Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[notyoueither]

Imagination you have always had, Ted.

It is the grounding in reality bit that is in doubt.

[Ted Striker]

Just like you make up other people's opinions in your head and then go about arguing them.


Thanks

[Mr. Harley]

notyoueither - you'll note I didn't talk about Gore or if the election was stolen.

Seriously, that is the entire point to history. Go rent, if you can find it, the old PBS series Connections. I can trace what is happening in Iraq today back to the 1850's and then the Civil War, though Berserker can actually make the case better than I can (note - I have had to sadly come over to his viewpoint on that over the last couple of years, he's gotten me thinking out of my box).

Did you bother to read my argument, rather than do a quickie one liner to disparage what I said? First, it's not 2000 dead - it's 2000 dead, over 20,000 wounded of which I saw one number stating 6,000 involve maimed limbs, but I cannot recall where. Secondly, I was making the point to Patroklos about the limitations, and dangers, of military power and it's use. That all came from the discussion on Aircraft Carriers, one of the ultimate ways to project power (versus destruction and blackmail, i.e. nukes).

That power, the imperial Presidency (which can be traced all the way back to Andrew Jackson ), the attitude we are the best and it will be easy (remember, Rumsfeld claimed all we needed were 60,000 troops, good God!) - and he is long time defense establishment, so it is NOT just Bush, Cheney, and Rove - is what has gotten us in trouble. The British defeated the Sepoy mutiny, their army had a superiority that, in its heyday, matches ours today - and they eventually lost India, anyway. Those who do not learn from history....

Ted - thanks for the vote of confidence, but if I ever get into politics, I would be much better off on staff, or in a think tank. I suspect Al Gore could give me charisma lessons. Though I do intend to run for the School Board wherever I end up - and if I don't get elected, my wife says they are going to learn to hate me.

[Ted Striker]

Yep, the line is so easy to see, and it even goes back more recently than that, only 30 years ago we were doing the exact same thing.

Also worth mentioning is the 20,000 injured stat, which is the forgotten part of this war.

[Mr. Harley]

Also, the military is not counting non-combat related injuries that are in theatre. So if your Bradley rolls over and you end up with a spinal injury - it's not counted. I heard a report that stated injuries are roughly double what is being officially reported.

[Dis]

actually I believe non-combat deaths are included in that 1800 dead number.

[Ted Striker]

DAMN, I had no idea

[Dis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

Casualties among the coalition military forces have been tracked with greater accuracy.

As of July 17, 2005, the coalition death toll in this conflict was 1,958. Of these, 1,764 Americans, 93 British, 27 Italians, 18 Ukrainians, 17 Polish, 13 Bulgarians, 11 Spanish, 3 Slovaks, 2 Dutch, 2 Estonian, 2 Salvadoran, 2 Thai, 1 Danish, 1 Hungarian, 1 Kazakh, and 1 Latvian have died.[29] More than 85% of these died after President Bush's announcement on May 1, 2003 that major combat was over.

Troops killed in action account for 1,506 of the coalition casualties, including 1,367 of the U.S. casualties.

[Patroklos]

Patroklos - I know you are there, and you are repeating the standard US Military line. That is what worries me.

I can not help it if the official party line is the actual technical data, would you prefer it to be something else? Coincidently, it is the standard line for the militaries of Iran, China, Russia, France, Britain, etc...

I repeat, what got us in trouble in Iraq was exactly the training that makes our military so good, and yet so inept for example at occupation. When you drum into people "we are the best in the world" and that becomes essentially part of the psyche of that culture, you have entered a very dangerous area.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing you are the best, especially when ALL evidnece points at it. I am a little confused with your Iraq referances for two reasons.

1.) Besides rivermarine, there is no such thing as "guerrila" naval warfare. The closest thing you can get is small boat swarms, but in the only instance this actually happened, Operation Praying Mantiss, the USS Vincennes cleaned the floor with the Iranians. The tactic is also as old a time. Isolated terrorist attacks are something different as well.

2.) Your military assesment of Iraq is flawed. Just because the isurgency found a few tactics that worked some how means we are reeling in defeat? Of course they have had successes, they have a heartbeat. If you find me one ground commander that thought there would be no such occurances quote him. But no data produced by anyone can dispute that the conflict in Iraq is an unabashed success of historic proportions militarily. Understand the left will call it a defeat regardless, because politically they have to.

