The Battle of Coral Sea started 83 years ago today...
And, here we are, talking about trying to keep the sea lines of communication in the same region open against a potential foe which took the time to treat the history seriously.
We might end up in default. We have a real who is going to actually buy our debt problem now. Taiwan gets a say in whether they want independence, but I like the approach of put them on their heels.
Under U.S. law the Office of Foreign Asset Control ("OFAC) does not actually "seize" assets but has the authority and can require U.S. persons or foreign entities ("exterritorial jurisdiction") to block all property and interests in property of certain persons, known as "blocked persons." When this is the case, any property and interests in property of a blocked person that are within the United States or within the possession or control of a U.S. person must be blocked (i.e., "frozen")—not seized—and may not be transferred, withdrawn, or otherwise used. Title to the blocked property remains with the blocked person, but the exercise of powers and privileges normally associated with ownership is prohibited without authorization from OFAC. So cannot be used for debt or other U.S. financial purposes, but then neither can China. Appealing but not in the cards.
Well, there is nothing to keep all those Nations from defaulting on loans and/or seizing those ports in their countries.
With China's history of stepping all over international trade agreements/practices, and claiming 'mine' in the whole of the South China Sea, its not like they can cry 'I'll take to court'.
They've gone way over their skis.
Their Navy movements are based on 'lily-pad' logistics. A friendly port to go into.
CDR Salamander, I am a paid subscriber. So my outline below hopefully will reach a wide audience. Your article stirs a real problerm for the US. The goals and strategy and battle plans are not well defined. We know that a potential WESTPAC engagement with China will be a lose/lose situation. They are in their 'home court'. Our 7th Fleet and 13th Air Force are minor compared to their growing strength (and the the US military doesn't have much reinforcement prospects from the West Coast or the East Coast). Forget about the Pentagon pronouncements that the Chinese have inexperienced crews . That is immaterial. The Germans in WWII had the best Army tanks (Tiger I and II and Panther) but to pit a hundred German superior tanks against a thousand inferior Soviet T-32 tanks was no contest. The Soviets won hands down. We are facing the same conundrum in WESTPAC. The Chinese Communists will easily defeat the US forces in WESTPAC if it comes to a hot war. Forget about Taiwan. That is what the press focuses on. The real contest is that the Chiense want to get the US military forces out of WESTPAC. That simple. Prepare for a major military engagement in WESTPAC to defeat the US based forces (Guam, Okinawa, Japan) and the North Korean forces will attack the South while the US forces are distracted, eliminating the US Army there. How can I be the only one seeing this???? r/Karl
Unless I missed it, submarines; possibly our best method to effect a blockade are not mentioned. With carriers vulnerable to missiles and the F-35 of dubious reliability, I don't think either will factor much into a blockade. Finally, does the LCS realistically have any role in today's naval strategy?
As a final comment, think I've read where differing rail gauges make rail transport from China into Europe quite inefficient.
That can easily be fixed. Both use standard gauge and China would just need to build a standard gauge line through Pakistan or Russia. Possibly some combo of former Soviet Republics.
Containerships aren't cheap and many. Workboats are cheap and many without so many eggs in one basket. You can still cheap kill a containership even if it isn't going to sink.
Start converting our existing fleet of boats. Stop the FRC production and you can have Bollinger Lockport building 5 of the Dutch missile USV being built per year. Tell Saronic to get cracking at their new yard on 2 OUSV style hulls per year. If they team with Metal Shark they might get that number up. Maybe toss in Swiftships to help if they are worth anything. Nichols brothers could be building the same out west. Personally, I think Defiant is too small.
Yeah, there is no world where we come up with 5500 anything and that's just the Chinese merchant marine let alone the fishing fleet. But you have to start somewhere.
True, but there are not very many oil patch boats to be had these days...
Also, with the exception of Tidewater and Chouest, the companies are small with limited resources. They only keep enough hulls around to meet their contracts.
