Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Update on Status of US Navy
Author Message
ODU BBALL Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,313
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 338
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #181
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-18-2021 11:37 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

China has a much healthier economy that the Soviets did, at least on the surface. But there are huge problems underneath. Historically, China has seldom been a unified country because it's basically a bunch of people who don't like each other. The warlike Han in the north don't get along well with the commercial/industrial Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley, and neither of them like or are liked by the secessionist south, not to mention Tibet and the Uyghurs in the west. So what they do is export a lot of cheap consumer goods and use the cash flow to finance a bunch of make-work projects with little or no economic utility (remember the empty cities) to keep the peons too busy to revolt. So their banks have massive loans out to deals that will never generate a nickel of revenue. And the whole thing depends on imported oil from the Mideast, that has to come by sea through Malacca/Sunda, and PLAN (the Chinese navy) may be huge in numbers, but it is not a blue-water navy that can protect that shipping. We do that for them now. Pull the USN out of the Indian Ocean, and let pirates start hijacking tankers bound for China, and the whole thing collapses--their economy dies and their people starve to death. We hold all the cards, but we refuse to play them.

The problem there is that pirates don't tend to discriminate about who they attack. Other nations (including some allies) would be subject to having their shipping disrupted as well.
12-02-2021 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 72,336
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2280
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #182
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 11:05 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  There is no reason to build the Navy back up to 600 ships. The issue has always been parsing the obligations the USN has continued to maintain despite the Cold War ending 30 years ago. Until Mahan's naval doctrine is challenged, nothing will change.

If we are going to keep our obligations at a level that requires 100 ships to be deployed at any given time, then we probably need 600 or close to it. If we are to reduce our obligations, do we find someone else to pick them up? Who? Otherwise, we punt the field for Russia and/or China (probably the latter) to fill the void at some point. Is that what we want?

I say build our numbers, going high/low mix to keep a lid on costs, and start to build alliances and hand things off to them, and hope that we meet somewhere in the middle. Maybe the sweet spot is 450 ships, with 60-80 deployed, and UK/India/Australia/Japan covering 40-50 ships worth of our current obligations.
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2021 12:46 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
12-02-2021 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 72,336
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2280
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #183
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 11:42 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  The problem there is that pirates don't tend to discriminate about who they attack. Other nations (including some allies) would be subject to having their shipping disrupted as well.

Those other nations can provide some of their own security. Europe is already doing it with Operation Atalanta off Somalia. China would have an extremely long supply chain to cover, and it passes through or around some places that are not very friendly to China (around India, Malacca/Sunda) so that is a particular challenge to them. PLAN would basically have to reconfigure from a force to harass and intimidate neighbors around the SCS to a blue-water force. That would at least slow China's ambitions for a few years. To support such a fleet China has been working seaport deals all over south Asia, east Africa, and even the Mediterranean. We are asleep at the wheel.
12-02-2021 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 38,086
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2078
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #184
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 11:42 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  
(12-02-2021 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-18-2021 11:37 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

China has a much healthier economy that the Soviets did, at least on the surface. But there are huge problems underneath. Historically, China has seldom been a unified country because it's basically a bunch of people who don't like each other. The warlike Han in the north don't get along well with the commercial/industrial Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley, and neither of them like or are liked by the secessionist south, not to mention Tibet and the Uyghurs in the west. So what they do is export a lot of cheap consumer goods and use the cash flow to finance a bunch of make-work projects with little or no economic utility (remember the empty cities) to keep the peons too busy to revolt. So their banks have massive loans out to deals that will never generate a nickel of revenue. And the whole thing depends on imported oil from the Mideast, that has to come by sea through Malacca/Sunda, and PLAN (the Chinese navy) may be huge in numbers, but it is not a blue-water navy that can protect that shipping. We do that for them now. Pull the USN out of the Indian Ocean, and let pirates start hijacking tankers bound for China, and the whole thing collapses--their economy dies and their people starve to death. We hold all the cards, but we refuse to play them.

The problem there is that pirates don't tend to discriminate about who they attack. Other nations (including some allies) would be subject to having their shipping disrupted as well.

We need a Navy large enough to defend both of our "ocean moats" that protect the US. Any blue water navy that can do that wont have much issue with pirates attacking its shipping.

