deflect most of the punch, US SSN sink most of Chinese fleet and China never establish air dominance, at that point, does China keep fighting or do they decide they screwed up and back down? Problem is regime losses face and could have major internal repercussions. This probably could be the scenario where we go past 30 to 40 days if China wants to keep fighting, make a quick, crazy fast pace very first days and then everybody licks there wounds, come back for more, intense fight, go back to lick their wounds, etc...if it's even enough, could last awhile.
IMO, that's why I still don't see a war with China as imminent, I think the forces are still too equal and USA is still somewhat a country, now, in 10 years from now, US DoD buying more useless junk, more civil unrest, more inequality, more haves vs have-nots, political polarization gone mad,etc...might be a different matter, I don't think China is just looking at US military, they have to be looking at US internals too.
Plus, I also think China leaders know they need to "bloody" their troops more, gain more experience, more allies, more arms sales, etc....I think we will engage Chinese forces in Africa (has already happened!) before they go against us in SCS or Taiwan.
Last, I can't think of a scenario where US strikes first, anybody think we would do that?
Kind of breaking news a few minutes ago:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-eyeing-500-ship-navy-233745319.html
"[...] fleets of anywhere from 480 to 534 ships, when manned and unmanned platforms are accounted for"
DeleteAnd here we go.
I think the best outcome for Cold War II is was happened with the Soviets in Cold War I. We bribe up an alliance to contain them before they take the first island chain (just as Truman bribed an alliance around Europe to contain the Soviets), and after a few decades of stalemate, we put enough pressure on their economy to cause them to fold (just as Reagan did in the 1980s). I don't think China will attack the US or any US assets until they are sure they can win, and we ave the ability to prevent that. And I sincerely hope that we aren't stupid enough to attack them.
ReplyDeleteI don't fancy taking our chances against their A2/AD system, although I don't think they are as invulnerable as some seem to suggest. But I think we can hurt China pretty badly without having to come within firing range of their A2/AD.
But we need to wake up and smell the coffee. I think the Cold War II period will be characterized by economic competition, proxy wars, and sponsorship of rogue nations and terror organizations. And we need to be able to win at least our share of those competitions.
“The most destabilizing event in the 21st century is going to be when China can achieve conventional parity at a time and place of its choosing,” Maj. Gen. Tracy King, the Marine Corps’ Director of Expeditionary Warfare said during an online event today.
ReplyDeleteSo, don't let that ever happen.
If that is truly the most destabilizing event that could happen (and I believe it could be) then do what it takes to avoid it.
Duh.
The problem is that what the Marines (and US military) believe is the way to counter China's conventional parity is not with our own conventional forces but with the magic of networks, data, and unmanned ships/aircraft. That's delusional.
DeleteThe Marines believe that the way to ensure conventional superiority is by shedding tanks and artillery. We're screwed!
"So, don't let that ever happen."
DeleteThe Chinese have more people. More people to build ships and weapons -- some of them as good or better than ours (at least on paper). More people to stick on those ships. We have a conundrum: it is getting to the point of a war with China becoming one of attrition. Thus, the hope for robot ships to take the beating instead of our wonderful kids (yes, China will sacrifice a million if necessary).
That is what we are facing and I think our leaders are desperate for new ideas, strategies and "wonder weapons."
"attrition"
DeleteThis is another one of the realities of future war that our military has not yet grasped. Our military focus has been on the self-congratulatory concept of 'maneuver' as a way to avoid casualties. That's great on paper and great if the enemy has the same values. The reality, as you astutely point out, is that China doesn't care about casualties and, in fact, likely sees attrition as a significant military advantage for them.
We can say we won't engage in a war of attrition but when a human wave attack is coming at you, you're in a war of attrition whether you want to be or not. When a wave of missiles and ships are coming at you, you're in a war of attrition. And so on.
We need to accept that war with China WILL be a war of attrition. That being the case, our focus on networks is utterly wrong. You beat attrition with firepower and we're ignoring our firepower (post coming on this topic).
CNOps, there's a circular nature - or at least an incompleteness - to this line of reasoning that I don't think you intended; perhaps you can square it up for us. You're right that network-centric warfare won't help us when faced with a conventionally superior PLAN. Even in the unlikely scenario that distributed lethality is a valid concept, the Chinese can match it just as Prometheus points out that they can largely match the quality of our conventional warship designs. In the same vein, we're not going to come up with any individual warship design or force structure that the PLAN can't match... it's all down to attrition.
