Author Topic: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia  (Read 12100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2020, 13:49:24 »
Revived USN 2nd Fleet vs Russkie subs--why are RCN and RCAF so seemingly mute about this? Further links at original:

Mark
Ottawa

And a comment of mine on a post based on article at link above:

Quote
More from commander of US 2nd Fleet–note his vice commander is from Royal Canadian Navy:

‘NATO’s Joint Force Command Norfolk is heading towards reaching full operational capability next year, after the U.S. 2nd Fleet it is colocated with reached FOC in late December.

Vice Adm. Andrew Lewis, who leads both organizations, said JFC Norfolk and 2nd Fleet are “natural partners” in bringing together allies on both sides of the Atlantic…

Lewis said during the event that his JFC Norfolk staff has been manned in such a way to take advantage of the best expertise NATO has to offer: his deputy commander is British, his chief of staff billet will alternate between a German and a Spanish officer, the operations officer is Norwegian, the plans officer is French and the support officer is Danish.

“There’s no mystery to the command network, it was designed that way for a reason. The ops and plans for [anti-submarine warfare], regionally and capability-wise, the Norwegian and the French. And the Brit deputy commander – no accident,” he said.

When crafting his 2nd Fleet staff, he also wanted to promote integration with allies and partners. His deputy commander is a one-star U.S. admiral but the vice commander is a two-star Canadian officer, he noted, to solidify the collaboration of forces on this side of the Atlantic.

Four other foreign officers are also in high-ranking positions in the 2nd Fleet staff to tie together the two sides of the Atlantic…’
...
So what is our vice admiral telling the RCN to do and say about Russkie
subs in the North Atlantic?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/05/us-navys-revived-2nd-fleet-revving-up-for-another-possible-battle-of-the-atlantic-with-the-russian-navys-subs/comment-page-1/#comment-14488

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 13:52:04 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2020, 11:26:40 »
"Is ‘Escalate to Deescalate’ Part of Russia’s Nuclear Toolbox?"--conclusion of a post:

Quote
A Louche Nuclear Weapons Use Doctrine?
...
Hypersonics (ballistic or cruise missiles) would seem peachy keen, er, particularly suited weapons– conventionally or nuclear armed–with which to implement that “escalate to de-escalate” approach, whichever side has them. See, e.g., the end of this recent post–though the acting US Navy secretary does seem a bit OTT for the present moment:

Quote
Hypersonics, or, Acting US navy secretary goes hyperbonkers
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/01/hypersonics-or-us-navy-secretary-goes-hyperbonkers/
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/a-louche-nuclear-weapons-use-doctrine/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2020, 16:09:40 »
More from acting US Navy secretary:

Mark
Ottawa

 Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2020, 15:17:36 »

Quote from: MarkOttawa on February 02, 2020, 14:07:27

    Big re-think going on at US Navy on aircraft carriers--a post:

    Mark
    Ottawa

Now defense secretary weighs in of reshaping US Navy (further links at original)–excerpts, note changing the carrier force at end:

Quote
‘Defense Secretary Mark Esper on how the Navy can get to 355 ships

In the wake of reports that the Navy may cut shipbuilding in its upcoming budget request, Esper said he is “fully committed” to building a fleet of 355 ships or larger. But to get there, the Navy is going to have to fundamentally reshape itself around smaller ships that can be more quickly bought than the large, exquisite designs the service now relies on — a shift that could have big implications for both the industrial base and the carrier force.

Such a plan would mark a departure from the current Navy force structure assessment that calls for twice the number of larger ships over small surface combatants: 104 large, 52 small. But inverting that structure is essential to building a bigger, more deadly fleet that lives within the constraints of future budgets that the Pentagon expects to remain largely flat, Esper said.

To get there, the Navy must push hard on fielding lightly manned ships, Esper said, an effort that has been a major focus of Naval Sea Systems Command’s Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office in recent years.

The first step, though, is getting through the process of figuring out what the fleet should look like…

Lighter Navy

Esper’s backing of a larger Navy built on the backs of lightly or optionally manned ships echoes calls by Modly to get to a fleet of 355 ships in the next 10 years, and is in line with recent statement by the Navy’s top officer, Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday.

