Interesting. While they claim that it is 'not a Wankel', it remains to be seen if materials and design have improved enough to deal with the Wankel's weakness - keeping the rotor sealed against the chamber. I'll have to read their technical papers.
I'd be interested in your thoughts. I ran across the company some time ago at LinkedIn..somebody I used to know is there...but figured it's probably too late for revolutionary IC engine designs at this point in time. Maybe worth another look.
I'll have to get to it. At first glance, the thermodynamic cycle appears to be more efficient than the Wankel was and that is what they are touting. The ability to keep the chamber sealed over a long engine life is still the question. Materials are better than they were in the 80's when Mazda attempted the Wankel but I'm not sure the company is addressing it.
Bluff? And if we thought the 9/11 commission opened up a can of "you've got to be kidding me" revelations; then imagine how that will pale in comparison to an "after-action" on the PRC making good on their threats vis.a.vis Taiwan? I would submit a leader who has made clear his legacy in this matter is not going to be dissuaded by bluffs and postering.
I dunno, D SGT. They might start with an upgrade to the 2.8 GPA requirement for new Navy PAO (1650) hires. (Maybe they already did after the Ensign Hunter Biden debacle back in 2012.) I am more used to the old GCT+ARI measurements than ASVAB but it seems that they could raise the scores for Mass Communications Specialists from VE+AR=115 and VE=55 to something higher too. Bluff is nothing without the brains to spin some hard-hitting pizzazz and professional ballyhoo.
Yep, them Chinese are copycats (true) and inferior - look at alibaba (also true)!
Except they can build lots of good stuff, when they need to. And they are not limited to building a lot of a bad class - they build, better, build more. And even when they build only 'good enough', quantity has a quality all it's own.
And anyone who says differently is whistling past the graveyard.
Makes me think of those "crudely engineered" Russian T-34s flooding the Eastern Front and overwhelming the expensive, boutique quality, complicated Tigers and Panthers fielded by the Wehrmacht.
The T-34s weren't pretty, they were uncomfortable, but they had enough innovation where it mattered (sloped armor!) and there were a metric buttload of them.
Chinese diesel subs vs VIRGINIA class SSNs, anybody?
Maybe. Not my wheelhouse, but as I understand it the AIP boats are really quiet, and the Chinese diesels (so far) are not.
But some of the Taiwan strait is pretty damned shallow, and I don't know if we would want to risk a couple of boats except in the deepwater channel - which the PLAN certainly knows about. Sometimes having less sophisticated boats is a good thing.
sounds like a perfect area for small unmanned subs or just small manned ones. North Korea and the old Imperial Japanese mini subs were not very good, but a small lithium powered sub 100 foot sub built in #s could very well make life hell for a navy trying to transit that strait. Lay some encapsulated torps on the bottom too, and it's a matter of meeting their quantity with cheap quality quantity too.
Can't speak directly to the issue of material quality, but when the USSR first put the Riga/Brezhnev/Tbilisi/Kuznetsov in the water, they also set up a land-based training facility for naval aviators.
A decade later, the UFFR ("Union of Fewer and Fewer Republics") still didn't have a cadre of naval aviators who could even trap safely and consistently.
A blue-water navy takes a long time to get going, and while building the ships (and aircraft, and missiles...) figures prominently, much of it is about developing effective tactics, doctrine, and concepts of operations.
Which is not to say we should be complacent by any means.
Then they built one, and practiced. Discovered a lot of what they had on the old carrier sucked, so they fixed it.
Then they built another carrier and are testing it now. And have another on the way learning from that one.
The US has been building aircraft carriers since somebody decked over a collier in 1920 and has built what, 150? 200? We have literally been building them for more than 100 years - and look at the mess that is the Ford-class. Considering that, the PLAN is doing pretty damned well.
Every weapons system that's been developed in my lifetime has had problems. F-111, F-14, F-18, M1 Abrams, HARM, Harpoon, Tomahawk...the list is endless.
I'm not suggesting the (ugh) Ford-class CVN will match up to the eventual success of the above, but...let's say, we have a pretty decent track record in that department.
Also...do you honestly believe the ChiComs have fewer problems in that area? We're talking about a brutal, murderous dictatorship where failure means being sent to the Laogai...if you're lucky. You think their OPEVAL process is gonna be better than ours at identifying problems? 'Cos I don't.
I'm not saying that the Chinese are doing great. As I said, they are learning how to improve the product, while we are building a second Ford-class without solving the problems of the first. And we have been building carriers for 103 years.
