NEWS Seahawks Sink Houthi Boats

[Spekkio]

I disagree…we could theoretically fight a war, and win, against China and never invade Chinese soil. The primary “surprises” we’ll face is the fact that we’ll need new (and very basic) weapon systems very quickly. The contemporary model of taking 15 years to design and field a single fighter type simply won’t work.

According to our lord and savior, Clausewitz, you are wrong.

Aside from the fact that more than 6 senior Army leaders looked at me like I have a dick growing out my forehead when I asked about a Taiwan land campaign... meaning, the service isn't appreciably planning for it on any large scale compared to what's going on in CENTCOM and EUCOM ... any conflict where we simply support a Taiwan resistance force is unwinnable. The PRC can regenerate forces until we get tired three times over.

The only way to win a Taiwan defense campaign ... the only way to violently compel the enemy to succumb to our political will ... is regime change in the PRC.... just like the only way Ukraine wins is regime change in Russia. And we have the capability to kill Xi and most of his inner circle (and also Putin). But unlike Israel, who likes to go for the heads of the hydra, that's not our way of war. We want someone to negotiate with and we don't want to make our President into a legitimate military target.

What I think will be a clusterfuck is the C2 structure when the U.S. is the supporting effort for Taiwan, but we are used to 'running the show.' And also... when someone suddenly realizes an Army 4-star needs to run the campaign instead of a Navy 4-star.

And I get that high-level leaders don't agree with my take and Brett will readily point out that I am wrong because rank = legitimacy. Great. These same people think that submarines are effective in < 200 ft of water. They also purchased platforms like the LCS, which doesn't have any use in supporting the Navy's core mission.

On the Navy end, we tend to rely too much on wargaming outputs that are extremely sensitive to input Pk assumptions, and when you challenge the pocket protectors on those assumptions they dance and weave and shuck and jive and you realize ... we're just making shit up.

(I will readily accept any criticism that we dogmatically adhere to Clausewitz, who wrote his work almost 200 years ago, as if a scientist were to dogmatically adhere to the Niels Bohr model of an atom).

 

[Spekkio]

Not really. In high intensity conflict - Land warfare is decisive. Naval and airpower determine how long or short a conflict can last. Not a single major war in history has ended without the threat of a spear, sword, or gun pointed at the end of the opponent. We’ve learned this lesson the hard way numerous times. The only other debate is over Nuclear warfare, and I don’t think we want to find out that answer.

The closest thing I could find to a pure Navy "war" is the "quasi-war" between USA and France over the Carribean Islands.

Even in the Navy's magnum opus of the Pacific campaign, the main effort was the island hopping land force. We like to pat ourselves on the back over the battles of Midway and Leyte Gulf, but if the Japanese repelled the land effort then our vision of 'unconditional surrender' would have been shattered.

The Navy fights battles. The Army fights wars.

 

[Spekkio]

What’s next? Everyone’s head going to explode when I tell them that carriers are headed for the trash bin as the center piece of naval warfare?

The long-range guided missile with OTHT is what will kill the CVN.

If you don't need to launch a jet to fly 500-700 miles to attack an enemy fleet or SAG because you can shoot missiles from a DDG that outrange the enemy... well, then you don't need carriers.

We're still clinging to short-range precision strikes because that minimizes collateral damage, thereby maintaining our legitimacy. That will probably evolve significantly over the next 10-20 years.

 

[hscs]

The closest thing I could find to a pure Navy "war" is the "quasi-war" between USA and France over the Carribean Islands.

Even in the Navy's magnum opus of the Pacific campaign, the main effort was the island hopping land force. We like to pat ourselves on the back over the battles of Midway and Leyte Gulf, but if the Japanese repelled the land effort then our vision of 'unconditional surrender' would have been shattered.

The Navy fights battles. The Army fights wars.

