The US Navy, going to Davey' Jones Locker? Probably

[Lothar]

Originally posted by fastpat
Yes, even the blockade of Cuba during the Kenedy admin, that was in fact piracy on the high seas under international law.

Do you place international law on that high a pedestal? Should the U.S. have permitted nukes 90 miles off Florida? It sounds like you are suggesting that the U.S. should have waited until the first mushroom cloud on U.S. soil.

Granted, Cuba might never have launched a first strike. How would you have handled the situation?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Lothar
Should the U.S. have permitted nukes 90 miles off Florida? It sounds like you are suggesting that the U.S. should have waited until the first mushroom cloud on U.S. soil.

Granted, Cuba might never have launched a first strike. How would you have handled the situation?

How it was actually handled. The US government agreed to remove the nuke IRBM's it had placed in Turkey (well before the Soviet Union's action), if the Soviets would do the same; both agreed to never do that again, and the ICBM's made that moot in the long run.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by fastpat
We don't need a Navy that can threaten action against countries half way around the globe, we just plain don't.

Nice, though, if we can do both. And we don't threaten action, we deliver.

Relying on the Constitution to, "authorize" combat arms in this world is an unbounded thought, a flight of fancy. You are off your game, Pat. "Provide for the common defense" and the rest of Section 8: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Any questions?

[JSDSKI]

I think strategy is "what you want" and tactics are "how you get what you want".

We didn't want Russian missiles in Cuba - that is a strategic decision. One tactic (of many used in that confrontation) used to implement that strategy was a "force projection" in the form of a naval blockade - as Seahawk pointed out. Another tactic carried out at the same time was to put SAC in the air. Another was to use a newsman as a backdoor message courier between the leaders to end the crisis.

In your analogy - our strategy would be to change a country's position on nuclear weapon development. One tactic to reinforce that strategy would be to plant "American soil" on their coast and start war games.

[wludavid]

JSDSKI,
Policy is what you want. Strategy is how to get there (overall method) and tactics are the adaptive daily methods.

For example, you sited SAC as a tactic. SAC, of course, is Strategic Air Command. It was implemented to enforce the strategy of nuclear deterrent in pursuit of the policy of mutually assured destruction.

*It should be noted that I'm an amateur in all this. I reserve the right to be proven wrong.

[JSDSKI]

Well maybe we agree --- IMHO, From policy to strategy to tactics.

Policy: Strong US position in Western Hemisphere.
Strategy: no Russian missiles in Cuba.
Tactic: blockade Russian trawlers carrying missiles.

The tactic meets the strategic aims of policy.

from Wikipedia: "Military usage"

"The terms tactics and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain a goal, while strategy is the overall plan, which may involve complex patterns of individual tactics. The United States Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines the tactical level as

...The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.

If, for example, the overall goal is to win a war against another country, one strategy might be to undermine the other nation's ability to wage war by preemptively annihilating their military forces. The tactics involved might describe specific actions taken in a specific locations, like surprise attacks on military facilities, missile attacks on offensive weapon stockpiles, and the specific techniques involved in accomplishing such objectives."

SAC is a "strategic force" that helps support a "strong defense" policy.
Putting the strategic force in the air in reponse to a threat is a tactic.

Anyway, from one amateur to another...Happy Thanksgiving from LA

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
I think strategy is "what you want" and tactics are "how you get what you want".

We didn't want Russian missiles in Cuba - that is a strategic decision. One tactic (of many used in that confrontation) used to implement that strategy was a "force projection" in the form of a naval blockade - as Seahawk pointed out. Another tactic carried out at the same time was to put SAC in the air. Another was to use a newsman as a backdoor message courier between the leaders to end the crisis.

In your analogy - our strategy would be to change a country's position on nuclear weapon development. One tactic to reinforce that strategy would be to plant "American soil" on their coast and start war games.

