Monday, April 10, 2023

Fight the Way You Train

We’ve all heard this adage,
 
Train the way you fight, fight the way you train.
 
Truer words could not be spoken and yet we ignore them.  We do not train the way we’ll fight although, to be fair, lacking a strategy, we have no idea how we’ll fight (China) so it’s a little tough to train for it. 
 
In contrast, China has a very clear military strategy and are training diligently to execute it.  From a Newsmax website article, 
China's military simulated precision strikes against Taiwan in a second day of drills around the island … 
Chinese state television reported that the combat readiness patrols and drills around Taiwan were continuing. 
"Under the unified command of the theater joint operations command center, multiple types of units carried out simulated joint precision strikes on key targets on Taiwan island and the surrounding sea areas, and continue to maintain an offensive posture around the island," it said.
 
Taiwan's defense ministry said that as of Sunday midday (0400 GMT) they had spotted 58 Chinese aircraft, including Su-30 fighters and H-6 bombers, as well as nine ships, around Taiwan.[1] 
We hesitate to even name China as an enemy.  The Biden administration refused to contest China at any level.  Our training, to the extent we do any, is non-specific, generic, set-piece, checkbox type training rather than anything aimed at any actual enemy or realistic scenario.  Contrast this with the Fleet Problems we ran every year prior to WWII (see, “Fleet Problems”).
 
It’s difficult to see how we’ll win a war we refuse to train for.
 
 
 
________________________________
 
[1]Newsmax website, “China Simulates Striking Taiwan on Second Day of Drills”, 9-Apr-2023,
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/china-taiwan-drills/2023/04/09/id/1115519/
Posted by at
Labels:

54 comments:

  1. CDR ChipApril 10, 2023 at 5:59 AM

    But we'll get our pronouns right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trondude 5952April 10, 2023 at 11:29 AM

      Probably not, because Xi is a he, but Xi pronounced she.

      So confusing.

      Delete
  2. Coffee ManApril 10, 2023 at 7:13 AM

    I often wonder why a Representative or Senator does not point blank ask any of the Joint Chiefs what their mission is. What is the purpose of the US Military? I would love to hear the answers and the crap that spouts out of their mouths.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Son of a SailorApril 10, 2023 at 7:16 AM

    "The Biden administration refused to contest China at any level."

    Except repeatedly committing to the defense to Taiwan (something no previous president had done even once, at least since... Eisenhower?), securing expanded basing rights in the Philippines, strengthening our alliances in the region, weakening China's #1 ally Russia in Ukraine, (belatedly) expanding weapons and sub production, and minimal prepping for a war with China (Guam/Okinawa defense and dispersion planning)... I'm not saying it's enough, but it's not nothing. China sure isn't happy with the Biden administration.

    We get it: You like Newsmax and don't like Biden. But this comment was a bit one sided.

    Most of the problems the Navy has have been in place for 20+ years and are non-partisan. It's not like Trump fixed the problems either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsApril 10, 2023 at 7:35 AM

      "Taiwan"

      I'm not aware of any statement of intent to defend Taiwan. Can you provide a link to such a statement?

      "basing rights"

      The Philippine constitution prohibits the permanent basing of foreign troops. We do have an agreement to allow small units to TEMPORARILY ROTATE through the Philippines. That's not exactly basing rights.

      "Ukraine"

      Whatever strategy this administration is pursuing in Ukraine (and it's not clear there is a coherent strategy), it's got nothing to do with weakening a Chinese ally. I would also note that the administration's actions have weakened the US by depleting munitions inventories to dangerously low levels and have weakened us by diverting budget from maintenance, training, and readiness to supply Ukraine.

      "expanding weapons and sub production"

      This is patently false as documented in the recent weapons procurement post. The Navy/industry has stated that they lack the capacity to increase submarine production.

      " minimal prepping for a war with China"

      I'm unaware of any significant war prep. Again, can you provide a link? If there is any prep, the key word is 'minimal'.

      Toss in economic warfare (you're aware of what China is doing to destroy the dollar, I assume), cyber attacks, territorial intrusions into other country's waters which we're not contesting, intellectual property theft which we're not addressing, spy balloons (yeah, I had to throw that in) which we are accepting with no consequences for China, etc. and it's pretty clear that this administration is not contesting China at any level other than the occasion, mild, public statement.

      "You like Newsmax and don't like Biden."

      As far as this blog is concerned, I neither like nor dislike ANY administration on a political basis. What I do like or dislike are specific factual actions that negatively impact our defense capabilities and I will call those out regardless of who the President is.

      "Most of the problems the Navy has have been in place for 20+ years"

      And that's a completely true statement.

      Delete
    2. CDR ChipApril 10, 2023 at 7:49 AM

      ComNavOps, as a follower of this blog for several years, I think it's abundantly clear that you have been an equal opportunity critic of decisions by whatever administration was in power.

      Delete
    3. JjabatieApril 10, 2023 at 8:24 AM

      To be fair, the Pentagon and Congress are the main controllers of the DODs direction, structure, and procurement. Sure, numbers like 600 or 355 MIGHT originate on Pennsylvania Ave, but those numbers will become reality, or not, based on the actions of the other entitys.
      All the Chinese exercises are interesting. Seems as if they're starting to "flex" a bit more regionally. So how many ships do we have in attendance to observe?? Seems like a great time to have a multi-CVN exercise in the same area. Reusing history, maybe its time for a few SSGNs to surface and have a steel beach BBQ in the Strait. Of course thats just flexing and at some level is pointless, and more often than not, "sending a message" accomplishes nothing. But their training exercises are a great opportunity for us to gather intel, do tracking exercises, gather Sigint, practice signature recognition, and work on the Cold War skills that Im sure have atrophied.
      I wonder if we are???

