Yes, there is an advantage to having leadership that has Seen the Elephant, but like the Old Contemptibles lost in the trenches of 1914, that cadre might not last through the war.
The lack of hulls and aircraft will be more important in a sea battle. I pray it does not come, but it behooves our nation to be ready.
Don't be so dismissive of GEN Smith's comments. While the US military is behind on numbers for sure, and needs a lot more, even low-level combat experience matters. Consider the performance of the British Expeditionary Force in 1914. Committed in the wrong place perhaps, but a masterful performance of what troops with even minimal combat experience do to their opposite numbers who lack such. Even numbers do not guarantee victory. In 1940 the German Army (with fewer tanks, troops and aircraft,) decisively defeated the Anglo-French forces and knocked France out of the war. How about a middle road that acknowledges both US weaknesses and advantages? China is not going to give an A+ performance on the battlefield on the first day of a war with the US. Analysis based on numbers of platforms alone is just not sufficient.
I found Gen's Smith's remarks so brimming with unfounded arrogance as to marvel that he's in the position he's in. There is NOTHING remotely resembling the current history of marine corps operations that resembles the kind of hellscape that will be unleashed by the PRC. The marine corps has only operated under an umbrella where air supremacy or air superiority has existed in the last several decades. They are attempting to validate a force doctrine never validated under actual combat conditions against a near peer while doing so while sustaining a logistical tail that has to traverse thousands of miles of ocean. A doctrine that has to operate under a breathtaking & expansive reconnaissance complex the likes of which the USMC has never experienced in wartime against... again... a near peer adversary. All the while operating in an adversary's backyard. In the age of missiles and drones, EW, AI and semi-autonomous, unmanned vehicles, there is no basis whatsoever for the kind of arrogance display by this man.
The US Army has pointed out that the last time they came under air attack was 1952. Hence the implosion of SHORAD. Now they are trying to dig out of the 'economies' they came up with in 2002-5. But least the army didn't abolish SHORAD like they did EW so they have institutional knowledge.
Azerbaijan's use of drones in the Nagorno-Karabakh war to devastating effect in 2020 should have been everyone's wake-up call. It was for the Armenians.
They don't have to be superlative when they only need to be good enough to attrite the USN magazines with sufficient reserves of their own. And that analysis is all that matters in the end. - You know, that whole Stalin thingy about quantity.
In the naval war of attrition the U.S. fought the IJN was on the attrited side. There are still those in the glorious halls of Mordor on the Potomac who believe the PLAN will be the IJN and not us.
I would also note that most of the damage and casualties inflicted on the British in the Falklands was administered by a small number of obsolescent aircraft using WWII technology gravity bombs.
Low level combat experience against insurgents is of little value when faced with a peer competitor. Just ask the numerous volunteers that when to Ukraine and faced Russian artillery.
Or as Billy said (or I think implied), "Low level combat experience against insurgents is of great value in removing hubris when faced with a peer competitor."
Dismissive? Nope. Just a recognition that they are dangerous BS. One of the signs of an actual combat veteran who has actually learned something from it is a certain amount of humility. Rambo may be alive and well in Gen. Smith's Marine Corps, but in the real world Rambo is dead meat.
"but a masterful performance of what troops with even minimal combat experience do to their opposite numbers who lack such."
Like the British army against American colonists, or against the Boers?
I would posit that the focus for us is missiles and air platforms to make up the gap. If we can get to, and increase, B-21 production and do it quickly, along with long range missiles, we can make up for not having ships. We've gone from how many ships do you need to take out other ships, to how many planes/bombs to kill a ship, to how many ships a single bomber can take out with things like LRASM-ER.
Right now, if you have the missiles, you can sortie the B-2s, B-52s and B-1s launch from outside detection range, and send 1,000 missiles plus down range. Then you can load up and do it again. Perhaps Rapid Dragon, as well. If the PLAN is around Taiwan, or in the Strait, their capital ships are going down and the invasion threat to Taiwan is over.
Before anyone says it, yes, we don't have the missiles now...we'd go Winchester etc. etc. The question is what we can build quickly enough to make a difference in a fight in the next couple of years, if needed.
We're in a hurt locker with regards to Tomahawk inventory, and my understanding is that production of these items is fairly long lead—not days or weeks, but months or longer.
Good info—thanks! Like all military-industrial projects, it will be interesting to observe how the R&D, planning, and enthusiasm translate to actual output.
The point is the volume of cheaper, easier to make missiles that act as distractions...which makes it easier for the LRASM-ERs with the 1100-lb warhead to get through the defensive missiles. If you can't tell what they are, you have to shoot them down. That means you don't have to launch 10 LRASM-ERs at one ship to get through the missile screen and hit the ship. And the 100 lb warhead can still do damage.
I'll always take a heavy weight MK48 or Spearfish breaking the keels of a fleet. Along with Quicksink JDAMs dropped from B21s sending the CCP merchant & CG fleet to the seabed.
I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of several of these nearly simultaneously. Simple tools to assemble and designed for manufacturability are not exactly insurmountable obstacles in this arena. Anduril just seems to bring a different perspective on getting things done.
