3 ms·

The Black Sea is a de facto big lake, any big navy would have the same problems as the Russians now have against drones and land-based missiles. In a way the Am

The Black Sea is a de facto big lake, any big navy would have the same problems as the Russians now have against drones and land-based missiles. In a way the Americans are now experiencing the same problems in the Red Sea, hence why USS Eisenhower had to escape 200 miles North to Jeddah once it started being targeted a few weeks ago. Which is to say that the Black Sea / Red Sea is not the Midway Atoll with its wide-open ocean.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> The Black Sea is a de facto big lake, any big navy would have the same problems as the Russians now have against drones and land-based missiles. I doubt that; Russian land-based air defense is struggling in a similar fashion. Very little get anywhere near Ukraine's Patriots, while hand-me-down NATO-supplied weapons are happily taking out S-300 and S-400s in Crimea. As for drones, the US has been dealing with small-boat attackers for significantly longer; I'm sure they're using lessons learned in Ukraine to improve, but in jet ski versus CIWS in open waters, I'm betting on CIWS. (That said, you would indeed avoid getting a carrier group stuck somewhere like the Black Sea.) > hence why USS Eisenhower had to escape 200 miles North to Jeddah once it started being targeted a few weeks ago Notably, it's not on the bottom like the Moskva. Being able to pretty effectively take down threats doesn't mean you need to unnecessarily risk it, but Russia's difficulty a) defending against NATO missiles and b) striking back against NATO air defense in Ukraine should give folks like China some serious pause in their own planning.
- paganel 2y ago
  > Very little get anywhere near Ukraine's Patriots, Not sure about that, plane-launched FABs are creating havoc on the Ukrainian front-lines. > Being able to pretty effectively take down threats doesn't mean you need to unnecessarily risk it Of course, but that's how you get to the "Fleet in being" [1] situation, which I'm not sure it's the ideal solution for the US Navy, which (afaik) consumes about a third of the US military budget. I mean, how would the US Navy commanders be able to explain that they're spending that much money only for their magnificent warships to avoid direct battle contact? > striking back against NATO air defense in Ukraine should give folks like China some serious pause in their own planning. Neither China nor Russia depend on their fleets in order to win existential wars for them, as they're both continental powers, so not sure a Russian cruiser ending on the bottom of the Black Sea will make any strategic difference. Also, geographically speaking there's no sea between South Korea and both Russia and China, and the sea distance between the same China and Taiwan is pretty small, they'd be able to provide artillery/missile cover for it entirely from land. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Not sure about that, plane-launched FABs are creating havoc on the Ukrainian front-lines. The Patriots aren’t on the front lines, and weren’t allowed to even shoot at the planes lobbing bombs from Russian airspace until just recently. Attempts to knock them out have failed. The same is not true for the Russian equivalents deep in Crimea. The idea of the US Navy as a “fleet in being” is simply absurd at the present time.
    - paganel 2y ago
      > Attempts to knock them out have failed. That is false, which is why Romania, my country, has just approved sending one of its (only) two Patriot systems to Ukraine. > The idea of the US Navy as a “fleet in being” is simply absurd at the present time. It is absurd if you ignore the facts on the ground (on the sea?), and the facts show that the USS Eisenhower has chosen to avoid direct confrontation with land-based missiles shot by the Houthis. More generally, people should try to look closer at the facts as they are happening (again, saying that Ukrainian Patriot systems have been unaffected this far into this war is just ignoring facts), that's good advice for any war, past, present or future.
  - badpun 2y ago
    > Neither China nor Russia depend on their fleets in order to win existential wars for them, as they're both continental powers Chinese are hopelessly dependant on imports of raw commodities (most notably oil), a naval blockade would sent them back into Middle Ages in a matter of a couple of years. Hence, their continous existence is contingent on strong navy. Which they presumably get, seeing how much they invest in it.
    - paganel 2y ago
      > Chinese are hopelessly dependant on imports of raw commodities (most notably oil), Good thing for them that Russia is just next door.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> The Black Sea is a de facto big lake, any big navy would have the same problems as the Russians now have against drones and land-based missiles. I doubt that; Russian land-based air defense is struggling in a similar fashion. Very little get anywhere near Ukraine's Patriots, while hand-me-down NATO-supplied weapons are happily taking out S-300 and S-400s in Crimea. As for drones, the US has been dealing with small-boat attackers for significantly longer; I'm sure they're using lessons learned in Ukraine to improve, but in jet ski versus CIWS in open waters, I'm betting on CIWS. (That said, you would indeed avoid getting a carrier group stuck somewhere like the Black Sea.) > hence why USS Eisenhower had to escape 200 miles North to Jeddah once it started being targeted a few weeks ago Notably, it's not on the bottom like the Moskva. Being able to pretty effectively take down threats doesn't mean you need to unnecessarily risk it, but Russia's difficulty a) defending against NATO missiles and b) striking back against NATO air defense in Ukraine should give folks like China some serious pause in their own planning.

paganel 2y ago
> Very little get anywhere near Ukraine's Patriots, Not sure about that, plane-launched FABs are creating havoc on the Ukrainian front-lines. > Being able to pretty effectively take down threats doesn't mean you need to unnecessarily risk it Of course, but that's how you get to the "Fleet in being" [1] situation, which I'm not sure it's the ideal solution for the US Navy, which (afaik) consumes about a third of the US military budget. I mean, how would the US Navy commanders be able to explain that they're spending that much money only for their magnificent warships to avoid direct battle contact? > striking back against NATO air defense in Ukraine should give folks like China some serious pause in their own planning. Neither China nor Russia depend on their fleets in order to win existential wars for them, as they're both continental powers, so not sure a Russian cruiser ending on the bottom of the Black Sea will make any strategic difference. Also, geographically speaking there's no sea between South Korea and both Russia and China, and the sea distance between the same China and Taiwan is pretty small, they'd be able to provide artillery/missile cover for it entirely from land. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Not sure about that, plane-launched FABs are creating havoc on the Ukrainian front-lines. The Patriots aren’t on the front lines, and weren’t allowed to even shoot at the planes lobbing bombs from Russian airspace until just recently. Attempts to knock them out have failed. The same is not true for the Russian equivalents deep in Crimea. The idea of the US Navy as a “fleet in being” is simply absurd at the present time.
  - paganel 2y ago
    > Attempts to knock them out have failed. That is false, which is why Romania, my country, has just approved sending one of its (only) two Patriot systems to Ukraine. > The idea of the US Navy as a “fleet in being” is simply absurd at the present time. It is absurd if you ignore the facts on the ground (on the sea?), and the facts show that the USS Eisenhower has chosen to avoid direct confrontation with land-based missiles shot by the Houthis. More generally, people should try to look closer at the facts as they are happening (again, saying that Ukrainian Patriot systems have been unaffected this far into this war is just ignoring facts), that's good advice for any war, past, present or future.
- badpun 2y ago
  > Neither China nor Russia depend on their fleets in order to win existential wars for them, as they're both continental powers Chinese are hopelessly dependant on imports of raw commodities (most notably oil), a naval blockade would sent them back into Middle Ages in a matter of a couple of years. Hence, their continous existence is contingent on strong navy. Which they presumably get, seeing how much they invest in it.
  - paganel 2y ago
    > Chinese are hopelessly dependant on imports of raw commodities (most notably oil), Good thing for them that Russia is just next door.