Naval strategy, naval power: uses & abuses

[Bob's World]

Moderator's Note

I've created this thread after several posts on the 'China tells navy to prepare for combat' veered away to discussing historical and current naval strategy, alongside sharp exchanges on the perception - trying to be diplomatic - of naval power being abused. Yes, notably by the USN.

You need to visit the original thread to gain some context:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=14686

Now back to Bob.

All Navies have this mandate. Right?

The Chinese want so much to be like the US. They aren't, and won't be.

An interesting article. After reading through the thread I did a quick Google search to see what others had written about when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power. Interestingly, the article most on point was written by the Chinese...

http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/83.full

[carl]

...when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power.

When did this happen? After the War of 1812 the American Navy never even came close to the Royal Navy until after war between the countries was acknowledged by both sides as being well nigh inconceivable. To my knowledge, after the heavy frigates got bottled up we never challenged the RN.

[Fuchs]

The USN was enlarged to face the RN after 1895.
Pres. Cleveland was fed up with a cool and relaxed UK reply in a Venezuelan-British Guyana border conflict. The British knew that the U.S. had no power in the region for want of a powerful fleet.

About a decade later, the USN was still clearly inferior, but a relevant force as long as the British had to patrol many other waters (especially the North Sea with a battle fleet + Atlantic and Indian Ocean with cruisers).

The thing I don't get is that China has done very well out of America, including and especially use of the world's sea lanes courtesy of the US Navy. If it hadn't been for America, the Chinese middle class/apparatchiks would still be crawling around in the mud with the peasants.

Why mess with a good thing?

Americans and their belief in demand as driver of an economy are really funny at times. It makes no sense from a macroeconomic point of view (the U.S middle class rather has to thank the Chinese for working in part for mere promises of physical returns), but it's really amusing.

The same goes for the American belief in the importance of the USN for world-wide secured shipping on the Oceans. Pirates arise as first real threat to shipping in decades, the USN plays a tiny role in an inefficient multinational countermeasure (basically comparable to Indian efforts) and the Americans still think that it's their and only their navy that keeps global trade possible.

Many people would be surprised if they learned how much % value (not volume or mass) of global trade happens with air freight services, not maritime shipping.

[carl]

Sorry Fuchs, I don't buy that. Strengthening of the Navy had a lot of causes but the need to possibly fight the RN wasn't one of them.

[Fuchs]

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.

[carl]

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.

What good is a big stick if people aren't convinced you will use it if the need arises?

Those ships don't get risked in battle very often because big naval fights don't happen very often. When the big fights happen the ships sail into harms way.

[Fuchs]

Who says the people who count (politicians) don't believe that capital ships would be risked in battle?


By the way; capital ship employment has often been very careful.
See WWI sea battles, WW2 Mediterranean battleship employment, Battle of Midway, Russian de facto non-use of its battleships in both World Wars.

[carl]

You carefully employ all your power. It is foolish to do otherwise. It might be more helpful to look at how many of the ships that started the war were still afloat at the end.

[Bob's World]

When did this happen? After the War of 1812 the American Navy never even came close to the Royal Navy until after war between the countries was acknowledged by both sides as being well nigh inconceivable. To my knowledge, after the heavy frigates got bottled up we never challenged the RN.

Read what I wrote. I said "...about when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power."

It is a matter of history that the US was able to focus internally to develop a Continental nation and build our global commerce under the protection of the British Navy. Perhaps you place the wrong meaning on the word "challenge"? Not challenge as in head to head battle, we were allies and competitors. But rather challenge for the status as we climbed to "near peer," to "peer" and ultimately to surpass as the premier navy on seas.

China too has benefited from a powerful US Navy as they established themselves on their continent. The Chinese article lays out that it is now their turn to similarly rise to take their place some day in that role as top global naval power, and that the US should see and accept their rise in the same light that the Brits viewed ours.

[Dayuhan]

It is a matter of history that the US was able to focus internally to develop a Continental nation and build our global commerce under the protection of the British Navy.

From whom did the Royal Navy protect our global commerce?

From whom did the US Navy protect Chinese commerce?