Yup. People forget that the USN and IJN went from experimental carriers to the carrier fleets that fought at Midway in fifteen years.
We like to talk about how the USN has 100 years of experience in carrier aviation. The reality is that we have about 20 years' worth, repeated five times.
Our arrogance lies in the fact that no one has seriously challenged us since the Cold War (and likewise, combat operationally, we haven't had our knuckles seriously rapped since WW2). We have fallen into the same dilemma as the Royal Navy on the eve of the First World War. The British had rested on the laurels of Trafalgar, as much as we have rested on ours. We believe in our superiority, while nervously watching a rising naval power gain competency and numbers that could overwhelm us. And yet, we waste time, money, and resources on things that do not equate into effective warfighting. These are the signs of a complacent power who will be unprepared for the ferocity and rapacious appetite of a global conflict. Is the Navy learning from the lessons learned in this current conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Are we squandering all the practical and hard-earned wisdom that we ourselves garnered over generations? The Navy needs to start looking at the inevitable world war that is staring us all in the face, and developing programs that will bear fruit in the next three to five years (if not sooner).
A country always pays a price when its leaders underestimate a potential enemy’s intelligence or capabilities - something we have been doing consistently over the past 80+ years. Pure hubris.
About the only thing that could get done in 3-5 years is a small missile boat, a PC, and maybe a conversion to turn some commercial hulls into helicopter/UAV carriers.
We're worse off. The Royal Navy had Jackie Fisher and his disciples, who shook the RN enough to get things restarted by 1914. Not perfectly (see the escape of SMS Goeben), but enough to turn potential defeat into victory.
As I recall the advent of the dreadnaughts created the opportunity for the Germans to rival the British in actually useful ships, despite that near 100 years of dominance in numbers.
Perhaps hypersonic ordnance and drone technology will have a similar effect on our experiential advantage over the Chinese, while they've surpassed us in industrial capacity for conventional ships already.
Back in the late 1970s/early 80s, China made a conscious national decision to become a great industrial power. So they educated a couple hundred million people in science and technical skills. And built a continent-scale complex of mines, mills, refineries, factories, ports, and much more. And here we are today, witness to the result.
While at the same time, about 40 yrs ago, the US and West embarked on a cultural-scale program of financialization, deindustrialization and globalization. And while the West still has many and varied legacy industrial capacities, the comparative trajectories are apparent.
Meanwhile, military power is the first derivative of economic and basic industrial power. This used to be taught in American schools, certainly in war colleges. But anymore? I’m not so sure.
Unsophisticated? Sounds like the same thinking that was making the rounds back in the late 30s and early 40s. Why, there was no way an Asian country could match the United States in terms of military planning, tactics, training and hardware. No need to worry about the "inferior" IJN; the battle lines would form somewhere around the Marshall Islands (under War Plan Orange) and we'd make short work of the Japanese fleet. Claims about a world-class Japanese figher plane, expertly employed by skilled (and battle-tested) enemy pilots? Just more misleading reporting from the Chinese (never mind that much of that reporting was coming from western volunteer pilots who discovered how out-matched they were against the Zero.
Sadly, these perceptions ruled our training and perceptions until Pearl Harbor. True, there were exceptions like Jimmy Thach who realized his Grumman F4Fs would be at a serious disadvantage against the Zero and began developing tactics to compensate, and give his pilots a fighting chance. Unfotunately, then-Lt Thach was the rare exception, not the rule. Our perceptions of superiority came crashing down on a Sunday morning in December 1941, and in the dark months that followed. We can't afford to make the same mistake with the PRC
Take a page out of the PRC playbook: reverse engineer the DJI drone from Ukraine, give it to Taiwan to manufacture on island, and get a homebuilt asymmetric ASUW suicide drone to be employed against any amphibious invasion threat.
How about we stay out of it and let the adults (engineers) who are not part of MIC do the work of improvising, adapting and overcoming. Leave the exquisitely expensive and too few to make a difference visionaries handle the stuff that will show up long after the shooting stops.
I'd love more crowd sourced design. Let the governemnt just polish it up and then request bids. We need more fast engineering to get ahead of Ccongress demanding hulls for the blow collar jobs.
"The drone gap is stark. Taiwan currently has four drone types at its disposal and a fleet size of just “hundreds,” according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter and a separate internal security report.
Across the narrow Taiwan Strait, China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army, has an arsenal of more than 50 different drone types that is estimated to run into the tens of thousands, according to defense analysts and a Reuters examination of Chinese military manufacturers and reports in Chinese state media. These drones range from jet-powered, long range surveillance aircraft to small quadcopters deployed by ground troops.
