Are blue water conflicts a thing of the past?

[LoBlo]

I'm interested in people's idea's on what the conceivable naval conflicts in the near term would be.

[Captain Norman]

Well, if u look at it this way, all of Earth's superpowers lie on oceans, and considering China has quite a large navy with submarine forces, both SSN's and SSBN,s the US Navy, if they ever enter a conflict with the Chinese, will need to use theirs, as well as their aircraft carriers to launch sorties, and destroyers and missile ships to attack their respectives on the Chinese side, so in my opinion, naval warfare will always play a major part in war.

[LoBlo]

Well, the question isn't whether or not Naval battles can occur, but *where* they will occur. Rather in large maneuvers far away from the coastline in waters that are thousands of feet deep, or whether they will be close in battles, just a hundred or so miles from the coast as the navy pushes into shallow waters...

[LoBlo]

For example. The USN activity in Iraq (in the Persian Gulf) can be considered a shallow water op. Relatively close in a shallow body of water. Consequently, the old USSR vs USA scenarios, for example battles in the GUIK gap, can be considered deep water ops in relatively open ocean.

So the question is whether or not all future battles will be "Persian gulf style", that is, in shallow waters near coastlines, or whether or not a deep water conflict is still conceivable. Both will involve the Navy equally.

[Henson]

The Chinese are building 15 subs a year.

The US is building one.

:hmm:

[OneShot]

I would say that depends on the opponents and especially the area of operations.

If one party needs to ship lots of stuff over the ocean, maybe even in convoys then the likelihood for blue water battles considerably goes up (if the opponent has blue water capable forces). So I would say it depends ... in a hypothetical fight between China and America I would put some money down on the increase of blue water battles. On the other hand in a fight like Iran vs. America it would most certainly be restricted to Brown Water / Coastal Ops (with the odd exception of course).

Bottom Line : Who knows ...

[LoBlo]

The Chinese are building 15 subs a year. The US is building one.

I've heard sentiment that the US and China will never have open conflict since they are so economically intertwined... it would be like lumberjacks going to war with woodworkers... they need each other too much.

then again... all it would take is one ultra-nationalist pyscho to take power...

[Henson]

I sort of agree with the idea that the US and China won't fight, for a couple of reasons. Chief among them is, there's not any good reason to. Yeah, yeah, Taiwan, I know....but no one ever accused the Chinese of being stupid.

What the Chinese are aiming at is exactly what the US has enjoyed in the western hemisphere since the advent of the Monroe Doctrine: regional hegemony. They're telling other imperialist nations to stay out of their backyard, just like the US tells nations to stay out of the western hemisphere. As long as they refrain from overturning free governments or exporting human rights abuses I'm not sure the US has any moral basis for interfering in their peaceful economic and/or military expansion.

In short, they're doing the same dang thing we have done for over a century...how the hell do we get off complaining about it?

[SeaQueen]

It really depends on what you mean by "opened ocean." All naval warfare is ultimately intended to influence events on land, and it always has been. These days that's by making strikes with aircraft and cruise missiles, landing Marines and SOF, raiding supply routes and commerce, and by delivering strikes with ballistic missiles. Since events at sea are driven by events on land, the tendancy is for war at sea to almost always be off the coast of somewhere.

It seems to me that "blue water" conflicts mean different things to different people. To ASW people, it usually means deep enough to have at least one reliable convergence zone. Well... there's places off the coast of Taiwan and Guam where that's the case. In that sense, in a hypothetical conflict with China, there might be "blue water" engagements tomorrow.

And to make things really interesting, Putin is really not a nice fellow and a resurgent Russia (the conflict nobody wants to think about anymore) lead by politician trying to re-establish the former Soviet empire, albeit with a capitalist bend, would be an interesting problem, I think. I dunno... though, the Cold War was so much more interesting than conflicts in the present day. Don't you think?

[LoBlo]

I think the complaining really stems from a since of paranoia, the idealogy is so different... I still remember the Beijing (sp?) massacre where in the face of a peaceful protest the military opened up automatic machine gun fire on crowds of teenagers... with military grade hollow-point bullets even. That "I exist to serve the collective" ideology is like the RL Star Trek Borg.... and with the individualist ideology here in American we're bound to always have a baseline of suspicion/chargin...

So we cover up our suspicious with complaining and protest.

Some think that China will eventually have democratic elections... but the last attempt (a couple of years ago) was denied... if/when it happens it won't be anytime soon.

I sort of agree with the idea that the US and China won't fight, for a couple of reasons. Chief among them is, there's not any good reason to. Yeah, yeah, Taiwan, I know....but no one ever accused the Chinese of being stupid.

