tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post3883864204981827946..comments2024-03-29T07:29:53.513-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: Technology and the numbers game in warfarePeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-25347506290017563812016-06-11T22:49:17.975-05:002016-06-11T22:49:17.975-05:00That's nonsense with no supporting evidence. C...That's nonsense with no supporting evidence. China's dub fleet is tiny and archaic compared to the USN dub fleet. The U.S. does exercises with diesel subs several times a year, even leasing European diesel subs for long periods to study and test them.<br /><br />The U.S. is so unimpressed by the much more advanced European subs as compared to China not only are they building another generation of super carriers and absolutely zero diesel subs. <br /><br />The sub menace is fear mongering at it's most transparent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-24168741464319791812016-06-11T22:42:39.643-05:002016-06-11T22:42:39.643-05:00The USN looked into it and found that small carrie...The USN looked into it and found that small carriers are almost as expensive since things like catapults, arresting fears and air Control radars are going to be too big and expensive to scale down and make the huge number of redundancies economical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-57376337825211601132016-06-11T22:38:20.026-05:002016-06-11T22:38:20.026-05:00It's way too easy for satellites like that to ...It's way too easy for satellites like that to be shot down by missiles. <br /><br />You'd starve out your entire defense budget on something that would be eliminated in minutes at a tiny fraction of the cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-2235320786890141432016-06-11T22:16:02.718-05:002016-06-11T22:16:02.718-05:00You're assuming such a laughably huge tactical...You're assuming such a laughably huge tactical advantage for your favored side it's not at all a realistic scenario.<br /><br />Satellites are very easily shot down, even if we assume they're any good at detecting and tracking ships(which they aren't), the carrier strike groups have built in ASAT batteries. Even if they are the end all be all the U.S. has several times as many as China. <br /><br />Another area China lags significantly in is reconnaissance air craft, they're mostly stuck with Soviet junk while they parade around modified ballistic missiles. Meanwhile the U.S. has an extensive force of stealth and long range platforms like the Triton drone, P-8 and F-35. <br /><br />So thinking your cheap missiles can teleport into range a la the Millenium Challenge and magically sense where exactly to fire is comical when in reality information poor forces are the ones reacting defensively while the side with the best reconnaissance and aircraft blind and pound them. <br /><br />You're simply contriving a very specific and unrealistic scenario that's mostly over by the time you start and declare yourself the winner as soon as you've begun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-72747481525510791212016-06-10T22:10:04.543-05:002016-06-10T22:10:04.543-05:00scipioamericanus said...
LCB, if China were to use...<i>scipioamericanus said...<br />LCB, if China were to use tactical nuclear weapons against US forces in the field there is a significant probability that Beijing would be a parking lot 45 minutes later.</i><br /><br />No doubt. But what if the powers that be in China are willing to make that trade? Sounds suicidal to us...but does it to the Chinese military and politburo? Do you want to bet your nation on that "belief". Watch the movie Pork Chop Hill sometime...and tell me if the Chinese think any differently now than they did in the 1950's. I'd like to think so...but again, I wouldn't be willing to bet the nation on that belief.<br /><br />I just finished the autobiography of General ''Pete'' Piotrowski. In the early 60's the Air Force had to "learn" how to do tactical support. Korea and WW2 were both recent enough that a lot of good officers understood tactical fighting and helped bring about great support for the grunts in Viet Nam...using Korea era planes, like the Skyraider and T-28. The Generals in DC were already enamored with bigger, brighter, faster toys. <br /><br />Because of that situation the request went out for a dedicated ground support plane. But the Air Force brass didn't want the A-10 when it came along and they fought like hell to get rid of it. Now, when the A-10 really is nearing end of life all we hear about is how the F-16 can take care of ground support. No need at all to replace the A-10. Well...maybe. My guess is if we get in to another big ground war the Air Force will struggle with tactical support...again...like they did when they gave up on the F-16 and "let" the A-10 in theater during Desert Storm. <br /><br />The perfect is the enemy of good...and our politician generals seem fixated on finding the "perfect" plane to do it all. <br /><br />Or, getting back to the Navy, the "perfect" carrier battle group. You seem to have great faith in the CBG to defend itself, but then go on to mention the submarine threat. Again, if I were the "enemy", I'd build quiet diesel boats with vertical launchers, get them as close to the CBG as practical, and launch anti-ship missiles. Yup, we'd then get the subs...but that's a trade off I'd think the Chinese would love. 3, 4 or 5 boats in exchange for a carrier? Yup.<br /><br />And their subs are getting better and better. After all...we've let them steal about every secret we have...because there's no real way to stop espionage in this day and age, especially in a democracy.