Col. Hammes dismissed my point about the Atlantic Conveyor. Poor Andy doesn't deserve to be tarred by my uncomfortable truths!
Its loss wasn't so much as the amount and type of material aboard (the Essex hulls suffered much worse punishment), it was the non redundant merchant hull design, the complete lack of defensive equipment (chaff and EW gear) and armament, and most importantly, the absence of a robust DC organization.
Like I say... Go down this road... Buy enough to lose.
Also, a note and aside about tankers. The Sangamons, which were modified T-3 hulls, often took a surprising amount of damage.
To clear up misconceptions about the Atlantic Conveyor, recommend this book...
Also, a lesson on how vital an effective damage control organization matters, read up on the USS Alchiba. A merchant hull that ate 3 Long Lance torpedoes. Her crew's DC efforts, enabled the ship to finish the critical mission of getting supplies to the beleaguered Marines on Guadalcanal when they were at the point of starvation. Seen here she is offloading supplies while battling the fires caused by 2 of the 3 torpedo hits. Of note, single Long Lance hits sank Heavy Cruisers.
[edit] The torpedoes were not the very lethal "Long Lances" with a ~990 lb warhead, but the ~770 lb warhead, Type 98's...
Thats the point of not settling for "One Shot-One Kill" platforms. You need a level of Survivability to prevail in the fight. And that DOES NOT mean every ship need to be a Battle Star either!!!
She was repaired, continued to make some more notable achievements, and survived the war.
"It sounds trite to say that the ship would not have survived without the teamwork that came into play on that day, but it’s true. As I mentioned earlier, we were a taut ship who had been together through some tough times. When the disaster happened, everyone, to a man, responded with an alacrity and an urgency that was critical in overcoming the life-threatening challenges we were facing. There were many acts of heroism that day. Firefighters moving into the flaming hangar to rescue and recover people. A young man swimming down a passage underwater with no breathing gear to identify and clear a jammed valve and reverse the flooding. Another young man in a Seacat launcher who got away a missile against the incoming Exocet that arguably diverted it just enough in its deadly flight to allow us to survive. When he emerged from his lonely upper deck position, to walk away, he found his director shield covered in shrapnel hits.
All of this and more allowed us to recover the ship, and we were soon underway to rejoin the Task Group, to be patched up and made ready should we need to go again."
Glamorgan UNREPing with the damage from the Exocet evident. As that pic was taken, she was still partially mission capable.
The US economy far greater than that of PRC.
The US produces far higher-value-added goods and services than PRC.
Unlike PRC, the US is well positioned for technology (AI, robotics), to offset demographic changes.
America can easily out-compete PRC, just as the USSR was shattered in the 1980s.
The only issue is the willingness of a pampered population to act sooner rather than later.
As Churchill said "Americans will always do the right thing, after they have tried everything else."
The Battle of Coral Sea started 83 years ago today...
And, here we are, talking about trying to keep the sea lines of communication in the same region open against a potential foe which took the time to treat the history seriously.
That gives me an idea for an opening question...
First, I would impose massive tariffs on Chinese imports.
(Oh wait. That's been done.)
Let's see how Xi deals with unsold inventories and unemployment.
Second, I would send Vance along with four CVNS to Taiwan and formally recognize it as a sovereign and independent nation.
Let's see how Xi's handles a situation where the PLA is not fully prepared.
If China wants war, then let it begin here and now. No need to wait.
Third, I would freeze Chinese assets. That will cover the trade deficits for the last three decades.
Well, in '96 we had two Carrier Group and one ARG around Taiwan to show CCP 'we cared'.
We sent the carriers through the strait. That's more than near to them.
We might end up in default. We have a real who is going to actually buy our debt problem now. Taiwan gets a say in whether they want independence, but I like the approach of put them on their heels.
