Naval strategy, naval power: uses & abuses

[Fuchs]

So you don't the think the USN's force structure is unsuitable for keeping the oceans free. They have done pretty well over the last 70 years so I think I'll defer to their judgment as to what works.

That's an assertion. Prove it.
(Obviously, you can't. That would require parallel universe experiments as evidence, and those don't exist. This, of course, means that the assertion is unfounded.)
I might as well say the UN has kept maritime trade safe. That's about as impossible to prove.

I understand the high regard you have for American ideals but even we don't go so far as to protect an enemy's commerce from third party attack.

Well, this kinda ridicules the whole assertion of protecting global maritime trade even for countries such as China, doesn't it?

Always feels good to thump the Americans for a mistake.

It was no mistake. it was an attempt to murder two Iranian aircrews and went wrong, killing much more and other Iranians instead.

Saying you are neutral don't make you neutral. Your attitude has been a common one expressed by anti-Americans since I was a little boy. I still remember seeing "Yankee go home!" painted on walls.

I'm about as harsh on the Bundeswehr, but the Bundeswehr is less active and thus offers less opportunities for exposing its failures.
Plus the Bundeswehr hasn't such an inflated sense of self-importance.

You should probably remember that the USN has waxed and waned in size depending upon the threat.

That's rather "depending on the degree of DoD and Congress procurement incompetence".

Forward basing has been used by navies since forever. It is not a newly created bureaucratic stratagem dreamed up by the Navy to further its' interests. Also if I remember correctly some of those big carriers were not rotated home. They were home based abroad, as were some subs. That cuts down on the number of ships needed but makes sure they are in position quick.

Even the RN has never based such a large percentage of its ships in distant waters, nor were said waters ever very distant to English crown territories as is for example the Persian Gulf from CONUS.

The Navy having so high a percentage of the world's combatant tonnage is more a matter or their weakness than our strength. And why shouldn't they be weak? We and the RN having been keeping things in order more or less for the last 200 years or so.

I get it, you surely bought into those talking points / myths.


Your whole thinking here is illogical. There's no reason to assume the USN size as fixed, thus no reason to explain its relative size with the other's small size.

The USN is so large because of
- political inertia
- bureaucratic behaviour

It's much bigger than required for land attack AND bullying AND defeating other navies combined. It's really politics and bureaucratic behaviour that explain its size.

DoD. I always thought the Navy was part of our defenses. I don't see how you could have a Dept. of Defense without a navy part.

I was clearly hinting at the navy not being part of national defense. It's part of national strategic offense, not national defense.



Oops, I forgot. Cuba crisis. Unilateral naval embargo (after deploying own nukes to Turkey was apparently totally OK).
Maybe some people have an idea why a so terribly self-contradictory and unreliable global maritime shipping protector ain't no global maritime shipping protector, but a threat to global maritime shipping.
I for one cannot remember so terribly many naval peacetime embargoes that were neither permitted by the UN nor unilaterally staged by the U.S..



Besides; that "anti-Americanism" thing is lame in discussions. Sounds a lot like "the terrorists hate our freedom" BS.
I won't call it an ad hominem attack for being contra a country is not in itself bad (although I'd rather say I'm anti-U.S. policies than anti-American).
After all, certain countries in the world deserve the pushback they receive because they torture, kidnap, assassinate, invade other countries in wars of aggression, bomb other countries at will, support evil dictators, threatened the world with nuclear holocaust for decades ... well, you get the point.

[carl]

That's an assertion. Prove it.
(Obviously, you can't. That would require parallel universe experiments as evidence, and those don't exist. This, of course, means that the assertion is unfounded.)
I might as well say the UN has kept maritime trade safe. That's about as impossible to prove.

No, that wasn't an assertion. It was a comment upon your opinion.

Well, this kinda ridicules the whole assertion of protecting global maritime trade even for countries such as China, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. It just means it is a normal thing not intervene on behalf of an enemy when a third party attacks it. I pays not be enemies with us, or it has in the past.

It was no mistake. it was an attempt to murder two Iranian aircrews and went wrong, killing much more and other Iranians instead.

That is your opinion. Mine is that it was an attempt at self defense gone awry for a number of reasons, some of them not very good ones.

