How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015(fpri.org)
fpri.org
How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015
http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf
45 comments
Indeed. It was a Tom Clancy book with a hawkish pitch. Let me know when the movie adaptation comes out.
Because there isn't enough pornography on DVD already...
You know the author of this story was hot and bothered during the entire writing process. A Christian, no doubt, too. Probably skipped Bible study when they covered the section that says "Those who delight in violence [God] abhors".
You know the author of this story was hot and bothered during the entire writing process. A Christian, no doubt, too. Probably skipped Bible study when they covered the section that says "Those who delight in violence [God] abhors".
I'd put more resources into cruise missiles launched from submarines and small missile carrying craft with stealth technology.
How about putting more resources into bribery. It seemed to work quite well in Iraq, and took out opposing forces cheaper than weapons. And with less blood shed, of course.
Out of every $100 spent on national defense worldwide, $40–$50 are spent by the United States. About 30% of the US Federal budget is military spending, and about 13% is paying interest on money we borrowed for previous military spending.¹ Any hypothetical war that the US couldn’t win unless it spends even more coin on military hardware is not a hypothetical war that the US should be hypothetically fighting in the first place.
¹ http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spendi...
¹ http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spendi...
Keep in mind that US defense contrctors are probably the most expensive in the world. How much does a Lockheed Martin engineer makes versus a Chinese contractor engineer?
The US spending 40-50% of the world's defense budget doesn't say much other than the fact that a lot of people are getting very rich in America. Don't get me wrong, they are still far ahead from everyone else, but I don't think that's a valid metric unless you adjust for purchasing power.
The US spending 40-50% of the world's defense budget doesn't say much other than the fact that a lot of people are getting very rich in America. Don't get me wrong, they are still far ahead from everyone else, but I don't think that's a valid metric unless you adjust for purchasing power.
What the US gets for that money tho' is a vast amount of tech that eventually ends up with the general public. I have two GPSs on me at the moment. Which is ridiculous but hey, they're so cheap, why not stick one in every electronic device?! There's a reason that all that comes out of the US.
The EU as a whole spends about half what the US does on defence and ends up with about 10% of the capability. Hmm.
The EU as a whole spends about half what the US does on defence and ends up with about 10% of the capability. Hmm.
Your first argument would be more interesting, if you could compare it with a situation where the money remains in civilian hands.
(E.g. during the Second World War a lot of new technology came out of the military, too. But that was only to expect, since all resources went into the military.)
(E.g. during the Second World War a lot of new technology came out of the military, too. But that was only to expect, since all resources went into the military.)
A good example is the UK. We spend ~200Bn a year on welfare and ~30Bn a year on defence. Yet the US leads in almost every technological field.
Surface navies are useless against competent organized opponents. Carrier groups are for power projection to scare the natives, little else. During a $250 million war game in 2002, OPFOR sunk the US fleet in the Persian Gulf. Sorry I can't find the original:
http://bassreport.com/forum/rec.boats.t664050.htm
And another from the War Nerd: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
He repeats this quote from the US Naval Institute about 10 times in that last article: "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack," and points out that ballistic missiles are 50 year old tech.
The solution to defending a surface navy isn't to throw money at it, but to mothball it.
And another from the War Nerd: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
He repeats this quote from the US Naval Institute about 10 times in that last article: "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack," and points out that ballistic missiles are 50 year old tech.
The solution to defending a surface navy isn't to throw money at it, but to mothball it.
That is a rather glaring flaw in the OP’s argument, innit? “The Chinese could bring down one of our massive ships with one cheap missile! Therefore we need... an even larger quantity of massive ships than we have now!”
For those who can't be bothered reading it, the posited scenario goes something like this:
1. China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason
2. China claims that the US aircraft carrier exploded all on its own, and nobody can prove otherwise
3. The US doesn't bother to retaliate
4. The US has thus "lost the Naval War of 2015".
Does this scenario strike anyone as especially plausible?
1. China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason
2. China claims that the US aircraft carrier exploded all on its own, and nobody can prove otherwise
3. The US doesn't bother to retaliate
4. The US has thus "lost the Naval War of 2015".
Does this scenario strike anyone as especially plausible?
There would be records of the radar track in the computers of the Aegis cruisers in the task force. There may well be evidence of the launch captured by satellites.