How difficult would it be to build a large relatively cheap stealthy autonomous VSTOL drone capable of carrying an anti-ship missile or a recon pod? How difficult would it be to build a quiet relatively long range underwater drone capable of effectively locating enemy vessels. It would be nice if the underwater drone could fire missiles and torpedoes---but even if it cant---it would still be a game changer.

Frankly, my concern is either of the above two development would make a large expensive manned conventional fleet extremely vulnerable. A cheap long range stealth drone that can fire missiles and can land on a small combatant like a frigate of LCS would be a game changer. An extremely quiet underwater drone than can hunt enemy ships and subs autonomously would be a game changer. I dont think the development of either of those potential threats are that far away and they need to be part of the calculus deciding what of any future Navy would look like a decade or two from now.
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2021 12:52 PM by Attackcoog.)
12-02-2021 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bobdizole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,228
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 196
I Root For: MT
Location:
Post: #185
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-02-2021 11:42 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  
(12-02-2021 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-18-2021 11:37 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

China has a much healthier economy that the Soviets did, at least on the surface. But there are huge problems underneath. Historically, China has seldom been a unified country because it's basically a bunch of people who don't like each other. The warlike Han in the north don't get along well with the commercial/industrial Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley, and neither of them like or are liked by the secessionist south, not to mention Tibet and the Uyghurs in the west. So what they do is export a lot of cheap consumer goods and use the cash flow to finance a bunch of make-work projects with little or no economic utility (remember the empty cities) to keep the peons too busy to revolt. So their banks have massive loans out to deals that will never generate a nickel of revenue. And the whole thing depends on imported oil from the Mideast, that has to come by sea through Malacca/Sunda, and PLAN (the Chinese navy) may be huge in numbers, but it is not a blue-water navy that can protect that shipping. We do that for them now. Pull the USN out of the Indian Ocean, and let pirates start hijacking tankers bound for China, and the whole thing collapses--their economy dies and their people starve to death. We hold all the cards, but we refuse to play them.

The problem there is that pirates don't tend to discriminate about who they attack. Other nations (including some allies) would be subject to having their shipping disrupted as well.

We need a Navy large enough to defend both of our "ocean moats" that protect the US. Any blue water navy that can do that wont have much issue with pirates attacking its shipping.

How difficult would it be to build a large relatively cheap stealthy autonomous VSTOL drone capable of carrying an anti-ship missile or a recon pod? How difficult would it be to build a quiet relatively long range underwater drone capable of effectively locating enemy vessels. It would be nice if the underwater drone could fire missiles and torpedoes---but even if it cant---it would still be a game changer.

Frankly, my concern is either of the above two development would make a large expensive manned conventional fleet extremely vulnerable. A cheap long range stealth drone that can fire missiles and can land on a small combatant like a frigate of LCS would be a game changer. An extremely quiet underwater drone than can hunt enemy ships and subs autonomously would be a game changer. I dont think the development of either of those potential threats are that far away and they need to be part of the calculus deciding what of any future Navy would look like a decade or two from now.

That drone would have to be much bigger than what we have now. A missile large enough to be a threat to a surface ship is a lot bigger than the hellfires the MQs carry now(almost 4-to-1 ratio). And a single missile fired would not pose much a threat to modern missile defense systems.

I think you are spot on with developing underwater drones though. The navy is currently working on one for EW purposes, but can't imagine it would be a challenge to add a couple torpedo tubes to them eventually. The question becomes how do you control them. Subs rely on stealth and any wireless communication would give away it's presence. I think the MK-48s use a fiber optic to control the torpedo while the sub maneuvers away from the launch point.

