-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is the United States' navy useless in a symmetrical war?
- Thread starter fawaz
- Start date
- Status
It was a multi-stage missile apparently, but it also intercepted the target much higher (ie more difficult target) than the US. And that was BEFORE the US. And they have, quite possibly, tested the weapon multiple times afterwards.
Adapting such system to a weapon proper (land or sea-based) is merely a matter of time.
EDIT And there is no "literal 50-year tech gap". It is much, much smaller, even though China started later.
Elfforkusu
Member
A multi-stage rocket, like the ones the US was using in the 60s? Those?
The reason no other country has done what the Chinese did with that test is not because it's "more difficult", it's that sanity has prevailed. What the Chinese did with that test was a complete lapse of judgment on their part -- unless they have aspirations of making manned space flight impossible by creating an impenetrable debris field around the Earth. (if so, they should keep doing more tests, it's a solid way to achieve that goal)
Solid fuel rocket. :lol
it wasn't the first, The US did it way back in 1985!
They've also tested it 2 more times since then, but it's kind of hard to hide it from us. We track everything that floats in space down to like tennis ball size.
You are aware that a multi-stage missile is a standard method of getting to space? Be it a rocket for some purpose, or a missile to hit something. The US missile test didn't use a purpose-built weapon, but rather a modified anti-ballistic missile... on a target already on low orbit, within the missile's reach. EDIT i will add that most espionage sats are low orbit satellites, IIRC. But comm-sats and such, useful targets, are typically in higher orbits, possibly out of reach of that modified US missile.
As for the Chinese weapon, there are claims by them that similar tests have been conducted, though later against ballistics targets, presumably to avoid space debris (and probably to keep them less public).
But they have demonstrated the capability, so it is a merely a matter of time before such system can be deployed, just as with the US lasers and railguns and whatever else.
And let's not act like the US are angels regarding this. I believe it is quite likely they're willing to cause some space debris if their weapon tests cause such (they haven't done such yet... presumably).
It is a relatively minor amount... and there is already a shitload of junk there.
Cleaning space debris probably won't be a big deal once it will be decided to get rid of it, there are quite many suggestions for it, like laser "brooms".
I forgot that old test... wasn't that ASAT missile fired from a jet fighter? I think there was a nice photo of the event?
EDIT Yup, that one vvv
Also a multi-stage missile!
You know how we blew up a Sat in 1985? With this!
A fuckin air missile!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solwind#Destruction
A fuckin air missile!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solwind#Destruction
Yep, shit's crazy lol.
Elfforkusu
Member
But back to the symmetrical war scenario in the OP...
I think the cyberwar aspect is somewhat undersold. Both countries' network infrastructures would be pretty hosed from the outset (the NSA doesn't care about defense, but they are damn good at offense), and presumably there would be extensive fuckery going on with the satellites. Conventional high altitude reconnaissance would likely make a comeback (any SR-71s still flyable...?), putting "hide my aircraft carriers behind that reef" back in play.
I think the cyberwar aspect is somewhat undersold. Both countries' network infrastructures would be pretty hosed from the outset (the NSA doesn't care about defense, but they are damn good at offense), and presumably there would be extensive fuckery going on with the satellites. Conventional high altitude reconnaissance would likely make a comeback (any SR-71s still flyable...?), putting "hide my aircraft carriers behind that reef" back in play.
Nealand Liquor
Member
Jesus what a hilarious failure.
I think they've retired the SR-71s for good, plus those lack fuel (didn't they require some kind of special fuel? Or am i mixing it with something else?) and parts by now even if the planes are still usable would cripple them.
I think it used some kind of super cooled fuel. I know the thing leaked when it was on the ground because the seals were made for high speeds and high altitudes.
Elfforkusu
Member
I'm not saying multi-stage rockets are bad, I'm saying that it's an old, tried and true technology. They're big, need special launch facilities, etc.
"won't be a big deal" <- you are much more optimistic about it than I am. Most of the ideas to clean it up are pie in the sky plans about as realistic as space elevators.
On the plus side, it's looking like they've learned their lesson. Which is good: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/china-reaches-out-to-us-for-space-data-air-force-space-commander/
The Chinese test was the largest single space debris forming event ever. The problem is the size and delta-V of the debris, and where and how the Chinese did it, there's a lot.
"won't be a big deal" <- you are much more optimistic about it than I am. Most of the ideas to clean it up are pie in the sky plans about as realistic as space elevators.