ELINT is very powerful, and the US intelligence agencies have been at this game since before WWII. Their sneakiness boggles the mind! They were using signals bounced off of the moon to spy on Soviet equipment, and disguised the whole thing as radio astronomy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ
If you are going to go up against the US defense establishment, you'd better be damned sure you know what you're doing.
If I were the US, facing such an asymmetric threat, I'd keep most of my carrier groups around for the short term as a boondoggle, then come up with my own novel threat against my opponent's shipping.
(Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines? The advanced 21st century version, of course.)
ELINT is very powerful, and the US intelligence agencies have been at this game since before WWII. Their sneakiness boggles the mind! They were using signals bounced off of the moon to spy on Soviet equipment, and disguised the whole thing as radio astronomy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ
If you are going to go up against the US defense establishment, you'd better be damned sure you know what you're doing.
If I were the US, facing such an asymmetric threat, I'd keep most of my carrier groups around for the short term as a boondoggle, then come up with my own novel threat against my opponent's shipping.
(Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines? The advanced 21st century version, of course.)
(Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines?)
Nukes.
If I were the US, I'd simply make it an official matter of policy that any attack from a nuclear power would result in an immediate nuclear response, the logic being that once two nuclear powers are at war it's probably going to turn nuclear eventually, so you might as well make the first strike.
Nukes.
If I were the US, I'd simply make it an official matter of policy that any attack from a nuclear power would result in an immediate nuclear response, the logic being that once two nuclear powers are at war it's probably going to turn nuclear eventually, so you might as well make the first strike.
Please tell me you are joking.
Some of us spent our entire youth afraid of nuclear annihilation 24/7. We've been out of that for some time now, but I don't think anyone wants to send the world back to that point.
Some of us spent our entire youth afraid of nuclear annihilation 24/7. We've been out of that for some time now, but I don't think anyone wants to send the world back to that point.
If I were the US, I'd simply make it a matter of official policy to make as many official, unofficial, formal, informal, commercial and personal ties to every country in the world as possible, to the maximum extent that any ideology on either side allows.
Yes, certainly we need to maintain defensive and offensive military capabilities, but I think we should be doing much, much more to reduce the need for those capabilities.
Yes, certainly we need to maintain defensive and offensive military capabilities, but I think we should be doing much, much more to reduce the need for those capabilities.
This is, more or less, the original founding intent of the European Union. Given that the last 60 years has been free of major land wars in Europe - the longest period of peace on the continent since the fall of the Roman Empire in ~470AD, it seems to be working fairly well. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Europaea).
I think the EU is great, but I wonder how much of that peace can be attributed to both the United States and USSR both having large armies camped through Europe for most of that time.
I had the same thought. The answer is there is no one thing that does/did it. I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Germany and France are closer to partners than combatants.
Yeah, external factors like those mentioned obviously play a part, as do internal factors, as taught to us by playing Civilisation - fat happy democracies don't like making war very much, or for very long; it's expensive and you have to get off the couch...
Well, I guess the whole world can thank their deity of choice that you're nowhere near being in charge of anything.
The others may mock you, but you are in fact correct as to why it is impossible for two nuclear-armed foes to fight directly.
There will never be a hot war between US and China for so long as nuclear weapons have no effective defense. Nuclear weapons are probably the single biggest enabler of peace on the planet.
There will never be a hot war between US and China for so long as nuclear weapons have no effective defense. Nuclear weapons are probably the single biggest enabler of peace on the planet.
>There will never be a hot war between US and China for so long as nuclear weapons have no effective defense.
I beg to differ. First, see India v. Pakistan as a direct counter to your "impossible" statement.
Second, as the example shows, the line you draw regarding using nukes does not extend all the way down to the rifleman. It's entirely possible to start a conventional and/or localized war with the understanding that you intend to win and therefore do not have the need to use your nukes.
You're making the major mistake though of assuming your enemy is a rational actor, a la the cold war. Russia is a rational actor. So is China. Even India.
In Pakistan however, only a minority are rational actors. Should a change in government occur that is pro-Taliban, you now have a nation of irrational actors with nuclear weapons.
MAD falls apart at this point. The fear of death means little to the Muslim extremist, and a man that isn't scared does highly irrational things, like nuke a civilian target.