Under U.S. law the Office of Foreign Asset Control ("OFAC) does not actually "seize" assets but has the authority and can require U.S. persons or foreign entities ("exterritorial jurisdiction") to block all property and interests in property of certain persons, known as "blocked persons." When this is the case, any property and interests in property of a blocked person that are within the United States or within the possession or control of a U.S. person must be blocked (i.e., "frozen")—not seized—and may not be transferred, withdrawn, or otherwise used. Title to the blocked property remains with the blocked person, but the exercise of powers and privileges normally associated with ownership is prohibited without authorization from OFAC. So cannot be used for debt or other U.S. financial purposes, but then neither can China. Appealing but not in the cards.
Well, there is nothing to keep all those Nations from defaulting on loans and/or seizing those ports in their countries.
With China's history of stepping all over international trade agreements/practices, and claiming 'mine' in the whole of the South China Sea, its not like they can cry 'I'll take to court'.
They've gone way over their skis.
Their Navy movements are based on 'lily-pad' logistics. A friendly port to go into.
CDR Salamander, I am a paid subscriber. So my outline below hopefully will reach a wide audience. Your article stirs a real problerm for the US. The goals and strategy and battle plans are not well defined. We know that a potential WESTPAC engagement with China will be a lose/lose situation. They are in their 'home court'. Our 7th Fleet and 13th Air Force are minor compared to their growing strength (and the the US military doesn't have much reinforcement prospects from the West Coast or the East Coast). Forget about the Pentagon pronouncements that the Chinese have inexperienced crews . That is immaterial. The Germans in WWII had the best Army tanks (Tiger I and II and Panther) but to pit a hundred German superior tanks against a thousand inferior Soviet T-32 tanks was no contest. The Soviets won hands down. We are facing the same conundrum in WESTPAC. The Chinese Communists will easily defeat the US forces in WESTPAC if it comes to a hot war. Forget about Taiwan. That is what the press focuses on. The real contest is that the Chiense want to get the US military forces out of WESTPAC. That simple. Prepare for a major military engagement in WESTPAC to defeat the US based forces (Guam, Okinawa, Japan) and the North Korean forces will attack the South while the US forces are distracted, eliminating the US Army there. How can I be the only one seeing this???? r/Karl
Unless I missed it, submarines; possibly our best method to effect a blockade are not mentioned. With carriers vulnerable to missiles and the F-35 of dubious reliability, I don't think either will factor much into a blockade. Finally, does the LCS realistically have any role in today's naval strategy?
As a final comment, think I've read where differing rail gauges make rail transport from China into Europe quite inefficient.
That can easily be fixed. Both use standard gauge and China would just need to build a standard gauge line through Pakistan or Russia. Possibly some combo of former Soviet Republics.
Containerships aren't cheap and many. Workboats are cheap and many without so many eggs in one basket. You can still cheap kill a containership even if it isn't going to sink.
Start converting our existing fleet of boats. Stop the FRC production and you can have Bollinger Lockport building 5 of the Dutch missile USV being built per year. Tell Saronic to get cracking at their new yard on 2 OUSV style hulls per year. If they team with Metal Shark they might get that number up. Maybe toss in Swiftships to help if they are worth anything. Nichols brothers could be building the same out west. Personally, I think Defiant is too small.
Workboats aren't as plentiful as you think...
(My daughter in law's father owns a fleet of them. One's named after her)
And they would require a logistics chain (tenders, etc) that would be expensive and long in coming.
As for containerships/combatants, you must build enough to lose.
They will NOT suffice as 1 to 1 substitutes.
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/blog/curatorial/sinking-atlantic-conveyor-falklands-war-oral-history
Same is true with a workboat fleet and it's logistics tail.
You will have to build enough to lose.
Yeah, there is no world where we come up with 5500 anything and that's just the Chinese merchant marine let alone the fishing fleet. But you have to start somewhere.
True, but there are not very many oil patch boats to be had these days...