At the USNI Defense Forum in December, Gilday said the Navy needed to change the way it built its ships.

“I know that the future fleet has to include a mix of unmanned,” Gilday said. “We can’t continue to wrap $2 billion ships around 96 missile tubes in the numbers we need to fight in a distributed way, against a potential adversary that is producing capability and platforms at a very high rate of speed. We have to change the way we are thinking.”

Congress, however, has been reluctant to back the push for more unmanned ships, believing that the Navy hasn’t done enough work on how the concept of operations would work or how they’d support them…

The Carrier Question

As the Defense Department looks to craft a lighter Navy, the obvious question is: What will become of the Navy’s 11 super carriers? Defense Department officials such as Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin have publicly questioned whether ground-based hypersonic missiles might more effectively deter China than an aircraft carrier that he believes is increasingly vulnerable.

Esper said he’s not sure what the ultimate answer is on aircraft carriers – but rejected the idea there is a binary choice to be had.

“This discussion often comes down to a binary: Is it zero or 12?” Esper said. “First of all, I don’t know. I think carriers are very important. I think they demonstrate American power, American prestige. They get people’s attention. They are a great deterrent. They give us great capability.”

The Navy may have to think about new ways of building carriers, however, if they are going to stay relevant in the future, Esper said. As an example, he pointed to what Japan is doing with its F-35B jump-jet models, which have been tested for use on lighter ships previously designed for use with helicopters.

“There are various ways to do carriers,” Esper said. “So, we can talk numbers or we can talk the sizes of carriers, right? There’s been discussion in the past about: do you keep building big carriers or do you go to smaller carriers, Lightning carriers? Acting Secretary Modly and I have talked about that.’..
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/02/09/defense-secretary-mark-esper-on-how-the-navy-can-get-to-355-ships/
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/what-future-for-the-eagles-carriers-the-dragon-much-in-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-14507

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 306,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,840
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2020, 18:21:07 »
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2020, 15:17:36 »

Quote from: MarkOttawa on February 02, 2020, 14:07:27

    Big re-think going on at US Navy on aircraft carriers--a post:

    Mark
    Ottawa

Now defense secretary weighs in of reshaping US Navy (further links at original)–excerpts, note changing the carrier force at end:
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/what-future-for-the-eagles-carriers-the-dragon-much-in-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-14507

Mark
Ottawa

Might be an interesting exercise to match Space X capabilities with navy requirements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-pfzKbh2k
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2020, 15:11:25 »
And now:

Quote
Navy Budget Proposal Slashes Shipbuilding in Smallest Hull Buy Since Sequestration

The Navy’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget lays out a shipbuilding plan that would be the smallest in six years and does not begin to move the sea service towards a 355-ship fleet that relies more on smaller ships, according to budget documents.

The request includes just $19.9 billion for eight ships, which falls about $4 billion and four ships short of the FY 2020 ship procurement. The last time lawmakers approved a shipbuilding plan of only eight ships was FY 2015, when sequestration spending caps loomed over the budgeting process.

The budget request would also retire the first four Littoral Combat Ships, a Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship (LSD-41/49) and an ocean tug to free up funds for more personnel and the development of new weapons systems.

Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly had previously told USNI News that the FY 2021 wouldn’t begin investing in new classes of ships such as small amphibious ships and new logistics ships that could be the cornerstone of a planned spike in the ship count over the next nine years. That is in large part because the Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment is still in its final stages and has not been briefed to Pentagon leadership and released yet, meaning it did not inform the FY 2021 budget. The FY 2021 budget documents, which also show expected investments over the course of the five-year Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), indicate the Navy will only buy seven ships in 2022, though that figure could be supplemented by these new ship classes.

