6 ms·
Former sub-sailor here: An important point is made: For the Navy, a Horizon 3 conversation would not be about better carriers and aircraft. Instead it would fo
by labrador 10y ago
Former sub-sailor here: An important point is made:
For the Navy, a Horizon 3 conversation would not be about better carriers and aircraft. Instead it would focus on the core reasons the Navy deploys a carrier strike group: to show the flag for deterrence, or to control part of the sea to protect shipping, or to protect a Marine amphibious force, or to project offensive power against any adversary in well-defended areas.
Carriers are vulnerable and probably cannot be protected enough to survive an all out war. Too often the conversation gets side-tracked by this debate. However, carriers are very useful outside of war for projecting power and influence around the globe, so they are still very useful.
- Alupis 10y ago> Carriers are vulnerable and probably cannot be protected enough to survive an all out war Carriers don't travel by themselves, and are heavily defended by anti-missile/plane/sub/etc installations and supporting vessels. They may not last an entire war, but they will probably last as long as needed to tip the scale. It's more likely the carrier's aircraft will be lost before the carrier.
- arohner 10y ago"In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked [US Admiral Hyman Rickover] how long American carriers would survive in an actual war." his response? “Forty-eight hours”. https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8#.ir5t0zedu https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-...
- labrador 10y agoAdm Rickover was known mostly for two things besides putting an atomic reactor in a submarine in the 1950's: Being consistently right and being blunt about it.
- DrJokepu 10y agoI mean, Rickover was a through and through submarine guy though. This statement might be true, but he was hardly objective and without agenda when it came to surface naval warfare.
- Alupis 10y agoI'd wager the first 48 hours of a modern all-out war with another major nation will be the deciding factor, or heavily tip the scales. A modern war with another major nation likely won't last months or years like traditional wars. There's too much destructive firepower available to major nations for that to be realistic. It's more likely that it will be destructive, brutal, and very swift. Not to mention Rickover said that nearly 40 years ago - our modern carrier groups have a lot more firepower and technology at their disposal - including new generation stealthy ships.
- Benjammer 10y agoStill seems like such a huge attack surface compared to a dude sitting at a terminal in an NSA office or a drone pilot in Nevada or a cruise missile platform tucked away in a mountain somewhere. Aren't we past the point where giant war machines have much effectiveness when it comes to actual global war between 1st world nation-states?
- Alupis 10y agoCarrier groups aren't just about giant war machines. They carry many troops and their transportation (smaller war machines, like helicopters and boats).
- karma_vaccum123 10y agoNo surface vessel is defensible against modern anti ship missiles deployed in bulk. The Falklands War demonstrated this. Carriers have already proven themselves as valuable assets over half a century of relative peace. This is what they are to me: peace time projection platforms.
- Benjammer 10y agoI would almost tend to extend that to say that no large-scale modern terrestrial base/war machine can really stand up to modern, anti-whatever missiles. There's this idea where there are two sides in war scenarios, offense and defense, attackers and defenders, like sports or whatever. It seems to me more like modern war wouldn't be two sides playing offense and defense, it would be two parties dishing out incomprehensible destruction and one-upping each other hoping that the other gives up first.
- Benjammer 10y agoAt what point did the appearance of military power diverge from actual military effectiveness? Guerilla warfare in the 18th century? It seems like the modern militaries are probably already well aware of these two separate things, to the point where there are probably two different conversations about Horizon 1/2/3, one for projecting the appearance of power for diplomatic leverage, and the other for wartime efficacy.
- foota 10y agoProjecting power isn't just about appearance, it's about being able to use your military even in small conflicts to enforce your policy.
- douche 10y agoThe biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war. War is one of those things you have to actually do, and not dick around with, to be successful. All that artificial "Rules of Engagement" provide is a framework for the enemy to hide behind.
- Teever 10y ago> The biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war. I guess that's probably true if your objective is to wage war and kill. If your objective is to prevent or minimize those things than it's probably not your biggest problem at all and is actually your biggest accomplishment.