Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

[desertswo]

So is it SOP to sink/shoot down anything violating the Maritime Exclusion Zone, even if they haven't been positively ID'd? I'm not sympathizing with the hypothetical civilian aircraft/vessel violating the exclusion zone -- like you said, anything entering a combat zone should know full well it could be shot at -- but would the CO decide to do that? I guess it depends on how stringent the ROE are. If it were up to me, I'd say that the most important thing is keeping the sailors and their ships safe, but I'm not the one writing the ROE.

Let me put it to you this way. I put birds on the rail only once, but I lit up Iranian aircraft with our AN/SPG-55B fire control radars often enough that it got to feeling good, because every time I did, they turned tail and ran home to mama. Make no mistake, I could have easily said, "Take Track 231 with birds," and not blinked an eye or had a second thought. To AAW operators, "If it flies, it dies" is more than just a saying.

With regard to Vincennes, there was so much wrong with that whole scenario, much if it self-generated by CAPT Will Rogers, as slimy a character as one can imagine, that it ought not to be taken as the way we do business in the slightest. He went looking for trouble, and he found it.

[Officer of Engineers]

but the whole Millennium Challenge thing was a bit unsettling. I know that most exercises are scripted, as their goal is to teach sailors skills instead of comparing the efficacy of the hardware itself, and it is thus incorrect to use the results of an exercise to "prove" anything, but I've heard it mentioned several times, and the results were rather significant. If for no other reason than to have a response to anyone claiming that Millennium Challenge "proves" anything, I wanted to ask how such a situation could be avoided, and what happened in the exercise to get the blue force sunk.

There has to be context with MILENNIUM CHALLENGE. LGen Ripper was correct in using asymetric warfare but him using forces that came out of nowhere amounts to him cheating. Blue Force ran out of ammo long before he ran out of suicide boats.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, (that's you, Desertswo, the most senior officer on WAB),

What exactly was PACFLT's mission during WWIII? STRIKEFLTLANT is pretty well understood. To get American and Canadian re-enforcements over to Europe but AFAIK, there are no re-enforcements to Japan and China is shit out of luck for support. Assets will be stripped from the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean to re-enforce the Atlantic as needed, meaning Japan and Australia will have to step up to defend their own.

From this perspective, Chinese, Japanese, and even Australian collapse, never mind South Korean and Taiwan, doesn't seem as important as keep the Atlantic sea lanes open.

I will ask for your enlightment, Sir.

[desertswo]

Sir, (that's you, Desertswo, the most senior officer on WAB),

What exactly was PACFLT's mission during WWIII? STRIKEFLTLANT is pretty well understood. To get American and Canadian re-enforcements over to Europe but AFAIK, there are no re-enforcements to Japan and China is shit out of luck for support. Assets will be stripped from the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean to re-enforce the Atlantic as needed, meaning Japan and Australia will have to step up to defend their own.

From this perspective, Chinese, Japanese, and even Australian collapse, never mind South Korean and Taiwan, doesn't seem as important as keep the Atlantic sea lanes open.

I will ask for your enlightment, Sir.

The truth is that, "I no longer know." However, all of that MARAD stuff pre-positioned at Guam should tell you something about Japan and Korea, yes? Beyond that, WWIII is contained in the Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP - pronounced like "psy-op"), and always has been. Australia and points West aren't going to be left out in the cold.

[Blademaster]

Sir, (that's you, Desertswo, the most senior officer on WAB),

What exactly was PACFLT's mission during WWIII? STRIKEFLTLANT is pretty well understood. To get American and Canadian re-enforcements over to Europe but AFAIK, there are no re-enforcements to Japan and China is shit out of luck for support. Assets will be stripped from the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean to re-enforce the Atlantic as needed, meaning Japan and Australia will have to step up to defend their own.

From this perspective, Chinese, Japanese, and even Australian collapse, never mind South Korean and Taiwan, doesn't seem as important as keep the Atlantic sea lanes open.

I will ask for your enlightment, Sir.

This was probably based on a threat assessment. Soviet capabilities were vastly less in South Pacific Ocean than those in the North Atlantic Ocean.

[TopHatter]

I'm wondering if Kim and DPRK would've seized upon a Central Europe WWIII conflict to invade the ROK...if there was ever a chance for success, that would've been it.

[Blademaster]

I'm wondering if Kim and DPRK would've seized upon a Central Europe WWIII conflict to invade the ROK...if there was ever a chance for success, that would've been it.

Perhaps in the late 60s and early 70s when China was still an enemy of the West. But after Nixon's trip, NK wouldn't have a chance in hell and South Korea could withstand the onslaught because China will not interfere or tell Dear Leader to back off and USSR would be too occupied in Central Europe to do anything.