DeleteBoldly assuming the USN wakes up tomorrow morning and starts making a maximum effort to move towards your proposed fleet structure, we still have a big problem... numbers. Again, as Prometheus points out, China can out-produce us and the margin by which they can do so is growing rather than shrinking. Recapitalizing the military-industrial base is a great idea, but we can't realistically expect that process to start in any meaningful way - no less finish - before the start of a shooting war. It's technically a political matter, but more realistically it's a matter of history/fact; the US public won't support a major military buildup (and the resulting cuts in domestic social spending) without a Pearl Harbor-esque event or long-standing ultra-high tensions as in Cold War I. China has no incentive to incite either scenario, and likely knows that the consequences of that scenario - a massive US military-industrial buildup - is the only thing that can stop it from achieving and eventually surpassing parity with the US. How do you see us achieving the necessary industrial recapitalization, short of the US public suddenly and magically understanding geopolitics and the necessity of resisting the rise of China despite the near-term discomforts that that entails?
"How do you see us achieving the necessary industrial recapitalization, short of the US public suddenly and magically understanding geopolitics and the necessity of resisting the rise of China despite the near-term discomforts that that entails?"
DeleteYou largely answered your own question in your comment! A couple thoughts:
1. The US people ARE coming [slowly] to the realization of the evil that is China. Trump (like him or hate him) has to be given credit for beginning the process of pulling our industry back to our own shores. That is the start of 'recapitalizing' our military industry. If we can get our manufacturing back then, as with the start of WWII, we'll at least have the foundation to convert to war production. The added benefit is that every factory pulled out of China is one less they have for their own war production.
2. 'Recapitalization', at least in my mind, also involves rethinking our ship/plane/tank designs and switching from ultra-high tech, complex, difficult to build items to more basic designs that are easier to produce, use, and maintain. If we can do that, we'll have a huge leg up on wartime production when the time comes. Hand in hand with that is developing basic but powerful designs and having them in hand and tested via prototypes so that when war comes we can simply pull them out of the closet and put them into production already knowing that they'll work.
Did that help clarify things?
As technologies progress, how to conduct battle also change. This requires lots of explorations than old school thinking.
ReplyDeleteYes, see large fleet bring national prides to the old who watched pass success.
Many nations suffered with this kind of pride.
Right before WWII, German discovered to concentrate tanks in large groups and won many battles. Today, with many anti tanks weapons available, nations dismantle tank regiments into small groups. A large tank group would only invite total destruction while face another superpower.
"Yes, see large fleet bring national prides to the old who watched pass success."
DeleteMany also see the "new" as better than the good. Only the ignorant would ignore the reasons for past successes.
Properly use war games can help.
DeleteWar games are written by people. Parameters used could greatly affect outcomes. Therefore, we need to use in caution and not limit to one company's products.
Old generations have trouble with video games but not young generations who grow with video games.
Hey, Skipper! Agree on the corruption angles. I could write a book on the Ford Class. That said, any chance they've got legions of hyper-super-whatever force multipliers we (the little people) simply aren't aware of yet? You know how those spooks are, if you don't know, you aren't invited anyway.
ReplyDeleteNo, I think it's highly unlikely that there are secret super-weapons sitting around waiting to be used. Think about the developmental weapons we know about: hypersonics, rail guns, lasers, adaptive engines (not a weapon, I know), adaptive cammo, etc. If they aren't keeping those secret, I don't think they're keeping anything else secret.
DeleteNow, what is likely being kept secret is research towards future weapons. Of course, the track record on getting research to production is very poor and the weapons inevitably get revealed when they, eventually, have to go to Congress to fund the actual purchase.
Short answer: no secret weapons but most certainly secret research technologies.
Do you think there's any place for an anti ship land based missile unit in the Pacific? Maybe drawing some information from the PLA's rocket branch and it's organization would be useful, although I think making the Marines into the rocket branch is definitely the wrong way to go.
ReplyDelete"Do you think there's any place for an anti ship land based missile unit in the Pacific?"
DeleteNo. Unless you're defending land - which we don't have any of, in the Pacific, except Guam - missiles are useless. The main weaknesses are targeting and magazine size, both of which are severely lacking for a land base unless you build a base so big that it can operate its own far ranging aerial assets and has a massive missile inventory. Such a base would either be so far back from the combat area, for survivability, or would be so obvious a target as to be instantly targeted by cruise and ballistic missiles and wiped out. If you're not mobile (ship or plane), you're an easy fixed target.
Berger's at it again, this time, Marines will do ASW: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/marines-will-help-fight-submarines
ReplyDelete