      Delete
    4. Son of a SailorApril 10, 2023 at 10:27 AM

      "Taiwan"

      Biden's break in policy, stating clearly that US would defend Taiwan, have appeared in the news several times, with follow up articles about how both Beijing and Taipei are counting how often he says it (even if other advisors walk back his comments).

      https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-united-states-government-and-politics-d4d09deac1527f34efebef5729cbfa58

      "basing rights"

      The US has gain access to more Philippine bases, many on the Northern coast, with the clear implication that they would be used in a conflict with China. The US seems confident enough in this that they are investing in infrastructure there, and China is clearly upset about the expansion.

      https://news.usni.org/2023/03/20/u-s-begins-air-base-rehab-in-philippines-as-part-of-basing-agreement

      "Ukraine"

      Best bang-for-the-buck on any recent military spending. And leading to increased military production capacity at home.

      https://www.csis.org/analysis/reviving-arsenal-democracy-steps-surging-defense-industrial-capacity

      "expanded Naval weapon production"

      As I added to the comments in your post, after your article was written, there was an announcement for plans to double LRASM and sextuple Tomahawk production.

      https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023/04/navy-looks-to-drastically-increase-missile-production/

      "expanded sub production"

      Investments planned to increase submarine production capacity to 2 or (suspend disbelief for a moment) 3 subs per year.

      https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/15/how-the-us-plans-to-expand-its-submarine-industrial-base-for-aukus/

      I don't like Biden either. The failure to shoot down the balloon makes my head explode. So much more needs to be done. But credit where credit is due.

      Separately, Newsmax is widely regarded as one of the most biased news organizations out there. Citing it as a source delivers a message, intentional or not.

      Delete
    5. Aim9snakeApril 10, 2023 at 12:16 PM

      The Philippines, like most nations in Asia, will likely declare neutrality in a prospective Sino-American War, so it can play both sides against each other to maximize the benefits for the Filipinos. The Filipino government will then demand the US withdraw those forces stationed on Filipino soil; if the US refuses, the Philippines can then play the victim; if the US loses, the Philippines can then request Chinese aid in throwing out the "colonizers."

      Seriously, try putting yourself into other, NON-AMERICAN shoes.

      Delete
    6. ComNavOpsApril 10, 2023 at 12:33 PM

      "stating clearly that US would defend Taiwan"

      He made no such statement. Using the source you cite, here's what the White House had to say, The added emphasis is mine.

      "A White House official said BIDEN WAS NOT OUTLINING A CHANGE IN U.S. POLICYTOWARD TAIWAN, ...

      There is NO MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY BETWEEN THE U.S. AND TAIWAN, but America sells the Taiwanese military hardware. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Biden’s comment “highlighted our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to help provide Taiwan the means to defend itself.”

      You need to read your own sources more carefully!

      "The US has gain access to more Philippine bases"

      The US has NOT gained bases. The Philippine constitution forbids permanent basing of foreign troops and equipment. The agreement is to allow small units to ROTATE in and out of the country and stage their equipment while the troops are present. From the article you cite,

      "allows for U.S. forces to stage material and rotate forces throughout sites in the country"

      Again, read your own sources carefully!

      "Best bang-for-the-buck on any recent military spending. And leading to increased military production capacity at home."

      That's an opinion by you, one which I might agree with if the spending and 'lend lease' was done with a strategic plan in mind, which there is no indication of.

      As far as production, Ukraine is leading to some increases in production but, as I documented, it's a minimal increase, at least for the Navy. I would also note that 'doubling' tiny quantities only gains a small actual increase. For example, doubling production from 30 missiles per year to 60 is insignificant in the context of war munitions supply. Regardless, there is zero indication that our Ukraine involvement is in any way related to China.

      " increase submarine production "

      The Navy has been working - half-heartedly - to accomplish this for at least a decade. It has nothing to with China, per se, and is not unique to the Biden administration.

      "But credit where credit is due."

      Absolutely! And when Biden does something credit-worthy, I'll be first in line to praise him. Thus far, he hasn't and none of the examples you cited qualify.

      "Newsmax is widely regarded as one of the most biased"

      Not even close! Organizations such as MSNBC, NPR, the Navy, DoD, and hundreds of others are more biased but ... ... I don't care! An organization's bias is irrelevant to me. All I care about is whether they report actual facts. I can, and do, use reports/facts from any and all organizations, AFTER I VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THOSE FACTS. I pay no attention to the organization's bias or opinions. I've used Chinese, Russian, liberal, and conservative sources AFTER VERIFYING THEIR VERACITY.

      I also note the historical record of the veracity of the various sources I use to help me assess whether what they're reporting is likely to be true or not.

      I would submit that you, in fact, are showing your bias by automatically rejecting sources because of what your perceive as their biases.

      In conclusion, I would ask you to examine and analyze your sources more carefully and be sure that what you think you're reading is what's actually being said. Then, go the next step and verify that what you're reading is true (the basing, for example, is disproven by the Philippine constitution so you know it can only be a small, temporary rotation not an actual base even if a news report might, inaccurately, use the term 'base'.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousApril 10, 2023 at 12:46 PM

      Not to get too political, but Trump sold Taiwan about $16.2 billion in arms, which included M-1 tanks, F-16 fighters, Harpoon missiles for coastal defense, and Mark 54 and Mk 48 torpedoes. In his 8 years, Obama's arm sales to Taiwan totaled $14.1 billion.

      Despite his faults, Trump was the first President since Eisenhower to take the defense of Taiwan seriously.

