U.S. Carriers Becoming Too Vulnerable To Be Relevant? New Report Says Yes

Albany Rifles said:
Rundown, let me explain a few of things of your sources for materiels.

1. Baer is a historian and a damned good one. But some of his conclusions have been seen as possibly flawed or drawing incorrect conclusions. Fact of life when you write as he did.

2. Many of these articles you have drawn from are based on papers which are written by students in the various service staff colleges. You write papers on topics which often times prove to be incorrect by later events. I wrote about the lack of valie of heavy armor in combat in built up areas when I went to CGSC in 1991....and my old oufit, 2d Bde 3 ID proved me wrong in Baghdad in 2003. Hell I wrote a paper in college in 1977 which said the M1 was not needed and was a waste of money. Many of these papaers fall into this category.

3. This may come as a surprise to you but DOTE often gets it wrong and is staffed by folks who lack the proper expertise to evaluate the very systems they are evaluating. I have been in Army Acquisition for 25 years and have had to correct poor assumptions and lack of knowledge on the part of DOTE staffers who did not understand what they were evaluating.

4. As for the modeling versus operational experiences you and the Colonel were "discussing" earlier ALL modeling is based on previous oeprational experience as it comes to doctrine and tactics....it has to in order to develop the metrics required to evaluate and run the model. Operational testing by field units validates or shows faults in the models. No competent Western military has based its major weapon systems and doctrine on computer modeling and simulation only. Even nuclear weapons had masses of data to draw on from all of the atomic and nuclear testing done for 2 decades.
Click to expand...

Allow me also to explain some things, in order you posted above:

1. Baer is way more than historian, albeit with historical background (I believe he has Ph.D from Harvard), he is an immense scholar of strategy and doctrine. As for possibly flawed--absolutely, no perfect scholar exist in this world. I, however, refereed to a specific set of facts made by Navy's brass not to Baer's conclusions in the page I posted. Those facts are beautifully corroborated by none other than Zumwalt in his remarkable autobiography. So far no discussion about Baer's conclusions (flawed or not) exists here--it is totally separate matter. I used the scan having Baer in this case precisely as you described him--historian and narrator.

2. Those "students" happen to be the officers who went through rigorous training in respective service academies and many with some substantial service experience. It is, obviously, very naive to expect that everything there will be confirmed by latter events. My thesis was on ASW (well, that was in 1985)--did things change. You bet, but number of fundamental principles (the ones which are usually described in preambles and first chapters) remains (and will remain) unchanged. For illustration of those principles those referrals which I made work very well, even if some of them may be "flawed" (whatever is understood under this term).

3. No, it is not surprise for me whatsoever. I presented merely a single source ( I underscore--an open one). There are many more which do corroborate the conclusions. But then, of course, comes a very sensitive matter--my personal experiences and experiences of my whole environment from 1980 through approximately 1992. For now I abstain from listing those experiences as a source and use otherwise open sources, with a huge emphasis on the English-language sources.

4. Allow me to politely disagree on some detail--it is not based only on operational experiences, although they play a huge part in it. Tactics is a system of measures which allow to maximize the combat effectiveness of the weapon systems organic to a tactical unit for conducting the battle. It is rough definition but it will do for now. Tactics written not only from the position of operational (and hm..tactical) experience but in conjuncture with capabilities of the organic weapon system. Those capabilities are foundation for tactics, operational experience is the tool which enhances effectiveness of those weapon systems, that is why tactics does change and so do manuals. There are constants and they are called such for a reason, those constants derive from the organic properties of weapons, that is why we do not fight tank battles on the sea or pull ships into the desert to fight a armored warfare. Case in point: change of technological paradigm brings the change of tactics--the adjustments come later through the operational experience. No better illustration exists for that than the evolution of submarine warfare--from platforms to their weapons. As for red--agree completely but the operational analysis, or broadly the Theory Of Operational Research is the course which goes in conjunction with the Tactics course in any first rate military academy. Than it continues to a higher levels such as War Colleges etc. This is precisely why I posted the reference to the 51-st Report--an excellent illustration of how operational experiences hone and develop tactics. But to say that only operational experience is responsible for that, although I have to give you here a benefit of a doubt since this whole issue can be, indeed framed as chicken and egg problem.
 
