It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How the USA lost the naval war of 2015

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015

For all you navy buffs ...

Came across a really interesting article, it's a "what if" scenario set c. year 2015 when friction between China & the USA erupts into a (one sided) shooting war.

I won't spoil it, will chip in later ... but have a read & let's hear what you think


(PDF file)

www.fpri.org...




posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

James Kraska is a guest investigator at the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the former Oceans Policy Adviser for the Director of Strategic Plans & Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The views presented are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Department of Defense.

Maybe so D.O.D., but this guy seems like someone you'd be listening to intently, perhaps even using his expertise to plan ahead, yeah.

It is difficult to deny his facts and events, his former title as Oceans Policy Adviser, and the obvious pivotal importance that Naval Capability plays in the battle for world domination.

I would ask the question, "Why 'former'"? Does someone else have a better grasp of the situation, or has he simply been transferred to the private sector?

Highly interesting article, with even more interesting implications and facts to research and ponder: Star & Flag

Basically, it reminded me of a Tom Clancy novel or two.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Interestingly enough I already came across a discussion on this very paper yesterday on a separate forum.
intjforum.com...

There are some very good points raised here, however in the end all of these studies are lopsided as they cannot truly predict how a battle would work out in real life as there are simply too many factors to consider and there is always the known fact of: "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Interesting scenario.

But the dismissive attitude about the Air Force, "ancillary to the Army", casts doubt on the whole thing.

It might take the Navy forever to get anywhere, but the USAF can be, can strike anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, if not minutes.

I can guarantee you that in such an event, USAF would have eye on the scene within minutes. In all likelihood, the USAF would be launching before the missile struck, since it would most likely be aware of the launch within milliseconds of it breaking the water. We have a lot of satellites, and the USAF keeps a keen eye on trouble spots.

The traditional Navy is growing slowly more obsolete, not the ships per se, but the concept itself. Capital ships are simply too vulnerable to modern antiship missiles. Air superiority once protected them, but given enough missiles, air supremacy doesn't mean squat. The USAF can control the sea lanes more effectively and cheaper than the Navy can if used properly.

Personally I think it far more likely for the Iranians to sink the entire 5th Fleet. The Persian Gulf is no more than a few minutes across at the longest stretch for Sunburns. They have a few hundred little boats each capable of launching four to six missiles, plus lots of land-based launch sites. A massive launch of several hundred at once would overwhelm fleet defenses and sink pretty much everything we have there. The only thing that stops them is a lack of nerve. They probably assume that they'd be counterstruck with nukes and don't want to risk it. But the capability is there.

The whole point of a carrier is to get planes close enough to the fight to influence it. For those of you not paying attention the last twenty years, The USAF has been launching combat strikes from the continental US for ages now. With global-range bombers and air refueling for fighters, the Navy is required purely for psychological intimidation, but actually adds little real force to the equation. By 2030, the aircraft carrier battle group will probably join triremes as relics of past obsoleted equipment.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Intersting article. However he seems to be forgetting the AEGIS escorts in the CBG, surely they would have detected the missile and even if they didn't bring it down, there would be a record of it.
Also it still remains to be seen if the Chinese can effectively guide a warhead frrom a ballistic missile onto a moving target.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Argg I can't open the pdf, but from what I have read in the posts I get the idea that it deals with the downfall of aircraft carriers. If so I have had a discussion on that very same topic with my father at various times. He had brought up the use of missles to sink carriers and neutralize the aircraft launched from said carrier. Since the Chinese had received some our tech from captured planes, spies and the Clinton administration.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
After taking a couple days to read and digest, while it is an interesting scenario, the author leaves out quite a few factors in regards to his conclusion. First off he takes a snapshot of today's military capability and superimposes it 5 years out. He also apparently hasn't done his homework in regards to our naval capability and interworkings with joint services. Also he would assume that China would do something like this knowing that this would be tracked back to them and would likely result in a massive if not nuclear response. Within the time frame provided Aegis cruisers are slated to be equipped with T.H.E.D. ( tactical high energy devices) which, coupled with the Aegis system, Space Command satellite assets, shipboard SM-3's, Phalanx AA/AM systems, are looking to be quite effective in intercepting weapons incoming. He also doens't take into account the numerous undercover intelligence assets adn special forces in the region. Also he centers this battle all around this ballistic missle, that as the poster above me stated, has not proven to be accurate enough yet to hit a moving target. Another aspect is hunter/killer subs in the area are always surveilling Chinese submarines. Granted with the new diesel/electric subs they have acquired, it is more difficult but it is far from impossible. About the only thing I can gleen by this "report" ( and I use that term loosely) is that he is maybe trying to scare people rather than actually put together any type of realistic threat/extrapolated battle assesment. He definatley needs to do a littel more research.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Well the time line for all of this is horrible to say the least.. China having That ability by only 2015... haha funny.