Russian missiles in Cuba were removed in a bilateral agreement between the Soviet Union and the US government to remove similar missiles from Turkey, and abort deployment of them elsewhere. If you recall, when Reagan talked of putting the Pershing Ia and II's in West Germany, the Soviet Union raised "issues" with that. The agreement they struck with Kennedy was their basis.

The blockade of Cuba, while dramatic and making Kennedy into some kind of hero (which he was not), was almost completely for show.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Nice, though, if we can do both. And we don't threaten action, we deliver.

You don't have to tell me that the US government breaks the law, I've documented that time and again.

Relying on the Constitution to, "authorize" combat arms in this world is an unbounded thought, a flight of fancy.

No, it's the law. Without the Constitution there is no US government. The moment the Constitution is abrogated, the US government is treading on thin air, like Wily Coyote in Road Runner cartoons when he runs too far past the cliff's edge.

You are off your game, Pat. "Provide for the common defense" and the rest of Section 8: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Any questions?

Yes, I know that wording, and it's bound up in English and American common law. It did not, when written into the Constitution, constitute a blank check for world wide empire building, and it does not authorize that today. If you want to pull out admiralty law, which frequently skirts the Constitution, then I'd suggest it's time that law be abandoned, together with the service that benefits most often from it.

In any case, the Bill of Rights trumps admiralty law, as does the treaty clause.

[Usmellgass2?]

Damn Pat, if your are so smart that you see how to fill the roll of the navy with only 10% of their assets then why dont you go start your own country and rule the world? Can you think we are THE super power because the leaders of this country are and have always been idiots? Our country is not prefect, big surprise. None are. Seriously, I have never been exposed to anyone who's objectivity is so burdened by opinion.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Usmellgass2?
Damn Pat, if your are so smart that you see how to fill the roll of the navy with only 10% of their assets then why dont you go start your own country and rule the world?

Oh look, another original idea, can I use this in the future?

Can you think we are THE super power because the leaders of this country are and have always been idiots?

No, idiots, thugs, AND criminals; sometimes all three.

Our country is not prefect, big surprise. None are. Seriously, I have never been exposed to anyone who's objectivity is so burdened by opinion.

Geez, one more who thinks the US government is America. Here's a clue; the US government has never been America, isn't America now, and will never be America in the future. If the US government vanished tomorrow, America would still be here, and much richer for it.

[MFAFF]

Perhaps there is more to th Lind article that was posted...I do not know.. but his entire arguement is based on a single unsupported fact.. the Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a carrier group in international waters...

So what?

All that proves is that it did surface in the middle of the Group.. from there to build a hypothesis on the vulnerability and hence redundancy of the Navy is his 'analysis'...

It is so easy to case doubt on the basic validity...He makes no mention of it being undetected prior to this...and if the usual 'Silent Service' rules apply the US sub attached to the carrier group will stay 'silent'.

However if Lind can make the same statement and provide sufficient information to establish that until it surfaced the Group was unaware of its presence, it had passed undetected thor the various 'screens' that protect the carrier from this type of threat, then his story has validity...But I do not read that in his story. The US Admiral that says the sub could have provoked an international incident is being equally 'economical' with the truth.

It is this sort of polemical discussion, based on a narrow view of the whole story, which provides fuel for arguements and disputes...

The same event.. if reported in its entireity could either be a non event.. such as the sub surfaced in the middle of the carrier group.. after having been tailed for the previous 48 hours by a USN nuclear attack boat...or detected by the ASW helo on the escort.. and so on and so forht.
If reproted as an unexpected and undetected surfacing then its altogether a more valid story....

But what do I know....

[oldE]

"Name a single time force projection was used to defend America, use any century you wish."

I suspect you are choosing to ignore the blockade of the Chesapeake (1781) by Admiral DeGrasse.