Now? Not even a chance. SK doesn't even need anyone's help in defeating NK. Just help SK build its airforce to 800 -1000 planes with a couple of AWACs and moder AEGIS equipped frigates and destroyers and stockpile hundreds of thousands of smart bombs and thousands of cruise missiles and SK can do the rest on its own.

[TopHatter]

Perhaps in the late 60s and early 70s when China was still an enemy of the West. But after Nixon's trip, NK wouldn't have a chance in hell and South Korea could withstand the onslaught because China will not interfere or tell Dear Leader to back off and USSR would be too occupied in Central Europe to do anything.

Now? Not even a chance. SK doesn't even need anyone's help in defeating NK. Just help SK build its airforce to 800 -1000 planes with a couple of AWACs and moder AEGIS equipped frigates and destroyers and stockpile hundreds of thousands of smart bombs and thousands of cruise missiles and SK can do the rest on its own.

No, definitely not now. I'd be shocked if the NK Air Force could even get into the air in squadron strength. The amount of dry rot alone would probably made even the most hardened maintenance officer vomit in disbelief.

[dan m]

How did NATO navies asses the capabilities of the Soviet Navy back in the day and make war plans accordingly? I heard that not much was known about Soviet naval ships aside from their outward appearances.

[desertswo]

How did NATO navies asses the capabilities of the Soviet Navy back in the day and make war plans accordingly? I heard that not much was known about Soviet naval ships aside from their outward appearances.

Oh, no, we knew a lot about them. They were ever so kind as to show us by shooting guns and missiles hither and yon. I later toured a Sovremenny and a Udaloy during the years of glasnost and peristroika when they visited San Diego. I was doing a little "moonlighting" for ONI . . . I think . . . in truth, I have no idea who they really were, but I filed my report and went back to work inspecting our own ships.

They were built to fire the first shot, and then hope they didn't take a hit, because if they had, they were going down. It's that simple.

[dan m]

Thanks for answering my questions. Although it has led to a few more questions , as it usually does when it comes to posting on this forum. First you said that these ships were vessels built to fire the first shots: How much fire power are we talking here? Second you said that these Soviet ships you saw couldn't take a hit and keep going: What about the bigger Soviet ships such as their carriers and Kirov class battlecruisers? Could they take hits from NATO ships and keep fighting?

Regardless of how effective these Soviet ships might have been; they sure look cool. Especially the Udaloy class destroyer with its long sweeping lines and shape-it looks real sleek. Soviet ships with their bristling arrays of missiles and guns almost look like something designed by a science fiction esque space empire. The same goes for most Soviet tech and vehicles in my opinion.

[desertswo]

Thanks for answering my questions. Although it has led to a few more questions , as it usually does when it comes to posting on this forum. First you said that these ships were vessels built to fire the first shots: How much fire power are we talking here? Second you said that these Soviet ships you saw couldn't take a hit and keep going: What about the bigger Soviet ships such as their carriers and Kirov class battlecruisers? Could they take hits from NATO ships and keep fighting?

Regardless of how effective these Soviet ships might have been; they sure look cool. Especially the Udaloy class destroyer with its long sweeping lines and shape-it looks real sleek. Soviet ships with their bristling arrays of missiles and guns almost look like something designed by a science fiction esque space empire. The same goes for most Soviet tech and vehicles in my opinion.

I suspect their larger ships were similar. Here's what I mean, Damage Control, which was one of the few things in which I would accept the moniker "expert," simply didn't exist as we know it. I was hard pressed to find a simple fire station anywhere on the main deck. On a US ship, one is practically tripping all over the DC gear that is bulkhead mounted, or stored in lockers for easy access. We do DC because of the bloody lessons learned in WWII and since. Had the events that beset USS Stark, USS Samuel B. Roberts, or USS Cole happened to a Soviet ship, they'd have been lost, period. I have no doubt of that, and I'll stand on that account with anyone that wants to dispute it.

[dan m]

Interesting. I've been on a kick reading up as much as I can about Russia and the Soviet Union for a while now. Do you have any books about the Soviet Navy or Admiral Gorshkov you can recommend?

[desertswo]

Interesting. I've been on a kick reading up as much as I can about Russia and the Soviet Union for a while now. Do you have any books about the Soviet Navy or Admiral Gorshkov you can recommend?

No, but I'm sure a research of any public library database would provide you with plenty. You know, frankly, guys like me had it up to here (imagine my hand about a foot over my head) reading about them and all of the rest of the potential bad guys. I simply couldn't stand to look at another line of copy. LOL!! :insane:

[dan m]

Lol, damn. I can imagine one would get pretty bored reading up on this stuff all time :Zzzzzz:. I will take your advice and check out a library database to learn more about all that. I've been looking for books on those topics and there is a pretty disappointing lack of them.