      Delete
    8. Son of a SailorApril 10, 2023 at 1:47 PM

      Whoa! Quite the vehement response. I'm a big fan of this blog, truly, so I'm happy to engage on some clarifications:

      Taiwan Defense

      Biden is literally the only president to say he would use US force to defend Taiwan since the 70s. That's a fact. He said it four times. China and Taiwan are literally counting how often he says it. It's the definition of contesting China's right to forcibly reunify Taiwan.

      I also mentioned that White House officials keep trying to walk back his comments (I read the source, I didn't hide this part) but what a president says still matters, especially when they repeat themselves four times. Or at least China and Taiwan seem to think it matters.

      https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/19/biden-leaves-no-doubt-strategic-ambiguity-toward-taiwan-is-dead-00057658

      Philippines

      I said 'basing rights' not bases. That is still accurate. Whether they will be worth anything in a conflict beyond adding targets for China is open for debate. Still an anti-China move.

      Ukraine

      Taiwan is the biggest potential conflict between the US and China, and Ukraine is very relevant to Taiwan. People compare Ukraine to Taiwan: Can the West (and specifically US) be counted on to stand up to an invasion? If the US won't even support Ukraine, without troops, why would we have any trust that they would support Taiwan? How well can a small country repel an invasion from a bigger country? Stopping the Russians in Ukraine makes China less confident about their ability to successfully invade Taiwan. If we abandoned Ukraine, it would make China more confident. People in both countries mention it specifically as a part of their calculations.

      Current US - China Tensions

      One barometer of how much or how little the current administration has done to oppose Chinese plans is the tensions between the countries. Relations are not good. Are we going to argue about that? It implies the US is doing something to give them a hard time. If we 'refused to contest China at any level' wouldn't they be better?

      Newsmax

      Feel free to disagree, but they are an objectively conservative network. To the right of Foxs News, who have admitted to misinforming their viewers to avoid upsetting them with the truth. Okay, maybe there is an international conspiracy across all mainstream Western media from Poland to Japan (they agree on most topics...), but that would be quite the accomplishment involving tens of thousands of employees and tens of countries... If you verify Newsmax data somewhere else, I'd recommend citing that more credible, less biased source, the same with any other biased source.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousApril 10, 2023 at 2:37 PM

      "Biden is literally the only president to say he would use US force to defend Taiwan since the 70s. That's a fact. He said it four times."

      And, in every instance, the White House walked back Biden's comments.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousApril 10, 2023 at 4:00 PM

      Politico? They go more left then a NASCAR race. Journalism as it was once known, is gone. Fact replaced by fiction. Look at it from the perspective of the world looking inward towards the United States. Personally, I do not rely upon today's media to be "informed", I take it upon myself to search for the facts.

      The Ukraine-Russia lovers quarrel is more of a matter for the EU than it is for the United States. The U.S. has gone from being The Waltons to Jerry Springer.

      We have shifted from focusing on Warfighting to proper pronoun usage. I wonder what the numbers show as far as the number of ship collisions and accidents are in the 21st Century then the late 20th Century? If our surface ships are not sailing into things, then submarines hitting things under the sea. How about we update the underwater charts? The PRC is doing it.

      Final thought: The U.S. as a whole got complacent with industry, research, and development. We hoped into the center lane and hit the cruise control. Sadly, politics has seeped into the military and when you introduce politics into things, you wind up with individuals who seem to forget they wear a uniform. Poof!

      Delete
    11. ComNavOpsApril 10, 2023 at 4:21 PM

      "Biden is literally the only president to say he would use US force to defend Taiwan"

      I'm going to say this one last time. From the source you cited,

      "... when a reporter asked if the United States would respond militarily if China invaded the island.

      “Yes,” he said Monday. “That’s the commitment we made.”

      He did not say that he would send US forces to fight China. He said - read it slowly and carefully - 'that's the commitment we made'. The only commitment we have with Taiwan is the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. Here's the relevant quote from that Act:

      "The TRA does not guarantee the U.S. will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, as its primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities", and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan". However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress."

      There is not a commitment to defend Taiwan with US forces and the President has no authority to unilaterally do so. The Constitution and the War Powers Act specifically limit what the President can unilaterally do.

      Biden has definitive cognitive issues (some sort of dementia) and is serially and habitually confused/lies (you choose which end of that spectrum you'd like). He is incapable of sustained, clear, coherent thought. The White House has walked back his statements every time he's made them. I doubt he even knows what he's saying any more than when he makes hundreds of other demonstrably false claims about events that never happened.

      While none of us can know what, exactly, Biden has in his mind (I doubt he knows) when he refers to 'commitment', it is clear to the White House and everyone else that the official meaning is a commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act.

      "I said 'basing rights'"

      They are not basing rights. They are an agreement to allow small units to ROTATE through the area and bring their equipment along for the duration. THAT IS NOT A BASE OR BASING RIGHTS. It's akin to having an overnight guest.

      "Ukraine"

      Ukraine may have lessons for us in dealing with China but Biden's support for Ukraine has nothing to with China, at least not in any way that's every been publicly stated.

      "Relations are not good."

      They are not but that's hardly proof of some overall anti-China scheme of Biden's. Relations were worse when Trump was in office and relations have been bad for decades. Freedom of Navigation exercises, for example, have been conducted for decades and have nothing to do with Biden.

      "verify Newsmax data"

      I verify all my information regardless of source. If you can document a single instance of false data from Newsmax (or any other source I use), please do so. If not, please refrain from implying that their information is, somehow, unreliable. If you have that much distrust of my many sources, you should probably find a blog that you're more comfortable with.