I agree with Fuchs that Chinese commerce has not faced any threat requiring American or any other protection.

I'd also point out that China's economic dependence on commodity imports and merchandise exports produces a real vulnerability. If China finds itself in conflict with another party, that party might well decide to strike outside the range of most Chinese military force by interdicting Chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean. If that were to happen the Chinese obviously couldn't depend on the US to protect its commercial interests.

It's really not unreasonable or surprising for China to want an independent capacity to protect its trade if it needs to do so, rather than depending on others, especially when the others are potential rivals.

[carl]

The Chinese article lays out that it is now their turn to similarly rise to take their place some day in that role as top global naval power, and that the US should see and accept their rise in the same light that the Brits viewed ours.

That's not how I read the article. The primary point of the article was how the US and Great Britain transformed from enemies that fought wars into the closest of friends. The US Navy didn't start its' real growth until AFTER (I would have bolded that but I don't know how) war between the nations was a near impossibility because of that amity. The article details how the friendship between the nations came to be, both sides showing restraint over the decades. One of the things that did not happen was the British showing restraint in the face of a hostile country making a great big navy.

That is a fundamentally different situation from the one we face now. If anything the article argues that China should not build a big navy and should emulate the 19th century US by concentrating instead on economic growth.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Both the RN and the USN created and maintained oceans free on any real threat to anybody's commerce. The system they established and maintained made it look as if there wasn't any threat out there. There wasn't any threat out there because if any had started to arise it would have been crushed. The primary purpose of the systems was/is to insure free commerce for all countries that ultimately benefits both countries greatly. It was not to gain short term advantage.

That is what makes China's apparent naval ambitions so scary. There is no real reason for it. The system as it exists benefits everybody and doesn't cost the Chinese anything. Does anybody believe that a repressive police state that runs the biggest espionage operation in the history of the world and for whom pirated intellectual property is a significant part of their GDP, does anybody believe they would set up and run as benign a system as the RN and USN have? I sure as hell don't.

It should be observed that China will have a very hard time getting to be a really important naval power. They don't have a real naval tradition. They aren't an island nation. Their geographic position is lousy. I don't get the "Woe is me. The Chinese are coming and can't be stopped." subtext I sometimes detect in various publications here and there.

[Fuchs]

Sooo... when and how exactly did the USN crush Somali piracy without CNN learning about it?


Sorry, the structure of the USN is suitable for land attack and bullying foreign countries, not for securing maritime trade. The latter would demand modern cruisers - high seas patrol ships / sea control ships. I see a lot of offensive aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and amphibious aircraft carriers instead.


Plus: It's impossible to prove that there would have been any major disruption of maritime trade if there was no USN.
The only case that comes close is the Persian Gulf during the 80's, and I don't recall the USN protecting tankers leaving Iranian harbours against Iraqi Mirage F.1 and their Exocets (keep in mind Iran was the victim of an obvious war of aggression then!). The USS Stark was fine with the Mirage F.1 on such an attack mission until it got misunderstood for a tanker itself.
Meanwhile during the same conflict, USS Ticonderoga displayed USN standards of excellence by grasping an opportunity to claim "self defence" and shoot down an Iranian aircraft. Damn the journalists who knew enough to point out that the supposed F-14 was not a threat to a missile cruiser and damn the bad luck that the F-14 was an airliner on an announced, scheduled flight!



Sorry, if viewed from a neutral stance, the USN is more of a threat, a lingering aggressor, than any valiant protector of maritime trade.
The U.S. has mis-used the 'free maritime trade' idea so often as excuse for entering hostilities and violated it at will so often as well by restricting maritime trade itself that I don't see why a foreigner should buy into the U.S. chest-beating about supposedly providing a great service to mankind by securing maritime trade against threats.



Now from another point of view:
Pretty much every military is first and foremost a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies strive for maximising their size up to the limit of sustainability.
The USN heartily embraces every opportunity to justify its budget (size), and it's obvious that claiming to be the protector of global maritime trade is one such opportunity. One should not buy into such bureaucratic propaganda, though.