Les

[Taz's Master]

Pat, those missiles in Turkey were simply an example of force projection. They would have been your specific tool to defend America. Either force projection is legitimate, or it isn't. If it isn't, then you need another method of dealing with the Soviets' missiles in Cuba.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by MFAFF
Perhaps there is more to th Lind article that was posted...I do not know.. but his entire arguement is based on a single unsupported fact.. the Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a carrier group in international waters...

So what?

All that proves is that it did surface in the middle of the Group.. from there to build a hypothesis on the vulnerability and hence redundancy of the Navy is his 'analysis'...

It is so easy to case doubt on the basic validity...He makes no mention of it being undetected prior to this...and if the usual 'Silent Service' rules apply the US sub attached to the carrier group will stay 'silent'.

However if Lind can make the same statement and provide sufficient information to establish that until it surfaced the Group was unaware of its presence, it had passed undetected thor the various 'screens' that protect the carrier from this type of threat, then his story has validity...But I do not read that in his story. The US Admiral that says the sub could have provoked an international incident is being equally 'economical' with the truth.

It is this sort of polemical discussion, based on a narrow view of the whole story, which provides fuel for arguements and disputes...

The same event.. if reported in its entireity could either be a non event.. such as the sub surfaced in the middle of the carrier group.. after having been tailed for the previous 48 hours by a USN nuclear attack boat...or detected by the ASW helo on the escort.. and so on and so forht.
If reproted as an unexpected and undetected surfacing then its altogether a more valid story....

But what do I know....

Lind has been writing on military issues for years, he did not base his assertion on one anecdote.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Taz's Master
Pat, those missiles in Turkey were simply an example of force projection. They would have been your specific tool to defend America. Either force projection is legitimate, or it isn't. If it isn't, then you need another method of dealing with the Soviets' missiles in Cuba.

The above makes no sense, try writing again while remaining linear in your thinking.

[djmcmath]

Quick note from a submarine driver:
1 - Finding submarines is hard. Even submarines, who are generally better at finding submarines than most other platforms, have a hard time finding submarines. Given a full-fledged defense (shore-based airborne assets, aggressive prosecution from ship-based airborne assets, aggressive all-sensor searches, etc.), it is possible to make it challenging for a submarine to catch a CVN, but the effort required is not generally sustainable for long term operations.
2 - The US surface fleet does not believe #1. In fact, they seem to believe that finding submarines is easy, and that a CVN can actually be safe against a submarine threat. Their tactics belie this attitude, and the fallacy of their belief has been demonstrated in numerous wargames. My submarine spent several hours inside weapons range of a US CVN in a wargame this summer, just watching them do flight operations while we were waiting for a ROE change.
3 - The Song class is actually pretty modern, and thus pretty quiet. In fact, most SSKs are even harder to find than most nuke-boats. Well, ok, most of our nuke-boats are the 688 class, with technology that dates to the 80's. There have been a lot of advances in sound silencing since then, so our modern nuke boats (VA class) are amazingly competitive against these new threats.
4 - The SSK vs SSN debate is old and tired, and is based on the idea that the US has no need to provide any Naval capability beyond our territorial waters. If that's what you believe, you can't be convinced that nuke-boats are the right answer. If you intend to cut the Navy's funding by 40% by shutting down the nuclear power program, you'll also shut down all international operations. (shrug) I just drive the things, ya'll make the decisions about where to put me.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Quick note from a submarine driver:
1 - Finding submarines is hard. Even submarines, who are generally better at finding submarines than most other platforms, have a hard time finding submarines. Given a full-fledged defense (shore-based airborne assets, aggressive prosecution from ship-based airborne assets, aggressive all-sensor searches, etc.), it is possible to make it challenging for a submarine to catch a CVN, but the effort required is not generally sustainable for long term operations.
2 - The US surface fleet does not believe #1. In fact, they seem to believe that finding submarines is easy, and that a CVN can actually be safe against a submarine threat. Their tactics belie this attitude, and the fallacy of their belief has been demonstrated in numerous wargames. My submarine spent several hours inside weapons range of a US CVN in a wargame this summer, just watching them do flight operations while we were waiting for a ROE change.
3 - The Song class is actually pretty modern, and thus pretty quiet. In fact, most SSKs are even harder to find than most nuke-boats. Well, ok, most of our nuke-boats are the 688 class, with technology that dates to the 80's. There have been a lot of advances in sound silencing since then, so our modern nuke boats (VA class) are amazingly competitive against these new threats.
4 - The SSK vs SSN debate is old and tired, and is based on the idea that the US has no need to provide any Naval capability beyond our territorial waters. If that's what you believe, you can't be convinced that nuke-boats are the right answer. If you intend to cut the Navy's funding by 40% by shutting down the nuclear power program, you'll also shut down all international operations. (shrug) I just drive the things, ya'll make the decisions about where to put me.