Palmer Luckey is the 32 year old man of Anduril and he should be the Big Bill Knudsen of our Military rebuilding. What Musk is to Rockets he is to Drones, and what Henry Ford was to mass production Lucky is to 21st century manufacturing.
It's not an either-or solution. B21 are needed in great numbers at least 576 airframes to cover needs. But they do not provide the persistence of a large SSN force or Surface Action Group. Even with the limited magazines on SSN except for the Seawolf we are not optimized for sea attack. Frankly, beyond the focus on VLS we need a focus on stealth 21in tubes & increasing magazine depth for heavy weights & mines. All for qualifying foreign heavyweights for US use to allow for more flexibility.
Yeah, but we're talking time...and we can launch missiles from planes, and build missiles and planes quicker than ships. So the air arm supplements the ships we have that CAN stand in for persistence once the sea lanes are sanitized.
I was about to make the same point about the last time the USMC met the PLA. Smith/Puller versus smiley face Smith. The Marine attack back to the ships would have looked differently without 100% Air Supremacy. We won't even have parity this time IRBMS/PLANES/DRONES
A not insignificant number of US ships are effectively non-operational (not including the recent decision to sideline a number of MSC ships). Egregious examples include USS BOISE (SSN 764) sitting pierside since 2017 (est'd return to service in 2029!) and 16 of 32 amphibs:
You are exactly right. I have corresponded with a retired Admiral who was in charge of the 'SUBSAFE' program. After he decertified a number of fast attacks, senior leadership tried to pressure him to restore certification. Since he knew that he would be personally accountable if any of those submarines were to sink, he refused. Result? He was 'invited' to retire, which he did. This is a bold prediction but I am of the opinion that the Navy maybe the first service to collapse. It is on a terminal trajectory with no positive solutions. Navy Shipyards are whofully behind schedule. Amphib maintenance is totally off the table as lowest priority. yet the Pentagon Navy staff refuses to authorize some very attractive private industry alternatives. Why? Probably ricebowl issues. New construction is way behind and slipping further. The solution by senior Navy leadership? Decommission ships without any backfill. So sad. I spent two years in the Navy Secretariet in my first 0-6 tour. Part of the 800 military and civilian staff under the SECNAV. The current SECNAV (Del Toro) is a blithering idiot even though his credentials were a successful Navy career including CO of a Navy ship. Trump's SECNAV nominee is much better, a hedge fund manager. You see 80% of Pentagon activity is about budgeting and contracting for military hardware, not the 'uniforn board' which the Master Chief in the CNO's office can handle very well without further guidance. So a businessman as SECNAV is probably the best solution. r/Karl
Smaller scale "Me too." At one point I was the PHNSY Assistant Repair Officer for Surface Ships. The SURFGRUMIDPAC maintenance officer wanted me to certify that a certain FF was fit to deploy to WESTPAC. A few weeks prior to that, I had seen a fireman literally chip a hole in the bilge bottom (twice) and I knew that the boiler sliding feet had completely rusted out, allowing the boiler to sit on hull plating. I told the nice man that I didn't think the ship was suitable to sail around Ford Island, much less be deployed. SURFGRUMIDPAC couldn't fire me, but they could ignore me. And they did.
And with INSURVs classified, deterioration is more hidden from oversight than ever. If the incoming SECNAV does anything I hope it is restore INSURV. You can't fix what you won't admit.
As an aside but echoing the result: The slip-sliding I saw from the start of the peace dividend eroded and eradicated effective MIW. Flag interest in even the basics eroded as well. I hope current leadership understands what ships and subs at sea will face in this regard.
Not sure when it happened, but the Navy shifted to a ”rob Peter to pay Paul” mindset for conducting new construction and maintenance. This has led to a death spiral across the watch of multiple administrations and will result—sooner rather than later—in the collapse of which you wrote. Unfortunately, this will also result in the needless loss of an untold number of Sailors' lives.
Your prophecy of the Navy being the first to collapse is a scary one. Imagine along the lines of 1940 Italy, or 1941 France and 1987 Great Britain and 1991 Soviet Union.
Yes, ADM Paparo's comments are illustrative of his acknowledgement that the Chinese CCP leadership has the military capability to initiate an attack, either against Taiwan, or for that matter Guam. He is also excellent at hiding his fear of a full on military confrontation with the Chinese Navy. Yes, numbers matter. But even more so geographic reality matters more. While the US has a sizeable Navy, it is scattered about the world, not available to engage the Chinese. The entire Chinese military capability is arrayed along their Pacific coast. Our 'available' military force is the 7th Fleet, the 13th Air Force, some pockets of Marines, and a US Army primarily concentrated in one large military base in South Korea. Yes, we can surge Air Force bombers and maybe some Hawaiian and west coast based Naval assets. But the Chinese can literally bomb our airfields, naval bases, and other military facilities in an instant of an hour with hundreds of coastal batteries launching hundreds of missiles. The Marine Commandant's comments are idiotic bluster to reassure the US population that we have everything in hand. If the Chinese goal is to take possession of the western Pacific islands, they have that ability and capability right now. But wait, there's more! They continue to build military assets faster than their recruiting goals can man them. Every month we theorize this military conflict the outcome gets worse, not better. No, we won't go nuclear (nor will the Chinese). But we do not have a 'doomsday' machine that was inferred in the 1964 Peter Sellers movie, 'Dr. Strangelove...'. Our intelligence gathering can detect their logistical war preparations. But so what? We are at about the max readiness for our military in the western pacific now. The only thing our intel warnings will do is to spark diplomatic engagement with China. And that will fail as it has so far. End of story.