<br />LCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03146393047895889252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-76112562167145603522016-06-10T16:25:41.860-05:002016-06-10T16:25:41.860-05:00I know someone who does jiu jitsu and tells the fo...I know someone who does jiu jitsu and tells the following story (please bear with me):<br /><br />A fellow student passed his black belt grading and the class went out to celebrate. They found a bar and put in some hard work on getting drunk.<br /><br />There was a pool table so they started to play, until one of the local "faces" told them to get off the table, or else...<br />Mr recent black belt told the individual that the game was nearly finished and that if Mr Tough was patient then the next pool game was his.<br /><br />Mr black belt then turned back to his game and... woke up on the floor. He found out later that the local tough hit him on the head with a pool cue.<br /><br />The point is that Mr black belt list the fight he didn't know he was in until he lost it. The other point is that Mr black belt, highly trained in martial arts that he was totally failed to understand Mr tough's agenda: <br /><br />Simply by waiting a few minutes the tough would have "won" the pool table, but that wasn't the point. The point was to earn respect and street cred from his associates in the bar.<br /><br />Which brings us back to carriers and main battle tanks, highly capable "black belt" military assets usually crewed by highly trained personnel. Such weapons can be swamped: I believe that a British Challenger MBT was disabled in Iraq, and when I say disabled it was towed away, repaired and was back in service within the week.<br /><br />This was after suffering 70+ RPG hits and causing horrible casualties on the insurgents trying to attack it. By any normal rational military arithmetic there is no way this could be called a victory.<br /><br />Peter's post was about asymmetric technologies to achieve 'standard' military objectives but I think that one thing he and all the other posters have overlooked is that the aims, objectives and intent of those using asymmetric warfare would be "asymmetric" as well: Making little sense to conventional NATO or 'western' militaries but completely logical to those on the other side.<br /><br />Going back to the barroom tough. The whole point of his attack was to gain prestige. In the future top end assets won't be attacked in order to deny access to significant ground or stop an advance, it will be to gain prestige. Carrying out a successful attack and landing a few "cheap shots" which would be filmed for YouTube would be the whole point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-70684653431297761312016-06-10T08:23:36.349-05:002016-06-10T08:23:36.349-05:00Odysseus, that exact logic is why we're puttin...Odysseus, that exact logic is why we're putting so much effort into developing laser-based CIWS, among other systems. That gets you to the point where each $50,000 drone is destroyed by a $5 laser (or microwave) pulse.<br /><br />Rheinmetall has already demonstrated (as of a few years ago) a 50 kW system that can knock down artillery rounds, mortar-bombs, and rockets up to 3 km away. Several nations including Israel and the US are currently passing the 100 kW solid-state laser output point, and are planning to be at 150 kW next year. At 200+ kW the such a weapon can operationally shoot down supersonic anti-ship missiles, and we think there are no major technical roadblocks to reaching as high as 500 kW with known technologies. Other technologies (like chemical or free-electron lasers) are capable of multi-megawatt outputs, at the expense of much higher weight and larger form-factor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-30515454564709140632016-06-10T08:15:29.704-05:002016-06-10T08:15:29.704-05:00LCB, if China were to use tactical nuclear weapons...LCB, if China were to use tactical nuclear weapons against US forces in the field there is a significant probability that Beijing would be a parking lot 45 minutes later. Even under a weak president, we would likely respond in kind against Chinese military targets, and we are much more capable in the nuclear realm than China. No one wants to escalate to that level, it's suicidal (at least until our strategic deterrent degrades to the point of uselessness - which is the direction things are moving at the moment). <br /><br />I think we just got done explaining that mass missile attacks against carriers are something we've spent 30 years preparing for. I'd add to that the observation that the Chinese are not nearly as capable, technically or tactically, of pulling off that sort of attack as the Soviets were in the 1980's. Their equipment and missiles are in most cases only a slight-to-moderate improvement on the gear the Russians would have been using, while ours is a generation or two ahead. <br /><br />If you're hunting for a plausible threat to our carriers, a better place to look is underneath the water. We've let our ASW proficiency go to pot somewhat and that does represent a great danger. