tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7649134392949972916..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: USS Wasp - Small Carrier ExperimentComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger137125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57029869646759468952020-09-14T11:22:50.819-07:002020-09-14T11:22:50.819-07:00Ranger was the first purpose built carrier and was...Ranger was the first purpose built carrier and was a bit of an unknown to the designers. They weren't intentionally building a small carrier, they were just building a carrier that happened to be small due to the tonnage limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty.<br /><br />Wasp, in contrast, was a conscious design attempt to produce a smaller carrier as an alternative to the larger ones.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84188627733705571532020-09-14T10:23:50.914-07:002020-09-14T10:23:50.914-07:00"Let’s take a look at the first attempt by th..."Let’s take a look at the first attempt by the Navy to build a small carrier, the USS Wasp, CV-7."<br /><br />I would argue that the Ranger, CV-4, was the Navy's first attempt at a small carrier. casey570https://www.blogger.com/profile/14080658883055789462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86190331405411626692020-01-18T10:50:17.970-08:002020-01-18T10:50:17.970-08:00"Deploy 2 USS America sized and class light c..."Deploy 2 USS America sized and class light carriers into battle while keeping the heavy carriers at a safe distance."<br /><br />Come on, now. If it's not safe for full size carriers with twice the number of aircraft plus AEW, EW, ASW helos, and tanker support, how are a couple of America class carriers with none of that and half the number of aircraft going to survive and accomplish anything worthwhile?<br /><br />Think operationally!<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75061428600574344702020-01-18T10:17:36.261-08:002020-01-18T10:17:36.261-08:00With the F-35 Lightning II with it's capabilit...With the F-35 Lightning II with it's capability to takeoff and land vertically or the capability of short runways there is no need to place the heavy carriers like the USS Nimitz or Ford class carriers at risk in the South China Sea in range of Chinese anti ship missiles.<br />Deploy 2 USS America sized and class light carriers into battle while keeping the heavy carriers at a safe distance.<br />Use the heavy carriers for command and control , refueling, a parking lot for the F-35.<br />Use the lighter ( and loss costly ) carriers as a fast strike unit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59384436917937517142018-07-20T19:12:58.702-07:002018-07-20T19:12:58.702-07:00No B-52s shot down by SA-2, Tanguy Pluchet? Offici...No B-52s shot down by SA-2, Tanguy Pluchet? Official loss records disagree with you. ;PWIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18844771294660891092018-07-12T13:24:00.997-07:002018-07-12T13:24:00.997-07:00"dedicated interceptor Tomcat squadron had te..."dedicated interceptor Tomcat squadron had terrible readiness, and the Hornets did the bulk of the work because the Hornets were always ready to go,"<br /><br />Be realistic and objective. You're comparing old F-14's nearing the end of their service life against brand new Hornets. Who do you think is going to have better availability. Besides the F-18's main design criteria was maintainability (not combat!) so, again, what did you expect?<br /><br />The maintenance was not related to multi-role or even complexity - it was old versus new and designed for ease of maintenance versus designed for combat.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38990020850314265072018-07-12T12:12:37.308-07:002018-07-12T12:12:37.308-07:00The F-16's price also literally quadrupled, it...The F-16's price also literally quadrupled, it became 2 tons heavier and went from 3 sorties/day to 2.<br />Also, in Desert Storm, 150 A-10s flew a third of all Allied air combat missions and destroyed more targets than all other aircrafts combined.<br /><br />And you should ask the US Army about the fact that "everyone achieved 90% readiness in Desert Storm": the had to cannibalize 700 Bradleys and over HALF the Apache fleet just to keep the rest rolling and flying. And that was after an over 6 months buildup...<br /><br />Gee, who could have guessed than the F-14, a twin-engine, variable-geometry, twin-seating, giant radar-carrying aircraft would have bad readiness ?<br />Multirole necessarily means complexity, but single-role doesn't necessarily entails simplicity...<br /><br />And for the record, the only war where BVR kills were ever achieved was Desert Storm, against an enemy so incompetent its pilots were struggling to even prevent their aircrafts from crashing.Tanguy Pluchetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38506664805841931422018-07-12T06:25:54.241-07:002018-07-12T06:25:54.241-07:00"I'd be quite interested to see your post..."I'd be quite interested to see your posts on how developing a state of the art fighter and taking it to full production would take five years."