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.

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."

;)

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.

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.

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.

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!?!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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. :)

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 :cool:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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....

"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

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.

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

The above makes no sense, try writing again while remaining linear in your thinking.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...ool_shades.gif

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?

Blah, blah:) How is the bug?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1164304552.jpg:p

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. :)

truer statement never uttered
 

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