3 ms·
The DCS game provide interesting simulations of how different combat styles and doctrines play out. An early take away is that CIWIS and other close range air
by lumost 3y ago
The DCS game provide interesting simulations of how different combat styles and doctrines play out.
An early take away is that CIWIS and other close range air defense are broadly ineffective in a major engagement. They provide a necessary short range component which can be effective in limited circumstances-but little more.
Likewise, armor is ineffective as it is always possible to use/build a bigger bomb. However speed is effective at making long range strikes harder.
IMO the useful observation in the article is the cost difference between US, Japanese, and South Korean ships. I’d be curious to understand whether this is purely due to efficiency, or a difference in war doctrines and missions.
- nocoiner 3y agoCommand: Modern Operations is very good at this as well. A bit dry, and a little pricy, but lots and lots of depth.
- maxerickson 3y agoIt seems likely that most of the cost difference comes down to the US ships being built at shipyards that specialize at working with the US Navy and the others being built at shipyards that mostly competitively build commercial vessels.
- adastra22 3y agoA lot of the costs involved are in infrastructure and the running a maintenance of that infrastructure, which is the same regardless of whether you are building two ships every 10 years, or 200.
- ehnto 3y agoThat sounds right to me, a lack of competition and low supply of skills and infrastructure brings costs up. Bit of a chicken and egg problem though, if you don't manufacture locally because of cost you'll never build up a competitive industry that brings the cost down.
- nvm0n2 3y agoInteresting then that the article challenges conventional wisdom, arguing for more armor on slower ships.