Even with those expectations set, the FY 2021 request still makes some inconsistent investments given the stated direction of the service. Bloomberg reported, after a back-and-forth negotiation between the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense over the budget request, the Pentagon ultimately swapped an attack submarine for an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The trade runs counter to the priorities the Navy and DoD have stated for the future fleet. The Navy and Pentagon have called for more submarines to counter Russia and China, as well as a surface fleet that will rely less on large surface combatants like the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs and instead delegate more tasks to smaller combatants like a future frigate or “lightly manned” vessels that can be fielded in greater numbers and can be distributed more widely across a theater. The budget request slows the next-generation future frigate program (FFG(X)) to one hull instead of the planned two, slowing the growth of the small combatant fleet when investments in small combatants should be increasing, according to previous plans and strategies [emphasis added]...
https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navy-budget-proposal-slashes-shipbuilding-in-smallest-hull-buy-since-sequestration

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2020, 16:07:07 »
Post on how USAF is planning/hoping to cope with China and Russia (mainly), RCAF noted in final para:

Quote
How Can the USAF Afford to Re-Equip with the New Equipment it Will Decide it Needs?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/how-can-the-usaf-afford-to-re-equip-with-the-new-equipment-it-will-decide-it-needs/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2020, 16:15:10 »
And more in a post on Pentagon's plans/hopes to be able to deal with China:

Quote
What the US Needs to Do to Be Ready to Fight China

Further to this post,

Quote
Equipping the USAF to fight both China and Russia

the discussion of a possible war with China continues to be remarkably open in the US–latest official example:

Quote
US must be ready for military clash with China, Pentagon official Chad Sbragia says
...
But is Congress willing to pay for what the services think necessary and can the US afford to? And what are the plans to use them, and under what circumstances? Are they realistic?


https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/21/what-the-us-needs-to-do-to-be-ready-to-fight-china/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 41,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,108
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2020, 18:49:09 »
I think it's only a matter of time until China & the US square off.

Not necessarily of WW3 magnitude, but not via proxies either.  Both sides openly discuss military conflict with each other, and both sides openly discuss revamping their military procurement & doctrine in order to win a battle against each other.

Might take 20 years, might take 5 years....either way, I have a feeling we'll be seeing some naval action in the SCS within our lifetimes  :2c:
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 306,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,840
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2020, 17:31:40 »
I think it's only a matter of time until China & the US square off.

Not necessarily of WW3 magnitude, but not via proxies either.  Both sides openly discuss military conflict with each other, and both sides openly discuss revamping their military procurement & doctrine in order to win a battle against each other.

Might take 20 years, might take 5 years....either way, I have a feeling we'll be seeing some naval action in the SCS within our lifetimes  :2c:

The Second Battle of the Paracel Islands, perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2020, 12:52:21 »
And more in a post on Pentagon's plans/hopes to be able to deal with China:

the discussion of a possible war with China continues to be remarkably open in the US–latest official example:
...
But is Congress willing to pay for what the services think necessary and can the US afford to? And what are the plans to use them, and under what circumstances? Are they realistic?



https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/21/what-the-us-needs-to-do-to-be-ready-to-fight-china/

Mark
Ottawa

The future of the US Navy's carriers is being seriously examined by both the Pentagon and the navy department--a post:

Quote
End of the Line Coming for the US Navy's Supercarriers as they Face the dragon's Ever-Longer Fiery Breath?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/end-of-the-line-coming-for-the-us-navys-supercarriers-as-they-face-the-dragons-growing-claws/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2020, 15:41:10 »
"Is ‘Escalate to Deescalate’ Part of Russia’s Nuclear Toolbox?"--conclusion of a post:
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/a-louche-nuclear-weapons-use-doctrine/

Mark
Ottawa

Now the start of this post:

Quote
Subs and Russian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine, Note Cruise Missiles

To start one notes the US Navy is certainly taking those submarines seriously in public; so why does the Royal Canadian Navy stay largely mute? Why does our Navy not highlight an anti-submarine warfare mission (ASW) in the North Atlantic (its focus with NATO during the Cold War)?

Quote
US Navy’s Revived 2nd Fleet Revving-up for Another Possible Battle of the Atlantic, with the Russian Navy’s Subs [note the “Comments”]

Now excerpts from an analysis of Soviet/Russian thinking–consider the “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine including sea-launched cruise missiles...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/14/subs-and-russian-nuclear-weapons-doctrine-note-cruise-missiles/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 306,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,840
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2020, 09:34:58 »
The best offence is a good defence

China’s “maritime road” looks more defensive than imperialist

Its foreign port-building focuses on protecting existing trade routes

AN OLD SAYING warns about Greeks bearing gifts, but it might fit the Chinese better. In the 1400s Zheng He, a Muslim slave who became the Ming empire’s admiral, led seven voyages south and west. He offered treasure to every leader he met—but only if they acknowledged the emperor, joining a world order centred on Beijing.