Snakehead: USN's largest UUV
12-02-2021 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODU BBALL Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,313
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 338
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #186
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 12:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-02-2021 11:42 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  
(12-02-2021 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-18-2021 11:37 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

China has a much healthier economy that the Soviets did, at least on the surface. But there are huge problems underneath. Historically, China has seldom been a unified country because it's basically a bunch of people who don't like each other. The warlike Han in the north don't get along well with the commercial/industrial Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley, and neither of them like or are liked by the secessionist south, not to mention Tibet and the Uyghurs in the west. So what they do is export a lot of cheap consumer goods and use the cash flow to finance a bunch of make-work projects with little or no economic utility (remember the empty cities) to keep the peons too busy to revolt. So their banks have massive loans out to deals that will never generate a nickel of revenue. And the whole thing depends on imported oil from the Mideast, that has to come by sea through Malacca/Sunda, and PLAN (the Chinese navy) may be huge in numbers, but it is not a blue-water navy that can protect that shipping. We do that for them now. Pull the USN out of the Indian Ocean, and let pirates start hijacking tankers bound for China, and the whole thing collapses--their economy dies and their people starve to death. We hold all the cards, but we refuse to play them.

The problem there is that pirates don't tend to discriminate about who they attack. Other nations (including some allies) would be subject to having their shipping disrupted as well.

We need a Navy large enough to defend both of our "ocean moats" that protect the US. Any blue water navy that can do that wont have much issue with pirates attacking its shipping.

How difficult would it be to build a large relatively cheap stealthy autonomous VSTOL drone capable of carrying an anti-ship missile or a recon pod? How difficult would it be to build a quiet relatively long range underwater drone capable of effectively locating enemy vessels. It would be nice if the underwater drone could fire missiles and torpedoes---but even if it cant---it would still be a game changer.

Frankly, my concern is either of the above two development would make a large expensive manned conventional fleet extremely vulnerable. A cheap long range stealth drone that can fire missiles and can land on a small combatant like a frigate of LCS would be a game changer. An extremely quiet underwater drone than can hunt enemy ships and subs autonomously would be a game changer. I dont think the development of either of those potential threats are that far away and they need to be part of the calculus deciding what of any future Navy would look like a decade or two from now.

Not sure why you copied my post to give yours. My post was merely addressing the pitfalls of removing the US Navy from the shipping lanes under the premise that it would punish China and make their navy more stressed. While I don't disagree that those things could happen, I was simply pointing out that that wouldn't be the only result from doing so, and some of the other results weren't desirable ones.
12-02-2021 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 8,085
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 571
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #187
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What do we have to do to make these things happen? Basically, decide to win Cold War II the same way we won Cold War I. Truman bribed up an alliance to stop Russian expansion further into Europe, and Reagan turned up the heat on their economy to bring the Evil Empire to its knees. We need to promise the same kinds of economic cooperation and mutual military protection to the Quad, CANZUK, and Commonwealth countries that we did to Europe after WWII. Move as much as we can of the manufacturing base that we have exported to China either back home or to our allies. Even better if we bring folks like Indonesia, the Philippines, and possibly even Taiwan into the deal. Then turn up the economic heat on China.

China has a much healthier economy that the Soviets did, at least on the surface. But there are huge problems underneath. Historically, China has seldom been a unified country because it's basically a bunch of people who don't like each other. The warlike Han in the north don't get along well with the commercial/industrial Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley, and neither of them like or are liked by the secessionist south, not to mention Tibet and the Uyghurs in the west. So what they do is export a lot of cheap consumer goods and use the cash flow to finance a bunch of make-work projects with little or no economic utility (remember the empty cities) to keep the peons too busy to revolt. So their banks have massive loans out to deals that will never generate a nickel of revenue. And the whole thing depends on imported oil from the Mideast, that has to come by sea through Malacca/Sunda, and PLAN (the Chinese navy) may be huge in numbers, but it is not a blue-water navy that can protect that shipping. We do that for them now. Pull the USN out of the Indian Ocean, and let pirates start hijacking tankers bound for China, and the whole thing collapses--their economy dies and their people starve to death. We hold all the cards, but we refuse to play them.

This is a fundamental misreading of why we won the Cold War.

The Russian/Soviet system stayed in power because it was a coalition of allied one-party dictatorships that would aid each other against any internal revolts. See East Germany in 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, the Soviet oil embargo against Poland in 1981.

However, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia was seen by many as a step too far even by many Communist party members because their system prided itself on its adherence to written law. Albania withdrew from the Warsaw Pact. Yugoslavia and Romania stopped cooperating with the rest of the Eastern Bloc. This weakened the Eastern Bloc's governments' ability to cooperate with each other to confront the next crisis.