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-31588386149767449102016-06-10T02:18:55.438-05:002016-06-10T02:18:55.438-05:00Many of the comments reminded me of a book I bough...Many of the comments reminded me of a book I bought shortly after I started working for United Defense, "How to Make War", by James E Dunnigan. I have the "Updated Edition", published in 1983. I figured that by now it would be out of print but I'm happy to see that it has been updated and is now up to the 4th edition, 2004. I remember it stated that if we went to war with the Russians (1983) we'd be bankrupt within 6 months. The only saving grace is that they would be bankrupt within 3 months. Go to Amazon preview and read the section just below "How to Become an Effective Armchair General". It's about a 3rd larger than my book, but the last paragraph is intact and the second to the last sentence still applies: "Real warfare is ugly, destructive and remembered fondly only by those who survived it without getting too close"<br /><br />Bob DurtschiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-54371778143439935202016-06-09T19:32:22.669-05:002016-06-09T19:32:22.669-05:00Another thought: the Germans deployed the super &q...Another thought: the Germans deployed the super "fighter" of the day in the world of tanks, the King Tiger. Had it's technical issues, but it could take on multiple Shermans and blow them to itty bitty pieces. But multiple doesn't mean unlimited...and the King Tigers, the Tigers and the Panthers were all overwhelmed by numbers.<br /><br />I'm on Peter's side here. The F-35 is a prime example of how the big brass things...bigger...better...ghee whiz factor out the behind...<br /><br />But good for the next war. I doubt. <br /><br />What is it someone said: logistics, logistics, logistics. More complicated weapons systems are the enemy of logistics!!!LCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03146393047895889252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-1557673222761947512016-06-09T19:28:07.522-05:002016-06-09T19:28:07.522-05:00Let say you have 10 F-35 fighters, each capable of...Let say you have 10 F-35 fighters, each capable of taking out 10 enemy fighters. What happens if the enemy launches 101 fighters. Whatever capability the F-35 has it CAN be overwhelmed by fighters that cost way, way less.<br /><br />In a major war we WILL lose carriers. If the battle group sends it's planes to deal with the launch sights but ONE missile gets through with a nuke...no place for the planes to go home too.<br /><br />The only major threat right now is China. And China has both the money (like us, it will just print more if it needs to) and has designed some excellent anti-ship missiles. And if they decide to go to war I'd bet on their willingness to use tactical nukes.LCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03146393047895889252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-32218302458851244102016-06-09T19:27:11.418-05:002016-06-09T19:27:11.418-05:00In this era of massively over-leveraged government...In this era of massively over-leveraged governments as cold as it sounds the economic cost of systems might have as much an effect on sustainment as other factors. If you have to use hundreds of $5mil defensive missiles to fend off scores of $50,000 drones then at a certain point checks are going to bounce, or the government version which is massive inflation.Odysseushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16710666926746925370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-82495694580362194822016-06-09T18:31:11.617-05:002016-06-09T18:31:11.617-05:00@Glen,
Yeah, that's what you would do. The c...@Glen,<br /><br />Yeah, that's what you would do. The current administration would probably apologize for the environmental impact of a sunk carrier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-70827844576001746092016-06-09T18:11:26.027-05:002016-06-09T18:11:26.027-05:00The two major wars saw the dominance of of two dif...The two major wars saw the dominance of of two different ships. WW1 the Dreadnought battleship. WW2. the aircraft carrier.<br /><br />The next major war the fast attack submarine is going to be the dominant system. Nukes, for a country like the US or UK, Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) for a country like Japan. AIP is is, for all practical purposes, undetectable by the normal means we have used in the past. If China masters the quiet sub, and we gave them a serious boost by training their Engineers, then the Carrier Strike Force is toast.<br /><br />That's just where the nightmares begin.Quartermasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-20627409456054374352016-06-09T17:20:53.087-05:002016-06-09T17:20:53.087-05:00The bit players are easily neutralized Peter - wit...The bit players are easily neutralized Peter - with low tech.<br /><br />If you take out one of my US carriers with some high tech gizmo - that is an act of war. Period. If my defenses are effectively neutralized all that is left is all out warfare with no quarter asked for and none given. Not only will I kill you (we're speaking hypothetically here!) - I will kill your family and probably take out all your friends and acquaintances too. When I'm done with that, I will flatten the Cub Crafter factory (gawd, I would hate to do that!) - and anyone THEY did business with. I will make the consequences of allying with you so dire that nobody will even THINK of doing what you did ever again. When the ACLU and world courts start screaming I will dismiss them with derisive laughter and kill them too if they want to get stupid about it.<br /><br />There WILL be a war on terror, it will be nasty and brutal ... but thankfully short.Glen Filthiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03256741311142364722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-46392325497139050022016-06-09T16:34:01.261-05:002016-06-09T16:34:01.261-05:00@David