You could easily find similar statements if you look at the Royal Navy prior to WW2. That did not give the survivors of the sailors on the Hood much solace. Similarly, in the Solomons you could have found US Captains confident about their technology - until the first Long Lance torpedo hit.

You will note that both Navies achieved a complete victory over all their opponents. You do realize that Italy and Germany's navy were far closer to par than the current world navies are? You do realize that the Royal Navy had absolutley ZERO tech edge over Germany's navy? Why don't we do some stat work and see how disparaging the casualties/losses were between the Axis and Allied navy. Hint, on is 99.9% losses.

I think one of the problems here is that you have a far to optimistic definition of victory. It also seems as if you believe that the United States expects no losses in these conflicts. This is of course far from the truth. Case in point, we are doing far better in Iraq than the military expected.

I do appreciate the context of what you stated about the Falklands. I see why your conclusions as to the lessons of that conflict are different than mine. In fact I agree with you - the best US defense against anti-shipping missiles is our Aircraft Carriers. However, in both the cases of China and Iran - will the rules of engagment permit us to destroy their launch platforms prior to open conflict?

Why prior to the conflict, I don't think I said that? In neither Iraq war did we destroy weapons emplacements prior to general hostilities. It is not necessary. We can go over our air assets effectiveness at destroying SAM emplacements if you want, shore batteries would be infinitely easier since they don't shoot back. What I said is that within a few days of a war with Iran we can easily clear the Straights of Hormuz of all its anti-shipping missiles. The fleet can stay far out of the range of Iran’s shore defenses within the Gulf (more accurately, the range of their sensors).

If not, your scenario reference our carriers falls apart, and mine start kicking in with a vengeance. A first strike saturation attack could very well do extensive damage to several US ships, very likely sinking some of them. Those losses could become substantial. Would they affect the ability of our Naval Combat Groups to pursue their mission? Probably not. Do I thinks we should casually talk about our Military Dominance, and go to war unless, to borrow a phrase, they pose "Clean and Present Danger?" No, and herein lies the rub.

Your entire scenario rests on a single point of failure. You assume that Iran/China have surprise. I am not sure why you think this would happen, or why you even think it is remotely likely. But for the sake of argument, yes, if the US military, just like any military, is caught with its pants down there will be casualties.

[/quote]We gave the best Military in the world, when it comes to convential military conflict. However, and the ultimate version of that attitude "Bring them on" has led to almost 2000 dead, and several thousand maimed American soldiers. The other side chose to fight by a different set of rules. [/quote]

It has also led tot he complete defeat of a foreign power 2000 miles from home. It also has lead to the occupation of a nation of several 100,000 miles of territory and tens of millions of inhabitants, the vast majority of which live in peace.

Again, none of this has any even remote parallel with naval warfare.

Occupation is part and parcel of the entire package of defeating the enemy. Somewhere between WW2 and Vietnam we lost sight of that. You could argue we never really had that as a priority, and that we just got lucky with MacArthur in Japan. However, at this point we have totally lost that knack.

I wasn't aware we had trouble occupying the Sea of Japan.

[/quote]I am NOT trying to work Iraq into every post. My point is the dominance of our Navy, and Military as a whole, in toe-to-toe combat, makes intervention in foreign countries extremely tempting to politicians. After all, we can't lose that many men, look at Operation Desert Storm. [/quote]

Look and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

You are really off the reservation now, weren't we talking about carriers?

Which also dovetails nicely into one other statement you made, where you misread my point. The constant variables, and the lack of certainty, should not prevent you from deploying a weapons system. However, those factors are what should prevent you from engaging in war casually, unless you really don't care above the average grunt serving in the military, because none of your people are serving.

I am afraid that was by far NOT you point before. You point was that since we cannot predict everything, we should assume we cannot counter anything.

You should post another thread for that other, well, BS.

[/quote]That is the other issue I have with this administration, and why I so badly wanted John McCain to still be in the Republican presidential primary in my state back in 2000 (he had already been forced out). Chickenhawks, of which both our President and VP are proud members of, are much more likely to engage in wars that kill someone else's spouse or child (I find Cheney paticularly galling - "I had better things to do." [/quote]

Ummm, tangent.

That, and the lack of funding for the VA show me their true colors - for the soldiers until they come back home in a box, or with limb(s) missing. Then that's too expensive, like the new decision to cut 30% of PTSD diagnosis off from treatment - they aren't really PTSD. Or the rules that force kids whose parents die in Iraq out of their school before the end of the school year - they get to lose a parent and change schools the same year, lucky stiffs. F*ck those bastards who do that to vets and their families. (note - I am also the one of the people who states my taxes are too low, with properly maintaining our military - both hardware AND PEOPLE - part of my rationale.)