      Delete
    12. ComNavOpsApril 10, 2023 at 4:26 PM

      "Biden is literally the only president to say he would use US force to defend Taiwan since the 70s."

      Incorrect. George W. Bush said much the same thing. From an ABC article (see, "Bush Comment About Taiwan"

      "It's not the first time an American president has had to walk back comments about Taiwan's defense. In 2001, shortly after he took office, George W. Bush told ABC News's Charlie Gibson he would also come to Taiwan's defense.

      "With the full force of the American military?" asked Gibson. Bush responded: "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."

      Biden, then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blasted Bush in an editorial, writing, "In this case, his inattention to detail has damaged U.S. credibility with our allies and sown confusion throughout the Pacific Rim."

      Delete
    13. ComNavOpsApril 10, 2023 at 4:30 PM

      "Politico?"

      We're not going to discuss politics unless there is a direct connection to naval matters.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousApril 10, 2023 at 4:47 PM

      Roger that.

      Delete
    15. Son of a SailorApril 10, 2023 at 8:09 PM

      You got me - I missed the George W. Bush quote.

      This has been an oddly aggressive response to my two points:

      1) Saying the Biden administration has "refused to contest China at any level" is such a stupidly low bar to set that it detracts from the quality parts of this blog.

      They've done nothing? Not a thing? Of course they have. It's not enough, but it's not nothing.

      2) Newsmax is a loaded source.

      Don't want to talk politics? Don't lead with a partisan propaganda citation like Newsmax.

      This blog has a lot of great content. I've written my politicians based on it! The goal of my comments is simply to urge it to be LESS political. Biden may be incompetent, but you don't need to use hyperbole to make that point. If you confirm your sources, why lead with Newsmax?

      If your goal is a non-partisan Naval blog, don't be political.

      Delete
    16. ComNavOpsApril 11, 2023 at 5:45 AM

      " If you confirm your sources, why lead with Newsmax?"

      Because I'm non-biased. I will use - and have used - a wide variety of sources. My only requirement for a source is that they offer useful, interesting, verifiably accurate information.

      I'll repeat, give me proof that they've provided inaccurate data/information that I've used and I'll instantly change/retract it.

      Assuming you can't disprove anything from the source, the bias would appear to be yours. You seem to want to rule out the use of perfectly valid sources simply due to your own bias. Fortunately, I don't have that kind of bias so I'm able to make use of an unlimited number of sources. You're free to limit your horizons but I'll continue to use a variety of sources.

      "If your goal is a non-partisan Naval blog"

      That's not even remotely my goal ! My goal is to be a logic and fact-driven purveyor of naval analyses.

      "don't be political."

      Since when did verifiable facts become political? Facts are facts, regardless of the source. Again, that sounds like bias on your part.

      I've used source material from Newsmax, Chinese websites, MSNBC, AP, ABC, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Redstate, Al Jazeera, Washington Post, CNN, Russian websites, the US Navy, Stars and Stripes, and many dozens more. What about that assortment suggests partisanship to you?

      I would ask you to leave you biases at home if you choose to comment. Comment on the facts, not your bias.

      Delete
    17. ComNavOpsApril 11, 2023 at 6:57 AM

      "You got me - I missed the George W. Bush quote."

      'Getting you' was not the point. The point was to demonstrate that Biden's statement (assuming he even grasped what he was talking about) was nothing unique among US Presidents and signifies no change in policy or confrontation with China.

      Delete
  4. G2milApril 10, 2023 at 10:14 AM

    Having lived in the Philippines for several years and working among their military I continue to follow events there closely. They want no part of a war with China, their largest trading partner. Ethnic Chinese own half their corporations. They are accepting millions of American dollars to improve their airbases and ports, but don't allow the American military to keep any ammo or equipment there. I suspect they have told the Chinese please don't attack if war occurs, we won't let the American military land and expel any that are here in the Philippines.

    I just watched a video of the latest Balkitan exercise and much of it was offloading American equipment. Without permission to stockpile support equipment and ammo, these bases would be of little value anyway. If you recall my series, I prefer bases in the Marianas where we can store stuff and can use it in wartime without permission, and its outside the range of mainland Chinese airpower. Any ship at Subic or Manila will be sunk on day one. We need to stop wasting money in the Philippines unless they agree to allow us to prepo stuff for wartime use, but most of the country is too close to China and too vulnerable to missile and air attacks. Davao would be okay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. G2milApril 10, 2023 at 11:33 AM

    I assume everyone has seen that Navy PR stunt on 60-minutes where the Admiral says the Navy is 100% ready to surge forces to defend Taiwan. It was good to see someone push back.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/retired-navy-commander-sounds-alarm-us-military-readiness-cant-fight-sustained-war

    And though he praised the U.S. for continuing to show resolve by sending a Navy warship through the South China Sea, Lippold warned the U.S. does not have the capability to fight a war if necessary.

    "It's clear we couldn't even fight one today because we don't have the depth. We don't have the ability to fight a sustained conflict. We can do the quick hit, hard hit, get in and out and stop. But we don't have the ability to do that sustained effort. And that's what is concerning to the American people and our allies," he said, noting that the military no longer has the capability to fight a "two-front major war."
    _________________________________

    They did a big war game that overlooked our greatest weakness, ammo stocks. A fleet will expend most aboard with a week of serious combat. Then what? They talk about the Air Force bombers with great glide bombs. They'll run out in two weeks too. Of course the inventory is secret, but go look at the budget requests for the past ten years for an idea. And Ukraine depleted some of that.