Anti-tank missile teams are incorporated i...@David<br /><br />Anti-tank missile teams are incorporated into the weapons platoons and weapons companies of our infantry and are fully integrated within it.<br />You are very much mistaken when you say they are single purpose, unable to take or hold ground. They are infantrymen, with the anti-tank mission as a focus, but far from an exclusive one. It's also worth noting that their weapons against tanks are every bit as effective against fortifications, and are darned useful against the enemy's logistical train or against any sort of mechanised advance.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12822511906907583597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-9428146658031214052016-06-09T16:32:24.986-05:002016-06-09T16:32:24.986-05:00As other folks have noted, missiles with the abili...As other folks have noted, missiles with the ability to kill much more expensive targets have been available for over 40 years, anti-tank rockets since WWII, and torpedoes were a thing over 100 years ago (destroyer is short for torpedo boat destroyer). The big ships and tanks still rule their respective battlefields. Why?<br /><br />What you do not account for is the human factor. That attack by multiple missile launchers is much more difficult to pull off than the response from a working team in the tank/ship. It's also like a man standing off a mob with a shotgun - he can't shoot them all, but he can kill the first one who attacks, and no one wants to be that first guy. Intelligent, capable people are a very expensive asset, and so we protect those assets. Countries that have forlorn hopes as a fighting policy don't get or keep intelligent capable people. Kamikazes and suicide bombers bother us because they are so unusual, and folks generally won't go into an action knowing that they have >10% chance of not coming back.<br /><br />I'll agree that the military/contractor revolving door has bent costs all out of whack. In most things, you can get 80% of the capability for 20% of the cost, the US military is much more expensive. We're more like 90% for 5% of the cost. Still, you need people - capable, dedicated, trained people, and that is where things get much more expensive.tweellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08164718561825615886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-28115397372588832092016-06-09T14:46:24.587-05:002016-06-09T14:46:24.587-05:00@Will, smaller carriers have smaller capacities as...@Will, smaller carriers have smaller capacities as a percentage of their size, so you would need more crew and equipment to support the same number of aircraft. Not to mention the multiples of the escorts that you would need to have.<br /><br />And if you think that carriers don't need to be as large to be able to support the aircraft, you should ask why nobody else in the world fields aircraft on carriers that can really compete with the US Navy?<br /><br />The other carriers in the world operate Harriers (and plan to operate F-35 VTOL variants), they don't operate aircraft that can seriously compete with land-based aircraft.David Langnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-70300877947201234752016-06-09T14:40:59.625-05:002016-06-09T14:40:59.625-05:00@Will, the problem with that concept was diseconom...@Will, the problem with that concept was diseconomies of scale, not with regards to money but with regards to tactical and engineering factors. A smaller ship has poorer seakeeping, which limits when it can launch (and land) its aircraft. The analyses that were performed also showed that for each ton of displacement you drop, you drop more than a proportional quantity of aircraft that can be supported by the ship. <br /><br />It also didn't seem to greatly improve survivability either - our CVNs are already quite maneuverable, and making the target only 2/3 or even 1/2 as big doesn't actually make it all that much harder to hit, especially when you take into account that the smaller ship mounts a significantly smaller EW suite and considerably weaker defensive systems.<br /><br />I agree with Kell that space-based weaponry, potentially DEW in the 40-50 year timeframe, will render the biggest single change in how surface operations are conducted. Of course that just kicks the battlefield upwards a few hundred miles...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-85563220999150600672016-06-09T14:40:42.286-05:002016-06-09T14:40:42.286-05:00@bart
remote control tail draggers have been arou...@bart<br /><br />remote control tail draggers have been around for a long time, look at model aircraft.<br /><br />@peter, one thing you are missing in your Predator vs XCub comparison is that the Predator's payload rating doesn't include the weight of the sensors and control equipment while that would have to be subtracted from the XCub payload capacity.<br /><br />As far as tank vs missle, people have been predicting the end of the tank because of missiles since the 60's, but tanks are still around.<br /><br />you have to transport and feed your missile teams, and missile teams are single-purpose elements, all they can do is take out tanks, they can't stand up to small arms fire, they can't control an area, all they can do is try and deny it to the enemy.<br /><br />As for Carrier Battle Groups. If China were to decide to go to war and kill a CBG that's nearby, it would be in serious trouble. But North Korea is in no position to serious threaten such a group (even if they get their nukes and missiles working better)<br /><br />The ability of a CBG to move into an area and provide relatively cheap firepower anywhere in the world without needing to have a nearby base is extremely powerful.