Chinese leaders today are following in Zheng’s wake. The “road” half of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—a global infrastructure-building scheme—is a maritime one of seaports and shipping channels. Xi Jinping, China’s president, has said it will create a new model of “win-win co-operation”. Some critics suspect nefarious motives, such as yoking poor countries to China by giving them unrepayable loans.

The BRI has evolved site by site and Chinese officials have not made their intentions clear. However, the locations of the 22 maritime-road projects that we have identified as under way show how it is most likely to aid China. They suggest it will be more useful for protecting existing trade routes than expanding Chinese influence.

To measure the maritime road’s impact, we tested three benefits it could offer China. If the road were a resource grab, its projects should cluster in places that sell raw materials that China imports. If its aim were to boost trade, it should track the busiest routes used by Chinese shipping today, or where trade is likely to grow fastest. And if it were intended to secure current trade routes, its ports should sit near choke points—areas whose closure would force goods to travel circuitously—or in places that offer alternative routes.

We tested these explanations by using them to predict if countries host a BRI port. The results were conclusive. After holding other factors constant, there was no statistically significant link between having a BRI port and exporting raw materials that China wants, or having high current or projected trade with it. In contrast, the “trade-protection benefit”—either the value of Chinese trade in a country’s waters multiplied by the extra distance goods would have to go if those routes were shut, or the amount of trade that would be diverted to a country if shipping were disrupted elsewhere—was a good predictor. Given two otherwise average countries, one with a high trade-protection benefit (like Libya) is 2.7 times likelier to host a BRI port than another with an average benefit (like Liberia).

Owning or running a port does not guarantee perpetual access, but it does give China influence by enabling it to disrupt the host’s own shipping if it chooses. Many overland “belt” routes in the BRI would also make Chinese trade more resilient. For example, if the Strait of Malacca were closed, China could switch to BRI ports it wants to build in Myanmar, and finish the trip on planned BRI rail lines.

China’s military footprint also shows a focus on guarding trade routes. Its only base abroad is at Djibouti’s Bab al-Mandab Strait—the waterway whose closure would hurt China more than anywhere else.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/09/28/chinas-maritime-road-looks-more-defensive-than-imperialist
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2020, 13:24:38 »
The future of the US Navy's carriers is being seriously examined by both the Pentagon and the navy department--a post:
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/end-of-the-line-coming-for-the-us-navys-supercarriers-as-they-face-the-dragons-growing-claws/

Mark
Ottawa

Now the USN's Chief on Naval Operations talks about what might amount to a revolution in naval affairs:

Quote
With China gunning for aircraft carriers, US Navy says it must change how it fights


Just because China might be able to hit U.S. Navy aircraft carriers with long-range anti-ship missiles doesn’t mean carriers are worthless, the service’s top officer said Thursday.

The chorus of doom and gloom over China’s anti-access weapons is too simplistic, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said, but that doesn’t mean the Navy should refrain from adjusting the way it fights.

“Let’s look at this like a physics problem,” Gilday proposed. “[People will say]: ‘Hypersonics go really fast and they travel at long ranges. Carriers can only travel [‘X’ distance], so carriers are going to have to go away.’ That’s a very simplistic way to look at the problem.

“I’ve been in two big war games since I’ve been [CNO], and I absolutely believe that we have to wring more out of what we have today in terms of how we are going to fight with it.”..

Gilday acknowledged that his fleet is not optimized today to fight the way it thinks it must to beat China, but that can’t lead the Navy to just throw its hands up, he said.

“Our fleet is too small, and our capabilities are stacked on too few ships that are too big,” he said. “And that needs to change over time. [But] we have made significant investments in aircraft carriers and we’re going to have those for a long time.