Karl, there was a fascinating article in the Time's magazine this week. I'd like to share it with you and the porch. As a subscriber, I get to pull articles out of the paywall.
Yes, I am very familiar with 'Able Archer' and the succeeding subordinate war games that led to the Soviet Union almost calling in nuclear response. This was more on the edge than the so-called nuclear missile crisis under Kennedy (and Kennedy was responsible for by ignoring intel until the last minute). I was the custodian of four tactical nuclear warheads in 1990 that required me to sign letters and to acquire one half of metal credit cards (the other half welded to the warhead). I had to access a small opening to hold my half up against the half welded to the warhead to make sure they were actually still there. That went away when Bush decided to decommission tactical nuclear warheads. So Tom, I don't know your background, but I can assure you that my background is solid. Thank you. r/Karl
OK, maybe it's declassified (idk) and thus public. Maybe it's forever irrelevant. Maybe it was never classified, just unpublished.
But if not, that and 1000 other tidbits are automatically scraped, sifted, sorted and added together and also filed away, waiting for some other piece to be added. Blogs like this get extra attention, from actual humans on top of AI.
Don't forget the US mainland. How long can Americans go without goods from China? The US may be sent into chaos if they are able to paralyze our critical resources and infrastructure though cyber attacks and physical attacks. A large number of Chinese have, and continue to, come into America legally and through the border. The Chinese mega ports coming online in South America make our safe isolation look a bit less so. Is the Panama Canal still necessary? Hopefully we have plans in place and have just been non-vocal about them. Though, I would think that our border would have been closed long ago. The recent response to hurricane Helena in North Carolina doesn't give me any assurances.
That’s a short term concern and an oft cited excuse for us to discount Chinese intent. Or our ability to counter it. When total war comes we get going.
Paparo is the Head Coach, just interviewed by say John Madden and Al Michaels. Smith, is the Nose Tackle who just popped in to the interview wearing a towel and yelling “Merica!!””
Hubris. Just yesterday the Secretary of the Air Force declared we don’t have a recruiting problem. Lol.
Remember, surface ships are just targets for submariners. I am disgusted by how the Navy treats the Marine Corps. There are several ways that the Navy denigrates the Marine Corps. I actually had a moment with the Commandant in the hallway in the Pentagon back in 1998. My buddy was a soon to retire Marine Corps COL. He stopped the Commandant in the hallway and we chatted. Quite impressive. I am quite disgusted with the senior Navy flag community these days. No, not just the 'woke' policies. But their decisionmaking on major contracts. Total blithering idiots. Sorry, but that is my opinion. r/Karl
Your points noted but it still begs the question whether the Marine Corps Force Design 30 will stand up under conditions that have been vetted under conditions that are unlikely to resemble the duration, scope and complexity of what will be thrown at them... let alone will such a strategy prevail say D+90? The state of decline in readiness resembles a leadership fond of new toys and effectively giving lip service to sustaining what they already have.
As far as I can tell, from what appears in open forums, there has been no serious wargaming done where the PLA is assumed to be acting like the PLA with all the assets it has.
It never ceases to amaze me the willingness of senior leadership to ignore historically available (real data) that points to the punching-above-their-weight class & deterrence benefits of defensive and offensive mining; especially given their potential relevance WRT the physiography of the Taiwan Strait. Anyone recall why we didn't elect to go with an amphib landing in Kuwait during Gulf War 1? I seem to recall something about concerns over sea mines??? We actually have data to back up the relevance of sea mine warfare from history. And, in the age of AI, there are real "level the playing" benefits to be gained here for Taiwan. It is strategy that is affordable, sustainable in the here and now. It is a strategy that requires little to no commentary from GOFOs, enamored with some "future overmatch" strategy that has never been played out in real combat. No need for th U.S. to put her thumb on the scales. There is no other strategy that plays out in a way that doesn't otherwise have catastrophic consequences for the USN.
Sea mines? You got some you want to share? Got any sailors (or any other service) who know how to maintain, arm and deploy mines? Got any extra ship/sub/air assets to deploy mines, besides those which would be multi-tasked if the inscrutable Chinese want to fight?
I think mines are great, and we used to be pretty good with a cadre of largely ignored folks who professionals in that specialty, but they have all been long gone.
Don't even get me started on our unpreparedness for any mine countermeasures, beyond "Any ship can be a minesweeper, once."