Rundown,

as an example of Pt 2 of what I believe Albany Rifles is attempting to hilight in response to you.

On numerous forums I see references to USNI Proceedings articles as though they are exemplar truths because they have been submitted, published and by association, assumed to be endorsed by the publication, I also see the posters invariably citing the authors as automatically credible because they are uniforms, ex uniforms and that is then linked into Pt 1

The reality is that people who submit to these journals are only doing what we see in day to day life when someone writes a letter to the editor of a daily newspaper, or who submits an article for publication.

Just because they are in print, does not add any additional weight unless there is some known quality about them and it maintains relevancy in the debate

some prime examples:

would you refer to Wheeler on the tactics used against ground control intercept models in a non complex (low generation) ewarfare managed environment - or would you use him as a reference for discussing the tactical and strategic shifts bought about by the introduction of LO/VLO penetration strikes?

would you use Carlos Hathcock to discuss mindset and teach others in tactical sniping - or would you use a pig hunter? (againt, context is the key here)

would you use a sub driver to talk about managing seabed arrays or a geek from NAVSEA?

etc etc......

relevance is about overall context, an author does not automatically qualify as a reference source just because they are published in a service journal, service publication or trade journal.
 
Last edited:
gf0012-aust said:
Rundown,

as an example of Pt 2 of what I believe Albany Rifles is attempting to hilight in response to you.

On numerous forums I see references to USNI Proceedings articles as though they are exemplar truths because they have been submitted, published and by association, assumed to be endorsed by the publication, I also see the posters invariably citing the authors as automatically credible because they are uniforms, ex uniforms and that is then linked into Pt 1

The reality is that people who submit to these journals are only doing what we see in day to day life when someone writes a letter to the editor of a daily newspaper, or who submits an article for publication.

Just because they are in print, does not add any additional weight unless there is some known quality about them and it maintains relevancy in the debate

some prime examples:


relevance is about overall context, an author does not automatically qualify as a reference source just because they are published in a service journal, service publication or trade journal.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, we are given cognitive faculties for processing the information in such a way that it turns (sometimes it doesn't, sadly) into knowledge (there is a gigantic difference between information and knowledge). As for Proceedings--forget about Proceedings, throw it out of this discussion--I posted enough sources to do it without Proceedings. Meanwhile, anything could be put under the doubt. Platitudes are the best way to avoid a substantive discussion. How the process of publishing works I have some idea, actually, and this I can guarantee, more than you may suspect. Since I have to leave soon for airport I have to break off for a while (quite a while) so, please, do not treat my inability to respond as rudeness--I will, later, once I return.

P.S. Opinions of people like Norman Polmar or Admiral Stainsfield Turner, the same as Hughes, Baer or Benedict and I can go on with this list for a long time, bear a massive weight no matter where they published, in Proceedings, Naval war College Review or printed on toilet paper--does not matter, they will remain valid and respected in professional environments internationally for a reason.
 
rundown said:
P.S. Opinions of people like Norman Polmar or Admiral Stainsfield Turner, the same as Hughes, Baer or Benedict and I can go on with this list for a long time, bear a massive weight no matter where they published, in Proceedings, Naval war College Review or printed on toilet paper--does not matter, they will remain valid and respected in professional environments internationally for a reason.
Click to expand...

they remain relevant to the context of the debate at that point in time

It doesn't matter whether its Adm Turner, Adm Towers, Max Hastings, Polmar or Friedman.

Its not about dismissing them and according them respect, it's about whether their insight and commentary stands the test of contemporary utility.

Towers view of Carrier based power was relevant then - not today
Rickovers view of prosecuting a sub war was relevant then - has less relevance now and has moved way beyond the capabilities that he even dreamed of
LeMays view of air power was governed by the technology limits of the day - his model of airpower in action has less relevance now and has moved way beyond the capabilities that he even dreamed of

the technology sets available change the conops, maybe less so the craft as good tradecraft still dominates in prosecuting an event to an outcome you want.

some of us actually do work in these environments, so when I say that the way that we would conduct warfare today is very different from 3 years ago, and demonstrably different from 10 years ago its because new tools and capabilities have changed the way that we detect, deter, delaminate and destroy an enemies capability and will to fight.

launching the missile cosmetically stays the same, understanding when to pull the trigger has stayed the same, why we pull the trigger at a different point in time is a legacy of all those other system vehicles which inform and assist and which never existed even 10 years ago

so do these references have value? yes,
do they maintain currency in contemp warfighting? not necessarily so.
are they impeachable if used out of context? decidedly so
are they to be treated as bibles to be used without challenge? decidedly no

facts are a point in time vehicle. historical facts driving analysis at that point in time - more so
 
Last edited:
Relevance and significance......