All it takes is one, and then all bets are off.
I beg to differ. First, see India v. Pakistan as a direct counter to your "impossible" statement.
Second, as the example shows, the line you draw regarding using nukes does not extend all the way down to the rifleman. It's entirely possible to start a conventional and/or localized war with the understanding that you intend to win and therefore do not have the need to use your nukes.
You're making the major mistake though of assuming your enemy is a rational actor, a la the cold war. Russia is a rational actor. So is China. Even India.
In Pakistan however, only a minority are rational actors. Should a change in government occur that is pro-Taliban, you now have a nation of irrational actors with nuclear weapons.
MAD falls apart at this point. The fear of death means little to the Muslim extremist, and a man that isn't scared does highly irrational things, like nuke a civilian target.
All it takes is one, and then all bets are off.
So, how to fix the religious, then?
> China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason
No. The scenario is that China hits a US carrier with a (conventionally armed) ballistic missile, for no particularly good reason
No. The scenario is that China hits a US carrier with a (conventionally armed) ballistic missile, for no particularly good reason
I stand corrected. Don't aircraft carriers have pretty good missile defence systems, though?
It's the bullet-hitting-bullet problem. Some labs are working on focusing light on targets to melt key components. Others do a 'metal sheet' in pellet form with the thought that if you put enough metal in the air, you're bound to hit targets...
No. They have effectively none.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-68.h...
The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute
The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute
Untrue. The entirety of surface fleet doctrine in the modern USN is focused on protection of the carriers (and other force projection ships) from attack. Pretty much every ship you see is a "carrier defense mechanism", as are most of the aircraft on deck.
They have plenty of defences. However, a ballistica missile re-entering is going very fast and is therefore very hard to intercept. It is also not a threat that carrier battle groups have been designed to combat.
Couldn't the United States send some nuclear-tipped missiles to China in response, and then claim the explosions were simply explosions of the warheads stockpiled in China? I just don't buy 3. as a likely response. Possible, but not likely.
And unless step 3 seems not just "likely" but "damn near certain", there's no way the Chinese are going to be dumb enough to attempt step 1.
Amusing. I enjoyed this part:
The incident—could it really be called a ‘‘war’’?—
Well, when you're making up some hypothetical event in the future, you can call it anything you want. Kind of weird to question it yourself though.
This whole thing is pretty stupid, though. As a former Navy guy, I find it pretty hard to believe that the US wouldn't be able to prove that China was responsible, or that they wouldn't retaliate even if they couldn't prove it.
The incident—could it really be called a ‘‘war’’?—
Well, when you're making up some hypothetical event in the future, you can call it anything you want. Kind of weird to question it yourself though.
This whole thing is pretty stupid, though. As a former Navy guy, I find it pretty hard to believe that the US wouldn't be able to prove that China was responsible, or that they wouldn't retaliate even if they couldn't prove it.
And Iraq has chemical weapons, and Iran is a dangerous nuclear power, blah blah blah... Isn't $500 billion a year (50% of the federal budget!) enough for you people?
The federal budget is significantly more than 1 Trillion USD
Yeah, the numbers change year to year, and the most recent numbers are even greater. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budg...], I tally ~ $743 billion in defense and veterans affairs. Add a large percentage of the $220 billion in interest payments. The important question percentage-wise is whether you include Social Security.
Anyway, the fraction of the budget is really besides the point. We spend an inordinate amount of money on the military, and there is no viable threats to defend against. China is the best pick because they spend the second most money ($85 billion), but can we legitimately think that we'll go to physical war with such a huge trade partner?
Our military is funded by campfire stories and yellow press.
Anyway, the fraction of the budget is really besides the point. We spend an inordinate amount of money on the military, and there is no viable threats to defend against. China is the best pick because they spend the second most money ($85 billion), but can we legitimately think that we'll go to physical war with such a huge trade partner?
Our military is funded by campfire stories and yellow press.
More like 27% of the 2008 federal budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
That number doesn't include wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is almost the exact scenario of "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy. Only it was a Japanese sub that ambushed a carrier.
Haven't we heard this story before?
And here I was hoping for an interesting analysis of the Iran wargames and the dismal results for the carrier groups, but all I got was let's build a bigger bluewater fleet.