Under the “Drone National Team” program, Taiwan is recruiting the island’s commercial drone makers and aviation and aerospace firms in a joint effort with the military to fast-track the building of a self-sufficient drone supply chain.
“We need to quickly catch up, with thousands of drones,” aerospace entrepreneur Max Lo, the coordinator of the drone effort, told Reuters in an interview. “We are trying our best to develop drones with commercial specifications for military use. We hope to quickly build up our capacity based on our existing technology so that we can be like Ukraine.”
The aim, according to a government planning document reviewed by Reuters, is to build more than 3,200 military drones by mid-2024. These will include mini-drones that weigh less than two kilograms as well as larger surveillance craft with a range of 150 kilometers."
The key US advantage, for defending the homeland at any rate, is geography, not quality. The quality argument relates to American exceptionalism. Note from this quotation of over 120 years ago that geography was the most "exceptional" thing in this Secretary of State's list of of US advantages:
“The United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship or good-will for it. It is not simply by reason of its high character as a civilized state, nor because wisdom and equity are the invariable characteristics of the dealings of the United States. It is because in addition to all other grounds its infinite resources combined with its isolated position render it master of the situation and practically invulnerable against any and all other powers.” 1895, Richard Olney, U.S. Secretary of State. Cited in Walter Millis, The Martial Spirit.
"It is not simply by reason of its high character as a civilized state, nor because wisdom and equity are the invariable characteristics of the dealings of the United States"
I'd argue neither high character nor wisdom have been hallmarks of our dealings of late.
Worse, China is focused in on their backyard. We are spread out over Ukraine, Syria, Iran, North Korea and Taiwan and any other place that might erupt. So, China's quantitative edge is far greater in a region that they know quite well and is as far away from us as you can get. Think missiles, planes and cutters and not just ships of the line.
State has to be pushing this. Offering protection to foreign flags instead of making them re-flag under US colors? For an Administration that says they love unions, re-flagging would be a boon to the Seafarers International Union. Instead, it looks like the love is all going to flags of convienience.
and as always giving the most protection to vessels that in most cases won't be remotely going to America, rather to Europe or Asia, let alone reflagging to give our merchant marine a shot. Why do we have a stressed fleet? For starters always feeling the need to check the middle east. In essence we take harassment 24x7 from IRGC little ships. We claim the patience to avoid the shooting war by letting them run amok, but it would be interesting if those ships were just mysteriously blown up (say by hellfires by choppers at max range) and most didn't return to home base. Would Iran up the ante, or realize ok we suddenly don't have many zealots wanting to go on their one way trip on the speedboats?
Nah, let's just pour more boats, more hours on the ships, into the region while having less for the Pacific. Better yet, why not offer the surplus Oliver Hazard Perry frigates to a Western modern day equivalent of Blackwater and let those countries that need the oil pay them?
You must believe in the efficacy of strategic bombing.
Besides, US has force, counter-force, and counter-counter force capabilities for PRC and Russia. Which is why we must build Columbia and recapitalize the boomer fleet. Id rather have boomers than CVNs.
Point taken... but is that an answer we have today? It's interesting how Rapid Dragon has gotten the attention of the PRC's planners? Oh yeah... I forgot. C-130's don't have the range... they're too slow... they're too vulnerable... we need them for "other things" ... and, most importantly, it's not "how we do things around here" because "divest to invest and overmatch" you know. The better solution... build 30 or so speedy, small amphibs cutting the waves at a blistering 17 knots... now there's a new conundrum for the PLAN vs. a dozen C-130s and C-17s creating a very nasty salvo picture for the PLAN. /sarc
While I don't expect to find simplified and unsophisticated items in all aspects of the military, there's a necessity to keeping things simple and uncomplicated. Modernity is fine for electronics and other high-end technology however, when fighting a war, issues and equipment tend to get distilled to their most basic level.
Does it work for its intended purpose?
Is it durable?
Is it easy to use?
I'm reminded of USS Port Royal CG-73, when she ran aground just outside of Pearl. Besides a number of hull and running gear damage, what was striking in the report was her Aegis arrays were out of alignment. This was a brand-new ship, tasked with air defense, how is a combatant supposed to endure the rigors of warfare and all it takes is a simple grounding to throw its main sensors into a mission-kill status? Can a depth charge or, sympathetic mine detonation do the same?