Well, there are a couple of programs going on, but is considered an option rather than something built into an OPLAN or CONPLAN. LCS will be "challenged" to preform MCM and mining will be the last "what-else-have-we-got-in-the-magazine" operation long after their most effective introduction... just say'n. Change of leadership (subs) may help or may relegate MIW to coulda-shouldaland.
Taiwan has experience with sea mines and has the means of delivering them. They have the technical capacity and the GDP to bring a new dawn to this type of tech along with safeguards that were not present in the past. Taiwan will never outproduce the PRC in aircraft, missiles, etc., etc. A fool's errand. So what alternative does Taiwan have? Well they could spit out sea mines of different capabilities like gumballs and the U.S. would not have to have any meaningful role in the matter. And as far as the USN mine warfare strategy, I understand it's getting some attention but this doesn't have to be a USN thing. It needs to be a Taiwan "all in" thing? And as you pointed out, conducting mine countermeasures is rather risky business. A slow, extremely dangerous and meticulous process which is rather convenient when weighing options to deter an amphibious landing and air assault on Taiwan. And it isn't as though there are no lessons from history to help make the case here? If I recall correctly, one of the primary reasons the U.S. didn't conduct an amphibious landing on the shores of Kuwait during Gulf War 1 was the perceived threat of sea mines. It is not unreasonable to imagine a similar strategy employed as a deterrent against the PRC. And unlike the PLAN's the significant number of surface combatants, the same cannot be said of the number of their big, noisy gators.
Yup, Good points. I know what they have in their magazines, and it won't be enough. Too provocative to emplace a barrier in "peace time". and there are other issues... it gets complicated.
Any more complicated than devising a strategy that doesn't entail the likely loss of 2 CVNs, numerous DDGs and 10's of thousands of sailors and marine lives? I
I think integrating offensive MIW into any planned force movement will be but a very small part (indeed if any) of any major force strategy. MCM will become important once we start to lose combatants.
... very small part... Well as my preference is for a strategy that helps to ensure a shooting war never takes place to begin with and thus there is no "small part" in what I am proposing here when it comes to mining The Strait from Taiwan's side of the line of control.
Some years ago, someone came up with the idea of strapping a "wing kit" to a 500 lb. bomb turning it into something that was never originally envisioned for use in land warfare. Then someone came along and eventually applied the same concept to create a "Quickstrike" mine. Let's just say, the final chapter on what 21st mine tech could eventually resemble is a chapter that has been written yet. I would tend to put more credence on what that chapter might look like vs. some of the other choices pushed by the "U.S. to the rescue" camp.
Yup, that was my mining input... MW requirements to CPF POM for FY 94/95/96 based on work from USAF and Leigh Aerosys at that time... (subsequently and instantly killed by the CNO resource sponsor). This capability has now finally become reality with many thanks to USAF' support and their desire to not fly into hostile counterfire unless necessary. Also mining has a new boss with a very strong interest in what is placed on the seabed. Doctrine is being reviewed for revision. OBTW, if interested, a group of us supporting author Scott Truver just finished a complete update (3rd iteration) to the book "Weapons that Wait" and will come out early 2024 from Naval Institute. Covers a much broader and deeper view of MW including both mining and MCM.
Yes, there is an advantage to having leadership that has Seen the Elephant, but like the Old Contemptibles lost in the trenches of 1914, that cadre might not last through the war.
The lack of hulls and aircraft will be more important in a sea battle. I pray it does not come, but it behooves our nation to be ready.
Don't be so dismissive of GEN Smith's comments. While the US military is behind on numbers for sure, and needs a lot more, even low-level combat experience matters. Consider the performance of the British Expeditionary Force in 1914. Committed in the wrong place perhaps, but a masterful performance of what troops with even minimal combat experience do to their opposite numbers who lack such. Even numbers do not guarantee victory. In 1940 the German Army (with fewer tanks, troops and aircraft,) decisively defeated the Anglo-French forces and knocked France out of the war. How about a middle road that acknowledges both US weaknesses and advantages? China is not going to give an A+ performance on the battlefield on the first day of a war with the US. Analysis based on numbers of platforms alone is just not sufficient.
Our DDG’s on the line when the war starts are going to face hell and diversity of the crew won’t be a force multiplier either.
I found Gen's Smith's remarks so brimming with unfounded arrogance as to marvel that he's in the position he's in. There is NOTHING remotely resembling the current history of marine corps operations that resembles the kind of hellscape that will be unleashed by the PRC. The marine corps has only operated under an umbrella where air supremacy or air superiority has existed in the last several decades. They are attempting to validate a force doctrine never validated under actual combat conditions against a near peer while doing so while sustaining a logistical tail that has to traverse thousands of miles of ocean. A doctrine that has to operate under a breathtaking & expansive reconnaissance complex the likes of which the USMC has never experienced in wartime against... again... a near peer adversary. All the while operating in an adversary's backyard. In the age of missiles and drones, EW, AI and semi-autonomous, unmanned vehicles, there is no basis whatsoever for the kind of arrogance display by this man.
Well put.
"The marine corps has only operated under an umbrella where air supremacy or air superiority ..."