<br /><br />Anti-ship missiles can bother a carrier, but if the battlegroup crews are alert, it takes a LOT of them to get a few through, and Carriers are pretty tough ships to sink.<br /><br /><br /><br />Along similar lines, in Vietnam it was predicted that missiles would make aircraft (and especially guns in aircraft) obsolete. That hasn't happened, in part because missiles are just so expensive.<br /><br />Battlefield lasers are going to bring a world of hurt against things that fly, but that applies just as much to missiles as anything else. Lasers need a huge power supply, ships are a perfect platform for them. If they get good enough to reliably pick off aircraft and missiles, we may see the return of the Battleship (it's hard to deflect a shell in a near ballistic trajectory)David Lagnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-39188578162003916902016-06-09T14:28:16.656-05:002016-06-09T14:28:16.656-05:00@Will,
There was a debate to that effect when the...@Will,<br /><br />There was a debate to that effect when they were laying out the requirements for the new Ford-class carriers. There's also the fact that VTOL engineering a lot better understood now than when the Nimitz was designed. Clearly they settled on another full fleet carrier design. I don't know what the final logic was, but I'm sure if we cared enough we could find out.<br /><br />Ultimately, I don't expect it to be missiles that break the paradigm. I suspect it will be space-based weaponry, either pure energy based like a laser or something designed for a hard kinetic kill that eventually threatens the viability of the Navy. Space-based weapons will have eyes on the target from well outside jamming range and intercepting a laser beam or a KKV traveling at mach 20 will be nearly impossible.Kellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-24382609798786338362016-06-09T13:47:23.899-05:002016-06-09T13:47:23.899-05:00I'm wondering if it might be time to switch to...I'm wondering if it might be time to switch to smaller carriers, and spread the air assets among 8-10 of them. With catapults and arrester gear, it doesn't require 1000+ foot, 100k ton ships to do the job. <br /><br />Besides giving the enemy a more difficult targeting solution, since a jeep carrier would not be readily distinguishable from the support ships, it would enable the Navy to be more aggressive in sending a smaller group closer to hot spots, that they currently won't do with the mega carriers they have now. I suspect that most captains/admirals would prefer this, as it would give them more slots to fill, and more discretion in where they go to play.<br /><br />One of the potential pluses would be to lessen the temptation for the bad guys to toss a nuke at a carrier, since the return value would be much smaller with a jeep size target.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722792638246578812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-87530616996514777522016-06-09T13:31:05.294-05:002016-06-09T13:31:05.294-05:00A remotely piloted tail-dragger! Is such a thing ...A remotely piloted tail-dragger! Is such a thing even possible? <br /><br />Landings would sure be exciting. Peter, I'm sure your aviatrix wife has a thing or two to say on that subject.Bart Noirnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-24164732934808683432016-06-09T12:49:10.005-05:002016-06-09T12:49:10.005-05:00@Peter,
Oh, I'm not saying that a battlegroup...@Peter,<br /><br />Oh, I'm not saying that a battlegroup's defenses can't be swamped with numbers or diverted with clever tactics. Tom Clancy presented a plausible scenario for that over 30 years ago, and where there's one plausible scenario there are others. I'm making the point that the concern that a ship or vehicle might be swamped with weapons that are cheaper than the target isn't a new concern. It's one that the US military has had to think about for the better part of a century. They have developed and refined technologies and doctrines to counter it, and will continue to do so.<br /><br />The United States has the luxury (or vice) of massive wealth. That's why we use Predator drones instead of a Twin Beach or Cessna. Your point that smaller nations or organizations can, with enough ingenuity, duplicate some of the capabilities of the US military at a fraction of the cost is well taken. Those hacks may not be as elegant a solution, but it does mean that smaller opponents can be a lot more dangerous than first glance might suggest.Kellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-17690264047643510052016-06-09T12:20:48.680-05:002016-06-09T12:20:48.680-05:00Yes, the entire power of the CBG will be devoted t...Yes, the entire power of the CBG will be devoted to counter-missile for the duration of any such attack, but once again we have to consider both extension in time as well as the larger context. As soon as all the enemy's assets have revealed themselves by launching that attack (assuming they weren't destroyed before they had a chance to launch - enemy countries aren't exactly a blank spot on the map anymore thanks to satellite, drone, and other means of surveillance) then they cannot help but be destroyed, either by Air-Force strike assets supporting the Navy, or by the CBG's own strike aircraft as soon as they rearm after defeating the initial attack. <br /><br /><i>This</i> is what the expense of the carrier group buys you - the ability to go into the enemy's defenses, anywhere in the world, survive the best he can throw at you <i>then punch back just as hard once he's shot his bolt.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com