Similarly, China (and North Korea) had supported the USSR against the West until the 70s. Nixon's visit in 1973 changed that.

When Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1980, it did so without the support of its Warsaw Pact allies. Romania actually publicly refused to support the USSR's position in the UN. China actually provided material support to the Afghan rebels.

Further, this one-party system had a very well defined ideology. This ideology was at odds with human nature and would easily lose in the marketplace of ideas, but the one-party system was a police state that ruthlessly suppressed competing ideas.

When Gorbachev instituted glasnost in 1986, the marketplace of ideas came open.

And among the people in Poland, communism lost. The Solidarity movement called for general strikes in 1988 and became more powerful than the Communist Party. Economic sanctions (like the Bloc used against Poland in 1981) were no longer enough. Unlike Hungary in 1956, the Soviets could not send in their army because their army was busy in Afghanistan. Unlike Czechoslovakia in 1968, the rest of the Bloc could not send in their armies because they were too small to be effective after the defections.

After Solidarity forced the Polish Communist Party to the negotiating table in August 1988 and announced free elections, opposition groups in the rest of the Bloc used the same strategies. By the end of 1989, the USSR was the only Eastern Bloc country that had not effectively ended their 1-party system.

Gorbachev presided over this disaster in the Eastern Bloc. But the USSR still could have stayed together. Three things prevented this from happening:
1) once started, glastnost was impossible to rein in. More and more Soviets atrocities were revealed to the people, strengthening opposition movements.
2) the Baltics, Georgia, and Armenia used the same strategies as Solidarity and were only being kept in the USSR by force
3) Under pressure from opposition groups, the USSR allowed semi-free elections at the local level.

The semi-free elections led to Boris Yeltsin (a former Politboro member who had resigned from the Communist Party) being elected President of Russia (sort of like a governor in the USA, except his state had 50% of the population). When the inevitable hardline coup against Gorbachev was launched (from their point of view, he was a disaster), Yeltsin was able to defeat the coup. This put the anti-Communist Yeltsin at the center of real power and he outlawed the Communist Party and allowed the SSRs to




In short, we won the Cold War because the Soviets 1) the Soviets were deprived of allies they could call on in a crisis, 2) the Soviets allowed both internal dissent and free elections at the same time, leading to a crisis.

China isn't going to make mistake #2.

As for #1, it would be foolish of the USA to hand ready-made allies to China in the Persian Gulf. The wealthy oil republics would love to ally with the repressive Chinese dictatorship. Rather than enduring American lectures about human rights every time they want weapons, they could use Chinese intelligence technology to expand a police state over their own people and strengthen their hold on power.
12-02-2021 01:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 38,086
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2078
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #188
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
I think this is a very interesting interview with a New S Wales senator and retired major Gen in the Aussie armed forces. He believes the Aussies are 3 years away from even being able to defend themselves (and thats only IF they really concentrated their budget on that cause---which is not the current case). He also is concerned that the US could effectively be eliminated from the fight for the region in a single day if the Chinese strike hard and fast. He says the key to watch for US readiness is the 2021 defense budget that eventually gets passed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg6japunx0A
12-02-2021 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODU BBALL Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,313
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 338
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #189
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
(12-02-2021 05:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think this is a very interesting interview with a New S Wales senator and retired major Gen in the Aussie armed forces. He believes the Aussies are 3 years away from even being able to defend themselves (and thats only IF they really concentrated their budget on that cause---which is not the current case). He also is concerned that the US could effectively be eliminated from the fight for the region in a single day if the Chinese strike hard and fast. He says the key to watch for US readiness is the 2021 defense budget that eventually gets passed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg6japunx0A

Things like this is why we need Trump or someone like him in charge. He got the NATO countries to increase their military budgets.
12-02-2021 11:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 38,086
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2078
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #190
RE: Update on Status of US Navy
Apparently, the most dangerous place for an aircraft carrier is in port. First the Russians only operating carrier was damaged by fire a couple of years ago while undergoing work in port. Then a US Amphib/carrier was damaged beyond repair by a massive fire while in port. Now a Chinese amphib/carrier has suffered a major fire while in port. So many major carrier fires in port so close together sure seems odd.
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2021 02:57 AM by Attackcoog.)
12-03-2021 02:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.