Not just the Marine Corps; the entire US military.
The US Army has pointed out that the last time they came under air attack was 1952. Hence the implosion of SHORAD. Now they are trying to dig out of the 'economies' they came up with in 2002-5. But least the army didn't abolish SHORAD like they did EW so they have institutional knowledge.
Azerbaijan's use of drones in the Nagorno-Karabakh war to devastating effect in 2020 should have been everyone's wake-up call. It was for the Armenians.
They don't have to be superlative when they only need to be good enough to attrite the USN magazines with sufficient reserves of their own. And that analysis is all that matters in the end. - You know, that whole Stalin thingy about quantity.
In the naval war of attrition the U.S. fought the IJN was on the attrited side. There are still those in the glorious halls of Mordor on the Potomac who believe the PLAN will be the IJN and not us.
I would also note that most of the damage and casualties inflicted on the British in the Falklands was administered by a small number of obsolescent aircraft using WWII technology gravity bombs.
Low level combat experience against insurgents is of little value when faced with a peer competitor. Just ask the numerous volunteers that when to Ukraine and faced Russian artillery.
It may even be counterproductive, as it seems to be with Gen. Smith. The Greeks had a word for it; hubris, which is punished by the Gods.
Or as Billy said (or I think implied), "Low level combat experience against insurgents is of great value in removing hubris when faced with a peer competitor."
As opposed to none?
In any case it’s not a ground war.
Dismissive? Nope. Just a recognition that they are dangerous BS. One of the signs of an actual combat veteran who has actually learned something from it is a certain amount of humility. Rambo may be alive and well in Gen. Smith's Marine Corps, but in the real world Rambo is dead meat.
"but a masterful performance of what troops with even minimal combat experience do to their opposite numbers who lack such."
Like the British army against American colonists, or against the Boers?
I am a veteran of those conflicts and a ground pounder.
Having said that, a look at the map reveals water, and we ground troops would be out of our element.
I would posit that the focus for us is missiles and air platforms to make up the gap. If we can get to, and increase, B-21 production and do it quickly, along with long range missiles, we can make up for not having ships. We've gone from how many ships do you need to take out other ships, to how many planes/bombs to kill a ship, to how many ships a single bomber can take out with things like LRASM-ER.
Right now, if you have the missiles, you can sortie the B-2s, B-52s and B-1s launch from outside detection range, and send 1,000 missiles plus down range. Then you can load up and do it again. Perhaps Rapid Dragon, as well. If the PLAN is around Taiwan, or in the Strait, their capital ships are going down and the invasion threat to Taiwan is over.
Before anyone says it, yes, we don't have the missiles now...we'd go Winchester etc. etc. The question is what we can build quickly enough to make a difference in a fight in the next couple of years, if needed.
We're in a hurt locker with regards to Tomahawk inventory, and my understanding is that production of these items is fairly long lead—not days or weeks, but months or longer.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-missiles-run-within-days-194648126.html
I think this is what we're looking at...https://www.defenseone.com/business/2024/09/anduril-touts-new-easy-build-cruise-missiles/399473/#:~:text=Anduril's%20cruise%20missile%20will%20come,with%20crewed%20and%20uncrewed%20platforms.
Good info—thanks! Like all military-industrial projects, it will be interesting to observe how the R&D, planning, and enthusiasm translate to actual output.
Vaporware with, at most, ~100 lb. payload, 500 nm range, and at up to 500 kt.
The point is the volume of cheaper, easier to make missiles that act as distractions...which makes it easier for the LRASM-ERs with the 1100-lb warhead to get through the defensive missiles. If you can't tell what they are, you have to shoot them down. That means you don't have to launch 10 LRASM-ERs at one ship to get through the missile screen and hit the ship. And the 100 lb warhead can still do damage.
I'll always take a heavy weight MK48 or Spearfish breaking the keels of a fleet. Along with Quicksink JDAMs dropped from B21s sending the CCP merchant & CG fleet to the seabed.
I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of several of these nearly simultaneously. Simple tools to assemble and designed for manufacturability are not exactly insurmountable obstacles in this arena. Anduril just seems to bring a different perspective on getting things done.
Palmer Luckey is the 32 year old man of Anduril and he should be the Big Bill Knudsen of our Military rebuilding. What Musk is to Rockets he is to Drones, and what Henry Ford was to mass production Lucky is to 21st century manufacturing.
They just announced a 6 fold increase in production.
Current production is....?
Now if we could just get a six fold increase in SM2/SM3/SM6 and Mark 48 production too ...
We could toss P-8s into the job and those are a hot production line.
Not the most efficient use of the platform, but F-15EX with a LRASM and drop tanks.
If we're going for mass on target.
It's not an either-or solution. B21 are needed in great numbers at least 576 airframes to cover needs. But they do not provide the persistence of a large SSN force or Surface Action Group. Even with the limited magazines on SSN except for the Seawolf we are not optimized for sea attack. Frankly, beyond the focus on VLS we need a focus on stealth 21in tubes & increasing magazine depth for heavy weights & mines. All for qualifying foreign heavyweights for US use to allow for more flexibility.