On the plus side, it's looking like they've learned their lesson. Which is good: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/china-reaches-out-to-us-for-space-data-air-force-space-commander/
Just read about it. It wasn't a special fuel with lost recipe (that was for some rocket i guess, or a paint of some missile, there's a lot of stuff like that with secret projects) but it was a special fuel that require special tanker aircraft. And the plane ran out of fuel in 90 minutes if it was flying supersonic.
The Space elevator will end up being bullshit, that i ain't optimistic about (there are cheaper methods anyway, like the launch loop). But laser system for cleaning the debris... i was very surprised at that new US laser weapon, i thought such were years away still. So, the theoretical broom may be usable far sooner as well.
The laser broom is a simple concept, just heat the depris from right direction and its course will change, eventually burning up in the atmosphere. (Naturally there's problem of deploying these brooms... and being lasers, they do kind of double as weapons themselves...) So yes, i'm optimistic for a reason.
There is no country in the world that has half the strength of the US military, especially if it is limited to the Navy. If the US really wanted to blow a country off the face of the map then it could do so without much in the realm of retaliation from that country. No military in the world comes even close in terms of brute strength.
Occupying a country on the other hand, is a much different animal.
Occupying a country on the other hand, is a much different animal.
I grew up in a Navy town, in a Navy family, with officers and intelligence workers. These discussions can be fun, and reveal how crazily advanced our navy is. My step brother and his mate once told me a story about how they pinpointed the location of Iraqi officers and their troops from like 1,000 miles away, coordinated with the army and marines to seperate them from civilians, then bombed them and captured most with the assistance of SEAL's, all in the span of a few hours. It's pretty crazy what the Navy is capable of.
Elfforkusu
Member
I love that we've made this thread about satellites and space debris. Hell yeah!
The other problem is that the number of satellites in GSO is going up and up. The defunct ones just get moved out of the way. At some point, somebody's going to knock over the first domino.
It's just way too easy to add more, and way too hard to clean up. We'll probably be fine if nobody ever toasts a satellite in LEO again, but somehow I doubt that we'll keep things that clean.
The other problem is that the number of satellites in GSO is going up and up. The defunct ones just get moved out of the way. At some point, somebody's going to knock over the first domino.
There is no country on earth that could even reach all of the US Navy's carrier groups at once(not counting nuclear ICBMs of course), much less sink them all.
At most their would be 2 carrier groups in theater for any remotely realistic scenario. Maybe 3.
The enemy would then have to find and precisely track the location of the fleet to launch a missile strike that would actually hit anything, which means they would have to be able to track dozens of targets over hundreds of square miles of ocean without being detected (and immediately blown out of the water).
Which is not to say that a carrier group is invincible, if your throw enough small boats and planes at it, eventually enough will get through for you to get an accurate sighting for missile launches. But if you do manage to sink even an entire carrier group with minimal losses (unlikely, but say you get lucky and catch them with their pants down like in that exercise above), all you really do is delay your fate by a couple of weeks for the next carrier strike group to steam over.
At most their would be 2 carrier groups in theater for any remotely realistic scenario. Maybe 3.
The enemy would then have to find and precisely track the location of the fleet to launch a missile strike that would actually hit anything, which means they would have to be able to track dozens of targets over hundreds of square miles of ocean without being detected (and immediately blown out of the water).
Which is not to say that a carrier group is invincible, if your throw enough small boats and planes at it, eventually enough will get through for you to get an accurate sighting for missile launches. But if you do manage to sink even an entire carrier group with minimal losses (unlikely, but say you get lucky and catch them with their pants down like in that exercise above), all you really do is delay your fate by a couple of weeks for the next carrier strike group to steam over.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
Ha, is that a whole movie? I don't know much about the topic but some of the subjects brought up are interesting... So you got the most advance military that can build incredible things yet you have a bureaucratic, bravado culture that impedes progress.
Even if you eliminated all of the surface vessels the US NAVY has enough submarines to dominate the oceans, plus nukes would be flying shortly after the first aircraft carrier goes down.
The US also has the shipbuilding and training infrastructure that can't be rivaled without decades of experience, in other words it would be able to rebuild capable fleets
The US also has the shipbuilding and training infrastructure that can't be rivaled without decades of experience, in other words it would be able to rebuild capable fleets
The Silent Service/Royal Navy Submarine Service and Russia are pretty much the only two entities that still have a shot at getting close enough to do any serious damage to a US aircraft carrier.
The US would bomb a nation's ship building infrastructure within the opening hours of any war in which they posed a serious threat, so it's kind of moot. Russia knows this, which is why they try so hard to maintain as many harbors as they can. Fruitless endeavor really.