The same goes for the forward deploying /patrolling in distant waters. This requires a rotation scheme, and rotation schemes multiply the need for forces. The forward deployment thing was the great bureaucratic moment of creativity in pursuing the biggest possible budget. All this patrolling does not serve the purpose of being able to react quickly or the purpose of suppressing conflicts - it serves the bureaucratic self-interest in an almost ingenious way. It's almost ingenious because with no other scheme on earth the USN could have convinced anyone that it truly needs so many ships, more than half of the world's modern combatant tonnage! The idea is ridiculous, especially since the DoD has a 2nd "D" for "Defense", not a "N" for "Navy" nowadays.

[carl]

Sooo... when and how exactly did the USN crush Somali piracy without CNN learning about it?

I said important threats. And you will notice the success rate of the young gents is down lately. Also, sad to say, the modern USN is a bit hobbled by PC. In the 20s things might have been a little different.

Sorry, the structure of the USN is suitable for land attack and bullying foreign countries, not for securing maritime trade. The latter would demand modern cruisers - high seas patrol ships / sea control ships. I see a lot of offensive aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and amphibious aircraft carriers instead.

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. You might note that any threat to sea borne commerce that isn't an act of God comes from people. And people mostly live on land.

Plus: It's impossible to prove that there would have been any major disruption of maritime trade if there was no USN.
The only case that comes close is the Persian Gulf during the 80's, and I don't recall the USN protecting tankers leaving Iranian harbours against Iraqi Mirage F.1 and their Exocets (keep in mind Iran was the victim of an obvious war of aggression then!). The USS Stark was fine with the Mirage F.1 on such an attack mission until it got misunderstood for a tanker itself.
Meanwhile during the same conflict, USS Ticonderoga displayed USN standards of excellence by grasping an opportunity to claim "self defence" and shoot down an Iranian aircraft. Damn the journalists who knew enough to point out that the supposed F-14 was not a threat to a missile cruiser and damn the bad luck that the F-14 was an airliner on an announced, scheduled flight!

It is indeed impossible to prove a negative. But if you look at history things were pretty chaotic before the RN and USN calmed calmed the oceans down.

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. Didn't re-flag some tankers to protect them from Iranian attack? I remember that we did. We cleared some Iranian mines or caught a mine layer too I think.

Always feels good to thump the Americans for a mistake.

Sorry, if viewed from a neutral stance, the USN is more of a threat, a lingering aggressor, than any valiant protector of maritime trade.
The U.S. has mis-used the 'free maritime trade' idea so often as excuse for entering hostilities and violated it at will so often as well by restricting maritime trade itself that I don't see why a foreigner should buy into the U.S. chest-beating about supposedly providing a great service to mankind by securing maritime trade against threats.

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.

Now from another point of view:
Pretty much every military is first and foremost a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies strive for maximising their size up to the limit of sustainability.
The USN heartily embraces every opportunity to justify its budget (size), and it's obvious that claiming to be the protector of global maritime trade is one such opportunity. One should not buy into such bureaucratic propaganda, though.

The same goes for the forward deploying /patrolling in distant waters. This requires a rotation scheme, and rotation schemes multiply the need for forces. The forward deployment thing was the great bureaucratic moment of creativity in pursuing the biggest possible budget. All this patrolling does not serve the purpose of being able to react quickly or the purpose of suppressing conflicts - it serves the bureaucratic self-interest in an almost ingenious way. It's almost ingenious because with no other scheme on earth the USN could have convinced anyone that it truly needs so many ships, more than half of the world's modern combatant tonnage! The idea is ridiculous, especially since the DoD has a 2nd "D" for "Defense", not a "N" for "Navy" nowadays.

You should probably remember that the USN has waxed and waned in size depending upon the threat. Right now it is on the downward slide. The Navy as an institution probably would like nothing better to be humungous forever but the country hasn't done that.

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.

The Navy having so high a percentage of the world's combatant tonnage is more a matter of 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.

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.

[carl]

Many people would be surprised if they learned how much % value (not volume or mass) of global trade happens with air freight services, not maritime shipping.

That not so valuable mass and volume provides:

a. Food to eat.
b. Fuel to run the engines.
c. The raw materials to make those valuable things with.

Pretty important.

[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.