Pelican Parts Forums - The US Navy, going to Davey' Jones Locker? Probably

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - The US Navy, going to Davey' Jones Locker? Probably (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/316458-us-navy-going-davey-jones-locker-probably.html)

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

Military expert William S. Lind describe's why. What Lind has to say is completely in keeping with my assertion that the US military could stand a 90% reduction in size and funding, and become more effective at defending America than they are today.

Quote:

Davy Jones’s Locker

by William S. Lind

Last week, for three days running, the Washington Times carried front-page stories about the interception of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, the Kitty Hawk, by a Chinese submarine. The submarine, a Song-class diesel-electric boat, popped up undetected in the middle of a carrier battle group, which was operating in deep water off Okinawa. Armed with Russian-made wake-homing torpedo’s that can ruin a carrier’s day, the sub was well within range of the Kitty Hawk when it surfaced.

While the Washington Times headline read "Admiral says sub risked a shootout," the incident meant little in itself. Navies play these kinds of "Gotcha!" games with each other all the time; both U.S. and Soviet subs were quite good at it during the Cold War. Since neither the U.S. nor China is seeking war, there was no danger of a naval Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The paper quoted an unidentified U.S. Navy official as saying, correctly, "We were operating in international waters, and they were operating in international waters. From that standpoint, nobody was endangering anybody. Nobody felt threatened."

There are, still, some lessons here. One is that, contrary to the U.S. Navy’s fervent belief, the aircraft carrier is no longer the capital ship. It ceded that role long ago to the submarine. In one naval exercise after another, the sub sinks the carriers. The carriers just pretend it didn’t happen and carry on with the rest of the exercise.

About thirty years ago, my first boss, Senator Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, asked Admiral Hyman Rickover how long he thought the U.S. aircraft carriers would last in the war with the Soviet navy, which was largely a submarine navy. Rickover’s answer, on the record in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was, "About two days." The Committee, needless to say, went on to approve buying more carriers.

Another lesson is that diesel-electric subs can be as effective or more effective than nuclear boats in the same situations. The U.S. Navy hates the very idea of non-nuclear submarines and therefore pretends they don’t count for much. You can buy four to eight modern diesel-electric submarines for the cost of a single American "U-cruiser" nuke boat.

At this point, the Chinese sub’s successful interception of our carrier does raise an interesting question: how was that sub in the right position to make an interception? What a nuclear submarine can do but a diesel-electric sub cannot is undertake a along, high-speed chase. Was it just dumb luck the Chinese sub was where we were in effect ran into it? Or were the Chinese able to coordinate the sub’s movement over time with successful tracking of our carrier battle group? If the latter is the case, the Chinese Navy may be starting to become a real navy instead of just a collection of ships. That transformation is far more important than whether China has this or that piece of equipment. It won’t happen fast, but it bears watching.

Or does it? The somewhat regrettable message from the world of real war, Fourth Generation war, is that deep-water battles or prospective battles between navies mean little if anything. Speculating about the balance between U.S. Navy aircraft carriers and Chinese submarines is like wondering what would happen at Trafalgar if Villeneuve’s van had responded immediately to his signal to wear and support the center of the Allies’ line, or Admiral Gravina had led his Squadron of Observation straight for Collingwood’s column. It’s fun to think about – personally, I enjoyed it immensely – but c’est ne pas la guerre. Control of coastal and inland waters may play highly important roles in Fourth Generation war, but deep water naval battles like the Glorious First of June, if they occur, will be jousting contests, with broomsticks. In real war, the U.S. Coast Guard may be more useful than the U.S. Navy.

That is the real lesson of the Chinese sub incident: the U.S. navy, like the U.S. Air Force, without a torpedo fired or a single dogfight, is on its way to Davy Jones’s Locker through sheer intellectual inanition. Preparing endlessly for another carrier war in the Pacific against the Imperial Japanese navy, it has become a historical artifact.

In the late 19th century, the Chinese people, outraged by repeated foreign humiliations of China, took up a sizeable collection of money to build China a modern navy. The Dowager Empress used the funds to build a marble pleasure boat for herself in the lake near her summer palace. The U.S. Navy’s carrier battle groups are the marble pleasure boats of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees of the U.S. Congress.

November 22, 2006

Davey Jones was in the US Navy? Then why does he talk with a British accent on the Nick at Night reruns? I'm too young to have caught him the first time around.

William S. Linds idea of Fourth Generation Warfare is a good exercise in critical thinking...I have been reading his stuff for years. The unfortunate aspect of his style is to impose hasty conclusions

Much of what Lind writes is accurate...but much is also wrong:

- Rickovers assertion that the carriers would last "two days" against the Russian Nukes is absurd. Their boats during the 70's and 80's were so noisey and easy to track is was like following a trail of break crumbs.
What we really worried about were their anti-ship cruise missiles. Still do...everybody has them.