Relevance and significance......

gf0012-aust said:
"relevance is about overall context, an author does not automatically qualify as a reference source just because they are published in a service journal, service publication or trade journal.
Click to expand...
:Dancing-Banana:

"is the statement Relevant and significant ! " :biggrin:

I have been wanting to use that quote from an old college professor since the 70's.
Thank you for making my day and redeeming the tutition paid.
Who would of thought the WAB would score?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rundown said:
With all due respect, we are given cognitive faculties for processing the information in such a way that it turns (sometimes it doesn't, sadly) into knowledge (there is a gigantic difference between information and knowledge). As for Proceedings--forget about Proceedings, throw it out of this discussion--I posted enough sources to do it without Proceedings. Meanwhile, anything could be put under the doubt. Platitudes are the best way to avoid a substantive discussion. How the process of publishing works I have some idea, actually, and this I can guarantee, more than you may suspect.
Click to expand...

Hopefully my comprehension of this is due to a cultural disconnect or a loss in translation

Your response as crafted above is not going to endear you to people as it comes across as a tad patronising itself.

I suggest that you pause before posting in this style in future as it doesn't come across as someone prepared to listen to others (and there are any number of people in here who have real world experience and are worth listening to and/or learning from). A lot of the old hands in here have high post counts due to quality and capability - not because they're addicted to the keyboard and want to be visible for all and sundry to see.

debate is about a willingness to not only prosecute your own view but to accept and learn from others at the table. We're all well served when we do that.

It's a forum, there's no need for anyone to have a need to "stand and deliver" or get chesty .....
 
Ok, back to reality...:biggrin:

(Reuters) - China will build a second, larger aircraft carrier capable of carrying more fighter jets, the official Xinhua news service reported late Tuesday, quoting a senior officer with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy.

The report comes after Chinese officials denied foreign media reports in September 2012 that China was building a second carrier in Shanghai.

"China will have more than one aircraft carrier ... The next aircraft carrier we need will be larger and carry more fighters," Xinhua quoted Song Xue, deputy chief of staff of the PLA Navy, as saying at a ceremony with foreign military attaches.

Song said foreign media reports saying the carrier was being built in Shanghai were still inaccurate but did not elaborate, according to the report.

China currently has one aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, which was refitted from a Russian-made model. Considered by military experts to be decades behind U.S. carrier technology, it was originally intended to serve as a floating casino, but was turned to military use in the runup to a once-in-a-decade power transition in late 2012.

China is also building up other forms of military hardware, including a stealth fighter jet believed to be capable of landing on a carrier, drone aircraft and nuclear submarines.

China is alone among the original nuclear weapons states to be expanding its nuclear forces, according to a report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Song also said the PLA Navy is building a naval aviation force for the Liaoning, and there will be at least two aviation regiments on one carrier, including fighters, reconnaissance aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft, electronic countermeasure (ECM) planes and rotary-wing aircraft, the report said.

Chinese officials have said the Liaoning will be used primarily for training purposes.

(Reporting by Pete Sweeney; Editing by Richard Pullin)

China to build second, larger carrier: report | Reuters
 
DefenseRussia to Build New Aircraft Carrier After 2020

Russia will begin building new aircraft carriers after 2020, Russian navy chief Viktor Chirkov said on Thursday, in a major boost to Moscow's ability to deploy air power abroad.

“At the moment, the construction bureau has received its assignment, the documents are being processed, and the money for the construction program has been allocated,” Chirkov said.

If the plans reach fruition, it would be a major boon to the Russian navy, which currently fields only one aging aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

The Kuznetsov, part of the navy’s Northern Fleet, was built in 1985 and has been scheduled to undergo a major overhaul.

Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov first announced a plan in November 2011 to construct new aircraft carriers, RIA Novosti reported, but he also said at the time that the state had not provided enough financing.