I actually like to keep this sort of stuff semi realistic...

1. Chinese ships are completely and uterly crap, proven by the amount of compalints from buyers, as in navys looking for cheap ships returning them couse the electrics didnt work, or the engines kept breaking, or the weapons wouldnt fire.... They are just floating scrap heaps.

Ballistic missle hitting a carrier, uhuh.. right, possible.. but there are weapons capable of shooting them down.

Diesel-electric submarine stealthier then a US nuclear submarine... People.. Diesel electric submarines make less noise full stop.. You want best Diesel-electric sub.. Look at the Australian Collins class, Respinsible for sinking US carrier in war games.. plus fihting off 2 nuclear subs atthe same time.. and another time snuck into the middle of a US amphibious assault group... need i say more on t he Aussie subs? =)

US 5th located in South Korea, aswell as land and airforces there plus the South korean forces... then theresthe US forces in Japan... Pretty much blocking China from the open pacific. Even if China could have larger number of forces, It would take time and big losses to break out into the open pacific, by which time they have a half dozen carrier groups there.

And the details.. wtf.. $9 Billion dollers and 7years to replace? for an Aircraft carrier, Well the US has 11 of them, and they only take about 4 years to produce.. and the latest design is only costing in at $5.1 Billion.. plus aircraft. Facts people.. they do help.

And solid fuel missiles? wtf they suck. One mistake and could turn and attack one your own ships... or citys.. and no way to shut off the engine couse solid fuel missiles burn till the end...

This is just a load of stupidity, No offence... A much better time line and more facts are needed.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
(...)
It might take the Navy forever to get anywhere, but the USAF can be, can strike anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, if not minutes.


Right, that's what I was thinking as I read the pdf. The author looks like he willingly omitted to talk about airpower and satellite imaging. I guess this was omitted for the purpose of he scenario he wrote, still worth reading.

Airpower would allow the USAF to launch missiles from anywhere, hitting big chinese boats at bay, destroying vital factories, and so on, but it would unevitably provoke a war. Some good old home terrorism sponsored by the CIA a couple of months later in mainland China would be a nice retaliation though.
nice post, OP, S&F



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by von_noobie
Well the time line for all of this is horrible to say the least.. China having That ability by only 2015... haha funny.

I actually like to keep this sort of stuff semi realistic...

1. Chinese ships are completely and uterly crap, proven by the amount of compalints from buyers, as in navys looking for cheap ships returning them couse the electrics didnt work, or the engines kept breaking, or the weapons wouldnt fire.... They are just floating scrap heaps.

Ballistic missle hitting a carrier, uhuh.. right, possible.. but there are weapons capable of shooting them down.

Diesel-electric submarine stealthier then a US nuclear submarine... People.. Diesel electric submarines make less noise full stop.. You want best Diesel-electric sub.. Look at the Australian Collins class, Respinsible for sinking US carrier in war games.. plus fihting off 2 nuclear subs atthe same time.. and another time snuck into the middle of a US amphibious assault group... need i say more on t he Aussie subs? =)

US 5th located in South Korea, aswell as land and airforces there plus the South korean forces... then theresthe US forces in Japan... Pretty much blocking China from the open pacific. Even if China could have larger number of forces, It would take time and big losses to break out into the open pacific, by which time they have a half dozen carrier groups there.