<br /><br />As outlined in the Comment Policy page, it is the reader's responsibility to have a grasp of certain naval basics. One of those is naval history. A knowledge of naval history would tell you that the F-14, for example, went from design contract award in 1969 to first flight in 1970 (1 year!) and squadron service in 1974!! For its time, the F-14 was every bit as advanced as the F-35. Other aircraft have followed similar rapid development cycles. Even the AF's F-15 which had a design contract award in 1969, achieved first flight in 1972 - I don't know when it entered production. We've simply forgotten how to build aircraft and have come to believe that 20 yr development cycles are normal. They are not.<br /><br />It is also the reader's responsibility to be familiar with the archives and what has been discussed previously. I have no problem with offering an occasional archival reference but I am not a personal research assistant.<br /><br />You also need to understand your role in this blog. It is NOT my responsibility or requirement to "prove" anything to the reader. I offer this blog and its well research, well written, insightful posts as an educational service. The reader is free to accept the wisdom or reject it. There is no requirement for me to "prove" anything.<br /><br />As a courtesy, I'm going to offer this link to the post on building an aircraft. In the future, I trust you'll do your own research and become familiar with the archives.<br /><br /><a href="https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/08/how-to-build-better-aircraft.html" rel="nofollow">How To Build A Better Aircraft</a>ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11863342067178088892018-07-12T06:10:08.924-07:002018-07-12T06:10:08.924-07:00CNOPS/Goose- In retrospect, the US Navy went from ...CNOPS/Goose- In retrospect, the US Navy went from "We can do it all" in 1989 to, we can do most of it by 1998 (minus), to lets go "From the Sea"/Brown water/Sand Pebbles style, in order to keep Big Navy "relevant" during the ground wars and BO administration.... Proof?- as per the Shoes in charge during that era, let us send "IAs" to theater so we can get participation points with the Bush Administration.... Meanwhile, in naval aviation they changed functional names to the "Chief of Naval AIR FORCES" because it seemed the joint thing to do during the ongoing Mujh Wars to today. Oh yes, JDAM ends all ground conflicts quickly as Goose points out...Meanwhile on the flip side we spend money and time on SDBs, mini rockets, etc etc. Did I tell you that the HARPOON Block 1C is till the frontline W-A-S weapon for the US Navy? Same as my day...<br /><br />As a result of the New World order handed him in 1993, Clinton started spending the Peace Dividend and changed every serving naval officer into a real cost cutting fitrep bullet machine. Meanwhile that powerful bluewater Navy, I remember well, has atrophied to the point that the knuckleheads today can't come to grips with what is really needed to re-establish a "Real Navy". It will also take more (holistically) than just reaching 350 ships.... <br /><br />I say to them- Open your eyes, it's right there in plain sight from the past- update it of course with technology, but don't get too Sci Fi complicated and also realize you're better off with pilots (warriors) flying the weapons around and training through attrition and pyramids, actually producing qualified watch standers at TAO/OOD/CDO on our warships. All because we also need to develop "Navy Warrior"s to lead the Fleet in the future... Why's that? Without warriors, it ain't War- it's just Killing.... I realize there are not too many Shoes today going ship to ship with a cutlass, and even Navy SEAL ops are 4-8 man small unit night events (super tactical)...We need to develop strategic naval war planners/fighters from our shoes/aviators/bubbleheads, not just elite commando frogmen (God love em) trigger pullers to lead the US Navy.... BLNUF- We need more of the right people and more Big Navy "STUFF"... <br />B2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39503700286865600062018-07-12T06:02:31.325-07:002018-07-12T06:02:31.325-07:00"Paveways and JDAMs are great weapons to use ..."Paveways and JDAMs are great weapons to use on stationary targets, but are lot less so against a warship making 30 knots on the open sea."<br /><br />Again, only you have brought up laser guided bombs against ships. Anon's comment was,<br /><br />"No whiz bang talk about GPS LGB and JDAM ..."<br /><br />Not only did he not mention using them against ships, he was somewhat downplaying their value.<br /><br />One of the on-going challenges in moderating this blog is to make sure that commenters address what was actually said rather than what they think was said. Please be sure to keep this firmly in mind in future comments. The standards and requirements on this blog may be higher than you're used to and may take some getting used to but the effort will reward everyone with better discussions.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21951456032350900242018-07-12T01:21:11.150-07:002018-07-12T01:21:11.150-07:00Considering that the USN was well on its way to ad...Considering that the USN was well on its way to adopting the United States design, which quite possibly wouldn't have worked out as well as the Forrestal... that's what I mean with luck. :p<br /><br />As for the whole guided bombs bit, I was aiming that at Anonymous above, who seems to think I'm advocating for using LGBs and JDAMs against ships, which I certainly am not doing lol. Paveways and JDAMs are great weapons to use on stationary targets, but are lot less so against a warship making 30 knots on the open sea. That's what we have guided missiles for. (Oh, sure, a 2000 lb L-JDAM or Paveway is going to hurt any ship it hits, but that's reliant on the self-lasing launching aircraft or the buddy-lasing aircraft to remain inside SAM engagement envelope until the weapon hits. Not an idea I'm very fond of!)