"We took a detonation off the port-bow sir, engineering is working, we're not taking on any water but, our combat system is down and we're unable to track due to the arrays being out of kilter'
Back around 1976 our ship, FF-1071, was undergoing RefTra by FTG Pearl Harbor. Just outside of Pearl Harbor one of the trainers tossed a PDC (hand grenade) over the port side to simulate "Hit Alpha". That knocked the 1200 lbs steam plant off the line. We had to be towed back to port. The phrase "mission-kill" stuck with me and scared me ever after.
The Garcia-class destroyer escorts, and the Knox class which followed one of Robert McNamara cost effective ideas. Losing the extra shaft cut the price, dramatically.
This might be one of his ideas which paid off; we never lost a FF to combat, and we never bought the extra equipment having twin shafts required.
Perhaps we moved too far in that direction with the LCS. We went from twin propulsion-plant powered DDs to a single plant powering our FFs, and now we have the unpowered LCS. (I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your server.)
The DE's and the Perry PF's (as they were originally designated), were never intended to be main fleet units, but ASW escorts. They ended up in that role... and served admirably...as the punishing inflation ate up plans to build more capable ships.
Sid, baby, I'm not taking sides. The discussion turned to the FF. I remember, vaguely, the historical debate. The cost cutters argument was that even though we were getting half the ship, we were only paying 3/4 of the cost.
The old destroyers had the ability to cross-connect everything, which made them much more survivable in WWII. The cost-cutter's argument was that one cold war missile strike and you're done, so why put four boilers in a ship that could run fine on two.
Were they right? We'll never know, thank the Lord, but, the bean counters did save a bunch of money.
As an old steam EOOW graduate at NAB Coronado, which class used the Knox plant I think, what the heck happened to take it offline? Shrapnel on an intake some place?
I was a twidgit/EW operator at the time, not a snipe. What I heard in the Mess later was that it was a "loss of vacuum" because the PDC went off near a seawater intake. No physical damage to the ship. Getting towed was humiliating. Hah! I remember on that same Frigate we were steaming in a CV battle Group on deployment in 1975. I was off watch asleep in Chief's berthing when I, the other Chiefs and most of the crew woke up at 0300 and in a flash we were all on the main deck in our skivvies. That absolute silence after you lose the load while in a screening station ahead of the Carrier is tremendously frightening...that is, if you notice. But the situation got cleared pretty quickly by the Engineers. Sure wish I had a recording of a noisy FF or DD at sea. Toss in some NGFS, cat launches and an EA3B recovery too. It's a lullaby. ♫
I could imagine some tightening of the outputs during that story from '75!
Sounds plausible on loss of vacuum. That was my thought that somehow shrapnel damaged the seawater cooling intake, creating a leak that required closing the sea water intake valve
Regarding that qualitative edge we enjoy for things like generators. I think these guys are on to something, www.liquidpiston.com.
Interesting. While they claim that it is 'not a Wankel', it remains to be seen if materials and design have improved enough to deal with the Wankel's weakness - keeping the rotor sealed against the chamber. I'll have to read their technical papers.
I'd be interested in your thoughts. I ran across the company some time ago at LinkedIn..somebody I used to know is there...but figured it's probably too late for revolutionary IC engine designs at this point in time. Maybe worth another look.
I'll have to get to it. At first glance, the thermodynamic cycle appears to be more efficient than the Wankel was and that is what they are touting. The ability to keep the chamber sealed over a long engine life is still the question. Materials are better than they were in the 80's when Mazda attempted the Wankel but I'm not sure the company is addressing it.
People are so used to "price-point" Chinese goods, they forget the Chinese CAN make top-shelf stuff when they put their minds (and QC) to it.
The stuff provided on Amazon (or worse, alibaba) is the absolute cheapest crap they can make. Because that's what the customer wants.
Don't confuse that with the ability to build quality goods.
All we seem to be left with is to bluff. Ad that takes steady and cool leadership from Pearl to 1600 Penn.
We are so screwed...
Bluff? And if we thought the 9/11 commission opened up a can of "you've got to be kidding me" revelations; then imagine how that will pale in comparison to an "after-action" on the PRC making good on their threats vis.a.vis Taiwan? I would submit a leader who has made clear his legacy in this matter is not going to be dissuaded by bluffs and postering.
I dunno, D SGT. They might start with an upgrade to the 2.8 GPA requirement for new Navy PAO (1650) hires. (Maybe they already did after the Ensign Hunter Biden debacle back in 2012.) I am more used to the old GCT+ARI measurements than ASVAB but it seems that they could raise the scores for Mass Communications Specialists from VE+AR=115 and VE=55 to something higher too. Bluff is nothing without the brains to spin some hard-hitting pizzazz and professional ballyhoo.