I, and every military member I know are pretty damn happy with how the military treats us, it is the civilians we have a problem with.

[Patroklos]

Did you bother to read my argument, rather than do a quickie one liner to disparage what I said? First, it's not 2000 dead - it's 2000 dead, over 20,000 wounded of which I saw one number stating 6,000 involve maimed limbs, but I cannot recall where. Secondly, I was making the point to Patroklos about the limitations, and dangers, of military power and it's use. That all came from the discussion on Aircraft Carriers, one of the ultimate ways to project power (versus destruction and blackmail, i.e. nukes).

Thhat 20,000 wounded was discusses at length in another thread, and the vast majority of that number consist of "returned to duty within two days."

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Congrats.

That said, I can't understand why anyone would be excited about their government spending untold billions (trillions?) on weapon systems. Wouldn't you rather have any or all of tax cuts, education, health care, and something to eat in your retirement?

I mean, I complain about the billions my government wastes - but the US government wastes hundreds of billions.

And they say republicans are against big government...

[Patroklos]

I don't consider it a waste.

My education is exemplary, my health care excellent under the current system. Not my fault that most people refuse to benefit from their free education, and live unhealthy lifestyles.

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos - I see we are disagreeing past each other, now I see why. To take first the Naval part in isolation.

1) As I read it, a Hood type loss to you is, maybe not acceptable, but within the reasonable possibilities while establishing Naval Dominance in an area, especially as long as the mission itself is not compromised. I am fully aware of the WW2 Naval warfare - it is one of the areas I specialize in.

I find it only acceptable when the conflict is clearly and distinctly an action to protect the United States from hostile action. That is why I have no problem with the losses in Afghanistan (non-Naval, but necessary to make my point)- except with the proper military force deployment they would have been less IMHO - versus Iraq, and why I find discussing losses against Iran unacceptable under the current situation.

2) You find such losses highly unlikely, based on your experience and training, and knowledge of what you have that bluntly I do not, and may never have access to - i.e. your jamming capability versus what the Iranians have, and may have.

I find such losses possible, but not likely. My argument is that your honest pride in our Navy, necessary for any military (as you kindly agreed - thatt is not sarcasm BTW) unfortunately, if applied to admirals, etc. can leave to, not a Pearl Harbor, but losses that I firmly believe should not happen. I did support my statement with the link to Cape models. Did you read it? It makes the very good point that the ability to reliably get every ASM may well not have quite the high probability your analysis assigns it.

3) The "surprise engagement" won't happen, based again on your experience, and our Naval leadership.

I didn't posit being "caught with our pants down." What I posited was a first strike without warning and that our rules of engagement force us to take prior to our own suppression efforts, keeping our Naval Air assets from destroying their own Anti-Shipping missiles. If we had three or four ships in the Straights of Hormez, for example, and the Iranians planned for that - they might get kills on all of them. If you don't think ROE can cause nasty losses - look at the misuse of radar in the Solomons, or the F4 in Vietnam. Note, NOT crippling losses - as I said in (1) I suspect we have VERY different definitions of acceptable losses.

4) Technology advantage. You feel we have it, clearly and decisively.

My own feeling is that the other side is not asleep, and that our superiority may not be as clearcut as you believe. There is only one way to find out, and I would in that case WANT to be wrong.

By the way, it is often little things with technology that are not so little. To provide you with a little proof that I am not just boasting - here is a little tidbit on WW2 (which you will gleefully use to point out that again American technology rules - and I will grant you the point that the US Naval Ordinance Bureau, in whichever incarnation it has existed, has consistantly been the best or one of the best in the world).

The US Navy's light AA was, for most of WW2, the copied Bofors 40mm. The Japanese used their 20mm. There were other light AA guns, I am talking primary. The US 40mm could strike both Japanses dive bombers and torperdo bombers before release. The Japanese 20mm, while being able to hit the Devastator prior to release, but not the Dauntless. That resulted, with the other factors - less effective 5" AA, lack of radios and radar - that at Midway our dive-bombers essentailly got to do a training run, or if you wish a Turkey shoot

Almost every simulation of WW2 overstates the effectiveness of Japanese light AA hugely. Since I get the impression you like WW2 naval history - spring that one in your next argument.