<br /><br />I'd be quite interested to see your posts on how developing a state of the art fighter and taking it to full production would take five years. Not to say that it can't be done - the Skyhawk and Cobra had pretty swift developments, as I recall - but those were simpler aircraft and times.<br /><br />Though there is a faster way to replace the F-35: call up Dassault and order 2400 Rafales. No development time needed, and the Rafale follows the same playbook as the F-35 anyhow. :p Of course, it's French, which could be a dealbreaker, but it's also a rather beautiful and graceful airplane, compared to the F-35's penguin-like cuteness. On the other hand, at 81.79 million apiece, the Rafale isn't really that much cheaper than the F-35.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-607468613386825552018-07-11T09:54:32.552-07:002018-07-11T09:54:32.552-07:00Sortie rate IS used as a justification for the For...Sortie rate IS used as a justification for the Ford, however, it's both an inaccurate claim and a false one. It's inaccurate in that the claimed sortie rates are unachievable as documented in various reports since the claims are based on unrealistic scenarios. It's false for the reason I stated - sortie rates have never limited carrier combat.<br /><br />Speed is used as a selling point for the LCS and yet no one has come up with a tactical or operational use for it yet. Just because something is used as a selling point doesn't make it valid.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87718239270296788232018-07-11T09:26:59.174-07:002018-07-11T09:26:59.174-07:00I don't know of any historical examples of car...I don't know of any historical examples of carriers being sortie limited, but it is still used as a selling point on the super expensive Ford class. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8748145992598801722018-07-11T08:10:58.585-07:002018-07-11T08:10:58.585-07:00Sortie rate is not, and never has been a limiting ...Sortie rate is not, and never has been a limiting factor in carrier warfare. Can you name any example in history of carriers being sortie rate limited?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33524903619023569302018-07-11T08:03:57.277-07:002018-07-11T08:03:57.277-07:00"I think the US really lucked out with the Fo..."I think the US really lucked out with the Forrestal design, in getting the framework right on the first time;"<br /><br />There was no luck involved. The Forrestal was an evolutionary development dating back to the first carrier. Each feature was an improvement of previous features. The design was the result of experience and lessons learned in blood. There was no luck involved.<br /><br />"Also guided bombs are terrible weapons to use against ships,"<br /><br />Who, aside from you, thinks otherwise? Spears are also a terrible weapon for use against ships, if we're just listing terrible weapons for use against ships.<br /><br />"brown people, now the yellow people"<br /><br />You'll clean this up or forfeit the right to comment. We can make our points without this language.<br /><br />"please, none of this "cancel the F-35" memes"<br /><br />Please, none of this "we're already committed" meme. We've demonstrated in previous posts how to build a state of the art fighter and have it in full production in five years. There is absolutely no viable reason we can't drop the F-35.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61535526095656107962018-07-11T06:21:20.183-07:002018-07-11T06:21:20.183-07:00You go tell my uncle, who was an avionics tech on ...You go tell my uncle, who was an avionics tech on the Ticonderoga during Vietnam, that he wasn't in a real naval operation. Just kidding, I understand the point you're making. There is a difference between a blue-water naval battle and naval operations supporting a ground war. We should be prepared for either. The sortie rate is used as a justification for the Ford's high cost, which could be exceeded by building two mid sized conventional carriers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50539834376903874942018-07-10T21:01:07.210-07:002018-07-10T21:01:07.210-07:00I think the US really lucked out with the Forresta...I think the US really lucked out with the Forrestal design, in getting the framework right on the first time; every carrier since Forrestal has basically been an iterative evolution and improvement on the Forrestal, but if you made a newbuild Forrestal today, shipwise it would still be a viable warship. (Of course, systems wise you'd still need to update it, but it's like an old house with a strong foundation and solid frame and walls.)