    Our Navy struggles to ready ships for routine deployments. There is no surge ability cause Admirals wear out ships and crews on endless lengthy peacetime deployments to play pretend war. They just extended Ike's carrier deployment. Read about the US Navy's response when Ukraine flared up in 2022. At best the Navy sent a couple of destroyers. The Marines were ready to send a small force, but the Navy had no amphibs ready to send them.

    The Navy also has a huge problem getting some crew to deploy, as sailors have urgent issues when its time to go. Imagine if they thought they might have to fight China? Women would get pregnant, men would get injured or sick or file EEOC complaints, and some would just disappear. They signed up to travel and for college benefits, not to end up in a major war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KevthePopeApril 11, 2023 at 9:14 AM

      very spot on; If the military was really serious, we'd notice a shift, starting with the 140 billion spent on R&D being reduced by say 20-30 billion and that would be spent on more weapons procurement and actual operational maintenance. They'd also look at things already procured and easily altered to serve a purpose. A drone for tanking? Nice, but that huge fleet of S-3 Vikings at AMARG could carry a crap ton more fuel and if you really wanted to "drone" them, or reduce the pilot needs, that could be done or at least attempted. When they procure in 4 figures each year the LRASM's needed to say man 30 b-1 bombers pulled also out of AMARG, and that could launch from relative safey, say Wake, with the right # of paid for tankers also sitting in AMARG, and train to do that, simply crush any invasion force and then train follow up hits on the Chinese mainland, you'd know they are serious. And it won't happen, especially with an administration under the payroll of China.

      Delete
  6. G2milApril 10, 2023 at 11:41 AM

    And I have the simple solution. Our Navy is fixated with trying to keep on third of the fleet deployed. The traditional scheme is one-third having returned in refit, remanning, leave, and maintenance. One third training/workup. One third deployed. Marine infantry battalions use the same pattern.

    How about one-quarter in refit, remanning, and maintenance, one-quarter in training/workup, one-quarter on 72-hour standby to deploy if needed, and one-quarter deployed.

    So with a 300 ship Navy we have 75 deployed (rather than a 100) but can surge 75 more in three days when really needed! This also puts less wear on ships and crews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aim9snakeApril 10, 2023 at 12:46 PM

      What happens to those ships on 72-hour standby when those 72 hours end? Will this standby be scheduled for before the ships are to be deployed, while thos currently deployed enter the maintenance cycle?

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsApril 10, 2023 at 1:25 PM

      "How about one-quarter in refit"

      As you likely know, around 2012, the Navy attempted to implement an improved readiness, training, and deployment scheme - the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP). It was supposed to increased deployments, readiness, surge capacity, maintenance, and training. Unfortunately and predictably, it collapsed almost immediately when the very first carrier deployment had to be cancelled due to maintenance issues.

      Delete
    3. G2milApril 10, 2023 at 1:50 PM

      By 72 hours, I mean during their six-month ready phase mostly at their homeport, the ship will be expected to deploy with 72 hours notice to react to a crisis. It takes a while to round up the crew ashore and top off supplies.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousApril 10, 2023 at 3:16 PM

    Although China's rising does stun many, rather than be emotional, we need to be sober and rationale. Giving conflicts are quite possible between a rising power and incumbent, sound preparations are necessary. No doubt, China's technology advancements are significant as many argue even with current almost all out technological sanctions won't be able to stop China as they have built foundations on science already.

    Frankly, main challenges come from high tech weapons, especially precision weapons can hit distant target which the other side cannot or difficult to intercept. This is how Pentagon is desperate on hypersonic weapons. We don't want it desperate but deliver, especially after spent so much money. Long distance reconnaissance and communications, especially under enemy's electronic warfare (jamming, etc.) are also vital. Nuclear submarine is one field which US still has commanding lead while drones fell behind China.

    Because of nuclear weapons, direct large scale war between US and China are not likely but small conflicts and even proxy wars are quite possible. Drones and long distant precision weapons (rely on reconnaissance) are most important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 11, 2023 at 2:33 PM

      Now, every year, China graduates more than 10 times STEM students in comparison to US. Even though most work in civilian industries but they are pool of talents. Civilian industries are also foundation of a nation's defense industry (supply technologies and parts). There is no surprise that Chinese defense industry turns out many high tech weapons these days.

      Unfortunately, most smart US high school students don't choose STEM as their college majors.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsApril 11, 2023 at 3:56 PM

      Enough with the STEM crap! It's extremely misleading. As of 2016 data, China had 7.8 x STEM graduates but it should also be noted that China has around 1.5B population versus the US population of around 330M. Thus China's population is 4.5x larger and would be expected to graduate more students from every discipline.

      More to the point, the numbers are meaningless. The US has no shortage of engineers and scientists that I'm aware of. Therefore, we're graduating all we need. More than that is just excess that can't be used. Similarly, I'm unaware that China has any inherent advantage due to STEM graduates. Like the US, China can only gainfully employ a certain number. What that number is, I don't know but I'm guessing it's far less than what they have available.

      The STEM issue matters ONLY IF IT PRODUCES AN ACTUAL PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE FOR ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER and there is no demonstrable advantage/disadvantage that I'm aware of. If you have some data showing there is an advantage/disadvantage, please share it. Otherwise, drop it.

      I would also note that the virtual carbon copy nature of China's military forces strongly suggests that China's technological capabilities are as much a product of espionage and theft as they are the presence of brilliant scientists.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsApril 12, 2023 at 10:35 AM

      "Can't let this one sit."

      I deleted your comment because you offered no data to support your contention.

      H-1B visas are NOT for STEM students. The program is for "specialty occupations". That might be something in a scientific discipline or it might be a person with an especially sensitive olfactory sense to help test perfumes. Thus, your reference to the visas is meaningless unless you can provide data on the breakdown of skill sets.

