• 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

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#91
Interesting. The older I have gotten, the more my perspective has shifted the other way - it is predominately zero sum. So do you consider China or Russia to be a greater threat?
Short term, Russia. Long term, China. Russia's long-term prospects remain pretty weak for a whole host of reasons, China's remain much better but they are also encumbered by significant issues as well. Neither one of them wants an open conflict with us though, it would be way too costly for them, but they will constantly try and test what our boundaries are especially with a President who is such an unknown still in the foreign policy arena.
 

Randy Daytona

I want rock n roll - yes I do.
pilot
Super Moderator
#93
As of 13 Feb, it is now, officially, ISIS.
If you are thinking about ISIS terrorist attacks in the US, I would say it is overblown. If you are pondering the political destabilization of the European Union from historical levels of uncontrolled refugees, well, that is a possibility. What is the biggest threat to the European Union?
 

Randy Daytona

I want rock n roll - yes I do.
pilot
Super Moderator
#95
Short term, Russia. Long term, China. Russia's long-term prospects remain pretty weak for a whole host of reasons, China's remain much better but they are also encumbered by significant issues as well. Neither one of them wants an open conflict with us though, it would be way too costly for them, but they will constantly try and test what our boundaries are especially with a President who is such an unknown still in the foreign policy arena.
Both Russia and China have demographic and economic issues - Russia seems to be in worse shape but a significant rise in the price of oil would be of immeasurable help to their economy which would have a positive effect on their demographics. As you alluded to, China's population and economy are 10 x greater than Russia.

That has far more to do with Russia then it does ISIS.
To a large extent, it does. The open door policy of Merkel and from Sweden made it worse. Add in the massive population increases in the region and one wonders if the only way a lot if these countries can survive is via population flows to Europe. Syria has quadrupled its population over the last couple of generations.
 

ryan1234

Active Member
#98
The older I have gotten the more distasteful I have gotten of Kissinger's Bismark-esque foreign policy view. International relations aren't a zero sum game and we don't need to saddle up to one repugnant country to counter an disagreeable one nowadays. There is NO gain to allying ourselves with Russia in any way nowadays, we will only lose. Again, this isn't an unusual or uncommon view among pretty much everyone except a few in the administration and others who are deluded by Russian propaganda and easily fooled sycophants (Edit: I am referring to 'commentators' and others who seem to all of a sudden have an affection for the Russia and their lackeys, not anyone here).
In any case, we shouldn't be handling Russia like the Soviet Union, which is how many in the DoD seem to view them. Whenever a few units in Russia move around, the DoD has a panic attack. If we take a step into understanding how the Russians are using coercive warfare and how they interact economically with the rest of the world, I think we'd be better of.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#99
In any case, we shouldn't be handling Russia like the Soviet Union, which is how many in the DoD seem to view them. Whenever a few units in Russia move around, the DoD has a panic attack. If we take a step into understanding how the Russians are using coercive warfare and how they interact economically with the rest of the world, I think we'd be better of.
The DoD doesn't have a panic attack whenever a few units from Russia move around, this is a country that has invaded and occupied parts of two neighbors in the last 10 years so moves by Russia's military are much more closely watched since they have proven themselves a renewed threat to Europe and NATO.

As for your comment about understanding how Russia interacts with the rest of the world economically, there are plenty that do understand and that is a big part of the reason the sanctions that were put in place have been effective.
 

ryan1234

Active Member
The DoD doesn't have a panic attack whenever a few units from Russia move around, this is a country that has invaded and occupied parts of two neighbors in the last 10 years so moves by Russia's military are much more closely watched since they have proven themselves a renewed threat to Europe and NATO.