“Look, people don’t give us enough credit for the gray matter between our ears, and there are some very smart people we have thinking about how we fight better. The fleet that we have today, 75 percent of it, will be the fleet we have in 2030 So, we have to think about how we get more out of it.”..
https://news.yahoo.com/china-gunning-aircraft-carriers-us-140146904.html

And, to repeat, meanwhile there's that revolution in Marine affairs:

Quote
Radically Re-Shaping US Marines to Take on China–e.g. no more Tanks
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/23/radically-re-shaping-us-marines-to-take-on-china-e-g-no-more-tanks/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2020, 13:48:55 »
And now from Flightglobal on USMC and F-35B:

Quote
Flight International Opinion
US Marine Corps backs away from tailor-made aircraft - and their expense

After spending billions of dollars over decades to develop custom-made aircraft, the US Marine Corps (USMC) intends get rid of a large portion of its bespoke fleet.

The service says it is not optimised to fight a war in the Western Pacific with China, and believes it must drastically reshape itself to beat Beijing in a missile shooting contest.

It is, to paraphrase one of the Marine Corps’ most famous leaders, General O P Smith, not a retreat, they are simply attacking in a different direction.

The pivot comes after the USMC dragged the US Congress, as well as the nation’s air force and navy, into overly ambitious aircraft development projects, notably the Lockheed Martin F-35B: the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the stealth fighter. Other Marine Corps-led programmes include the Bell Boeing MV-22 tiltrotor and the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopter.

All three aircraft have experienced major schedule and budget overruns, and required much work to bring them back on track.

While historically the smallest branch in the US military, the service has the biggest appetite – but often bites off more than it can chew.

For example, the Joint Strike Fighter programme in many ways was built around the USMC’s insistence that it needed a STOVL fighter to replace the Boeing AV-8B Harrier IIs on its amphibious assault ships. It was decided to prioritise the B-model variant, because the technical challenges were greater than those for the more conventional A and C variants for the air force and navy, respectively.

The F-35 became a jack of all trades, but master of none, and compromises to merge the three variants still plague the aircraft. Many in the US Air Force wish the service had instead kept buying Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor.

The MV-22 and CH-53K have fared little better and, unlike the F-35, have scored little in the way of export success.

Of course, the capabilities offered by all the aircraft are second to none. But as in all walks of life, bespoke solutions are more costly than those available off the shelf.

With that in mind, the USMC should be applauded for abandoning bad concepts and an insistence on expensive solutions.

If truck-mounted anti-ship missiles, unmanned air vehicles and defensive laser weapons are a pragmatic and cheap way to beat Beijing, then “oo-rah!”

But in future, Congress and the Department of Defense should ask more searching questions before signing up for the Corps’ next big idea.
https://twitter.com/Mark3Ds/status/1243594152757035009

If the USMC really seriously reduces its F-35B fleet, what about the poor RAF/RN and Italian Navy? Costs and maintenance of their planes?

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2020, 14:41:14 »
Meanwhile in the Russian high north and trending towards the G-I-UK Gap--start of a post:

Quote
The Bears’s Arctic Build-Up (not aimed at North American portion)

Further to this post from 2016 (note further links),

Quote
The Bear and the North American Arctic: Not Really to Worry (for now)

excerpts from a sensible paper, with lots of satellite imagery, from the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (the CSIS most people outside Canada recognize):

Quote
The Ice Curtain: Russia’s Arctic Military Presence
...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/04/11/the-bearss-arctic-build-up-not-aimed-at-north-american-portion/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2020, 10:33:38 »
Now the USN's Chief on Naval Operations talks about what might amount to a revolution in naval affairs:

And, to repeat, meanwhile there's that revolution in Marine affairs:

Mark
Ottawa

Start and end of a post on Pentagon's re-assessing role/future of carriers:

Quote
US Navy’s Supercarriers (CVN) Slowly to Go the Way of the Battleship (BB)?