Another former Russian carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov, was sold to India in 2005, refitted and renamed the Vikramaditya. It is currently undergoing sea trials in the Barents Sea.

Russia is currently in the middle of a huge rearmament program, with $659 billion to be spent on arms procurement by 2020 according to the Defense Ministry.

Russia to Build New Aircraft Carrier After 2020 | Defense | RIA Novosti
 
you have to wonder about this.

normally a navy would deploy first of class and gather up lessons learnt before committing to a new build (and by first of class this is exacerbated as its really first of platform "type" as well.

the fact that their primary carrier is an orphan would seem to indicate that if the above is valid they would be building a similarly configured platform in sympathy of first of class (as they've done with their DDG/FFG's missile boats etc...)

if its not a sister ship then its an expensive journey esp if its going to pursue a different design path - and does it mean that principles and lessons identified for first of class have already been challenged?

the inferred fit out for the second platform denotes a shift in platform design as the onboard air roles are enhanced and increased

from a western perspective and nearly 90 years of operational experience, you'd have to wonder at the operational intent of the class as it was always going to be limited in a pure soviet type concops.....
 
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers said:
The Carrier Captains were confident that they could get REFORGER into place and then launch airstrikes to support REFORGER. These were the people who were going to help me fight.

Warsaw Pact Commanders, in their contributions to NATO's Parallel History Project, stated outright that they could not stop REFORGER. These were the people I was going to fight against.

Your essay belongs in neither of these groups.
Click to expand...

Who are those Warsaw Pact Commanders? Were they former Soviet Navy captains and commanders? Backfire regiment commanders?
 
Blademaster said:
Who are those Warsaw Pact Commanders? Were they former Soviet Navy captains and commanders? Backfire regiment commanders?
Click to expand...

I recall seeing similar, I never kept a link though. IIRC I did post some commentary on the old Proton Frums

the reference I read at the time was based on responses from ex Soviet/Russian planners

I vaguely recall that in the tactic that the Soviets referred to as "beating the brushes" - or multiple regiments taking a blunt force instrument approach, they were only confident of less than 5% of aircraft making it through the outer layers of a CBG typical force posture.

They had no confidence that they would be able to kill all the carriers but did expect to do significant damage to escorts.

They were highly dependant on co-ordinating any attacks with their own subs. If you consider the fact that all CBG's had multiple nuke subs riding shotgun, and who's explicit task was to "hack the shad" (ie kill any lurking or shadowing enemy subs) as soon as things were deemed to be free fire, then it would have been quite a hard job.
 
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers said:
Thus far, we have not seen a DF-21D nor has there been any test of any part of the system that can do the target acqusisition, course correction, target guidance, and hit an actual moving target.

.
Click to expand...


Story below mentions how China is stepping up their effort in developing and manufacturing UAVs. It doesn't seem unlikely that PLA might want to use UAV platforms to fill in some of the gaps in capability mentioned above.


China Establishes UAV Industrial Base
11/5/2013 - Defense News

TAIPEI — China will establish a special industrial base for the development and production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in Beijing’s southern Daxing District, reports Chinese-language media reports.

The base will be the first of its kind in China and will cover a total area of 134 hectors (14,400 sq. ft). It will be a “large-scaled whole-chain” UAV industrial base, according to “top management” of the China Academy of Aerospace Aerodynamics under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, the Beijing Daily said.

It will “integrate all links on the industrial chain”, including science and technology, manufacturing, test flights, marketing, after-sales services, and commercial applications.

According to media reports, the base’s estimated output is projected to be $1.6 billion by 2015, $4.8 billion by 2020, and $16.1 billion by 2025. Both the numbers and support (i.e., CAAA) suggests the base will be largely commercial.
Click to expand...
 
UAV as a midcourse corrector is a no go from the start. They will literally fall out of the sky as they reach the CVBG's signal jamming range which is far beyond the UAV's detection range.
 
All you've got is this cloud of noise. Until you can burn through this noise, you got nothing. You've got the general area but you can't aim at the noise and say that's a target.
 
Problem is that not just the CVN's that use ECMS. So what you may think is a CVN could be a much smaller target such as DDG or FFG or amphibious or other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top