      From the govt website,

      "The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation is one that requires the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent."

      And so on with the rest of your comment. It was all unproven, unfounded claims.

      Your comment about patent applications refutes your basic premise that the US is failing due to lack of scientists.

      Gather some data, if you can find any that supports your contention, and then feel free to repost. Until then, drop the STEM issue as there is no evidence to support it that I'm aware of.

      Delete
  8. cheezitApril 11, 2023 at 7:11 AM

    Suppose for a moment that we wanted to do this. What would the exercise look like?



    My assumptions are that

    1) the Chinese A2/AD 'bubble' around their coasts composed of land and air-based ASuW assets, while not a magic forcefield keeping American battle groups a thousand miles from China's shore, would in fact make our way of doing business for the last thirty years or so relatively ineffective and extraordinarily inefficient, especially given the fact that our equipment and (especially!) our training have focused on strike operations in relatively permissive environments

    2) The Chinese oil supply is the weakest link in their economy, with peacetime usage being much higher than peacetime production and less than three months' (peacetime) storage

    3) China is reliant on oil imports from the Gulf states, which must come by sea at the present


    As such, the obvious strategy is to lean heavily on attack subs to shut off the SLOC between China and the Gulf states (three straits more or less), and a cruise missile sub to take out as much of their storage and refinery capacity as possible. We would then more or less starve them out. The CVBGs would be surged but maintain a defensive posture in friendly waters, the Marines would more or less sit this one out seeing as they don't have the force structure to be useful in this scenario.

    Yes there are a lot of caveats here, but if someone's got a better idea (and "Air/Sea Battle" isn't it) I'm all ears.



    Anyways, an exercise for this would entail, at a minimum, a few fast attacks making rapid transits through the Indian Ocean while a cruise missile boat would make a rapid transit to a station point in the deep water just outside the First Island Chain (TLAMs can hit pretty much all of the coastal Chinese infrastructure from a wide range of spots here). The SSGN would then proceed to PD and then make loud noises continuously for six minutes, before egressing at best speed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aim9snakeApril 11, 2023 at 1:32 PM

      China has pipelines running between her and Russia, i.e., OVER LAND, to supply oil in case the USN tries to initiate a blockade. China also shares a border with with Pakistan, with whom she has close ties and who'll cheerfully serve as a middleman for oil the Gulf States will deliver to Pakistani ports and then ship OVER LAND to China. An oil embargo and blockade will do NOTHING unless the US is also willing to attack Russia and Pakistan, and the US government will have to think hard over whether or not it's worthwhile to expand the war like that.

      DO MORE RESEARCH.

      Delete
    2. cheezitApril 11, 2023 at 1:49 PM

      The pipelines going into China are not there "in case" they lose the SLOC, rather they are in constant use at close to capacity - they can't simply choose to dramatically increase flow to make up for shortfalls elsewhere. Oil pipelines work rather poorly when far below design capacity, especially the ones coming from eastern Russia that will literally burst due to the long-chain hydrocarbons gelling and clogging if there isn't a sufficient constant flow of warm oil through them. And besides, if there is a pipeline from Country A into Country B there is also a terminal that is entirely in Country B that can be blown up like anything else!

      The peacetime level of Chinese oil use requires the sum of domestic production capacity and pipeline imports PLUS substantial sea-based imports to sustain. Wartime use will be higher, and domestic oil production takes time to spin up even if you're willing to tolerate wellheads occasionally blowing up. Their maritime imports of oil are a critical vulnerability, as are their food and industrial chemical imports.

      Furthermore, destroying refineries remains effective even if enough crude can be sourced from internal production and pipelines, which it can't.

      Delete
    3. Aim9snakeApril 11, 2023 at 2:46 PM

      Yet you fail to mention the necessity of expanding a prospective Sino-American War to one in which the US is also attacking Russia and Pakistan, to cutoff China's oil supply. You fail to note a blockade against China will also affect other nations in Asia, e.g., US allies Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, and more, which will then drive them to China's side in a prospective Sino-American War. You fail to mention China's domestic oil sources in Manchuria, and that China can extend its supply by imposing rationing.

      DO MORE RESEARCH. We have no single "I win!" button we can push to instantly win a prospective war. Instead, we have many steps we must take to even make victory a possibility, including diplomatic actions necessary to keep what allies we have and to limit those of China.

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsApril 11, 2023 at 3:40 PM

      Just to interject an historical reference note. Germany and Japan managed to keep their military oil production going sufficient to support their forces until nearly the very end of the war, albeit not without shortages. To be fair, the Allies also suffered frequent shortages! The point is that a country at war finds ways to produce oil. This can be increased domestic production, increased importation, SEVERE public use rationing, alternative fuels, etc.

      Much of China's current oil consumption supports civilian applications and citizen 'creature comforts'. These can be severely throttled back during war which has the effect of increasing available oil for the military.

      Yes, oil represents a vulnerability for China but, to be fair, it's also a vulnerability for the US. I see China facing hardships from an attempted oil attack/blockade but the results won't manifest in any strategically useful way until years into a war. Is that kind of a delayed response strategically useful to us? That's debatable.

      As was noted, are we willing to attack Russian or deep inland Chinese pipelines and terminals? It depends on how serious a war we feel we're in.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsApril 11, 2023 at 3:43 PM

      Just a thought ... there may be other, greater vulnerabilities that China suffers from. Just as we're gravely vulnerable to computer chip shortages and electronics raw material shortages (rare earths, for example), so too, China likely has similar vulnerabilities. I don't know what, specifically, they are but I'm sure they exist. Rather than concentrate on attacking/blockading oil, it might be more effective, in a shorter time frame, to attack China's chip manufacturing (or whatever vulnerability is most advantageous for us).