Further to this post,

Quote
End of the Line Coming for the US Navy’s Supercarriers as they Face the dragon’s Ever-Longer Fiery Breath?

one has to wonder again about their utility in war with China or Russia, however useful (but maddingly costly) they may be for showing the flag–once known as gunboat diplomacy–and taking on much lesser powers such at Iraq. The US Department of Defense is now taking a fairly hard look at their future, and that of the USN’s surface fleet generally:

Quote
Defense Department study calls for cutting 2 of the US Navy’s aircraft carriers
...
The Navy is currently developing a family of unmanned surface vessels that are intended to increase the offensive punch for less money, while increasing the number of targets the Chinese military would have to locate in a fight…

One also wonders what high end surface combatants with surface-to-surface, anti-air/missiles and anti subs, are really for these days (other than to provide air and ASW defence to various types of carriers). I don’t think there has been a serious surface engagement between such ships since World War II, there really are not that many carriers to protect, and surely other surface vessels, manned or unmanned, could do a perfectly capable ASW job–cf. the Royal Navy’s Black Swan sloops in WW II.

As for the Marines:

Quote
Radically Re-Shaping US Marines to Take on China–e.g. no more Tanks
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/04/21/us-navys-supercarriers-cvn-slowly-to-go-the-way-of-the-battleship-bb/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2020, 14:53:20 »
Start and end of a post on Pentagon's re-assessing role/future of carriers:

Now a post on USINDOPACOM's worries about its deteriorating position vs China and how to deal with it:

Quote
Dragon Facing Down the Eagle in the Western Pacific
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/04/22/dragon-facing-down-the-eagle-in-the-western-pacific/

Mark Collins
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 15:18:31 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 306,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,840
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #42 on: April 22, 2020, 22:22:10 »
Now a post on USINDOPACOM's worries about its deteriorating position vs China and how to deal with it:

Mark Collins

"Indeed, the ability of the U.S. to work with like-minded allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific — such as Japan, Australia, India and Taiwan — to deter Chinese aggression may represent one of the most important challenges of the 21st century."

So, yeah, I guess the US is pretty much doomed, and so are we by extention....
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Online CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 41,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,108
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2020, 00:54:47 »
I don't know about that daft...


While we can't underestimate China's capabilities, and the sheer volume of fire they can bring down in regards to cruise missiles & naval power, their crews lack a lot of real world experience.

They may have a distinct naval superiority at the onset, but I think the number of surface combatants would be drastically reduced in our favour if open war ever broke out.  (I don't know enough about their submarine programs to really comment)


It'll be a nasty few weeks of conflict for all sides, absolutely. 



I think their distinct advantage is simply geography.  They get to play on their home turf, close to reinforcements & close to supporting fires, able to concentrate forces far more than the US can.  Against China, I think the US would have to concede it'll be 'all assets vs. them' rather than thinking they can keep assets in the Persian Gulf, North Atlantic, etc.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 491,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,432
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #44 on: April 28, 2020, 20:46:02 »
Our friend Thucydides often talks about the shark vs the tiger scenario. The idea is that China is like a HUGE tiger, supreme its in own valley, while the USA, the world's greatest ever sea power, greater even than Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, is equally supreme on the oceans. But neither can fight well in the other's domain. Even if America could assemble an army large enough to invade China ~ something that ONLY an Indian led coalition will ever manage ~ it is unlikely to be able to conquer it and it would certainly be unable to govern it for long. Equally, China cannot move America off the high seas.

War is a stupid choice. The Chinese want to get the Americans off the East Asian mainland. They also want the Russians out of East Asia and back behind the Yenesei, at least, maybe all the way back behind the Urals. America wants to hem China in, between the Indians in the West and the US and its allies in the East (Western Pacific, Guam, Japan and South Korea) and South (Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines, etc). Both are doable.