That's rather "depending on the degree of DoD and Congress procurement incompetence".

The effect is the same.

Even the RN has never based such a large percentage of its ships in distant waters, nor were said waters ever very distant to English crown territories as is for example the Persian Gulf from CONUS.

I don't know the specifics but things were very different then from now. Technology accounts for a lot of that. Geography accounts for a lot more. I'll have to look it up but I think the RN had squadrons and bases in India, the Pacific and Singapore. Those places are pretty far from the British Isles.

I get it, you surely bought into those talking points / myths.

I always do when they make sense to me.

Your whole thinking here is illogical. There's no reason to assume the USN size as fixed, thus no reason to explain its relative size with the other's small size.

The USN is so large because of
- political inertia
- bureaucratic behaviour

It's much bigger than required for land attack AND bullying AND defeating other navies combined. It's really politics and bureaucratic behaviour that explain its size.

I don't think my thinking is illogical. I think it is perfectly logical. I just think you are wrong.

Oops, I forgot. Cuba crisis. Unilateral naval embargo (after deploying own nukes to Turkey was apparently totally OK).
Maybe some people have an idea why a so terribly self-contradictory and unreliable global maritime shipping protector ain't no global maritime shipping protector, but a threat to global maritime shipping.

We were involved in the cold war at the time. In times of war, we don't permit enemies freedom of the seas. We interfered with Japanese shipping from 1941 to 1945 also. Of course sometimes we don't, the Korean War and the Vietnam conflict being two cases in point.

Besides; that "anti-Americanism" thing is lame in discussions. Sounds a lot like "the terrorists hate our freedom" BS.
I won't call it an ad hominem attack for being contra a country is not in itself bad (although I'd rather say I'm anti-U.S. policies than anti-American).
After all, certain countries in the world deserve the pushback they receive because they torture, kidnap, assassinate, invade other countries in wars of aggression, bomb other countries at will, support evil dictators, threatened the world with nuclear holocaust for decades ... well, you get the point.

Anti-Americanism may be lame but it is real. Go ahead and push. I'll push back. Yes, I get the point. We're evil hypocrites.

I think it useful to look at how some of the countries closest to China view their naval ambitions. They seem a bit suspicious. The Viets haven't purchased submarines because they are afraid of the USN. It is because they are afraid of China's intentions.

[Fuchs]

Have a look at the non-existing air/ship combat capabilities of a F-14 fighter, at the altitude it was supposedly flying at, the straight line it was supposedly flying at, typical air/ship attack patterns, the USS Vincennes' (not Tico, sry) CIWS and then tell me again that was self-defence.
Self-defence in peacetime, of course.

Maybe sometime the Cubans should kill a New Orleans-Rio de Janeiro airliner and claim it was a ship's self-defence against a RC-135. Then we'd see how see how serious and consistent the U.S. is in its idea of what's self-defence and what's not.

I'm seriously fed up with this "bombing a wedding was a F-16's self defence against AK muzzle fire" line of institutionalised lying.

[Entropy]

I'm seriously fed up with this "bombing a wedding was a F-16's self defence against AK muzzle fire" line of institutionalised lying.

That's a pretty bold accusation. You are saying here that these weren't accidents or even negligence but "murder," which the intentional killing of innocents. That means that the people who gave the orders that led to those deaths and/or the people who "pulled the trigger" knew they were murdering. That analysis doesn't match the facts of any of the cases you've cited, Fuchs, but obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and people can judge for themselves what to think of your accusations and come to their own conclusions. Frankly I'm surprised that someone who has studied conflict and war as much as you have would think that such incidents can only be explained by murder.

As to the roles of the US Navy, it's important to keep in mind that many countries are defensively allied with the US where the US is obligated to militarily defend those countries. For such treaties to be effective, the US must have the credible ability to actually come to the aid of said nations. That requires a strong Navy so that the US can assure sea access to its allies in times of war and crisis to transport troops, supplies, equipment, etc. Without that ability our defensive treaties are greatly diminished in terms of credibility. We have allies in the Middle East, Europe and Asia and guess where our Naval forces are concentrated?