And the details.. wtf.. $9 Billion dollers and 7years to replace? for an Aircraft carrier, Well the US has 11 of them, and they only take about 4 years to produce.. and the latest design is only costing in at $5.1 Billion.. plus aircraft. Facts people.. they do help.

And solid fuel missiles? wtf they suck. One mistake and could turn and attack one your own ships... or citys.. and no way to shut off the engine couse solid fuel missiles burn till the end...

This is just a load of stupidity, No offence... A much better time line and more facts are needed.

Some valid points.

On the issue of carrier production(or other ships), in war time, when the economy turns to a war time economy to support an all out war effort, ships will not take 7 years let alone 4 years to build.

In WW2 they used to churn out some destroyers or escorts/frigates(not sure which) in a few weeks, if memory serves me well from a documentary I once saw.

Ok thing's have gotten more complex, so give it the better part of the year.


The US may be sluggish as of late, but what people don't realise is that the US is not down and out yet, and it's going to take a hell of a lot to KO the US. It's going to be that way for the next 25-50 years.

China might or might not be building three carriers, but they have no expertise in actually operating them.
And if in 2011 or 12 they finally showed the world an aircraft carrier, who says everything will go smoothly from then on?
They need to do sea trials, they need to train crews, not to mention train pilots to actually take off and land on the things.
Aircraft carriers are the most complex ships afloat. The western powers didn't get this capability over night. It's taken decades to reach the level they are at now...and some people think China will suddenly build a dozen carriers and take on the USA?


They might build a dozen carriers, but they wont be of much use to them.

American, French, British carrier doctrines have been developed over decades of trial and error, and actual use in war time.

But the Chinese will wave a wand and suddenly catch up.
The only reason they've started catching up with aircraft production, is because they've ripped off everything they could manage to reverse engineer from the fleets of Russian fighters they've bought. They even ripped off the Russian S-300 SAM.

The carrier battle groups are the symbol of America's global military capabilities. They are diplomacy in their own right. The US isn't going to give up that sort of supremacy without a fight.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
In wartime, Production time for Ships can decrease by a BIG margine, Nuclear Aircraft carriers of 100,000+ range could be turned out is in as little as 2 1/2 years, Simple matter of putting on more work crew, Rather then 8 hour days, Have 3 crews working 8 hour shifts, Full time non stop contruction..

Destroyers could be produced in as little as 6-8 months

Should also be noted, That this does NOT include time for sea trials, crew training etc.

US ship building industry is massive, In peace time and there building over a dozen warships at a time, Wartime that number could grow 5 - 10 fold. Not to mention US has access to there resources to build, supply and power all these ships, China does not, Chinese industry relys HEAVILY on Australia, With out Australia China cant repalce there losses, Add to that, War with China breaks out, Good chance Every body increases military budget, In australias case could be 10%+ or approx $100,000,000, We could just go lay down a dozen Zumwalt class destroyers, Half dozen amphibious assault ships, dozen collins class submarines, and plenty of Anzac class frigates, Considering there the worlds 2nd best frigate.

Only thing Australia would be lacking in is Air power, However in short time that could be delt with, Considering in ww2 Australia went from never designing or building a military air craft to designing and building a fighter that went on to be one the best ground support air craft of the Pacific theater in only a few short months..

And practical note, USN doesnt have to get close to strike Chinese port areas, There 60+ stealth bombers can do that.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Here is the question that nobody here on ATS is asking: For what reason are we at war with China? The writer implies that all the U.S. does is place the GW between the PRC and ROC and that was enough to spark an attack. Not very gepolitically saavy, this writer is.

Establishing how and why a war begins is crucial in determining who would win such a war.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by von_noobie
 


I'm not sure on the quality, but the Chinese have been on an extreme building rate of their Navy these last 20 or so years. With that type of Navy I don't see it as Defense only, but more of a force projection. I would put them about 5 years or less out where we will see them start their force projecting around their region, and we could easily decide to not get involved.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by von_noobie
 


Not really.

You're confusing history with the present. We lack the infrastructure and skilled labor to ramp up that quickly.