We have the Ace, Nuclear Weapons.
But that is an end game, that we do not want to go too.
It was the same during Jimmy's Admin. The military was broken by Vietnam and it's loss.
Yep, them Chinese are copycats (true) and inferior - look at alibaba (also true)!
Except they can build lots of good stuff, when they need to. And they are not limited to building a lot of a bad class - they build, better, build more. And even when they build only 'good enough', quantity has a quality all it's own.
And anyone who says differently is whistling past the graveyard.
Makes me think of those "crudely engineered" Russian T-34s flooding the Eastern Front and overwhelming the expensive, boutique quality, complicated Tigers and Panthers fielded by the Wehrmacht.
The T-34s weren't pretty, they were uncomfortable, but they had enough innovation where it mattered (sloped armor!) and there were a metric buttload of them.
Chinese diesel subs vs VIRGINIA class SSNs, anybody?
A Virginia-class in restricted waters? Vs. a quiet AIP?
I'll let the submariners tell me how that would work.
I worded that awkwardly. My bad.
I meant their diesel boats will be a much more troublesome problem for our navy than our Virginia boats will be for theirs.
Maybe. Not my wheelhouse, but as I understand it the AIP boats are really quiet, and the Chinese diesels (so far) are not.
But some of the Taiwan strait is pretty damned shallow, and I don't know if we would want to risk a couple of boats except in the deepwater channel - which the PLAN certainly knows about. Sometimes having less sophisticated boats is a good thing.
Mines. Expect lots of mine warfare.
Right.
How's are anti-mine capability? Do we have a sufficiency?
sounds like a perfect area for small unmanned subs or just small manned ones. North Korea and the old Imperial Japanese mini subs were not very good, but a small lithium powered sub 100 foot sub built in #s could very well make life hell for a navy trying to transit that strait. Lay some encapsulated torps on the bottom too, and it's a matter of meeting their quantity with cheap quality quantity too.
Can't speak directly to the issue of material quality, but when the USSR first put the Riga/Brezhnev/Tbilisi/Kuznetsov in the water, they also set up a land-based training facility for naval aviators.
A decade later, the UFFR ("Union of Fewer and Fewer Republics") still didn't have a cadre of naval aviators who could even trap safely and consistently.
A blue-water navy takes a long time to get going, and while building the ships (and aircraft, and missiles...) figures prominently, much of it is about developing effective tactics, doctrine, and concepts of operations.
Which is not to say we should be complacent by any means.
The Chinese bought a carrier and practiced.
Then they built one, and practiced. Discovered a lot of what they had on the old carrier sucked, so they fixed it.
Then they built another carrier and are testing it now. And have another on the way learning from that one.
The US has been building aircraft carriers since somebody decked over a collier in 1920 and has built what, 150? 200? We have literally been building them for more than 100 years - and look at the mess that is the Ford-class. Considering that, the PLAN is doing pretty damned well.
Reference the Reagan speech about it can all be lost in 1 generation.
Every weapons system that's been developed in my lifetime has had problems. F-111, F-14, F-18, M1 Abrams, HARM, Harpoon, Tomahawk...the list is endless.
I'm not suggesting the (ugh) Ford-class CVN will match up to the eventual success of the above, but...let's say, we have a pretty decent track record in that department.
Also...do you honestly believe the ChiComs have fewer problems in that area? We're talking about a brutal, murderous dictatorship where failure means being sent to the Laogai...if you're lucky. You think their OPEVAL process is gonna be better than ours at identifying problems? 'Cos I don't.
I'm not saying that the Chinese are doing great. As I said, they are learning how to improve the product, while we are building a second Ford-class without solving the problems of the first. And we have been building carriers for 103 years.
Yup. People forget that the USN and IJN went from experimental carriers to the carrier fleets that fought at Midway in fifteen years.
We like to talk about how the USN has 100 years of experience in carrier aviation. The reality is that we have about 20 years' worth, repeated five times.
Ouch....