- The USN knows exactly how capable diesel-electric boats are. We know they exist in numbers (Germany builds VERY capable subs) and they scare the crap out of us. A diesel boat is a fearsome machine. Linds assertion we ignore the threat is absurd. I'd have to go classified to be more specific.
The issues with DE's has always be speed and endurance underwater. The fact that the Chinese DE got inside the screen is not surprising...the fact that Lind thinks it is is foolish.

- We are not "Preparing endlessly for another carrier war in the Pacific against the Imperial Japanese navy..." I am somewhat embarrassed for Lind that he made such a statement. A cursory glance at where the navy is headed with ships and capbilities would have informed him that such an assertion is dishonest.

Seahawk: I dont know how the new LCS fits into a bluewater pacific warfare strategem.

Hell, i dont know what kind of strategem it does fit into.

My older brother was a submariner on an old Permit class fast attack boat. He tells me the subs NEVER "lost" in any wargames they ever played throughout his career. "There are two kinds of ships in the Navy; subs and targets."

"There are two kinds of ships in the Navy; subs and targets."

That's a lot like....

"There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets."

;)

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
Seahawk: I dont know how the new LCS fits into a bluewater pacific warfare strategem.

Hell, i dont know what kind of strategem it does fit into.

It doesn't...the Navy is moving into a "brown and green" water strategy. Some of the UAV's I'm developing play an intregal role in LCS and other ships.
We are also reviving the riverine force and, again, some of my systems will play there as well.
We will always have a foot in blue water, but everything, literally, comes FROM the sea.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seahawk
William S. Linds idea of Fourth Generation Warfare is a good exercise in critical thinking...I have been reading his stuff for years. The unfortunate aspect of his style is to impose hasty conclusions

Much of what Lind writes is accurate...but much is also wrong:

- We are not "Preparing endlessly for another carrier war in the Pacific against the Imperial Japanese navy..." I am somewhat embarrassed for Lind that he made such a statement. A cursory glance at where the navy is headed with ships and capbilities would have informed him that such an assertion is dishonest.

My take on this statement is that all large aircraft carriers, that is any aircraft carrier, has no mission related to the defense of America. I agree with that.

Second, aircraft carriers are "force projection" tools against countries and governments without significant defense capabilities, which I think is beyond argument.

And last, Lind's essay begs the question of why America funds such ships which are vulnerable to any country with an adequate defense, for example a barrage of Exocet, or similar, anti-ship missiles will take any of them out, sacrificial screening vessels or not. Ships that cannot defend America at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
My older brother was a submariner on an old Permit class fast attack boat. He tells me the subs NEVER "lost" in any wargames they ever played throughout his career. "There are two kinds of ships in the Navy; subs and targets."

Jeff,

Your brother is right...that's why the article was so specious: We have no illusions on the power and prowess of subs. It is what it is.

There are some interesting technologies maturing to help counter the threat, but the difficulty of undersea warfare from the surface and air cannot be overstated.

Props to your brother...the sub guys are amazing folks who do things I could not do.

He is a rather unique individual. He served on the U.S.S. Pollack, which was being extensively re-fitted as he was going through school. About the time he was assigned to it, it was being prepped for sea trials. Remember, the original Permit class imploded and lost all hands off the New England coast. Their sea trials were going to significantly exceed the depth at which that happened. Yikes; not me.

I'm sure you are aware of the extensive psychological testing these folks undergo. I'm not sure exactly what they are looking for, but I can say my brother is absolutely unflappable. We have shared some "interesting" experiences together over the years. Situations where I was *****ting nickles, and he wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. He just deals with whatever comes his way in a real matter-of-fact, get it done kind of way. I guess you either have, or soon develop, that capacity when you spend so much time deep underwater in some god forsaken steel tube. I'm glad there are guys like him willing to do that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
He is a rather unique individual. He served on the U.S.S. Pollack, which was being extensively re-fitted as he was going through school. About the time he was assigned to it, it was being prepped for sea trials. Remember, the original Permit class imploded and lost all hands off the New England coast. Their sea trials were going to significantly exceed the depth at which that happened. Yikes; not me.

I'm sure you are aware of the extensive psychological testing these folks undergo. I'm not sure exactly what they are looking for, but I can say my brother is absolutely unflappable. We have shared some "interesting" experiences together over the years. Situations where I was *****ting nickles, and he wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. He just deals with whatever comes his way in a real matter-of-fact, get it done kind of way. I guess you either have, or soon develop, that capacity when you spend so much time deep underwater in some god forsaken steel tube. I'm glad there are guys like him willing to do that.