Elfforkusu
Member
I do think that the complacency at the tactical level evident here:
... is real, and in this hypothetical war it would cost the US a number of carriers and lives at the outset.
But after a bloody embarrassment or two, the fools would be weeded out and the technical superiority would finally be a strength instead of a weakness.
Aeriscloud
Banned
I would bet $750,000,000,000 a year that the US navy would be just fine.
MisterFalcon
Member
Milennium Challenge was such a joke. You can apparently change all your military communications to unmonitorable motorcycle couriers without any loss of speed or quality in communicating. And every fishing boat can be instantly converted to a fully operational missile boat with a trained crew to carry out a coordinated attack with said couriers and orders broadcast through loudspeakers. All that was missing was a cheat code that made all Iraqi soldiers invulnerable.
Whoever was running that should have said 'lol, no' at Van Ripen's ideas but apparently they thought it was fun to go along with his plan.
I don't know where you get that idea. The main mission of NSA as shown in the website is Information Assurance, safe guarding US security networks, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. The only leaks have come from people inside bringing out physical media with information, not from attacks on networks.
Here https://www.nsa.gov/ia/index.shtml they talk about it and even have some decent articles that are written describing what they are trying to do and why. I wouldn't be to worried about our networks as long as they don't take out the cable or power.
The British Astute class sub would probably be the most likely boat to get past the destroyers in the carrier strike group undetected. I don't know If I have all that much faith in Russia's fleet of attack subs though.
The second part is certainly true. Any real war would inevitably start out with a strategic bombing campaign to cripple the opponents ability to fight back.
The advantage of a carrier strike group is the ability to stay active for months at a time without going home, good luck doing trying to do that with a regular navy when all your ports have been bombed to shit and you can't get resupplied. It's not the navy's job to win the war, the navy's job is to keep the enemy contained and wear them down over time. So the navy would stay just outside of accurate anti-ship missile range and blow up every ship that tried to leave or enter the target country.
TacticalFox88
Banned
But really though, could you imagine the political shitstorm if a carrier was sunk in modern times? That's twice the number of casualties of 9/11
If you think about it, all you need is some fishing boats and RC aircraft to destroy the Navy and invade the mainland US. They would be sitting ducks.
Elfforkusu
Member
They knew about Heartbleed well in advance and sat on it. Having the offensive capability was more important than securing the hole.
Critical US infrastructure (the part I am thinking of is the power grid) relies on openSSL, e.g. was at risk. I don't care what their PR says, their actions strongly imply that they don't give a shit about defense.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Hahaha
This topic is why Modern Warfare 2 and 3 utterly baffled me.
Infinity Ward must've been on some serious drugs if they seriously thought not only could Russia REACH New York Harbor, but their vessels are actively staying there for hours without getting sunk?
:lol
Abinash117
Member
I don't know much about some stuff either but I try
Well first off you need to know the capabilities of both sides like everything from weaponry, intelligence, countermeasures, surveillance, logistics, experience, numbers,strategies, tactics, money, building capabilities during wartime and the types of units , and other things I mentioned.
The thing is militaries build countermeasures or use strategies and tactics to counter weapons. The US carriers do not travel alone and travel with destroyers and other types of ships. I would thing those ships also has weapons to at least try to destroy oncoming missiles. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/powerhouse/cvbg.asp or just use wiki.
Also, obviously the US military isn't like going put it's whole navy on one side of the enemy country , maybe they will attack many sides at the same time, or one side as a decoy. It also depends on the geographical nature of the country invading Russia through sea would be difficult and going through Siberia would probably be difficult because there probably isn't much there and the terrain would be difficult.
Sometimes some countries can produce a lot of weaponry, but if they can't make more then it does not matter. The enemy probably has the tech, but it depends if they have enough to begin with or can produce a lot. I don't know the US military's full capability during wartime. Here the types of ships the US navy has and some other things .
And that's just aircraft carriers
I don't understand, Wiki says US has like 68 and UK has 40. What is this picture?
EDIT: I read the Wiki page wrong says many were decommissioned and whatnot.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
fawaz said:
The Ballistic Missile Defense System
Then there's Ground Based Midcourse Defense. Then there are PAC-3 Missiles.
You do know there is an entire branch of the US military that has the sole mission of defending against ballistic missiles, right? I mean, I guess if you take the navy in isolation Ballistic Missiles are a bigger deal, but the Aegis BMDS and Phalanx CIWS.