Our arrogance lies in the fact that no one has seriously challenged us since the Cold War (and likewise, combat operationally, we haven't had our knuckles seriously rapped since WW2). We have fallen into the same dilemma as the Royal Navy on the eve of the First World War. The British had rested on the laurels of Trafalgar, as much as we have rested on ours. We believe in our superiority, while nervously watching a rising naval power gain competency and numbers that could overwhelm us. And yet, we waste time, money, and resources on things that do not equate into effective warfighting. These are the signs of a complacent power who will be unprepared for the ferocity and rapacious appetite of a global conflict. Is the Navy learning from the lessons learned in this current conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Are we squandering all the practical and hard-earned wisdom that we ourselves garnered over generations? The Navy needs to start looking at the inevitable world war that is staring us all in the face, and developing programs that will bear fruit in the next three to five years (if not sooner).
A country always pays a price when its leaders underestimate a potential enemy’s intelligence or capabilities - something we have been doing consistently over the past 80+ years. Pure hubris.
Hubris is often followed by Nemesis.
About the only thing that could get done in 3-5 years is a small missile boat, a PC, and maybe a conversion to turn some commercial hulls into helicopter/UAV carriers.
Sad isn't it? 5 years =1.34 world wars. That is what the "Arsenal of Democracy" has willingly degraded to.
Unless we buy whatever Korea (ROK of course) has on tap.
We're worse off. The Royal Navy had Jackie Fisher and his disciples, who shook the RN enough to get things restarted by 1914. Not perfectly (see the escape of SMS Goeben), but enough to turn potential defeat into victory.
Where is the USN's Fisher? Our Corbett?
As I recall the advent of the dreadnaughts created the opportunity for the Germans to rival the British in actually useful ships, despite that near 100 years of dominance in numbers.
Perhaps hypersonic ordnance and drone technology will have a similar effect on our experiential advantage over the Chinese, while they've surpassed us in industrial capacity for conventional ships already.
"perhaps" ?
Back in the late 1970s/early 80s, China made a conscious national decision to become a great industrial power. So they educated a couple hundred million people in science and technical skills. And built a continent-scale complex of mines, mills, refineries, factories, ports, and much more. And here we are today, witness to the result.
While at the same time, about 40 yrs ago, the US and West embarked on a cultural-scale program of financialization, deindustrialization and globalization. And while the West still has many and varied legacy industrial capacities, the comparative trajectories are apparent.
Meanwhile, military power is the first derivative of economic and basic industrial power. This used to be taught in American schools, certainly in war colleges. But anymore? I’m not so sure.
Quantity has a quality all its own. Good enough in large numbers will overwhelm the sophisticated but meager.
Unsophisticated? Sounds like the same thinking that was making the rounds back in the late 30s and early 40s. Why, there was no way an Asian country could match the United States in terms of military planning, tactics, training and hardware. No need to worry about the "inferior" IJN; the battle lines would form somewhere around the Marshall Islands (under War Plan Orange) and we'd make short work of the Japanese fleet. Claims about a world-class Japanese figher plane, expertly employed by skilled (and battle-tested) enemy pilots? Just more misleading reporting from the Chinese (never mind that much of that reporting was coming from western volunteer pilots who discovered how out-matched they were against the Zero.
Sadly, these perceptions ruled our training and perceptions until Pearl Harbor. True, there were exceptions like Jimmy Thach who realized his Grumman F4Fs would be at a serious disadvantage against the Zero and began developing tactics to compensate, and give his pilots a fighting chance. Unfotunately, then-Lt Thach was the rare exception, not the rule. Our perceptions of superiority came crashing down on a Sunday morning in December 1941, and in the dark months that followed. We can't afford to make the same mistake with the PRC
Take a page out of the PRC playbook: reverse engineer the DJI drone from Ukraine, give it to Taiwan to manufacture on island, and get a homebuilt asymmetric ASUW suicide drone to be employed against any amphibious invasion threat.
How about we stay out of it and let the adults (engineers) who are not part of MIC do the work of improvising, adapting and overcoming. Leave the exquisitely expensive and too few to make a difference visionaries handle the stuff that will show up long after the shooting stops.
I'd love more crowd sourced design. Let the governemnt just polish it up and then request bids. We need more fast engineering to get ahead of Ccongress demanding hulls for the blow collar jobs.
The gov't doesn't polish things up... it hangs ornaments.
The Taiwanese are waking up to the need:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/us-china-tech-taiwan/
"The drone gap is stark. Taiwan currently has four drone types at its disposal and a fleet size of just “hundreds,” according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter and a separate internal security report.
Across the narrow Taiwan Strait, China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army, has an arsenal of more than 50 different drone types that is estimated to run into the tens of thousands, according to defense analysts and a Reuters examination of Chinese military manufacturers and reports in Chinese state media. These drones range from jet-powered, long range surveillance aircraft to small quadcopters deployed by ground troops.