As for your comment about understanding how Russia interacts with the rest of the world economically, there are plenty that do understand and that is a big part of the reason the sanctions that were put in place have been effective.
You're completely missing the point. Ukraine gave up Crimea without a fight. Why and how? It's not what they did, it's how they did it that should cause alarm. Furthermore, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are two distinctly separate case studies on how Russia employs coercive diplomacy. No one is saying that Russia isn't a threat. However, their more recent methods of coercive warfare/diplomacy are a departure from typical Soviet employment/policy - which is how many in the DoD view them and why such terms as 'ambiguous force' and 'hybrid warfare' are buzzwords here in EUCOM. Russia consistently looks for high gains at low cost through coercive means. Regarding how sanctions are "working." That depends on how you measure effectiveness for the US position long term. It also depends on how consistent sanctions may rip apart the European Union's political threads - and specifically how Russia's foreign policy adapts to that growing reality. I wouldn't bet on the exclusive utility of sanctions. Perhaps Russia has conditioned the US to be more afraid of escalation than Russia is of retaliation? Today's Russia is not the Soviet Union. The consistent threat inflation of thousands of Russian tanks crossing the border into Lativa, Estonia, and Lithuania is unrealistic and, in some ways, provides fuel to the Russian foreign policy of coercive diplomacy - the realistic version of how they manipulate Europe.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You're completely missing the point.
Okay, you didn't have much of one to begin with so I am not sure what exactly I missed there.

Ukraine gave up Crimea without a fight. Why and how? It's not what they did, it's how they did it that should cause alarm. Furthermore, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are two distinctly separate case studies on how Russia employs coercive diplomacy. No one is saying that Russia isn't a threat. However, their more recent methods of coercive warfare/diplomacy are a departure from typical Soviet employment/policy - which is how many in the DoD view them and why such terms as 'ambiguous force' and 'hybrid warfare' are buzzwords here in EUCOM. Russia consistently looks for high gains at low cost through coercive means....Perhaps Russia has conditioned the US to be more afraid of escalation than Russia is of retaliation? Today's Russia is not the Soviet Union. The consistent threat inflation of thousands of Russian tanks crossing the border into Lativa, Estonia, and Lithuania is unrealistic and, in some ways, provides fuel to the Russian foreign policy of coercive diplomacy - the realistic version of how they manipulate Europe.
Okay, now you have a point. But we shouldn't fixate on their usage of 'hybrid warfare' though when they are modernizing their conventional and strategic capabilities as well, they didn't need anything more than conventional arms to defeat the Georgians in '08 (not that it was too hard to beat them). The stationing of NATO units in the Baltics and Poland provides a decent deterrent to the temptation of trying to repeat their actions in Ukraine and Georgia which they could do with or without any hybrid warfare.

...Regarding how sanctions are "working." That depends on how you measure effectiveness for the US position long term. It also depends on how consistent sanctions may rip apart the European Union's political threads - and specifically how Russia's foreign policy adapts to that growing reality. I wouldn't bet on the exclusive utility of sanctions.
Nor would I but they have harmed their economy and had other adverse effects for them so far, showing their is a price to pay for their aggression.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Jerry Hendrix putting forth a plan to get to 350.

How Trump Can Build a 350-Ship Navy

The president promised to restore America’s strength on the high seas. Here’s how he can actually do it.

By JERRY HENDRIX and ROBERT C. O'BRIEN


April 13, 2017

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/how-trump-can-build-a-350-ship-navy-215019
I was reading that yesterday, and it seems like the authors are neglecting a couple of big items in the name of reaching a magic number of hulls in the water. Their plan treats reaching a 350-ship fleet as an end unto itself, with no real thought as to what comes next.

Bringing CGs and FFGs out of mothballs sounds good, but even if practical, it's a stopgap solution; we'd get maybe 10 years out of them, and in the meantime new-build replacements would have to be in the works. So between the several hundred million to refurbish the CGs/FFGs, and whatever it'd cost to design and build the next gen, I don't see any cost savings. And it ignores altogether the fact that the Columbia-class alone eats up the Navy's entire shipbuilding budget for the next ten years.