• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS If War Comes, Will the U.S. Navy Be Prepared?

Brett327 said:
If that's your position, then you've made a category error in this conversation... or you're just a troll. Since you're in "academia" now, you have the luxury of attending to academic questions, vice practical ones. Since you've repeatedly referred to your academic credentials, precisely what academic institution are you attached to?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure how I made a category error? I didn’t change my point of view.
 
taxi1 said:
In the Master & Commander books, I remember how some JO and a handful of sailors would get the job of sailing back prize captures. We need something similar.
Click to expand...
Griz882 said:
Jimmy, you grab eight or nine deck apes and see if you can get the Mao back to San Diego. We’ll see you there.
Click to expand...

Interesting SWO fact of the day: All ships are required to have a prize crew watchbill consisting of an OOD, helmsman, Deck Apes, Snipes, quartermaster, and a few extra dudes with guns for security. This is usually for having to bring back contraband-carrying ships in case they need to be impounded but I don't see why it couldn't be used in war time as well.
 
@nodropinufaka - no one has said it will necessarily be a CVN vs CVN style engagement, but to think that TACAIR won't be involved in a kinetic war with China would be foolish. How would you recommend we allocate resources if you're suggesting we take away prepping TACAIR in favor of... what? Cyber? Sure, that will be a part of it, but we have a pretty robust Cyber capability. Surface? Sure, the Navy is investing heavily in Surface Warfare again in terms of missile capabilites, although there is probably much to be desired in top line CG/DDG quantity.

If you're suggesting that any war with China will not be a full on kinetic conflict, that's entirely possible that we almost indefinitely remain in this "grey war" we're kind of in, simmering tensions, Chinese "fishing fleets" and seabed trawlers harrassing and taking resources that aren't theirs that other Navies are rightfully concerned about shooting civilians, then when there is any near-conlfict the Chinese Coast Guard comes in to save the day for their "civilians," small-medium scale cyber attacks, etc., that's entirely possible. But to think that aviation won't be required in any event they try to take Taiwan, the Spratlys, Japan, etc., is literally inconceivable to me. Please enlighten us or clarify your position.
 
nodropinufaka said:
I’m not sure how I made a category error? I didn’t change my point of view.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they don’t have maps at your “four year public research university” (one day you’ll get why that cracks me up) so let’s set aside sinkable aircraft carriers and concentrate on other systems and geography. China has approximately 2100 combat aircraft and the US (alone). But there’s more! Looking at a map it is easy to see that China’s “unsinkable aircraft carriers” (two artificial reefs, each capable of holding about 150 aircraft and related supported gear) are within striking distance of other unsinkable carriers like the Philippines (a mere 60 tactical aircraft but one big carrier), Japan (225 tactical aircraft), South Korea (400 tactical aircraft), Taiwan (275 tactical aircraft and very robust air defense systems) whose additional air power put the Chinese at a distinct advantage table. Of course we have Guam and those few carriers that you so easily dismiss.

At this point I haven’t even mentioned US air defense capabilities or the US advantage in tactical helicopters in that region. I haven’t noted Taiwan’s rather robust anti-ship missile network nor the potential involvement of India (600 tactical aircraft) or the American expeditionary capability reflected in the new USMC strategy or our overwhelming airborne anti-shipping capacity reflected in our patrol aircraft. Now, add to all of that the American/allied capability to refuel our aircraft in the air (vastly superior to China’s) and our substantial experience at working in an international joint manner and you’ll see China isn’t facing a cake walk. Yes, the Chinese army is massive, but it isn’t capable of making great strategic moves over much distance. Taiwan might be an easy target, but it would be a costly one.

Faced with geographic realities, it is clear that at this time, the Chinese military is not capable of demonstrating substantial regional (INDOPAC) reach or naval or air superiority due to three distinct factors: an inability to successfully integrate into the joint fight, minimal aerial refueling capabilities, and a lack of military-industrial infrastructure to support aviation production and procurement. Any one of these three areas would take a vast amount of time and resources to overcome, and all three together represent a monumental challenge to China. Certainly these shortcomings are not insurmountable but the odds of overcoming them by pumping sand in the Spratley’s are not favorable. And herein is China’s greatest weakness…joint warfare requires the ability to make decisions at the lowest level possible, and demands that commanders understand their specific roles and responsibilities and conduct of operations accordingly according to geographic and logistic realities. This fluidity takes more than practice, it takes experience and clearly would be challenged by the central committee, top-down political-military system currently employed by China. In the end the geography of the INDOPAC area favors those militaries that rely on centralized command of joint (and allied) forces capable of decentralized execution.
 
DanMa1156 said:
If you're suggesting that any war with China will not be a full on kinetic conflict, that's entirely possible that we almost indefinitely remain in this "grey war" we're kind of in, simmering tensions, Chinese "fishing fleets" and seabed trawlers harrassing and taking resources that aren't theirs that other Navies are rightfully concerned about shooting civilians, then when there is any near-conlfict the Chinese Coast Guard comes in to save the day for their "civilians," small-medium scale cyber attacks, etc., that's entirely possible. But to think that aviation won't be required in any event they try to take Taiwan, the Spratlys, Japan, etc., is literally inconceivable to me. Please enlighten us or clarify your position.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you guys are talking past each other...

On one side are all of the guys who have done tours on a joint planning staff looking at OPLANs that follow the philosophy to plan toward an enemy's worst-case capabilities saying 'wtf are you talking about TACAIR isn't involved' On the other is @nodropinufuka saying that it's entirely possible the next conflict might not pan out like that. It's also possible that placing all of the nation's treasure into a massive, mechanized destructive force can be ill prepared to deal with smaller scale conflicts (see: OIF/OEF).

Planning on an enemy's capabilities makes sense from a force requirements and training standpoint, but from a practical perspective it's very difficult for me to imagine two nuclear powers who are economically co-dependent on each other engaging in direct kinetic conflict. The defense of Taiwan scenario is primarily useful as a mental exercise to set the stage for an major conflict for force shaping purposes; it has a miniscule chance of ever coming to fruition for a myriad of reasons, many highlighted by @Grizz882. We didn't go into direct war with the USSR when there weren't any economic ties, there was more favorable geography, and more capable allied support. Instead, I think any future conflict will be a proxy war where China attempts to extend its influence into third world countries that are geographically favorable to them, and significantly diminishes or outright negates the technological advantages our military has. Right now, China seems much more interested in extending that influence by non-kinetic means, which makes a kinetic military response by the U.S. politically unfavorable both domestically and abroad.
 
Last edited:
Griz882 said:
China has approximately 2100 combat aircraft and the US (alone).
Click to expand...
Sorry, it appears I deleted or edited out that the US has about 3600 combat aircraft (this doesn’t include attack helicopters or maritime patrol).
 
nodropinufaka said:
Why would I post where I work on a public forum? That Isnt smart.
Click to expand...
You’re completely anonymous here, that’s why. I’m sure you’re not the only annoying “academic” at your “four year institution.” I’ll go first… I work at NAWDC, in Fallon, NV. Specifically, I lead HAVOC. I’m in building 465C. Anyone on this forum can come to my office to visit, chat, or engage in professional discourse. I don’t know why you wouldn’t extend the same courtesy to us here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top