The shipbuilding industry is a pale shadow, actually not even much of a shadow, of what existed even fifty years ago. About ten years back I recall that the US was down to one Naval shipyard on the East coast and one on the West, with an argument that only one was needed.

If you check this current list of shipbuilders, you won't find many will the capability to expand quickly to meet a wartime demand, especially if the war moves quickly.

www.shipbuildinghistory.com...

Fundamentally, the big aircraft carrier group is a relic of navies past, because if you get it close enough to be useful, it's close enough to be hit by anti-ship missiles. A few thousand anti-ship missiles can be built in the time it takes to build one carrier. So what if hundreds are knocked down coming in...f 500 are launched and 99% are knocked down, the five that hit renders the carrier useless.

The only reason they still exist is the fact that if anyone broke the toy, that would provoke a nuclear response in all likelihood, as no one would risk another carrier group.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The thing about carriers is they're not going to sit still durring a known threat situation. If a theater is hot, it will not be sitting or staying on one course for long. (Unless damaged or something major goes wrong in engineering.) Once the bells are called for, those things seriously turn and churn. (If you've been on one, I'm sure you've experienced the shake, rattle, and roll at least once during a cruise.) Sure the bubble heads call the surface navy targets, but they're moving targets. And once you're going fast enough where subs will have to start playing catch-up, the stealth advantage is only good if you can get positioned well enough ahead and guess the next course change. (Might be lucky if they spot a carrier during landings or unrep, but that's if the nearby destroyers and ASW aircraft don't manage to ping 'em.) If a sub has to do enough bells to stick with a ship when it's all-out moving, it risks not being quiet anymore and the stealth advantage is gone.

Anything in the air, the carrier fleet will see. And there are various defensive systems in place. Destroyers, cruisers, satellites, etc. all act as a networked extension of carrier intel and defenses. Heck they're even developing a system where submerged attack subs can launch anti-air if the other networked ships and aircraft call for them. I'm sure that would be quite suprising for somebody taking advantage of a "hole" in the picket ships.

We also know that much of the surface navy isn't the most stealthy thing. Strangely enough we can take advantage of that. We have a good idea of how far your radars can see. Also if desired, we have fairly good ways of making a whole lotta dots on radars where our ships and aircraft aren't, and making them look and move like ships and aircraft to radars. So unless you have sats up or an effective sonar grid, or can get close enough to verify all of those dots (which isn't likely during hostilities), go ahead and feel free to waste your plentiful missile batteries.


Thus the biggest threat to a U.S. carrier is likely a sub getting in and doing a first strike upon initial commencement of hostilities. After that, anything moving into a combat theater is unlikely to be caught off-guard and will not be sitting still or staying on an easily predictable course for long.

Carriers groups still have their worth despite the expense. The point of them is to project power forward. So yes, they do get close even if that's risky. The idea is by the time the Air Force gets it's bombers in, the fleet subs have launched cruise missiles already, and carrier airwings have hit what they needed and established some degree of air dominance. (A single U.S. supercarrier in itself actually has a bigger airforce than most countries do.) Thus in the time for one Air Force strike, Fleet airwings have unloaded and are being turned around for whatever's next on the sortie list. (Although working as part of joint forces, they'll usually wait to let Air Force soften up defenses with their stealth capabilities before projecting further in. At least until the Navy gets more decent stealth options of its own.) The biggest initial advantage a carrier has is much faster aircraft turnaround (because it gets close) and a fully equipped forward airbase wherever you need and want it. No need to ask for permissions, securing the location, etc. The idea is to continuously use airpower to put the hurt up front until Marines and Army boots on the ground get forward locations the Air Force needs in order to do its job more effectively.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Yeah, this is kind of silly. The Chinese in five years still won't match the navy of the USSR towards the end. Large supersonic anti-ship missiles have been around for decades, and haven't spelled the death of the large surface combatant yet.

I swear, people just don't seem to understand the fact that an aircraft carrier is pretty much a mobile airfield. It's not supposed to actually fight. They stay far away from combat, and use their aircraft for reconnaissance and attacks. as a last line of defense, they're surrounded by quite a number of very sophisticated escort ships that can engage subs, surface ships, and aircraft.




top topics



 
4

log in

join