Yeah, but we're talking time...and we can launch missiles from planes, and build missiles and planes quicker than ships. So the air arm supplements the ships we have that CAN stand in for persistence once the sea lanes are sanitized.
I think Chesty Puller would like to have a word with GEN Smith in regards to Chinese combat experience against deployed US Marines.
Colonel Chesty to General Smith. Guadalcanal Chesty is best Chesty.
I was about to make the same point about the last time the USMC met the PLA. Smith/Puller versus smiley face Smith. The Marine attack back to the ships would have looked differently without 100% Air Supremacy. We won't even have parity this time IRBMS/PLANES/DRONES
And Naval supremacy. No US Navy, no evacuation at Hungnam.
one account I read was that there were 193 ships offshore. That may also have been the last time our Navy had that many in one place.
"Almond needed shipping space for 105,000 troops, 18,422 vehicles, and some 350,000 tons of bulk cargo."
The late Gen. O.P. Smith would also like a word with the current Gen. Smith.
1,000 "likes" !
listening to On the Psychology of Military Incompetence. brit focused. still, apropos.
Great book!
A not insignificant number of US ships are effectively non-operational (not including the recent decision to sideline a number of MSC ships). Egregious examples include USS BOISE (SSN 764) sitting pierside since 2017 (est'd return to service in 2029!) and 16 of 32 amphibs:
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/12/09/marines-hindered-by-navys-amphibious-warfare-ship-maintenance-delays/
You are exactly right. I have corresponded with a retired Admiral who was in charge of the 'SUBSAFE' program. After he decertified a number of fast attacks, senior leadership tried to pressure him to restore certification. Since he knew that he would be personally accountable if any of those submarines were to sink, he refused. Result? He was 'invited' to retire, which he did. This is a bold prediction but I am of the opinion that the Navy maybe the first service to collapse. It is on a terminal trajectory with no positive solutions. Navy Shipyards are whofully behind schedule. Amphib maintenance is totally off the table as lowest priority. yet the Pentagon Navy staff refuses to authorize some very attractive private industry alternatives. Why? Probably ricebowl issues. New construction is way behind and slipping further. The solution by senior Navy leadership? Decommission ships without any backfill. So sad. I spent two years in the Navy Secretariet in my first 0-6 tour. Part of the 800 military and civilian staff under the SECNAV. The current SECNAV (Del Toro) is a blithering idiot even though his credentials were a successful Navy career including CO of a Navy ship. Trump's SECNAV nominee is much better, a hedge fund manager. You see 80% of Pentagon activity is about budgeting and contracting for military hardware, not the 'uniforn board' which the Master Chief in the CNO's office can handle very well without further guidance. So a businessman as SECNAV is probably the best solution. r/Karl
with a kick-ass CNO
Not the one we have now!
I was being polite, by not explicitly being judgmental, me not being a powerboat person
💯
Kick-Ass?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UZRTT_d4Kk
Smaller scale "Me too." At one point I was the PHNSY Assistant Repair Officer for Surface Ships. The SURFGRUMIDPAC maintenance officer wanted me to certify that a certain FF was fit to deploy to WESTPAC. A few weeks prior to that, I had seen a fireman literally chip a hole in the bilge bottom (twice) and I knew that the boiler sliding feet had completely rusted out, allowing the boiler to sit on hull plating. I told the nice man that I didn't think the ship was suitable to sail around Ford Island, much less be deployed. SURFGRUMIDPAC couldn't fire me, but they could ignore me. And they did.
And with INSURVs classified, deterioration is more hidden from oversight than ever. If the incoming SECNAV does anything I hope it is restore INSURV. You can't fix what you won't admit.
As an aside but echoing the result: The slip-sliding I saw from the start of the peace dividend eroded and eradicated effective MIW. Flag interest in even the basics eroded as well. I hope current leadership understands what ships and subs at sea will face in this regard.
Not sure when it happened, but the Navy shifted to a ”rob Peter to pay Paul” mindset for conducting new construction and maintenance. This has led to a death spiral across the watch of multiple administrations and will result—sooner rather than later—in the collapse of which you wrote. Unfortunately, this will also result in the needless loss of an untold number of Sailors' lives.
Your prophecy of the Navy being the first to collapse is a scary one. Imagine along the lines of 1940 Italy, or 1941 France and 1987 Great Britain and 1991 Soviet Union.
No tango no Dinero.
