This lesson has always been there for the Navy to learn...there was an exercise in 2002 as a precursor to the Iraq War called Millenium Challenge 2002. The "enemy" commanded by General Paul K Riper launched a preemptive strike sinking most of the US Navy invasion fleet. Chastened by their defeat, the rules of engagement were altered, the sunken ships refloated and all "enemy" positions revealed. Naturally the US Navy won. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Even earlier the Falklands War proved it for anyone who chose to look. Argentines only lost because their armed forces were focused on murdering dissidents, not on ensuring that their supply of missiles and bombs was adequate and in working order
Anything Iran can do, Taiwan can do better. And the Taiwanese have mountains for hiding missile launchers in caves. Many of these will of course be empty.
In the meantime, these naval adventures are costing a bomb. Actually a lot more as the US debt is forecast to pass 40 trillion before this year is out.
Not that I expect us to ever be in conflict with the USN, but I'd be curious to know just how much autonomy we have over our domestically produced Naval Strike Missile (it seems far-fetched that Norway would include a kill switch).
The continued development of drones - airborne and seaborne - means even this dire assessment might be optimistic. Given Iran's domestic drone industry and their connection with countries who are at least curious to see an aircraft carrier sunk, the chances of the US escaping unscathed seem very low.
Sam Roggeveen was applying precisely this logic in his book ‘The Echidna Strategy’
Unsurprisingly, our ideologically compromised and incompetent Defence Dept along with our government’s reflexive vassal-like subservience to the US means we are currently doing exactly the opposite.
I'll agree with JQ if the surface Navy is used as an expeditionary force. It still seems useful as a defensive force, which still has some meaning around the South China Sea. And it is very useful as an antipiracy force--although many navies can claim that relatively inexpensive distinction. Is all this worth the money? I dunno.
But I don't view the US military as a pitiful giant. It is still the only military that can do world-wide logistics on a large scale. As John points out, the USAF is powerful wherever it has a base. The comparatively small size of the US Army is not too significant if the USAF has air supremacy, which it would against any adversary save maybe China.
This lesson has always been there for the Navy to learn...there was an exercise in 2002 as a precursor to the Iraq War called Millenium Challenge 2002. The "enemy" commanded by General Paul K Riper launched a preemptive strike sinking most of the US Navy invasion fleet. Chastened by their defeat, the rules of engagement were altered, the sunken ships refloated and all "enemy" positions revealed. Naturally the US Navy won. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Even earlier the Falklands War proved it for anyone who chose to look. Argentines only lost because their armed forces were focused on murdering dissidents, not on ensuring that their supply of missiles and bombs was adequate and in working order
Anything Iran can do, Taiwan can do better. And the Taiwanese have mountains for hiding missile launchers in caves. Many of these will of course be empty.
In the meantime, these naval adventures are costing a bomb. Actually a lot more as the US debt is forecast to pass 40 trillion before this year is out.
Not that I expect us to ever be in conflict with the USN, but I'd be curious to know just how much autonomy we have over our domestically produced Naval Strike Missile (it seems far-fetched that Norway would include a kill switch).
The continued development of drones - airborne and seaborne - means even this dire assessment might be optimistic. Given Iran's domestic drone industry and their connection with countries who are at least curious to see an aircraft carrier sunk, the chances of the US escaping unscathed seem very low.
Sam Roggeveen was applying precisely this logic in his book ‘The Echidna Strategy’
Unsurprisingly, our ideologically compromised and incompetent Defence Dept along with our government’s reflexive vassal-like subservience to the US means we are currently doing exactly the opposite.
I'll agree with JQ if the surface Navy is used as an expeditionary force. It still seems useful as a defensive force, which still has some meaning around the South China Sea. And it is very useful as an antipiracy force--although many navies can claim that relatively inexpensive distinction. Is all this worth the money? I dunno.
But I don't view the US military as a pitiful giant. It is still the only military that can do world-wide logistics on a large scale. As John points out, the USAF is powerful wherever it has a base. The comparatively small size of the US Army is not too significant if the USAF has air supremacy, which it would against any adversary save maybe China.
Fortunately, I’ve done the benefit-cost analysis on pirates https://johnquiggin.com/2016/05/02/pirates-militarism-whack-a-mole-173/