4 ms·
The conflicts you mentioned were against non-peer adversaries. The belligerents had no naval or offensive air power to speak of.
by cpleppert 5y ago
The conflicts you mentioned were against non-peer adversaries. The belligerents had no naval or offensive air power to speak of.
- fatbird 5y agoPeople here keep citing the wargames with retired Gen. Riper, who sank the USN repeatedly from the perspective of a non-peer adversary using non-technological methods to organize, and disposable, low value swarming assets to overwhelm American defenses. Both Iraq and North Vietnam had patrol boat navies and the wherewithal to invest in attacking a carrier, but didn't.
- cpleppert 5y agoI guess the simplest answer is they didn't launch an attack because they couldn't. Specialized torpedo boats cannot generally penetrate a destroyer or cruiser screen without assistance. There is no viable way to even get into position to threaten a carrier as such a movement will be detected on radar long before a threat materializes. Even when American ships engaged in offensive operations close to the north Vietnamese coast they came out on top in clashes involving patrol boats making a large offensive operation unappealing. The red force in the millenium challenge had access to significant capabilities that Iraq and Vietnam did not have access to such as incredibly accurate anti-ship cruise missiles.
- larrydag 5y agoThis was the Millenium Challenge in 2002. Another interesting war simulation that seems the U.S. did not learn their lesson. https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r...