I believe (cannot cite a reliable source) that years decades ago China made a back-door proposal to the USA: remove US troops from South Korea and remove US air bases from the Asian mainland and China would reunify Korea under a democratic, capitalist South Korean government. The Americans never believed that was a serious, trustworthy offer. Now, with China under Xi Jinping, I'm not sure the offer is still on the table, but ...
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 514
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #45 on: April 28, 2020, 21:01:36 »
I believe (cannot cite a reliable source) that years decades ago China made a back-door proposal to the USA: remove US troops from South Korea and remove US air bases from the Asian mainland and China would reunify Korea under a democratic, capitalist South Korean government. The Americans never believed that was a serious, trustworthy offer. Now, with China under Xi Jinping, I'm not sure the offer is still on the table, but ...
Never heard that supposition before but very interesting nonetheless. China would have everything to gain from this. If this proposal had indeed occurred, and there was any consultation, South Korea would likely have vetoed, the repercussion for themselves were enormous.
China would reunify Korea under a democratic, capitalist South Korean government.
How would China do this? Given South Korea's likely reticence, this would require a strong arm approach, and concomitant deployment of military force that I am not sure China was even capable of undertaking at this time. Still, fascinated by this as a conceptual approach. When you say decades ago are we talking just after Nixon visited?

 
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 21:15:54 by Weinie »
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 491,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,432
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #46 on: April 28, 2020, 21:47:17 »
Never heard that supposition before but very interesting nonetheless. China would have everything to gain from this. If this proposal had indeed occurred, and there was any consultation, South Korea would likely have vetoed, the repercussion for themselves were enormous.How would China do this? Given South Korea's likely reticence, this would require a strong arm approach, and concomitant deployment of military force that I am not sure China was even capable of undertaking at this time. Still, fascinated by this as a conceptual approach. When you say decades ago are we talking just after Nixon visited?

Later, in the very late 1980s, maybe 1990 or 91 when Deng Xiaoping and then Jiang Zemin were running the show. I was told about this in the hallways at a seminar/conference where the question on enhanced military coordination was raised. My source, about an Assistant Deputy Minister level in. a non-military department of the Chinese government, said the proposal had been made, sub rosa but at a high enough level to be taken seriously. That was the first and last I heard of it.

I reported it back to the ADM(Pol) people and heard nothing from them either. I asked, in about 2005, long after I was retired, if the information was classified and I was told it was not and that, in fact, it was nowhere in our (Canadian) files.  :dunno:

As to how China would do it, I think that about ⅓ of the North Korean generals are on the American payroll, ⅓ are on the Chinese payroll, ⅓ are on the Japanese payroll, and ⅔ are on the South Korean payroll.  :nod: My guess is that the Chinese have a solid plan to kill the North Korean dictator and open the big bridge near Yuanboa (元宝区). By the way, the Yalu River is a formidable obstacle anywhere near Chinese trailhead; an opposed invasion of North Korea will not be a cakewalk. < https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1597282,124.2287155,10.22z >
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 514
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #47 on: April 28, 2020, 22:59:32 »
Wow. Can't even conjecture what the current geopolitical construct would look like if this had been realized. Fascinating story. Thanks for the context.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2020, 15:53:07 »
Start of a post:

Quote
How the US Services Need to Prepare, Jointly, for Conflict with Russia or (and?) China

Further to this post,

Quote
Dragon Facing Down the Eagle in the Western Pacific [note links at end]

excerpts from a piece at War on the Rocks on re-learning skills left largely to atrophy during the various conflicts of the Global War on Terror (now labled “overseas contingency operations”):

Quote
The Pentagon Should Train for — and Not Just Talk About — Great-Power Competition
...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/05/08/how-the-us-services-need-to-prepare-jointly-for-conflict-with-russia-or-and-china/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,089
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #49 on: May 12, 2020, 19:29:10 »
Start and end of a post on Pentagon's re-assessing role/future of carriers:

Mark
Ottawa

Now navy dept. gives up own carrier study, broader Office of Secretary of Defence study of future USN fleet continues:

1)
Quote
Navy Scraps Big Carrier Study, Clears Deck For OSD Effort
The study into what kind of carriers the Navy might need in a decade’s time was problematic from the start, and conflicted with the Pentagon senior leadership’s redo of the Navy’s force structure plan. 
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/navy-scraps-big-carrier-study-clears-deck-for-osd-effort/

2)
Quote
Acting SECNAV McPherson Ends Navy Future Carrier Study; Nominee Braithwaite Gives Full Support to Ford Program
https://news.usni.org/2020/05/12/acting-secnav-mcpherson-ends-navy-future-carrier-study-nominee-braithwaite-gives-full-support-to-ford-program

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.