Military primacy?

[kallend 2,027]

What do our military experts think of this article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines

"

“Over the past decade, in U.S. war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time.”

That’s a quote from a new book called “The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare,” the most provocative critique of U.S. defense policy I’ve read in years. It’s written by Christian Brose, former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a close adviser to late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). The book isn’t just a wake-up call, it’s a fire alarm in the night.

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them."

 

etc. etc,

 

[RonD1120 62]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them."

Let me think. Who was in power during the time period that allowed this military imbalance to become manifest? Let's see, that would have been prior to Donald Trump's presidency.

[kallend 2,027]

2 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

Let me think. Who was in power during the time period that allowed this military imbalance to become manifest? Let's see, that would have been prior to Donald Trump's presidency.

So you didn't read the article, then.  OK.

BTW the F-35 contract was awarded  26 October 2001, when GWB was president.
The contract to build the USS George H.W. Bush was also awarded under GWB.

The decision to un-mothball obsolete BATTLESHIPS was made by Reagan.

[gowlerk 2,193]

17 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

Let me think. Who was in power during the time period that allowed this military imbalance to become manifest? Let's see, that would have been prior to Donald Trump's presidency.

Who cares? The fact is that the US military is set up to be all powerful against non-state actors and second rate powers. It leverages all the new technology that silicon valley has given to your nation to do so. At the same time that leaves it vulnerable in the same way all of us are.  We can not live the lifestyle we have become accustomed to without global cooperation. And any nation advanced enough to have nukes and rockets can screw with all of us, including the mighty US war machine. And it is only going to become more so. It is the new version of an older paradigm. The one called Mutual Assured Destruction. And it is not a bad thing. China will be just as vulnerable. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

IMO the article as you quoted is likely true. But it failed to address the US response and capabilities. US carriers are not designed for a war with China by themselves. Or a war with Iran in the Gulf itself. They have substantial standoff capabilities but swarming anti ship missile attacks will overwhelm carrier battle groups.

There are two programs now underway that can begin to address standoff lack of range capabilities of US carriers and conventional air forces. The  Loyal Wingman aircraft  and the MQ-25A  both of these A/C have been studied as attack aircraft. Both would expand the range and strike capabilities of US carrier groups.

In a conventional war with China its navy, air force, satellite and communications capabilities would not survive for long. US carriers are substantially designed to attack targets where anti-ship missile attacks can be defeated by its surface ship screen. Once a enemy force can no longer field ships or A/C the electronic warfare capabilities of the USN are substantial. In addition the USN has a substantial number of Aegis equipped ships. Many of which have upgraded Aegis BMD or ABMD  as well as very capable anti-ship systems.

US nuclear submarines are unmatched.

IMO the defense industry in the US constantly lobbies for unlimited capabilities against every perceived and imagined enemy. Its too bad that alliances get the back burner.

[normiss 801]

In the Navy in the 80's, working on the AEGIS System - which is fully in place on ships now and much improved.

We would run the most rigorous simulation tests regularly, the toughest and most challenging was MAX-MIF. Maximum Missiles In Flight. The radar displays would show us surrounded by hundreds of incoming missiles. Even then, the ship was fully capable of detecting, engaging, and eliminating hundreds of Exocet missiles.

Carriers are protected by an encircled layer of AEGIS ships, each one has an amazing distance capability of detection and engagement.

I'm still confident we have the best Naval service and defense on the planet, while also hoping we don't have to find out if that's true or not.

[jakee 1,489]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

The decision to un-mothball obsolete BATTLESHIPS was made by Reagan.

But that did ultimately give us Under Siege, so it was totally worth it.

[kallend 2,027]

24 minutes ago, jakee said:

But that did ultimately give us Under Siege, so it was totally worth it.

Every cloud has a silver lining, and a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

...I'm still confident we have the best Naval service and defense on the planet, while also hoping we don't have to find out if that's true or not.

