>> The US military's fundamental approach is to use sensors to see the enemy before they see us, > That probably works out in the open seas, but once you appro

>> The US military's fundamental approach is to use sensors to see the enemy before they see us, > That probably works out in the open seas, but once you approach (enemy) land those radars that can detect anything that moves from 300 kms out are of no strategic advantage anymore, cause you do you know that there are enemies there by definition. But that's in fact the US tactic in all domains, sea, land, air, and even space, and they've invested heavily in it for ~35 years: it first was used in the Gulf War (to great effect) in the early 1990s. Knowing the enemies are there is necessary, of course, but not sufficient. The sensor network's purpose is to pinpoint and track the enemies (who may move) so that they can be struck with precision missiles. (That's the reason the military built GPS, not for second lieutenants who can't manage a compass.) Also, ships fighting a near-peer adversary (not Houthis with a few missiles, but China or Russia) need to focus on the air - that's where naval battles have been fought since Midway in WWII. The ships won't be near land anyway until the enemy is suppressed; carrier planes have a ~500 mile combat radius, without refueling, and that's not even enough any more due to precision missiles. > Also, in regards to the general "no-one is thinking about that" sentiment, we've had such moments in the past, when the lack of any real naval combat for decades meant that it was very hard for non-institutional actors (like this guy is) to impose their views against the mainstream consensus. That is a problem, though less of one in an open society where such things are extensively and publicly debated. But it's not an argument for the OP's point-of-view; they actually need to substantiate it, that would be an argument. As it is, they don't know basic information. > nothing will stop the same Russians from using cheap drones against a big and expensive US warship approaching Vladivostok, for example. I'm not sure what I said that disagrees? I wouldn't say 'nothing'; there's a lot of anti-drone technology, and a lot of anti-air technology on ships, but yes that's a real threat. The navy doesn't plan to approach coastlines under fire, as far as I know; the Marines have greatly deemphasized amphibious landings, for example, in part because - for reasons you say, and due to precision munitions more generally - there's no way to station ships offshore and then to move amphibious craft to the beach.