      Oil is a well known potential vulnerability but we might to better to consider others. Just a thought.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousApril 12, 2023 at 2:27 AM

      Yes in theory China could address a shortage of the ‘oils’ used in its military economy by substituting civilian-grade gasoline (NATO tanks for example will supposedly run on any sort of fuel, even whiskey).
      Not easy though, and there are all sorts of technical issues with refineries which are designed and optimized to produce a particular output from a particular grade of crude.
      In WW2 the Japanese were fuelling their aircraft with a distillate produced from acorns, and it did indeed work to a point (although not very well).
      In the Battle of Britain the 100 octane US fuel that the Brits bought from us gave the RAF’s Spitfires a critical extra 10mph or so, which was a big help to them, when the Luftwaffe was using relatively low grade Romanian fuel.
      So, yes to a point the Chinese could do as you suggest, but not easily, and not quickly.

      Delete
    7. Austin VernonApril 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM

      I agree with CNO, China could get adequate oil for military operations if they wanted. This is doubly true if they have a few years to prepare and electrify more of their economy.

      I think people underestimate how many munitions and sorties you need to be effective in harming economic capacity. China has over 1100 coal power plants and that is only a portion of their electricity generation. How many cruise missiles would that eat to temporarily damage electricity production? There may be other components in shortage but of course they will be heavily defended. There are overland routes to contend with. It was hard for us to damage Japan's industrial capability even though they are an island and were extremely vulnerable to submarines and mines.

      Of course we have subjugated China before and it took physically controlling all their port cities and having extensive river operations to try and keep things from getting too out of control in the hinterlands. If you aren't aiming for that then I doubt you can win by restricting their economy.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 12, 2023 at 9:16 AM

      Dear @CNO,

      Any guest claiming "we can blockade China's oil" without also posting an estimate of the amount (barrels or days) of oil stored in the Chinese salt domes
      should be ignored.

      Any poster claiming the Chinese will run out of oil before US runs out of missiles and ships should be blocked as pure noise.

      Delete
    9. ComNavOpsApril 12, 2023 at 10:26 AM

      "should be ignored. ... should be blocked"

      Well, we don't do that but I do insist on referencing actual data for things that are not commonly accepted facts.

      For example, you could further the discussion by citing some statistics on Chinese oil storage and consumption to support your contention.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousApril 12, 2023 at 10:49 AM

      Ah, but I don't have such estimates. Nor does anyone else for that matter. Which is problematic (as the kids say) when being posed as war strategy for a potentially existential conflict.

      My point only that I have come to find qualitative hand waving in the absence of domain knowledge tiresome. Not criticizing you - you didn't make the point, but I've heard the "blockade oil with attack subs" for at least a decade without once seeing anyone providing the math of how that would work.

      Same issue I had with OFRP. No one could show how the math worked despite the outlandish claims which were at variance with everything anyone serious knew about non-deterministic, highly skewed, fat tailed processes (like ship maintenance).

      On the other hand, if you want to ask me how much marine bunker and jet fuel we've prepositioned for Pac fleet operations in the Pacific at Red Hill in Oahu, I think the answer is "zero" once they receive the approvals to defuel and decommission.

      So I sense an asymmetry here. You write about training for the fight. I'd be happy to see us not emptying wartime fuel stores (Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Red Hill), Divesting Marine Corp of offensive assets, and not decommissioning 25 ships/year.

      Delete
    11. ComNavOpsApril 12, 2023 at 12:21 PM

      "Ah, but I don't have such estimates. Nor does anyone else for that matter."

      And yet, with no data, you claim that China can't be blockaded into submission? If you acknowledge having no data, how can you make that claim with any more credibility than the people who claim China can be blockaded into submission? You see the point, here? Without data, everyone is just making unfounded claims.

      "My point only that I have come to find qualitative hand waving in the absence of domain knowledge tiresome."

      And yet, that's EXACTLY what you're doing! You see that, right?

      Now, note that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your contention. I'm just pointing out that you've presented no more evidence to support your claim than the people who claim the opposite.

      So, what to do?

      You cared enough to comment forcefully so why don't you research the issue and present actual data. Yes, data does exist but you may have to dig to find it and you will have to extrapolate and manipulate to derive data.

      For example, data is readily available on China's internal production and foreign imports of oil. Data can be extrapolated on civilian and military usage. Civilian oil consumption in the US is readily available and military usage can be extrapolated from WWII data. And so on. As you can see, it is possible to assemble a logical, factual assessment of the ability (or lack thereof) to blockade China into oil submission; it will just require some serious research.

      You may not care to put that degree of effort into this and that's understandable but, if that's the case, you need to stop making claims you can't support. Again, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just insisting that any position/claim be factually based. This applies to people on both sides of the issue.

      Consider this an encouraging challenge for you rather than any sort of rebuke. The people claiming a blockade can work have no more support for their position than the reverse. We need data. Step up to the plate, everyone!

      Delete
    12. Austin VernonApril 12, 2023 at 2:19 PM

      Chinese imports - https://www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-10-imports/
      Chinese exports - https://www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-10-exports/

      Note these are gross, not net imports/exports.

      The categories that stand out are oil, computer chips, food, and ores of iron, copper, etc.

      I've covered their oil situation in the blog post here, they have a credible way to get the oil internally with electrification and rationing.
      https://austinvernon.site/blog/fuellogistics.html

      China imports roughly half its iron ore, but it also exports a lot of steel. So its kind of a wash and you can always recycle steel.
      https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/112922-chinas-2023-iron-ore-output-seen-higher-as-new-projects-come-online-analyst

      Some materials like copper might be a little tighter, but you can substitute aluminum in many applications with varying levels of performance hits.