Under the “Drone National Team” program, Taiwan is recruiting the island’s commercial drone makers and aviation and aerospace firms in a joint effort with the military to fast-track the building of a self-sufficient drone supply chain.
“We need to quickly catch up, with thousands of drones,” aerospace entrepreneur Max Lo, the coordinator of the drone effort, told Reuters in an interview. “We are trying our best to develop drones with commercial specifications for military use. We hope to quickly build up our capacity based on our existing technology so that we can be like Ukraine.”
The aim, according to a government planning document reviewed by Reuters, is to build more than 3,200 military drones by mid-2024. These will include mini-drones that weigh less than two kilograms as well as larger surveillance craft with a range of 150 kilometers."
The key US advantage, for defending the homeland at any rate, is geography, not quality. The quality argument relates to American exceptionalism. Note from this quotation of over 120 years ago that geography was the most "exceptional" thing in this Secretary of State's list of of US advantages:
“The United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship or good-will for it. It is not simply by reason of its high character as a civilized state, nor because wisdom and equity are the invariable characteristics of the dealings of the United States. It is because in addition to all other grounds its infinite resources combined with its isolated position render it master of the situation and practically invulnerable against any and all other powers.” 1895, Richard Olney, U.S. Secretary of State. Cited in Walter Millis, The Martial Spirit.
ICBM = New equation.
Only in part. We can reply in kind. The United States retains the advantage of not having a lot of unfriendly states off our coast.
"It is not simply by reason of its high character as a civilized state, nor because wisdom and equity are the invariable characteristics of the dealings of the United States"
I'd argue neither high character nor wisdom have been hallmarks of our dealings of late.
That is how the Secretary of State (& most white) Americans saw it in 1895. I think it’s truer today than it was then...
"...Lisovich’s quote should stick in your craw." I've simply run out of room to fit anything else "in my craw."
Worse, China is focused in on their backyard. We are spread out over Ukraine, Syria, Iran, North Korea and Taiwan and any other place that might erupt. So, China's quantitative edge is far greater in a region that they know quite well and is as far away from us as you can get. Think missiles, planes and cutters and not just ships of the line.
It appears appears the neighbors are waking up to that fact. Even Indonesia.
And including the perennial Strait of Hormuz. https://www.postguam.com/the_globe/world/us-moves-to-put-marines-and-sailors-on-commercial-ships-to-stop-iranian-seizures/article_a9193602-34c7-11ee-b7e6-e316d3c1c229.html
State has to be pushing this. Offering protection to foreign flags instead of making them re-flag under US colors? For an Administration that says they love unions, re-flagging would be a boon to the Seafarers International Union. Instead, it looks like the love is all going to flags of convienience.
Once again our merchant mariners get the shaft.
Doesn't matter which party is "in charge", the merchant fleet just grows smaller.
and as always giving the most protection to vessels that in most cases won't be remotely going to America, rather to Europe or Asia, let alone reflagging to give our merchant marine a shot. Why do we have a stressed fleet? For starters always feeling the need to check the middle east. In essence we take harassment 24x7 from IRGC little ships. We claim the patience to avoid the shooting war by letting them run amok, but it would be interesting if those ships were just mysteriously blown up (say by hellfires by choppers at max range) and most didn't return to home base. Would Iran up the ante, or realize ok we suddenly don't have many zealots wanting to go on their one way trip on the speedboats?
Nah, let's just pour more boats, more hours on the ships, into the region while having less for the Pacific. Better yet, why not offer the surplus Oliver Hazard Perry frigates to a Western modern day equivalent of Blackwater and let those countries that need the oil pay them?
It would be rather nice if we DID focus on our own backyard.
We are just to busy to worry about the Rio Grande.
Actually a modification of a very old equation.
You must believe in the efficacy of strategic bombing.
Besides, US has force, counter-force, and counter-counter force capabilities for PRC and Russia. Which is why we must build Columbia and recapitalize the boomer fleet. Id rather have boomers than CVNs.
Point taken... but is that an answer we have today? It's interesting how Rapid Dragon has gotten the attention of the PRC's planners? Oh yeah... I forgot. C-130's don't have the range... they're too slow... they're too vulnerable... we need them for "other things" ... and, most importantly, it's not "how we do things around here" because "divest to invest and overmatch" you know. The better solution... build 30 or so speedy, small amphibs cutting the waves at a blistering 17 knots... now there's a new conundrum for the PLAN vs. a dozen C-130s and C-17s creating a very nasty salvo picture for the PLAN. /sarc
KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid
While I don't expect to find simplified and unsophisticated items in all aspects of the military, there's a necessity to keeping things simple and uncomplicated. Modernity is fine for electronics and other high-end technology however, when fighting a war, issues and equipment tend to get distilled to their most basic level.