Yes, I understand.

I'd like to know, if you were given a clean sheet of drafting paper, what kind of submarine would you design for coastal defense; size, power, weapons, and so forth. Just an approximation would be adequate. Let's say in waters 200 miles from shore, and a weapons range of 200 miles or less. Would one type or class of submarine work, or would more than one be required?

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Quick note from a submarine driver:
1 - Finding submarines is hard. Even submarines, who are generally better at finding submarines than most other platforms, have a hard time finding submarines. Given a full-fledged defense (shore-based airborne assets, aggressive prosecution from ship-based airborne assets, aggressive all-sensor searches, etc.), it is possible to make it challenging for a submarine to catch a CVN, but the effort required is not generally sustainable for long term operations.
2 - The US surface fleet does not believe #1. In fact, they seem to believe that finding submarines is easy, and that a CVN can actually be safe against a submarine threat. Their tactics belie this attitude, and the fallacy of their belief has been demonstrated in numerous wargames. My submarine spent several hours inside weapons range of a US CVN in a wargame this summer, just watching them do flight operations while we were waiting for a ROE change.
3 - The Song class is actually pretty modern, and thus pretty quiet. In fact, most SSKs are even harder to find than most nuke-boats. Well, ok, most of our nuke-boats are the 688 class, with technology that dates to the 80's. There have been a lot of advances in sound silencing since then, so our modern nuke boats (VA class) are amazingly competitive against these new threats.
4 - The SSK vs SSN debate is old and tired, and is based on the idea that the US has no need to provide any Naval capability beyond our territorial waters. If that's what you believe, you can't be convinced that nuke-boats are the right answer. If you intend to cut the Navy's funding by 40% by shutting down the nuclear power program, you'll also shut down all international operations. (shrug) I just drive the things, ya'll make the decisions about where to put me.

Blah, blah How is the bug?

[djmcmath]

The Bug didn't demonstrate the required reliability for daily operations in Hampton Roads traffic. If I owned a truck and a flatbed, she'd probably get around a bit more, but living life as the Nav/Ops department head and spending nights and weekends pouring TLC into the Bug to keep her operational was killing me. So I bought a Bimmer. It wasn't what I wanted, but was a lot cheaper and easier to find than the Porsche that I did. (shrug) When I get some time, I'll finish the interior restoration on the Bug, sell her, and use the money to put towards a 911.

How's "flying" these days?


If my only objective was knowing that someone was coming across a 200NM line, I wouldn't even build submarines. But what does 200NM buy you against missile boats with 6000 mile range? How does a 200NM buffer provide and coverage of ... listen, Pat, there's a lot of things that submarines do well outside of 200NM that we don't talk about.

Oh, hey, company's here, and she's cute. I'd better run.

[hook682]

As a former bubblehead that served 4 years on a fast attack I'd have to agree. That was one that few sayings we always used to say. 2 types of ships in the Navy. Subs and targets. When I was in during the cold war we used to just hang out and hide right outside the port of Vladavostok. No one ever detected us and we would just sit there and take down intelligence on all the Soviet vessels coming and going. We always had the quietest subs in the world