      Food is easier than it seems because grain imports are less than 10% of domestic demand. Many crops go to feeding animals. Cut off some of the pork and you solve any food issues.
      https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/top-producer-china-adds-global-wheat-jitters-with-poor-crop-health-2022-03-10/

      Microchips might be the most difficult, but again many imports are going straight into exports. The main challenge is microchips rely on a global supply chain of tools, etc. they (or any single country outside of maybe the US) can't replicate. But their value per weight and size is immense so they are prone to smuggling as we see with Iran or Russia. They also have artillery and rifles that work just fine without them.

      I see the case for winning via blockade as pretty difficult given the data. You would certainly enact a blockade but it'd be foolish to rely on it. Each side is going to run out of the highest end weapons quickly and it won't be a massive burden to be shooting unguided shells and rockets.

      Delete
    13. ComNavOpsApril 12, 2023 at 2:55 PM

      " many imports are going straight into exports."

      Assuming it's true, what a great observation! Since a war would curtail all exports (if you impose a blockade on imports, one assumes you'd also blockade exports), many of the imports lose their importance.

      Imports/exports are one of the overlooked aspect of a war with China. China has few (no?) high volume trade partners who could continue trade during a US-China war. In contrast, the US could continue nearly normal trade with a large portion of the world.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousApril 14, 2023 at 8:51 AM

      Sigh @CNO

      You wrote

      >> data is readily available on China's internal production and foreign imports of oil

      And yet I wrote very carefully, stating that no such data was available on size and capacity of Chinese *storage capacity. Not production. Not imports. But Storage.

      Please try putting together an equation that ignores storage when computing how long any commodity will last.

      You'll get the Fields Medal if you're successful. And I'll nominate you myself.

      I'm going to assume you just didn't read my comment when you responded to it.

      Have a great Navy day, shipmate.

      Delete
    15. ComNavOpsApril 14, 2023 at 9:34 AM

      From a quick Internet search, here's a link to a Wiki article entitled, "Strategic Petroleum Reserve - China":

      "Strategic Petroleum Reserve - China"


      Here's another article on the subject: China Oil Reserves

      And another: China Oil Reserves

      Apparently, the information is readily available. I'm going to assume you just didn't bother putting any effort into finding the information.

      I look forward to your next polite comment, shipmate.

      Delete
  9. KevthePopeApril 11, 2023 at 9:23 AM

    Provocative or not, and we do in part due this with Rocket Boy in DPRK land each year, there should be a massive, massive exercise that shows how the services would work combined fashion in how they'd simulate not just "defending" Taiwan but simulated runs on either directional basis (without getting too close to start a war) towards real targets, or use simulated targets close to china to show how Southern District and other Chinese MD's would get hit, and hit hard, by various arms. Open just enough of the Kimono to keep them guessing. but we are too afraid to do more than put a team of green beret advisors on the island, let alone do some take off and go landings with jets and train with the ROC services. I worry at some point Taiwan will have the same type of socialist lunatic surge go in and China simply is invited in. That removes one headache for the US, but at same time, just pushes the conflict to whomever is next on the eating islands campaign by China. The Phillipines' outlying Islands? Some of those "worthless" rock islands owned by other friendly powers? It would be nice to see well made manmade islands similar to what China built spring up elsewhere too, to at least give them something to guess on. But a mere threat from China and nobody does a thing. But we'll steam a destroyer through under freedom of navigation and Xi probably shakes his head and says "really? Oh I'm terrified..."

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousApril 12, 2023 at 10:08 AM

    Off topic but this article in " Armed Forces Press" refers to Russians jamming GPS signals .
    https://armedforces.press/u-s-general-russia-jamming-american-gps-satellite-signals-used-by-ukraine/.
    According to a US General the Russians have some anti satellite capability as well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 12, 2023 at 1:05 PM

      So the question will be, are prepared for GPS jamming ?

      Delete
  11. greywolfApril 12, 2023 at 11:20 AM

    I have e concerns regarding Taiwans defence:
    1. Are the tawainese going to fight for their own country? We don't now how luch of the taiwanese security and defence apparatus has been somehow inflitrated by the chinese?
    2. Is the US really going to fight for Taiwan pulling out all stops?
    3. How much will support to Taiwan be hampered by nominally allied countries that in case of war will declare themselves neutral? The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand come to mind and I'm not so sure about Japan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ScrawnyKayakerApril 13, 2023 at 6:47 AM

      The Economist posed the "Will Taiwan fight?" question to themselves in their March 11, 2023 issue. According to opinion poll data they showed, about 75% of Taiwanese say "yes" when asked if they are willing to fight, but the most recent poll was 2019. My guess would be that Beijing's crackdown on Hong Kong since then and the example of Ukraine would both drive that up.

      But the other lesson from Ukraine appears to be that neither the US nor any potential allies in the Pacific have the defense industry logistics to put up more than a brief fight. I have little doubt that the CCP has been and will continue to be more diligent in preparing their munitions supply than we have/will.

      I'd think willingness to fight must also be backed by willingness to have a scorched earth deterrent. If Taiwan's overt policy was to assert, credibly, that they would burn their important industries (most notably, semiconductors) to the ground if China established a beach-head, that would be a greater deterrent than more weaponry (although you need enough weaponry to delay the invasion while you scorch the earth). It would establish a MAD situation for the world economy. That would give the CCP more pause than the deaths caused by the conflict.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM

      Of course, saying you're willing to fight to a pollster is one thing. It's quite another when the missiles from China actually start hitting the island.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)