I think Fuch's is right to a certain extent that during peacetime the "sea lanes" are open by default because it's usually in everyone's interest to keep them open. But we don't live in a perfect world, the world isn't always peaceful, and the US economy depends on global trade. As a result, the US is not about to simply assume that commerce will never be interdicted (even if we had no defense alliances).

[Fuchs]

Entropy, a F-14 is no threat to a cruiser, shooting it down is thus no self-defence, still trying to shoot it down equals trying to kill the pilots and since that happened without a state of war or similar it's an attempt to murder them.
One might discuss the difference between murder and manslaughter in this case, but that's about it.


About the repeated bombing of civilian concentrations with the "muzzle flash, self defence" excuse: There's no way how counter-attacking is safer than flying away with afterburner. Thus it was no self-defence. Furthermore, those pilots can be expected to know that no 57 mm AAA was with any degree of likeliness the source of the muzzle flashes, and anything below that (basically only 23mm, 14.5mm, 12.7mm or 7.62mm) is pretty much ineffective unless the aircraft was really, really low. In that case, attacking would again be the least safe path of action.


The U.S. military has a pattern of using wrong "self-defense" claims as an excuse for when trigger happiness went wrong or when it was eager to kill at the fringe of the ROE. I know that it's not the only military with this defect; others have reacted similarly in Afghanistan and Iraq, even the Bundeswehr. It's a discipline and leadership issue.

But we don't live in a perfect world, the world isn't always peaceful, and the US economy depends on global trade.

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

[Ken White]

... still trying to shoot it down equals trying to kill the pilots and since that happened without a state of war or similar it's an attempt to murder them.
One might discuss the difference between murder and manslaughter in this case, but that's about it.

As was said above you're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure some agree with you. I for one do not...

Negligent homicide, yes. Manslaughter or murder, no. That's not a semantic quibble, it's the difference between the right of self defense inherent to any military or naval element and an intentional and deliberate criminal act -- which that shoot down was not.

The U.S. military has a pattern of using wrong "self-defense" claims as an excuse for when trigger happiness went wrong or when it was eager to kill at the fringe of the ROE...

The latter is quite rare, the former quite prevalent -- we are in fact trigger happy. And we are in fact suckered into firing on occasion by those astute enough to play on that as that penchant for trigger happiness is well known. We know it too. We do not feel a need to apologize for it. Self defense may be alien to Europe nowadays, it is not to us.

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

France and the UK?

Or Pakistan . Egypt didn't do too bad...

[Dayuhan]

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

Whoever has the greatest capacity for intervention will always do the most intervening, UN or no UN.

[Entropy]

I don't really have much to add to what Ken said.

[Sigaba]

It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.

As you say:

That's an assertion. Prove it.

And by proof, I mean archival evidence or historical works based upon archival evidence that shows naval planners had no intention of using battleships and aircraft carriers to conduct operations against opposing fleets.

[Fuchs]

I don't have much time today.

For starters, read up on the German Risikoflotte/risk fleet theory/strategy and the RN's "spit & polish" school of officers and their lack of emphasis on battleworthiness. Then think about the Soviet Fleet of the mid/late Cold War.

These are the most obvious cases.

[carl]

For starters, read up on the German Risikoflotte/risk fleet theory/strategy and the RN's "spit & polish" school of officers and their lack of emphasis on battleworthiness. Then think about the Soviet Fleet of the mid/late Cold War.

I think you are confusing risikoflotte with a fleet in being. The risk fleet was intended to prevent war from starting. If the war did start, the theory fell flat on its face. It was based mainly on frightening the other guy. It wouldn't work if he didn't get scared. Now that may be considered building cool ships with the intention never to use them, but it was a German theory I believe, not a British, American or Japanese one.

A fleet in being is a tactic to preserve an inferior force so it can have at least some influence on its' stronger opponent. The tactic is hide in port so the superior force will have a hard time getting at you and has to detail forces to watch you if you do come out to die. It is something that is forced upon the inferior navy by circumstance, not by intention. The Germans had to do it in WWII because the war started several years before their navy was ready. Fleet in being doesn't work so good now because of airpower. Boats are a lot easier to find and hit if they are sitting in port.