However, while you might argue, very succinctly - exactly, that is the situation right now we have in our favor versus anti-shipping missiles, I am worried the opposite serendipity may have argued - what I posite in my "gap" argument. You are probably right. I find the cost of that probably being wrong totally unacceptable.

[Mr. Harley]

The "Connections" part of my argument.

You appear to miss my point, or dismiss it out of hand, at least from my vantage you seem to, about the fact of Power and Aircraft Carriers, and attitude, or cultures, that develop in groups like the military (and the neocons). The ability of the US to project power so easily, rapidly, and decisively has led to an arrogance that resulted in Iraq and the problems we have. "They will meet us with open arms." and "Bring it on."

You can not seriously believe that the occupation of Iraq has been an unqualified success? If you do, I suspect there can be no meeting of minds between us. I see multiple major mistakes, as did General Shinseki, on the occupation side of things. The lack of proper APC's in both quantity and quality is also a major fubar - "You go to war with the army you have...". Not even you can honestly state we had adequate forces at hand to handle the initial occupation - and if we had, the infrastructure issues, protecting the contractors trying to fix the gutted infrastructure, etc. would be on a vastly different level.

I have been posting in other threads on what you call BS. I have one simple question, and since I have friends (and had family) in the military, I will call your bluff. I know that the US military is right now pressuring Navy Personel to switch assignments (forgive me if I don't have the technical terms, I am quite tired and staying up to finish this post), and even if you are in a highly technical agrressively retained area, right now they will let you switch, for example, to Corpman in a heartbeat. A friend in Navy Intel on a Nuke Sub got that offer, and he is not getting hassled over his reinlistment, i.e. your slot is being eliminated as has happened in both the Navy and Air Force.

If you are not volunteering for ground duty in Iraq right now, and the situation is quite so rosy - Note you call it BS, and I am raising you one. Of course neither did alot of the gung-ho types at home, and for them I have the deepest contempt. I am not dissing your service, but I am making the point that, well, maybe things on the ground in Iraq do not qualify as a success story, and sadly the existance of our killer, literally, carrier task forces actually encourages our leaders to be much more cavalier about military interventions then other countries. That is why I am opposed to our having such a large Navy since the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

If the Iranians launch a mixed force of C-802's AND a mix of Sunburns and Yakhonts, that could get really ugly. The problem is we are dealing with "gap" scenarios here, as in who has which defensive/offensive hole in their technology/deployment. Making a mistake in that kind of area can cause you to have substantial losses - like your assumption that the Iranians did not learn from Desert Storm and are now deploying their land-based anti-ship missiles from portable launchers.

As an aside, we can find and track Iranian assets without even lighting off our radar's easily. Our first week in the Gulf of Oman, My workcenter tracked an Iranian P-3 that was looking for us. One of my buddies called me down to SSES because we had a really clear interception of his transmission and a pretty damn good guestimate of his Bearing (of course, this particular CTR2 is the God-damn Sith Lord of Signals Collections). We asked the Truman (I think it was the Truman) to send some Hornets to check the P-3. We couldn't get an altitude for some reason I don't understand (I repair the machines, not operate them) but CTR2 said it would probably be about 15,000 ft.

Listening to the Iranian Pilot...

"Blah blah blah dirka derka blah blah" WOOSH!!! SONIC BOOM!S "AIYA! DERKADERK!"



We nailed the P-3's location almost to the Tee. The Hornet Pilots said they had to break off...they almost collided with it.

Anyway, point is we can turn off our radars (Which is a good way to make it hard for the bad guys to even find us) and still find the bad guys because we have ****hot signals collections guys.

For that we don't need the current number of Carrier Groups. The current high levels of US military overseas deployment are due to meddling, the newest version of "white man's burden" - "We will spread democracy in the Middle East", and foreign adventurism. I would much rather you were at home helping American businesses compete abroad, IMHO that has been the major area of world conflict since call in the Korean WAR - economic. In that area we are not doing nearly as well. And if your economy slides while you are attempting to maintain Superpower status - look at the Soviet Union and the British Empire. What, you cannot because neither exists as a Superpower anymore! Exactly.

Why would our economy slide? Hell, at the ruen of the (last) century Germany managed to have massive economic growth, build the world's second largest navy almost from scratch, maintain a large amry, start the world's first social security program, all while maintain a large trade deficit.

Large numbers of carriers (and their accompanying strike groups) provide a tangible benefit at a low cost to the economy, which is more than, say, $300 billion in farm subsidies do.