Does it work for its intended purpose?
Is it durable?
Is it easy to use?
I'm reminded of USS Port Royal CG-73, when she ran aground just outside of Pearl. Besides a number of hull and running gear damage, what was striking in the report was her Aegis arrays were out of alignment. This was a brand-new ship, tasked with air defense, how is a combatant supposed to endure the rigors of warfare and all it takes is a simple grounding to throw its main sensors into a mission-kill status? Can a depth charge or, sympathetic mine detonation do the same?
"We took a detonation off the port-bow sir, engineering is working, we're not taking on any water but, our combat system is down and we're unable to track due to the arrays being out of kilter'
Back around 1976 our ship, FF-1071, was undergoing RefTra by FTG Pearl Harbor. Just outside of Pearl Harbor one of the trainers tossed a PDC (hand grenade) over the port side to simulate "Hit Alpha". That knocked the 1200 lbs steam plant off the line. We had to be towed back to port. The phrase "mission-kill" stuck with me and scared me ever after.
Shock trials? We don't need no stinkin shock trials!
The Garcia-class destroyer escorts, and the Knox class which followed one of Robert McNamara cost effective ideas. Losing the extra shaft cut the price, dramatically.
This might be one of his ideas which paid off; we never lost a FF to combat, and we never bought the extra equipment having twin shafts required.
Perhaps we moved too far in that direction with the LCS. We went from twin propulsion-plant powered DDs to a single plant powering our FFs, and now we have the unpowered LCS. (I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your server.)
"we never lost a FF to combat, and we never bought the extra equipment having twin shafts required."
No Knox or Garcia/Brooke ever took combat damage.
So of course none were lost.
More than once though a Knox "lost the load" and had to be jump started by another ship.
The 2 Perry's that did came close to sinking. They survived because of calm sea conditions, excellent damage control, and immediate support.
Where the DE's (FF's) were deficient were in redundancy and resiliency of their electrical systems in particular.
That's why the gamble paid off.
By that logic, then we should've just invested in these beasts...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tw88JLgufA
You need to invest in a copy of Norman Friedman's US Destroyers Tom.
https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Destroyers-Illustrated-History-Histories/dp/1557504423
The DE's and the Perry PF's (as they were originally designated), were never intended to be main fleet units, but ASW escorts. They ended up in that role... and served admirably...as the punishing inflation ate up plans to build more capable ships.
Sid, baby, I'm not taking sides. The discussion turned to the FF. I remember, vaguely, the historical debate. The cost cutters argument was that even though we were getting half the ship, we were only paying 3/4 of the cost.
The old destroyers had the ability to cross-connect everything, which made them much more survivable in WWII. The cost-cutter's argument was that one cold war missile strike and you're done, so why put four boilers in a ship that could run fine on two.
Were they right? We'll never know, thank the Lord, but, the bean counters did save a bunch of money.
As an old steam EOOW graduate at NAB Coronado, which class used the Knox plant I think, what the heck happened to take it offline? Shrapnel on an intake some place?
I was a twidgit/EW operator at the time, not a snipe. What I heard in the Mess later was that it was a "loss of vacuum" because the PDC went off near a seawater intake. No physical damage to the ship. Getting towed was humiliating. Hah! I remember on that same Frigate we were steaming in a CV battle Group on deployment in 1975. I was off watch asleep in Chief's berthing when I, the other Chiefs and most of the crew woke up at 0300 and in a flash we were all on the main deck in our skivvies. That absolute silence after you lose the load while in a screening station ahead of the Carrier is tremendously frightening...that is, if you notice. But the situation got cleared pretty quickly by the Engineers. Sure wish I had a recording of a noisy FF or DD at sea. Toss in some NGFS, cat launches and an EA3B recovery too. It's a lullaby. ♫
I could imagine some tightening of the outputs during that story from '75!
Sounds plausible on loss of vacuum. That was my thought that somehow shrapnel damaged the seawater cooling intake, creating a leak that required closing the sea water intake valve
"They have poor quality equipment" and "they have poor quality personnel" is pure cope.
Geez, Ming. Those quotes don't mean much without citations. That sounds like some PLAN wonk talking out his a__. I put no stock in it.