As far as the RN's "spit and polish", you are confusing the incompetence of a military force that hadn't had any real battles to fight, with strategy. The RN may not have been so ready for battle in WWI but they fought anyway.

The Soviet Cold War fleet was built around submarines. Those always get used. I don't see how you could say their fleet wasn't built to fight.

[Fuchs]

Simple. It was built for deterrence, for looking good in wargames.
The Soviets did not intend to wage WW3.

It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.

(new bold)


The RN of the 1880's and 1890's (spit and polish school era)can hardly have built its battleships for peer2peer fights because there was no peer.
The same goes for the USN. There is no fleet that could oppose more than a fraction of it, thus the USN is mostly for

... impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power ...

Again; it would look very different and not so land-attack-centric if it was about patrols for securing global maritime trade.
It would have many multi-purpose cruisers for independent action, many sea control ships, much less amphibious capacity, less cruise missiles.

[carl]

Simple. It was built for deterrence, for looking good in wargames.
The Soviets did not intend to wage WW3.

Nobody intended to wage WWIII. If it had started it would have been a mistake. But if it had started they would have deployed those boats and they would have fought and as such the boats were built to fight. Deterrence doesn't work if you are faking it. Building weapons without the genuine determination to use them if needed isn't deterrence. I'll accept that those boats were built to help deter but that means they were meant to fight.

The RN of the 1880's and 1890's (spit and polish school era)can hardly have built its battleships for peer2peer fights because there was no peer.
The same goes for the USN. There is no fleet that could oppose more than a fraction of it...

The RN and USN that you cite had created a situation whereby they dominated the seas of the world. They did that by fighting. In order to preserve that situation they maintained their dominance by replacing ships, modernizing them and maintaining superiority in naval power. By doing that they kept a peer power from arising. That was the whole point. It worked. But it would not have worked if those ships had not had genuine naval capabilities, i.e. if they had not been able to fight.

Again; it would look very different and not so land-attack-centric if it was about patrols for securing global maritime trade.
It would have many multi-purpose cruisers for independent action, many sea control ships, much less amphibious capacity, less cruise missiles.

And again, I accept the judgment of the USN as to what is needed in preference to yours.

The people who built, manned and paid for these navies said they did so because they might need them in case a fight came up. I think I'll take them at their word and disregard yours.

[Fuchs]

Well, they're incompetent if they need so much hardware for actual fleet actions given the modest non-allied naval power in the world and the more than modest allied naval power in the world.
Even if they did intend this force structure for more purposes than I mentioned; they'd be incompetent in this case. Only incompetents need such a force ratio or spend so much extra wealth of their country on the multiplying the degree of superiority. I don't respect the judgement of incompetents.

So either they're incompetent or the purpose of such a huge navy (and historical precedents) was not to wage major wars against other fleets, but
* impress foreign leaders
* bullying (land attack mostly)


It's hard to come up with a calculation that compares fiscal costs of different forms of major war fighting and still comes to the conclusion that the immensely expensive carrier groups and amphibious forces are more cost-efficient than other forms of assisting allies. Amphibious forces, for example, are at most counterattack forces in a strategic (alliance) defence.


There is of course another explanation, and I'm disappointed that nobody brought this one yet.
We could also explain large navies with an uncontrolled, accidental development and a lot of institutional inertia.
That would kinda lead to the "Niiskanen's bureaucrat" concept, of course.

[Sigaba]

That's an assertion. Prove it.

I don't have much time today.

Fuchs--

At your convenience, please do provide historiographically credible sources as evidence to support your broad generalizations about modern naval history.

To be clear, the specific interpretation you offered follows.

It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.

IMO, your argument requires you to provide evidence that the overwhelming majority of naval building programs and concurrent planning were for show, not fighting.

Nobody intended to wage WWIII.

Carl--

With respect, I disagree. The Maritime Strategy--along with its plans to build a "600 ship fleet"--reflected the U.S. Navy's intention to fight a global war against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.

[carl]

With respect, I disagree. The Maritime Strategy--along with its plans to build a "600 ship fleet"--reflected the U.S. Navy's intention to fight a global war against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say nobody wanted WWIII to start.