Jeff,

You nailed it.
I love to fly, was drawn to it as a kid, because I am blue sky kinda guy.
My first and only day on a sub (new, well sorted, nothing was gonna happen, relax you *******) was tense at best.
What struck me about the crew, both officers and enlisted, was simply how competent they were...quietly, without any fanfare.
I'm glad there are guys like him, too.

As a side note, I took leave this week hoping to get some work done on the farm...how about this weather on the east coast!?!

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat My take on this statement is that all large aircraft carriers, that is any aircraft carrier, has no mission related to the defense of America. I agree with that. Second, aircraft carriers are "force projection" tools against countries and governments without significant defense capabilities, which I think is beyond argument. And last, Lind's essay begs the question of why America funds such ships which are vulnerable to any country with an adequate defense, for example a barrage of Exocet, or similar, anti-ship missiles will take any of them out, sacrificial screening vessels or not. Ships that cannot defend America at all.

Unless you need air cover / interdiction / force projection against countries and areas with 3rd world defense systems - in which case Carrier Groups are a pretty good option. Force projection alone seems to counter the "no mission" argument. Not all actions are against countries with significant anti-ship systems.
Seems like they are valuable tools in our arsenal. Maybe we just need to adjust how many we have while developing a different force projection system?

Quote:

Originally posted by JSDSKI
Unless you need air cover / interdiction / force projection against countries and areas with 3rd world defense systems - in which case Carrier Groups are a pretty good option.

Force projection has no relationship whatsoever to the defense of America. It didn't in the 19th century, none at all in the 20th century, and none in this century.

Quote:

Force projection alone seems to counter the "no mission" argument. Not all actions are against countries with significant anti-ship systems.

Since force projection has no relationship to defending America, it is illegitimate, and therefore any expediture for the tools of force projection are illegitimate as well.

Quote:

Seems like they are valuable tools in our arsenal. Maybe we just need to adjust how many we have while developing a different force projection system?

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

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]Force projection has no relationship whatsoever to the defense of America. It didn't in the 19th century, none at all in the 20th century, and none in this century.

[b]
Since force projection has no relationship to defending America, it is illegitimate, and therefore any expediture for the tools of force projection are illegitimate as well.

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

Naval blockades, Pat...I've got to go get one of my kids, so I'll be right back.

Think Civil War, think Revo War, think CMC, or think WWII since economic war is as much a burden as is the threat of invading armies.

Study well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seahawk
Naval blockades, Pat...I've got to go get one of my kids, so I'll be right back.

Think Civil War, think Revo War, think CMC, or think WWII since economic war is as much a burden as is the threat of invading armies.

Study well.

Let me know what Naval blockade the US government engaged in prior to 1792.

None of those you list were for defensive purposes; all were for offensive, aggressive warfare for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, all were unConstitutional.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Let me know what Naval blockade the US government engaged in prior to 1792.

None of those you list were for defensive purposes; all were for offensive, aggressive warfare for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, all were unConstitutional.

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

Force projection isn't offensive? Wasn't that your question?

You need to do more homework.

Oh, how about defence against piracy? We were aggressive in that warfare?

I've got more...I hope it stops raining TODAY!!!

Force projection is a tactic used with both offensive and defensive purpose. Your argument is moot.

It's my understanding that force projection is a strategy, not a tactic. Carriers are unique in that they can put a small piece of American "soil" anywhere on the globe in a few days. They are simply too big to be ignored, whereas a sub is too small/unobtrusive to not be ignored.

That said, I think Blue Water Navies are just waiting out a death sentence right now. Aside from a carrier battle group's "mobile soil" ability, the only thing I think they bring to the table is anti-piracy and shipping protection. Large ships are worthless for anti-piracy work, and subs could protect shipping.

As an aside, we CAN'T overestimate the need for shipping route protection in an era where more and more of our industrial capacity comes from overseas.

Quote:

Originally posted by wludavid
It's my understanding that force projection is a strategy, not a tactic. Carriers are unique in that they can put a small piece of American "soil" anywhere on the globe in a few days. They are simply too big to be ignored, whereas a sub is too small/unobtrusive to not be ignored.

That said, I think Blue Water Navies are just waiting out a death sentence right now. Aside from a carrier battle group's "mobile soil" ability, the only thing I think they bring to the table is anti-piracy and shipping protection. Large ships are worthless for anti-piracy work, and subs could protect shipping.

As an aside, we CAN'T overestimate the need for shipping route protection in an era where more and more of our industrial capacity comes from overseas.

That's Lind's assertion pretty much. There is not "shipping route" prortection authorized by the Constitution, and never was. Yes, I know that Thomas Jefferson set the precedent for that*, but even he knew at the time he was breaking the rules, and he heard about it too.

*primarily to satisfy yankee shipping interests, who were threatening to influence the yankee states often threatened, but never acted upon, secession from the Union.

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

What if we want to make Top Gun 2?
We are going to need an aircraft carrier to shot on
Steve