Also, with the exception of Tidewater and Chouest, the companies are small with limited resources. They only keep enough hulls around to meet their contracts.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/tradition-feature-family318163
You might be able to buy this boat cheap right now Andy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C7LV9ya7qo
Col. Hammes dismissed my point about the Atlantic Conveyor. Poor Andy doesn't deserve to be tarred by my uncomfortable truths!
Its loss wasn't so much as the amount and type of material aboard (the Essex hulls suffered much worse punishment), it was the non redundant merchant hull design, the complete lack of defensive equipment (chaff and EW gear) and armament, and most importantly, the absence of a robust DC organization.
Like I say... Go down this road... Buy enough to lose.
Also, a note and aside about tankers. The Sangamons, which were modified T-3 hulls, often took a surprising amount of damage.
To clear up misconceptions about the Atlantic Conveyor, recommend this book...
https://www.amazon.com/N-1840-Loss-Atlantic-Conveyor/dp/1901231410
And article...
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2023/08/the-atlantic-conveyor/
And redacted Loss Report:
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20121026055214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EC14467A-DFAF-4030-BDFB-9E1AAF00205E/0/boi_atlanticconveyorpt1.pdf
Also, a lesson on how vital an effective damage control organization matters, read up on the USS Alchiba. A merchant hull that ate 3 Long Lance torpedoes. Her crew's DC efforts, enabled the ship to finish the critical mission of getting supplies to the beleaguered Marines on Guadalcanal when they were at the point of starvation. Seen here she is offloading supplies while battling the fires caused by 2 of the 3 torpedo hits. Of note, single Long Lance hits sank Heavy Cruisers.
[edit] The torpedoes were not the very lethal "Long Lances" with a ~990 lb warhead, but the ~770 lb warhead, Type 98's...
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.php
The attack was part of a planned assault by midget submarines. Think a proto version of today's Ukrainian drones...
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2022/december/midget-submarines-guadalcanal
[unedit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alchiba#/media/File:USS_Alchiba_(AK-23)_aground_and_afire_off_Lunga_Point_in_November_1942.jpg
Thats the point of not settling for "One Shot-One Kill" platforms. You need a level of Survivability to prevail in the fight. And that DOES NOT mean every ship need to be a Battle Star either!!!
She was repaired, continued to make some more notable achievements, and survived the war.
Wiki synopsis here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alchiba
USNI article here:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1996/june/only-her-crew-kept-her-afloat
The tale is FbF worthy.
Another point that needs to be cleared up.
Yes, the Exocets took a major toll on the Brit's major surface combatants in the Falklands.
Not "all" hits resulted in mission kills or outright hull losses...
https://www.rowlandscastleheritagecentre.org.uk/village-history/local-military-history/falklands-war/reflections-on-a-falklands-war-frontline-experience/
"It sounds trite to say that the ship would not have survived without the teamwork that came into play on that day, but it’s true. As I mentioned earlier, we were a taut ship who had been together through some tough times. When the disaster happened, everyone, to a man, responded with an alacrity and an urgency that was critical in overcoming the life-threatening challenges we were facing. There were many acts of heroism that day. Firefighters moving into the flaming hangar to rescue and recover people. A young man swimming down a passage underwater with no breathing gear to identify and clear a jammed valve and reverse the flooding. Another young man in a Seacat launcher who got away a missile against the incoming Exocet that arguably diverted it just enough in its deadly flight to allow us to survive. When he emerged from his lonely upper deck position, to walk away, he found his director shield covered in shrapnel hits.
All of this and more allowed us to recover the ship, and we were soon underway to rejoin the Task Group, to be patched up and made ready should we need to go again."
Glamorgan UNREPing with the damage from the Exocet evident. As that pic was taken, she was still partially mission capable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/ayjtde/1669_x_852_hms_glamorgan_displays_the_damage/?rdt=39300
One should be wary of the fallacy: 'Every Shot is a Hit-Every Hit is a Kill'