I agree.

But when the screening ship has 100 tubes,25 for land attack missiles and 75 air defense. But when the attacking missiles are supersonic ballistic, surface skimming, jamming, maneuvering, etc. But when there are three incoming for one outgoing.

I know what you're saying, I know about sea sparrow, phalanx CIWS, etc. But the cost of cheap missiles, like the Houthis attack on a Saudi frigate, INS Hanit the Israeli corvette struck by a Hezbollah C-802 anti-ship missile,the HMS Coventry and five other British ships sunk by the inferior Argentine AF. Are all testament to the out-sized capabilities of attack V defense.

Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics all like to suggest that their systems are the best. That the latest upgrade will defeat the known-unknown. At the arms bazaars featuring the latest greatest with the best retired colonels, admirals, etc. as chief salesmen. All the scenarios are discussed. Including the war games designed around what is known.You know?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

5 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Let me think. Who was in power during the time period that allowed this military imbalance to become manifest? Let's see, that would have been prior to Donald Trump's presidency.

Thankfully Trump has said that you have the greatest everything, so this really can't be a problem anymore. Trump has already fixed it.

Edited May 13, 2020 by SkyDekker

[normiss 801]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

I agree.

But when the screening ship has 100 tubes,25 for land attack missiles and 75 air defense. But when the attacking missiles are supersonic ballistic, surface skimming, jamming, maneuvering, etc. But when there are three incoming for one outgoing.

I know what you're saying, I know about sea sparrow, phalanx CIWS, etc. But the cost of cheap missiles, like the Houthis attack on a Saudi frigate, INS Hanit the Israeli corvette struck by a Hezbollah C-802 anti-ship missile,the HMS Coventry and five other British ships sunk by the inferior Argentine AF. Are all testament to the out-sized capabilities of attack V defense.

Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics all like to suggest that their systems are the best. That the latest upgrade will defeat the known-unknown. At the arms bazaars featuring the latest greatest with the best retired colonels, admirals, etc. as chief salesmen. All the scenarios are discussed. Including the war games designed around what is known.You know?

It's been years since I've attended those weapons and systems events. Very interesting technology.

I've seen videos of CIWS shredding dolphins mid jump, interesting how sensitive it is.

You're right of course, that unknown, and anything is possible.

Except skiing through revolving doors.

[airdvr 210]

11 hours ago, kallend said:

What do our military experts think of this article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines

"

“Over the past decade, in U.S. war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time.”

That’s a quote from a new book called “The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare,” the most provocative critique of U.S. defense policy I’ve read in years. It’s written by Christian Brose, former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a close adviser to late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). The book isn’t just a wake-up call, it’s a fire alarm in the night.

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them."

 

etc. etc,

 

Ever occur to you the we lose on purpose so as to not reveal too much?

[yoink 321]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Ever occur to you the we lose on purpose so as to not reveal too much?

Ever occur to you that if we do that then China would probably be doing exactly the same?

 

[airdvr 210]

Just now, yoink said:

Ever occur to you that if we do that then China would probably be doing exactly the same?

 

The premise is we can't beat the Chinese.

[yoink 321]

7 minutes ago, airdvr said:

The premise is we can't beat the Chinese.

The promise is that in an equal contest we haven’t been beating the Chinese.

 

Your statement indicated it’s not an equal contest. We were deliberately underplaying our hand, and I agree. But that’s a stupid point, because the Chinese will do exactly the same thing, so we’re back to equality. Which we lose at.
 

Unless you’re contending either that the Chinese don’t hide their strength or that the US is hiding exponentially more powerful solutions than the Chinese are hiding, in which case I’d ask for your reasoning.

Edited May 14, 2020 by yoink

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Ever occur to you the we lose on purpose so as to not reveal too much?

The Art of War by Sun Tzu(pdf book)  v  The art of losing by donald trump.

