|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 15, 2013 9:11:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 15, 2013 10:26:26 GMT -6
OOOOOH Yea!!! I used to have a subscription to USNI, still have some of the better articles in the Captain's Cabin. (the fleet admiral has her own room behind the bridge upstairs). Thanks a bunch.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 15, 2013 10:58:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 15, 2013 12:15:18 GMT -6
Oh boy, more good stuff. Give me a day or two to digest and research. I will look for some geographic data for the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 15, 2013 21:40:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 16, 2013 9:41:33 GMT -6
Steel: I am using a new procedure for commenting. I am printing articles and such, to a PDF file. I then go through, reading the text and inserting comments. I am using Foxit PDF Creator which is free. I am finding that it keeps my thoughts together and my comments more cohesive. I will then copy the comments into wordpad and put them up here. Be patient, it is an interesting article and as you expected, I am having loads of fun.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 16, 2013 17:43:44 GMT -6
Just read through your comments - ah, brings back memories of graduate school ...
I think that last one could be the crux of disassembling that comparison. Imperial Japan was an island nation and sea power; the course set in the 1930s and 1940s was for aggressive conquest of resources and territory in the Pacific and on the Asian mainland. The PRC by contrast has not shown such an acquisitive nature; they are focused on securing the territory and resources they already have. As a result, the PRC's anti-access strategy is tucked in closer to home and the littorals and its tools and tactics are tailored to that arena.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 16, 2013 17:58:10 GMT -6
Just read through your comments - ah, brings back memories of graduate school ... I think that last one could be the crux of disassembling that comparison. Imperial Japan was an island nation and sea power; the course set in the 1930s and 1940s was for aggressive conquest of resources and territory in the Pacific and on the Asian mainland. The PRC by contrast has not shown such an acquisitive nature; they are focused on securing the territory and resources they already have. As a result, the PRC's anti-access strategy is tucked in closer to home and the littorals and its tools and tactics are tailored to that arena. I don't know if that is good or bad, memories of graduate school. I used to use this method when Vince O'Hara would send me chapters in his book to read. I would comment in them, as I did on the one I sent to you and then return it. I finally figured out why I liked that method, so I will use that some more.
I think some of the analyst are looking for problems and relations that are not there. As you pointed out, the PRC isn't being aggressive and trying to take over SE Asia, they just want to maintain the sea lines of communications for their trade. Maybe I am naïve, but I don't think so. In Vietnam War, It was the Soviet's that provided the military equipment to the NVA, not the Chinese. In fact, the Chinese and the Vietnamese had been at each other since the end of WWII.... and I think they still are, If I remember.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 16, 2013 19:58:32 GMT -6
Well, I had a lot less money in my pocket, but I generally enjoyed myself except for the regular instances when I would be in a panicked mess at 2 am. My thesis was largely fueled by Irish tea with generous helpings of Jamesons for an easier flow of ideas onto paper ... only took five drafts before my advisor would let it go to committee, and another two to satisfy the other two chaps!
As you say, I think some of that is trying to fit a case they know to something it doesn't fit. That's a frequent occurrence among military analysts and historians, especially with naval matters and WWII given that it was the last time two first-rate fleets shot it out.
Vietnam is one of the other claimants to the Spratlys, as well as the Paracels. They're still scrapping with the PRC over those islands, and after their little war in the 70s they've been none too chummy with each other. Vietnam has actually been cozying up to the US a bit as a hedge against the PRC (wonders never cease), in addition to buying a lot of Russian weaponry (including Flankers ... hope they never get into a scrap with the PLAAF's examples and have a real fun time with IFF).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 16, 2013 20:11:34 GMT -6
....... As you say, I think some of that is trying to fit a case they know to something it doesn't fit. That's a frequent occurrence among military analysts and historians, especially with naval matters and WWII given that it was the last time two first-rate fleets shot it out. Vietnam is one of the other claimants to the Spratlys, as well as the Paracels. They're still scrapping with the PRC over those islands, and after their little war in the 70s they've been none too chummy with each other. Vietnam has actually been cozying up to the US a bit as a hedge against the PRC (wonders never cease), in addition to buying a lot of Russian weaponry (including Flankers ... hope they never get into a scrap with the PLAAF's examples and have a real fun time with IFF). It's time for analyst to put away historical references to the Imperial Japanese navy and its failed doctrine and focus on the modern PRC which is an economic powerhouse and a leader in the Asian community of nations. We might not like it, but it is the facts. Stirring the pot with the references to the IJN can only be detrimental to good geopolitics and our attempts to moderate Chinese actions.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 17, 2013 8:15:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 17, 2013 20:37:54 GMT -6
While Japan certainly has a nationalist/historical revisionist streak that wants to beef up the military and whitewash the long, sordid list of war crimes committed by Imperial Japan, the actual moves here are sensible ones. On top of the PRC, Japan has Russia (not a current threat, but certainly capable of being one) and North Korea (say no more) in its area. Plenty of cause for a strong defense.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 24, 2013 12:16:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 24, 2013 16:16:18 GMT -6
Well, my only disagreement with the article is this: Navies are specifically tasked with command of the seas around the nation, so cruise missiles and bird farms are just weapons to accomplish that mission. Most of the weapons purchases are defensive in nature, so what's the fuss.
Seems that this author got this right, IMO. As to sim, it's a propaganda tool against the LCS. This ship was designed for use against third world nations with little or no naval power, just some armed speed boats. In a real scenario like this, the USN would have had satellites watching Chinese harbors for movement, the satellite would have used NTDS to send any targets to the a circling E2D and it would have moved to get better coverage and then transmitted the data to a flight of four F-35s or F-18E/Fs nearby armed with Tomahawks or Harpoons. The data would have also been sent to the LCSs and by secure voice to warn them of the approaching bogies. The first attack would have been immediately detected and the E2D would have vectored the fighters toward the incoming Chinese boats. They would probably have turned around and vacated the area but I suspect one or both would have been taken out by Harpoons. Also, forget the drone, too slow and the satellites will be able to monitor better and wider area. C'mon, Man.
BTW
these gents are not stupid, they would not give away the game by telling this fool, exactly how the USN would react. Give me strength!!!
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 24, 2013 17:44:22 GMT -6
I was thinking more that, even if you only had the stated assets (MQ-4C overhead, two LCS, one Burke IIA DDG), you would not immediately rush your LCS ships into a knife-fight while leaving the DDG 60 nm or more back. First off, as noted it's hard to cover your ships from SSMs that way. Also, unless the USN has deleted the dual-engagement capability from the SM-6, those birds can be used against the PLAN warships with fairly lethal effectiveness. The lack of Harpoons would be irrelevant; in any case it looks like that missile may be phased out soon in favor of the LRASM, which can be carried and launched from the DDG's VLS tubes.
That's assuming you need to dive right in and prosecute the two PLAN vessels immediately; at this point the two Filipino vessels are dead. Aside from clearing the area to conduct rescue ops, the main priority is to get on the horn to PACFLT and tell them to send in additional forces. Blowing the two offending ships out of the water immediately would be a nice touch, but what you really want to do is bring in a carrier group and other assets to let the PRC know that, like the saps in the beef jerky commercial, they just messed with Sasquatch.
|
|