tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11281785.post112390070952696759..comments2023-11-29T12:07:22.085-05:00Comments on Hundreds of Fathoms: Submarines True Systems of “Transformation”Lubber's Linehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04468230340697431017noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11281785.post-1124852230831409542005-08-23T22:57:00.000-04:002005-08-23T22:57:00.000-04:00Paul, thanks for the comments on the post. I’m in ...Paul, thanks for the comments on the post. I’m in agreement with your assessment about the post cold war military drift. The military is not any less capable or lethal; they are doing more with less these days and kicking butt in the process. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for having a well-defined foe. Things seemed much more linear against the Soviets. You pretty much knew what your enemy’s capabilities were and could counter that capability in a like manner. Even when the adversary was not directly the Soviet Union it was in all likelihood a surrogate or someone using Soviet hardware.<BR/><BR/>Today our enemies have learned the lessons of the cold war, that is do not compete directly with the US military in a conventional battle space. You will lose if not by superior tactics and weapons then through economic attrition. Because our main opponent uses unconventional warfare, terrorist tactics, big-ticket weapons systems seem less important or not necessary. However, as we continue to draw down our expensive systems in favor of special ops boots and hardware a future adversary may see a new weakness to exploit. <BR/><BR/>I don’t see China confronting us directly on anything but maybe Taiwan, and only if the Taiwanese push the Chinese into it by demanding independence. China’s behavior is more competitive than adversarial of late, but it is still a totalitarian state and therefore runs the risk of becoming something we fought two world wars and a cold war in twentieth century to prevent.<BR/><BR/>There is still a place in this new world for these mature cold war weapons systems, but only if these systems are adaptable and it core ability is its unpredictability though stealth. Submarines are that weapons system.Lubber's Linehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04468230340697431017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11281785.post-1124806555375637312005-08-23T10:15:00.000-04:002005-08-23T10:15:00.000-04:00Lubber:Seems to me the whole military continues to...Lubber:<BR/><BR/>Seems to me the whole military continues to struggle finding a mission in the post-Soviet era. I was an ASW type 30 years ago, and our training was all about keeping tabs on the Soviet boats. I begged my way aboard an FFG in the Bahamas a couple of years ago, and the crewmembers I spoke to said they didn't even bother doing ASW patrols any more -- they just assisted the Coasties in drug interdiction (by providing radar and elint support).<BR/><BR/>There are still bad guys out there -- I'm convinced that at some point we'll get into some pushing and shoving with the Chinese. We don't want to invade China, and they don't want to take over the US, but each of us wants to have access to the same resources and markets. They'll start nibbling at some point - Taiwan first - and see what we do.<BR/><BR/>Much as I hate to say it -- I think the question is how much of a surface fleet do we need? Carriers are impressive to look at, but you have to support them with a whole array of screening vessels. Can't we accomplish much of their mission using SSNs with cruise missles and USAF assets?<BR/><BR/>How do we put Marines ashore if we don't have a surface fleet? The answer I think is that we don't have to land troops from the sea. The last time we mounted an amphibious landing, the news journalists were on the beach waiting for them. How nuts is it that we have SEAL units in the mountains of Afganastan? Why do we have Green Berets, and SEALs (2500 of them??), and USMC Force Recon, etc? Everyone has to 'get some' these days, and it makes for goofy tasking.<BR/><BR/>A couple of years ago, I heard a speech by a 4-star admiral named Owens. His position was that if we were designing the military today, there wouldn't be four branches. The military would be a unified command, eliminating the overlap and competition we have today. It was interesting that one example he gave was the existance of Walter Reed and Bethesda hospitals within miles of each other. I thought it was pretty gutsy that the BRAC recommendations included the elimination of Walter Reed.<BR/><BR/>I'd keep a strong sub force. As has been the case for 40 years, we need a deterrent force that can't be neutralized.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11281785.post-1124126379145010842005-08-15T13:19:00.000-04:002005-08-15T13:19:00.000-04:00Thanks! I'll have to set aside time to give this a...Thanks! I'll have to set aside time to give this a read. ~WillWillyShakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05099109326945002650noreply@blogger.com