Yes, ADM Paparo's comments are illustrative of his acknowledgement that the Chinese CCP leadership has the military capability to initiate an attack, either against Taiwan, or for that matter Guam. He is also excellent at hiding his fear of a full on military confrontation with the Chinese Navy. Yes, numbers matter. But even more so geographic reality matters more. While the US has a sizeable Navy, it is scattered about the world, not available to engage the Chinese. The entire Chinese military capability is arrayed along their Pacific coast. Our 'available' military force is the 7th Fleet, the 13th Air Force, some pockets of Marines, and a US Army primarily concentrated in one large military base in South Korea. Yes, we can surge Air Force bombers and maybe some Hawaiian and west coast based Naval assets. But the Chinese can literally bomb our airfields, naval bases, and other military facilities in an instant of an hour with hundreds of coastal batteries launching hundreds of missiles. The Marine Commandant's comments are idiotic bluster to reassure the US population that we have everything in hand. If the Chinese goal is to take possession of the western Pacific islands, they have that ability and capability right now. But wait, there's more! They continue to build military assets faster than their recruiting goals can man them. Every month we theorize this military conflict the outcome gets worse, not better. No, we won't go nuclear (nor will the Chinese). But we do not have a 'doomsday' machine that was inferred in the 1964 Peter Sellers movie, 'Dr. Strangelove...'. Our intelligence gathering can detect their logistical war preparations. But so what? We are at about the max readiness for our military in the western pacific now. The only thing our intel warnings will do is to spark diplomatic engagement with China. And that will fail as it has so far. End of story.
r/Karl
💯
Karl, there was a fascinating article in the Time's magazine this week. I'd like to share it with you and the porch. As a subscriber, I get to pull articles out of the paywall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/02/magazine/nuclear-strategy-proud-prophet.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gU4.68LM.waw84HEZzVdy&smid=url-share
I am surprised anything starting with “Proud” could ever be unclassified. It has only been 40 years!
Us USAF junior officers, late 1970’s, thought things in NW Europe would trip nuke in 3 days, this X had 5.
Tx for link, I will not pay NYTimes. Better than their norml
Yes, I am very familiar with 'Able Archer' and the succeeding subordinate war games that led to the Soviet Union almost calling in nuclear response. This was more on the edge than the so-called nuclear missile crisis under Kennedy (and Kennedy was responsible for by ignoring intel until the last minute). I was the custodian of four tactical nuclear warheads in 1990 that required me to sign letters and to acquire one half of metal credit cards (the other half welded to the warhead). I had to access a small opening to hold my half up against the half welded to the warhead to make sure they were actually still there. That went away when Bush decided to decommission tactical nuclear warheads. So Tom, I don't know your background, but I can assure you that my background is solid. Thank you. r/Karl
I'm sorry, I can neither confirm, nor deny, the presence of nuclear weapons on any ship or station of the United States Navy.
Appreciate your time guarding the country
but ....
are you sure that detail should be out in public?
OK, maybe it's declassified (idk) and thus public. Maybe it's forever irrelevant. Maybe it was never classified, just unpublished.
But if not, that and 1000 other tidbits are automatically scraped, sifted, sorted and added together and also filed away, waiting for some other piece to be added. Blogs like this get extra attention, from actual humans on top of AI.
Don't forget the US mainland. How long can Americans go without goods from China? The US may be sent into chaos if they are able to paralyze our critical resources and infrastructure though cyber attacks and physical attacks. A large number of Chinese have, and continue to, come into America legally and through the border. The Chinese mega ports coming online in South America make our safe isolation look a bit less so. Is the Panama Canal still necessary? Hopefully we have plans in place and have just been non-vocal about them. Though, I would think that our border would have been closed long ago. The recent response to hurricane Helena in North Carolina doesn't give me any assurances.
That’s a short term concern and an oft cited excuse for us to discount Chinese intent. Or our ability to counter it. When total war comes we get going.
And the bold face that between now and January 20, 2025, no one would respond if China did go hot. Which I believe they are about to.
Paparo is the Head Coach, just interviewed by say John Madden and Al Michaels. Smith, is the Nose Tackle who just popped in to the interview wearing a towel and yelling “Merica!!””
Hubris. Just yesterday the Secretary of the Air Force declared we don’t have a recruiting problem. Lol.
If no one was fired for LCS, all of this stuff is academic.
Very well said. I hope there are receptive ears in high places that are listening.
Of course there are. I have been assured by Prof. Pangloss that those receptive ears are always listening.
China built that iPhone 14…
"The Japanese will never start a war......."
".....all we've got to do is kick the door in and the whole edifice will come crumbling down......."
If I remember correctly we fought them in Korea.
Remember, surface ships are just targets for submariners. I am disgusted by how the Navy treats the Marine Corps. There are several ways that the Navy denigrates the Marine Corps. I actually had a moment with the Commandant in the hallway in the Pentagon back in 1998. My buddy was a soon to retire Marine Corps COL. He stopped the Commandant in the hallway and we chatted. Quite impressive. I am quite disgusted with the senior Navy flag community these days. No, not just the 'woke' policies. But their decisionmaking on major contracts. Total blithering idiots. Sorry, but that is my opinion. r/Karl
As a deckplate white hat from the bilges, Concur.
Your points noted but it still begs the question whether the Marine Corps Force Design 30 will stand up under conditions that have been vetted under conditions that are unlikely to resemble the duration, scope and complexity of what will be thrown at them... let alone will such a strategy prevail say D+90? The state of decline in readiness resembles a leadership fond of new toys and effectively giving lip service to sustaining what they already have.
As far as I can tell, from what appears in open forums, there has been no serious wargaming done where the PLA is assumed to be acting like the PLA with all the assets it has.