<br /><br />I personally think that to be really viable the carrier air wing does need 5 combat squadrons and 60 tactical aircraft on its decks, and the US needs at least 15 carriers (5 active, 5 refit, 5 working up, 1 active carrier for each ocean + 1 reserve to backstop crisis zones), but the problem is that there hasn't been the will or the money for that, and to a great extent, the US hasn't fought a peer opponent since Desert Storm, so the taxpaying public thinks everything is A-okay and hunky-dory. <br /><br />Also guided bombs are terrible weapons to use against ships, but then for the last 20 years it's not like anybody has had much of a navy to fight with, have they? :p The US has more Burkes than other navies have ships total, and nobody had the kind of srsface warships you needed big fuckoff shipkillers to take out... until China started its buildup, anyhow. :V That said Harpoon should really have been replaced years ago; at least the OASuW program is apparently settling on NSM and LRASM as the future missiles, both of which will be more effective than Harpoon on account of multimode seekers to mitigate jamming and decoys, and stealthy airframes so as to be less obvious targets for point defenses, not like Harpoon's big unsubtle body. :v<br /><br />The problem is that the USN is still reaping the aftereffects of the Peace Dividend drawdown, and spending the last 20 years playing on easy mode, and now people are starting to wake up and realise that after neglecting the ASuW mission for decades to concentrate on dropping JDAMs on brown people, now the yellow people are making a fleet of ships to challenge the USN on the high seas and the USN now has to go to cram school and relearn what it's forgotten, hence the recent Fleet Problem XXIII. Which is both good and bad because on one hand, the BLUFOR carrier penetrated guarded battlespace and sucessfully launched strikes and escaped, on the other hand, the OPFOR carrier had absolutely no clue where the BLUFOR carrier was and had to be called up on day 3 and told where they were so that _some_ training could be achieved. :V<br /><br />For now, and for the last 25 years, the current composition of the air wing is "good enough" if the US does not intend to fight a serious war with a serious opponent (and historically, the last time the USN fought a peer opponent was Midway 1942). If the US isn't going to get into a shooting war with China in the next 10-20 years from now, the current air wing will remain good enough. For all the talk of a pivot to asia, a full-on war between America and China isn't going to be happening tomorrow; and so long as the status quo holds, the current airwing comp will be sufficient.<br /><br />But if the US is serious about fighting china, well, congress is going to have to release more money for training to build squadrons back up to full strength, to go back to a full air wing, to allocate money for training and maintennance.<br /><br />And please, none of this "cancel the F-35" memes. At 300 aircraft built and delievered and with full rate production on the horizon, the that ship has sailed years ago. Besides, you can't build back up an air wing if you don't buy the planes for the air wing. ;^) :PWIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-677941969665472692018-07-10T20:32:56.447-07:002018-07-10T20:32:56.447-07:00"Only on paper. A multi-role aircraft is infe..."Only on paper. A multi-role aircraft is inferior to a single function aircraft, all else being equal. We've covered this many times and there's no need to repeat it."<br /><br />I think Dassault's engineers would rather like to disagree with you on the idea that the omnirole Rafale is inferior to the single-role Typhoon. :p<br /><br />I feel I should point out that the supposedly dedicated air superiority fighters - the F-4, the F-14, the F-15, the F-22 - had provision for ground attack from the get go, y'know. ;^)<br /><br />@Tanguy Pluchet: the F-16 and A-10 were sucessful in spite of Sprey's designs: with the F-16 he wanted a radarless daytime light fighter carrying a gun and 2 Sidewinders, and we've now ended up with an all weather strike fighter with radar and BVR missiles, lol. Also if you look at Desert Storm, we find that the brand spanking new sophisticated modern aircraft didn't have appreciably worse mission readiness than the simpler aircraft Sprey favored; if anything everyone achieved +90% readiness durin Desert Storm, because readiness is a matter of having the right parts on hand.<br /><br />Also if we're going to throw anecdotes about the complexity of multirole aircraft, I should note my buddy's experience on Enterprise, where the dedicated interceptor Tomcat squadron had terrible readiness, and the Hornets did the bulk of the work because the Hornets were always ready to go, while they'd be lucky to have 3 working Tomcats at any one time...<br /><br />Having said that, you are right on the training issue. Gulf War Air Power Survey did an analysis of air to air shoots and concluded that F-14 and F-15 squadrons had the higher kills and were more effective than F/A-18 and F-16 squadrons because they prioritised air to air combat training over air to ground. Having said that, this is an operational and financial issue - you can indeed have an effective squadron trained for multirole missions, if you budget the training time and the money for that, which is an issue above the squadron level: the big finances move into the realm of SECNAV and Congress.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14601982979005896382018-07-10T14:52:45.621-07:002018-07-10T14:52:45.621-07:00"size and composition of the airwing"