[riggerrob 643]

All those fancy CIWS, Phallanx, etc. AAA systems can be defeated by large swarms of incoming missiles, airplanes, torpedoes, etc. Even if the first swarm does not sink the ship, tomorrows swarm has a better chance … especially if the swarm arrives before the AAA has time to re-load.

Also consider that the most likely confrontation will be in the South China Sea with the USN at the end of a supply chain as long as the Pacific Ocean is wide. OTOH the Chinese Navy will be fighting in home waters.

Who will re-load quicker?

 

Communist China has always been able to out-number NATO or the Warsaw Pact, or any other conceivable enemy. With recent improvements in their weapons systems, Chinese weapons quality is getting closer and closer to USN capabilities.

[jakee 1,489]

On 5/14/2020 at 1:43 AM, airdvr said:

Ever occur to you the we lose on purpose so as to not reveal too much?

He’s not talking about practice conflicts in which both the real China and the real USA participate. They’re talking about US war games between simulated US and Chinese forces. Sandbagging would utterly defeat the point. 

[Guest]

On 5/13/2020 at 3:05 PM, kallend said:

What do our military experts think of this article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines

"

“Over the past decade, in U.S. war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time.”

That’s a quote from a new book called “The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare,” the most provocative critique of U.S. defense policy I’ve read in years. It’s written by Christian Brose, former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a close adviser to late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). The book isn’t just a wake-up call, it’s a fire alarm in the night.

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them."

 

etc. etc,

 

John, these big-ticket items are  easy to see and count, but what they don't show you is the real warfighter - the true capability. There is a training facility in a friendly country in the Levant (the US has a few allies - the ones my country hasn't sold out or screwed over for political expediency). Every year this country hosts a special operations competition. https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/china-defeat-us-in-6th-annual-warrior-competition-held-in-jordan.60555/

China won.

This has happened more than once. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53mQp25I9cQ

This kind of skill alarms me more than the development of "bomb magnet" aircraft carriers, which are pretty good for what they do, but it's boots on the ground which win wars.

The ChiComs are succeeding where the Soviets failed: they've managed to harness brutal tyranny to a successful market-based economy; much of Asia sees this and trembles. A lot of China's neighbors know what's really going on and some of them are looking to the USA for defense from PRC bullying which is going on all over the Pacific Rim. For those of us who have watched the situation develop, we view it as more than just a numbers game because numbers don't count for everything - performance is what counts. For those of you just joining us, China has basically pulled a Bill Gates on all of the Pacific Rim; i.e., "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine." In other words, China has asserted ownership of all Asia - it's theirs by right because China is the "Middle Kingdom", meaning that the rest of the world revolves around it as they strive to overcome the historical "great humiliation" of being dominated by Western powers in  the 19th Century, followed by the self-destruction of Mao's Great Leap Forward. Oh yeah, they are stealing technology via relentless industrial espionage which the FBI is often forced to ignore due to fear of career-limiting denunciations of racism. At least that was something the Russians couldn't get away with. The also have ARMIES of hackers vacuuming up everything the can get their filthy paws on. China is colonizing Africa too. This will not end well.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Guest

[brenthutch 444]

On 5/13/2020 at 9:05 AM, kallend said:

What do our military experts think of this article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines

"

“Over the past decade, in U.S. war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time.”

That’s a quote from a new book called “The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare,” the most provocative critique of U.S. defense policy I’ve read in years. It’s written by Christian Brose, former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a close adviser to late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). The book isn’t just a wake-up call, it’s a fire alarm in the night.

Brose explains a terrible truth about war with China: Our spy and communications satellites would immediately be disabled; our forward bases in Guam and Japan would be “inundated” by precise missiles; our aircraft carriers would have to sail away from China to escape attack; our F-35 fighter jets couldn’t reach their targets because the refueling tankers they need would be shot down.

