Posted on 03/12/2015 11:35:30 AM PDT by C19fan
“To wage war, you need first of all money; second, you need money, and third, you also need money,” goes the famous saying of Raimondo Graf Montecúccoli, an Italian who served in the armies of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations.
Consequently, with the debate on the U.S. Navy’s budget for the next fiscal year raging on (see here and here), it is perhaps time to assess not how much money is spent on the American navy, but whether it is spent wisely. The discussion surrounding China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities and the costs that these capabilities impose on the U.S. Navy are especially worth examining in that regard.
(Excerpt) Read more at thediplomat.com ...
The battle of Lepanto taught us that when you kick major muslim butt in a navel battle they run home with their tail between their legs and STFU for a good long while.
The carrier isn’t a lost cause if the US can get some anti-missile defenses going. We could have thought that urban vehicles were worthless in Iraq/Afghanistan due to IEDs. Then we improved our measures and released the striker and things got better.
My thought is the US needs to get their rear in gear with deploying lasers that knock down missiles and artillery shells. Surely a nuclear powered carrier and it’s nuclear powered fleet have the power to be equipped with these defenses that can shoot down the missiles.
China is playing catch-up. They send their best students to the US to learn and guess what they learn?
That living in the US is pretty darn good.
It’s the same thing that Iranian students learn.
If I understand the author is right the costs of developing these defenses is so expensive especially compared to the costs of the weapons the defense is going to try to defeat it will cripple the ability of the US Navy to do other things.
There is going to be a turning point moment like when the Japanese sank the British capital ships the Prince of Wales and Repulse off the Malaysian Peninsula, when some country like China or Iran takes out a carrier with a cruise or ballistic missiles.
First, NOBODY has ever even seen a TEST of the DF-21 against a stationary target, much less a mobile one at 30kts.
Secondly, does anyone really believe the US would not first neutralize any strike capability before coming in range of it...during a known time of conflict? Does anyone really believe the combined strike capability of Naval Air, US Airforce and Naval missiles would not be able to neutralize a ballistic strike capability? A DF-21 is not a small target.
Thirdly, everyone seems to forget: The Price of a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is Total War. Nukes and all.
And, who wants to go there against the USA?
Cheap submarine = noisy submarine = dead submarine
It is my opinion, however, that retaliation is no longer guaranteed given the current regime. Something said about being able to "absorb a strike"?
Gettin' to be that time again.
BTW that's "naval"
“To wage war, you need first of all money [for the welfare payments]; second, you need money [for the interest payments], and third, you also need money, [for the military]”
From the Middle Ages for all the ages.
LOL - I was gazing.....
Scuds. Iraq.
“To wage war, you need first of all money; second, you need money, and third, you also need money,”
The guy who ran JFK’s campaigns said the same about politics.
I used to have a Russian military operations research textbook (lost when my house was flooded). It referred to this argument as a "capitalist fallacy." I don't know if it's capitalist, but it is a fallacy. It should be clear that the comparison is not between the cost of the weapon you use and the cost of the target you destroy, but between the cost of the weapon you use and the cost the target will inflict on you if you don't destroy it. Granted, if it takes an expensive weapon to destroy an inexpensive target, you better have lots of money, but if not destroying the target costs you even more than destroying it does, you better destroy it.
No matter how hard you try the AC is far from obsolete.
Nothing new here.
Kipling: Arithmetic on the Frontier
A scrimmage in a Border Station-
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.
The Crammer’s boast, the Squadron’s pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm
It teaches nothing of the kind.
The next year the Turks had rebuilt a fleet of more than 250 ships and continued to dominate the eastern Med. They took the battle to the enemy, raiding Sicily and southern Italy.
The year after that they took Tunis from the Spanish.
In 1576 they assisted in the conquest of Fez, far to the west. Shortly, they controlled (sort of) the entire southern coast of the Med, and held it for almost three centuries.
In 1627 Ottoman corsairs took the Isle of Lundy in the Bristol Channel of England, and held it as a base for five years. They raided for slaves and loot as far as Norway and Iceland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto#Aftermath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Navy
Lepanto was a great victory. But it certainly didn't end the Muslim or Turkish naval threat.
Here's my point. Lots of Americans believe in the notion that bullies are always cowards. Hit them once and they run away. Problem is that it just isn't true. Many bullies are brave, stubborn and effective fighters.
Unfortunately.
Well stated.
People like to say carriers have to get in missile range to use their striking power. Well stop and think a minute of all the times carriers had to get in range of proven anti ship capability... Pearl Harbor? Their carriers were within range of our anti ship capability.
Heck look at darn near every pacific war battle with carriers. If our carrier planes were attacking another carrier, or anything on land, then our carriers were at risk of destruction. And sometimes that risk was realized. Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable. Over half the carriers lost in WW2 were killed by subs. One even got jumped by some cruisers. There is a reason Taffy 3 was so badass, because those guys were in deep ****. Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable, but that does not make them USELESS. It never has and maybe it never will. Carriers HAVE been in missile range of the enemy during shooting wars.
I’m still thinking subsurface drone carriers with swarm capability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.