I..."size and composition of the airwing"<br /><br />I have a post coming on this. Hang in there!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43877189727388849372018-07-10T14:52:00.006-07:002018-07-10T14:52:00.006-07:00Keep it impersonal. Discuss the idea, not the per...Keep it impersonal. Discuss the idea, not the person.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14892665004883571552018-07-10T14:03:39.594-07:002018-07-10T14:03:39.594-07:00I think the Nimitz/Ford is about the right size. I...I think the Nimitz/Ford is about the right size. I have years of my life aboard those along with America/Forestal class carriers 1976-1998. About the same size deck and airwing size. Re the Midway or anything smaller- this goes back to the CVS/CVA into "CV" concept...<br /><br />Hence, I am of the opinion to make the Ford "right" and buy as many as you can.<br /><br />What irritates me the worse than the small carrier story are the anti-CVN carrier groups active my entire life that now include our own Marines/Gator navy and Shoes who openly tout the ARG classes of Jeep carriers, only suited for LIC or maybe a NEO, as alternatives with their small numbers of F-35Bs and V-22's, to a CVN airwing ...Those who tout those ideas put our nation in peril IMO.. However in todays environment of USMC leadership at all levels for DoD that kind of thinking has proponents...<br /><br />Another factor against any of this talk is the size and composition of the airwing embarked. I know airwing power projection and control of the sea blue water... No whiz bang talk about GPS LGB and JDAM is gonna change my mind as Wild Goose goes on about up above....We need more purpose built naval aviation platforms with sufficient unrefueled range and performance- call them medium or light attack, a true fighter capability and an S-3 like vehicle with the P-8 ASW systems aboard, that can go 2800nm unrefueled like the S-3, and carry large ship killing weapons with a 100-200nm range.. The EW/ECM, helo mix of the present airwing is right about now... <br /><br />Wild Goose and his generation (End of Cold War to today era) have given us what we have today....Is it really sufficient? Is good enough really "good enough"?<br /><br />Get to 16 CVNs and 90 aircraft air wings supplemented by more destroyers, cruisers and SSNs with that mix of purpose built aircraft, and we will be back in the saddle again, (IE- "America Great Again" Navy-wise) just like the 1989 US Navy I was in that defeated the Soviets without a shot being fired!<br /><br />b2<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27996179244289893942018-07-10T13:42:03.690-07:002018-07-10T13:42:03.690-07:00Well, pending realistic tests (highly unlikely) or...Well, pending realistic tests (highly unlikely) or actual war (more likely!) we'll just have to wait and see who's right.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69129568543901068172018-07-10T13:25:28.883-07:002018-07-10T13:25:28.883-07:00You don't seem to have read my last post. I sa...You don't seem to have read my last post. I said I agree with you that governments are currently overly optimistic but I have worked in this area and am very familiar with the issues and don't share your pessimism on future developments. Comms will be disrupted but not enough to stop the bulk of mission objectives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36710161704232207462018-07-10T12:00:47.520-07:002018-07-10T12:00:47.520-07:00In the absence of absolute proof, you may believe ...In the absence of absolute proof, you may believe that our comms will be just fine even though all the evidence that we have (scanty, to be sure) suggests otherwise.<br /><br />Related note: Have you researched the available evidence - that would be Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Russia, primarily? I suspect you haven't or you almost couldn't have the opinion you do. I suspect you have nothing more than a blind belief.<br /><br />We had intermittent difficulties in Afg, mostly due to geography and weather, rather than enemy activity but if mere geography and weather can disrupt comms, even somewhat, what does that suggest about the contested battlefield?<br /><br />The Russian proxy invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated advanced comms breakdown and disruption.<br /><br />The Russians have demonstrated wide ranging adverse impacts on GPS (not comms, per se) from their own side of the borders along various countries.<br /><br />The US Army is, currently, frantically working on counter anti-comms as a result of what they've seen in Ukraine. Clearly, they've concluded that battlefield comms will be significantly disrupted.<br /><br />Many peacetime incidents we've seen have involved degraded commms such as the Iranian seizure of our riverine boats and crews. While not a primary cause, lost/disrupted comms did come into play - again, in a non-contested, peacetime scenario.<br /><br />When you add all that up, it's very difficult to come to any other conclusion than that comms will be significantly disrupted.<br /><br />I'll repeat, have you actually researched the issue? If you have, how do you explain away all the available evidence?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85275306567155340112018-07-10T11:17:23.109-07:002018-07-10T11:17:23.109-07:00No it isn't, it's a statement that process...No it isn't, it's a statement that processing speed, redundancy, and distributed nodes will be far more advanced than they are now. Yes I share with you the belief that Western governments are over-optimistic about comms denial but I don't share your pessimism that the enemy will be able to block most of it, most of the time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com