“Many U.S. forces would be rendered deaf, dumb and blind,” writes Brose. We have become so vulnerable, he argues because we’ve lost sight of the essential requirement of military power — the “kill chain” of his title — which means seeing threats and taking quick, decisive action to stop them."

 

etc. etc,

 

It is common for the Pentagon to overestimate the capabilities of a potential foe, it is how they get more funding.  Remember the Soviet Union?  We had a missile gap, a tank, gap, an aircraft gap, a throw weight gap, etc... the AK-47 was imbued with mystical powers while the M-16 was a jam-prone toy made by Mattel.  But just look how our stuff stacked up against their stuff in the real world.  Google Battle of 73 easting if you need a reminder. 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is common for the Pentagon to overestimate the capabilities of a potential foe, it is how they get more funding.  Remember the Soviet Union?  We had a missile gap, a tank, gap, an aircraft gap, a throw weight gap, etc... the AK-47 was imbued with mystical powers while the M-16 was a jam-prone toy made by Mattel.  But just look how our stuff stacked up against their stuff in the real world.  Google Battle of 73 easting if you need a reminder. 

Yes, but 73 Easting was a lopsided fight against a poorly trained, poorly-led opponent using obsolete armor. They (the poor Iraqi bastards in those Russian tanks) were totally outclassed. One need only look to the Viet Cong to see how a modern military can be stumped by a smart and determined opponent. China has modern equipment and has adopted Western OPFOR training. It would be a huge mistake to draw a comparison between Saddam's Republican Guard and the PRC...there is no comparison and it's always a more fatal mistake to underestimate one's opponent. China itself found that out when they attacked Vietnam in 1979.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Guest

[sfzombie13 324]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is common for the Pentagon to overestimate the capabilities of a potential foe, it is how they get more funding.  Remember the Soviet Union?  We had a missile gap, a tank, gap, an aircraft gap, a throw weight gap, etc... the AK-47 was imbued with mystical powers while the M-16 was a jam-prone toy made by Mattel.  But just look how our stuff stacked up against their stuff in the real world.  Google Battle of 73 easting if you need a reminder. 

which matters not one bit when you just give back what you've taken after a few years.  i recall that we destroyed, not just beat, 40 out of 44 divisions of iraqi military in '91, then left.  we went back in '03 (different unit this time, my unit went in '04) after going to afghanistan in '01.  in '91, they didn't stand a chance as our tanks had a better range and better munitions, not to mention the air war that softened them up for a month and they were made up mostly of conscripts (that's what we were told).  it doesn't matter much how much better your tech is when you just leave when it's all over. 

then there's the china thing.  first of all, it doesn't much matter that your shit is much better if they have 100 times more than you have and your resupply is thousands of miles away.  so, if we ever go up against the chinese, we may hold our own for a bit, but i doubt we would win anything except a negotiated peace.  of course, most of my information is old since i got out in '04, but historically, we haven't changed that much in a decade or two.

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, markharju said:

Yes, but 73 Easting was a lopsided fight against a poorly trained, poorly-led opponent using obsolete armor. They (the poor Iraqi bastards in those Russian tanks) were totally outclassed. One need only look to the Viet Cong to see how an modern military can be stumped by a smart and determined opponent. China has modern equipment and has adopted Western OPFOR training. It would be a huge mistake to draw a comparison between Saddam's Republican Guard and the PRC...there is no comparison and it's always a more fatal mistake to underestimate one's opponent. China itself found that out when they attacked Vietnam in 1979.

Agreed

[timski 80]

On 5/13/2020 at 10:38 PM, airdvr said:

The premise is we can't beat the Chinese.

In the big picture, YES. However, no one can take this land we occupy. For the shear number of privately owned weapons. (and a few good men willing to lead them)

[billvon 2,991]

15 minutes ago, timski said:

In the big picture, YES. However, no one can take this land we occupy. 

They won't have to.  They will take control of the government and they'll just use the land through us.  We already have a president who took hundreds of millions from them; control the president and the rest of the country follows.