MisterFalcon
Member
The idea of a ballistic missile hitting an aircraft carrier is pretty ludicrous. The very word ballistic means the point of impact is set on launch and that works pretty well when you're shooting cities but not against a moving target. China and Russia have been working on quasi-ballistic missiles that are awesome on paper but really hard to make work in reality. Going at Mach 12 is great for kinetic impact and avoiding countermeasures but makes it also very hard to do course corrections to actually hit its target.
The demise of the large surface ship has been predicted many times before. Cannons would make ships too vulnerable. Then torpedoes came to finally finish them off. Airplanes. Missiles. And now ballistic missiles FROM SPACE !
The demise of the large surface ship has been predicted many times before. Cannons would make ships too vulnerable. Then torpedoes came to finally finish them off. Airplanes. Missiles. And now ballistic missiles FROM SPACE !
The described war would start with continous all-out missile launches from the ships to destroy any big targets in range actually capable of threatening the ships. Considering the power of the typical navy versus the amount of airstrips and airbases on land, it would probably be the airforce that is taken out first. Also, in a war between two equal forces at current technology, the ground troops are probably both the most and least likely to win the war. It depends on how fast both countries could take out each other's technology.
The biggest weakness of the US is that they think they are invincible. OP is right that those giant super expensive aircraft carriers are in fact very vulnerable.
This thread makes me want to read "Red Storm Rising" again over the holidays.
Basileus777
Member
Very vulnerable to what? Not any force currently in existence. To even make the OP's premise work you need to invent a fictional opponent.
Quoting Amjads post here:
Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications. The Naval Simulation, Joint Semi-Automated Forces (JSAF) had neither a sophisticated electronic network nor the modeling of WWII lights at the time of MC-02 according to the developer of the JSAF simulation; Mr. Guy Purser, Director, Modeling and Simulation, NWDC.
Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. At approximately the same time that Red had located Blue forces, operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self-defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships while the JSAF simulator operators sat and watched without responding defensively or offensively. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.;[1] again it should be noted, the JSAF simulation did not at that time have the suicide behaviors modeled nor the damage models of interactions of a small boat impacting a ship.
At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[2] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action. This was done to achieve the real goals of the exercise and experiment which was to stimulate command and control systems which determine the outcome of the scenario.[3]
After the wargame was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[4] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[5]
This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open free play test of America's war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming American victory,[4] alleging that "$250 million was wasted".[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Jezbollah
Member
And that's just aircraft carriers
And it's also out of date.
Google "HMS Queen Elizabeth"
MisterFalcon
Member
Basically the REDFOR sent out some boats, spotted the American ships, relayed the info to Van Ripen-Hussein in Baghdad who ordered a missile strike. Using motorcycle couriers without any delays.
Worried about your Internet being monitored ? Use motorcycle couriers, you can use them to get info instantly and safely over any distance.
Worried about your Internet being monitored ? Use motorcycle couriers, you can use them to get info instantly and safely over any distance.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
So, assuming America parks its fleet within missile range of the enemies before declaring war or launching preemptive strikes of their own, all of the defensive countermeasures are turned off and nobody in charge of the ships attempts to neutralize launch sites, shoot down incoming missiles or even take evasive manuevers, the defending party gets a good fix on the position and movements of the American fleet, and achieves all this without the use of radar or modern communications techniques, there is a chance that they could inflict significant damage through cruise missile spam and swarms of small suicide ships.
I think counting that one already is a bit premature seeing as we don't have any bloody planes that can land on it.
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
Do you know who the Navy Seals are OP?
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Really the biggest issue in the OP's scenario is that the US ground forces are the hardest to mobilize. Armor is too heavy to deploy quickly.
Derekloffin
Member
I don't think ballistic missiles would be the concern for a major engagement. I think more the concern is a nuclear attack which can be delivered in all kinds of ways. A carrier fleet is very vulnerable to this kind of attack as it doesn't even need to get through the outer fleet defenses to devastate that fleet.
That said, I don't think the navy would be useless, just not as useful as it normally is. Submarines should still be able to contribute, and carrier groups would just have to be held back to well protected waters.
Now, against an equally equipped opponent, I think the navy would largely be render scrap very quick (even the submarines), but that's academic since there is no such equal force out there at the moment.
That said, I don't think the navy would be useless, just not as useful as it normally is. Submarines should still be able to contribute, and carrier groups would just have to be held back to well protected waters.
Now, against an equally equipped opponent, I think the navy would largely be render scrap very quick (even the submarines), but that's academic since there is no such equal force out there at the moment.
Something like that
US commanders does something reckless and the enemy responds in a way nobody anticipated.
MisterFalcon
Member
Something like that
US commanders does something reckless and the enemy responds in a way nobody anticipated.
And is also impossible.
- Status