Now there's a thought worth meditating on given the potential implications.
Woke and DEI and just a Minstrel show to screen and distract from malfeasance.
It never ceases to amaze me the willingness of senior leadership to ignore historically available (real data) that points to the punching-above-their-weight class & deterrence benefits of defensive and offensive mining; especially given their potential relevance WRT the physiography of the Taiwan Strait. Anyone recall why we didn't elect to go with an amphib landing in Kuwait during Gulf War 1? I seem to recall something about concerns over sea mines??? We actually have data to back up the relevance of sea mine warfare from history. And, in the age of AI, there are real "level the playing" benefits to be gained here for Taiwan. It is strategy that is affordable, sustainable in the here and now. It is a strategy that requires little to no commentary from GOFOs, enamored with some "future overmatch" strategy that has never been played out in real combat. No need for th U.S. to put her thumb on the scales. There is no other strategy that plays out in a way that doesn't otherwise have catastrophic consequences for the USN.
Sea mines? You got some you want to share? Got any sailors (or any other service) who know how to maintain, arm and deploy mines? Got any extra ship/sub/air assets to deploy mines, besides those which would be multi-tasked if the inscrutable Chinese want to fight?
I think mines are great, and we used to be pretty good with a cadre of largely ignored folks who professionals in that specialty, but they have all been long gone.
Don't even get me started on our unpreparedness for any mine countermeasures, beyond "Any ship can be a minesweeper, once."
Well, there are a couple of programs going on, but is considered an option rather than something built into an OPLAN or CONPLAN. LCS will be "challenged" to preform MCM and mining will be the last "what-else-have-we-got-in-the-magazine" operation long after their most effective introduction... just say'n. Change of leadership (subs) may help or may relegate MIW to coulda-shouldaland.
Taiwan has experience with sea mines and has the means of delivering them. They have the technical capacity and the GDP to bring a new dawn to this type of tech along with safeguards that were not present in the past. Taiwan will never outproduce the PRC in aircraft, missiles, etc., etc. A fool's errand. So what alternative does Taiwan have? Well they could spit out sea mines of different capabilities like gumballs and the U.S. would not have to have any meaningful role in the matter. And as far as the USN mine warfare strategy, I understand it's getting some attention but this doesn't have to be a USN thing. It needs to be a Taiwan "all in" thing? And as you pointed out, conducting mine countermeasures is rather risky business. A slow, extremely dangerous and meticulous process which is rather convenient when weighing options to deter an amphibious landing and air assault on Taiwan. And it isn't as though there are no lessons from history to help make the case here? If I recall correctly, one of the primary reasons the U.S. didn't conduct an amphibious landing on the shores of Kuwait during Gulf War 1 was the perceived threat of sea mines. It is not unreasonable to imagine a similar strategy employed as a deterrent against the PRC. And unlike the PLAN's the significant number of surface combatants, the same cannot be said of the number of their big, noisy gators.
Yup, Good points. I know what they have in their magazines, and it won't be enough. Too provocative to emplace a barrier in "peace time". and there are other issues... it gets complicated.
Any more complicated than devising a strategy that doesn't entail the likely loss of 2 CVNs, numerous DDGs and 10's of thousands of sailors and marine lives? I
I think integrating offensive MIW into any planned force movement will be but a very small part (indeed if any) of any major force strategy. MCM will become important once we start to lose combatants.
... very small part... Well as my preference is for a strategy that helps to ensure a shooting war never takes place to begin with and thus there is no "small part" in what I am proposing here when it comes to mining The Strait from Taiwan's side of the line of control.
Some years ago, someone came up with the idea of strapping a "wing kit" to a 500 lb. bomb turning it into something that was never originally envisioned for use in land warfare. Then someone came along and eventually applied the same concept to create a "Quickstrike" mine. Let's just say, the final chapter on what 21st mine tech could eventually resemble is a chapter that has been written yet. I would tend to put more credence on what that chapter might look like vs. some of the other choices pushed by the "U.S. to the rescue" camp.
Yup, that was my mining input... MW requirements to CPF POM for FY 94/95/96 based on work from USAF and Leigh Aerosys at that time... (subsequently and instantly killed by the CNO resource sponsor). This capability has now finally become reality with many thanks to USAF' support and their desire to not fly into hostile counterfire unless necessary. Also mining has a new boss with a very strong interest in what is placed on the seabed. Doctrine is being reviewed for revision. OBTW, if interested, a group of us supporting author Scott Truver just finished a complete update (3rd iteration) to the book "Weapons that Wait" and will come out early 2024 from Naval Institute. Covers a much broader and deeper view of MW including both mining and MCM.
"our unpreparedness for any mine countermeasures,"
Tut,tut, lad. You forget our flotillas of LCS, whose Mine warfare modules will be ready any day now.
yes of course... my apologies
Well, there are those MH-53Es that have not yet shaken themselves apart.
...and the 60's can't carry the load
" benefits of defensive and offensive mining; "
Speaking of the Korean War.....
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/events/kowar/50-unof/wonsn-2.htm