From time immemorial, the purpose of a navy has been to influence, and sometimes decide, issues on land. This was so with the Greeks of antiquity; Romans, who created a navy to defeat Carthage; the Spanish, whose armada tried and failed to conquer England; and, most eminently, in the Atlantic and Pacific during two world wars. The sea has always given man in expensive transport and ease of communication over long distances. It has also provided concealment, because being over the horizon meant being out of sight and effectively beyond reach. The sea has supplied mobility, capability, and support throughout Western history, and those failing in the sea-power test -notably Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler - also failed the longevity one. - Edward L. Beach, in Keepers of the Sea

The long-range guided missile with OTHT is what will kill the CVN.

If you don't need to launch a jet to fly 500-700 miles to attack an enemy fleet or SAG because you can shoot missiles from a DDG that outrange the enemy... well, then you don't need carriers.

We're still clinging to short-range precision strikes because that minimizes collateral damage, thereby maintaining our legitimacy. That will probably evolve significantly over the next 10-20 years.

“When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that

the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:

'Where's the nearest carrier?'" - POTUS Clinton - as well as many before him. Oh, and that was when the AS-4 was in service - far outranging anything.

and if long range missiles are so important - why is everyone building carriers?

 

[JTS11]

Fellas,
We all can rock this license plate.


Be proud of it...whether Houthis are shooting at you or not.

 

[hscs]

 

[Griz882]

Oh…now we gettin’ fancy.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I so want this!

 

[JTS11]

I actually managed to retire from the MC without getting one of those cookies.

Strangely proud of it.

 

[Brett327]

You want to let it go Brett? or do you want me to keep tipping in on this wagon wheel?

By all means, keep marking time on your own junk. I think we've all drawn our own conclusions on your views, but you're the one who started flailing your arms about this silliness in the first place.

 

[Hotdogs]

By all means, keep marking time on your own junk. I think we've all drawn our own conclusions on your views, but you're the one who started flailing your arms about this silliness in the first place.

Good to know. Reattacks are always approved.
I’ll keep that in the back pocket for future iterations of Navy participation trophies, gold stars, and juice box vignettes.

 

[Flash]

We're still clinging to short-range precision strikes because that minimizes collateral damage, thereby maintaining our legitimacy. That will probably evolve significantly over the next 10-20 years.

If that is what you think, you aren't paying attention.

 

[Spekkio]

If that is what you think, you aren't paying attention.

I've been paying very close attention. You have your definitions crossed.

 

[Random8145]

This whole debate reminds me of how some of the TOPGUN Hitler Youth reacted when Growlers got A/A weapons. It was as though someone had simultaneously stolen their Halloween candy and cancelled Christmas. The pouting and foot stomping was fairly pathetic.

Godwin's Law?

 

[Random8145]

You guys are weird. Can't it be said that BOTH the Navy and the Army are kinda like two legs on the same soldier when it comes to winning wars? Yes, wars are often decided on land, but the land force (army) is often supplied by sea (navy). And both said land and sea forces also depend on air power. The U.S. Army needed the Navy to transport it over the ocean in WWII, then also depended on the Navy for regular resupplying and both naval and air power for inhibiting the resupply of the enemy (for example, Rommel's forces in North Africa suffered badly from supply shortages due to the German ships constantly being sunk, due to lack of adequate German air and sea power). And early on, U.S. ships trying to supply England were being sunk constantly by German U-boats. The Soviet war against Germany in WWII depended heavily on sea supply as well (for the Soviets).

Due to the nature of a war, sometimes a particular branch and/or weapon is the major war winner, with support provided by the others. Within an army, sometimes tanks and artillery (and air power) are the primary smasher of the enemy, with infantry playing more of a support role. For example, with the Soviets versus the Axis in WWII, both sides would initially use air power, massive barrages of artillery, and tanks as the main sledgehammer blows, with the infantry following up to mop up and hold ground. Within the German military, tankers were considered among the elite. In other scenarios, infantry are the main instrument and tanks support the infantry. Some wars are more navy specific, some more army specific.

Within the Navy, some wars are more carrier and naval air power oriented, others might be more destroyer or "battleship"-oriented again at some point.