What the Chinese are aiming at is exactly what the US has enjoyed in the western hemisphere since the advent of the Monroe Doctrine: regional hegemony. They're telling other imperialist nations to stay out of their backyard, just like the US tells nations to stay out of the western hemisphere. As long as they refrain from overturning free governments or exporting human rights abuses I'm not sure the US has any moral basis for interfering in their peaceful economic and/or military expansion.

In short, they're doing the same dang thing we have done for over a century...how the hell do we get off complaining about it?

[fatty]

In the next 15-20 years I would say yes, beyond that I don't know.

[Kapitan]

The fact that if any nation invaded i mean big nation it would be open ocean, lets say the US tried invading russia But not nuclear, the russians would meet the americans some where near the GIUK gap so that would be open ocean.

Its derelict yes but out right gone no i doubt it will ever be, even though it could just be two ships passing and one fires at the other thats an open ocean battle.

[LoBlo]

And to make things really interesting, Putin is really not a nice fellow and a resurgent Russia (the conflict nobody wants to think about anymore) lead by politician trying to re-establish the former Soviet empire, albeit with a capitalist bend, would be an interesting problem, I think. I dunno... though, the Cold War was so much more interesting than conflicts in the present day. Don't you think?

From all the hours of playing DW, it seems like the most interesting part of the Cold War was really the parity that existed. Like two title weight contenders in a big title fight... best of the best going at it. Otherwise, the technology gap is really unchallenging with kills per platform pretty one-sided.

I think two super powered forces in coastal waters (USN vs European Coastal defenses would be the only real parity I can think us) would probably be the most interesting of all scenarios.

[SeaQueen]

From all the hours of playing DW, it seems like the most interesting part of the Cold War was really the parity that existed. Like two title weight contenders in a big title fight... best of the best going at it. Otherwise, the technology gap is really unchallenging with kills per platform pretty one-sided.

That's not necessarily the case, though. There's ways to beat the technology gap. Sometimes it's the crudest attacks that are the most difficult to defeat. Small boat swarms, for example. A surface combattant and his helos might be able to blast a bunch of them, but the one you miss is the one loaded with explosives. That will sink or put a warship out of action. Support them with shore based ASCMs or from missile boats and you've got a potentially lethal force. Try doing a swarm of boghammers, where random ones have a script to do a suicide attack, support them with shore based ASCMs and missile boats against a pair of FFGs protecting a super tanker. The super tanker almost always takes a pounding, if you don't know which boghammers are supposed to go for the tanker and which are supposed to go for the FFG. They can also take out your helos.

The other thing that makes it difficult for us is that to win we have to really WIN. It's sufficient in a lot of cases, though, for potential opponents to simply not lose. For example, Hezbollah v. Israel. Israel blew the snot out of Hezbollah, but in the end, Hezbollah still exists so they call it a win, in spite of taking terrible losses. That's a really tough problem. Nobody really understands how to fight these sorts of shadow organizations with significant military capability. The solution to these kinds of problems (if there is one) almost certainly lies in diplomatic and political solutions rather than military confrontations, which seem to only strengthen these sorts of groups even if, from a military perspective, they lost the fight.

All of this is really not captured by most wargames. It's hard to because when you try to capture that aspect of things, it usually says more about the person making the model than it does about the actual situation. I mean... think about it, how do you model say... a hypothetical US intervention in a genocidal civil war like Rwanda. It's easy to model the battles or the logistics, you could even capture things like getting relief to refugees and quantify things like the number of refugees processed. The political implications of all this is tough to wrap your brain around in a computer model, though. I think a wargame like this could be really interesting, but how to do it is really an opened question.

I think two super powered forces in coastal waters (USN vs European Coastal defenses would be the only real parity I can think us) would probably be the most interesting of all scenarios.

I don't see it. They just don't have (need or want) the capability to defeat a superpower.

[kage]

Superpowers doesn't seem like the biggest enemies nowadays anyway.

A navy is essentially just a few things:

Means of Power Projection (and EU doesn't score high on a military imperialism scale)
Defense against seaborne invasion (in EU's case, against whom?)
Naval domain Police force (In adequately protected waters, pirates are a non-problem)


When your opponent gets too weak in comparison, they switch to tactics appropriate for that. (Reference: pretty much every war involving the US, including as patron, of late)

Of those who have an interest in harming/invading/whatever EU, who has a navy to put up a reasonable fight against the navy EU does have? I believe they're spending their money mainly on land and air forces instead - they are more important, and (for the EU in their strategic position) far more cost efficient.

Probably. Just educated guesses based on assumptions based on what little data I do pick up. Or something like that :D


A navy means little if you don't have an army. Unless you have only sea in your territory, and noone has colonized the seas yet.

[kage]

Anyway, back on topic - Blue water is still the primary routes for many shipping lanes. If a conflict touches those, then bluewater conflicts are still very likely.

[Roads88]

What the Chinese are aiming at is exactly what the US has enjoyed in the western hemisphere since the advent of the Monroe Doctrine: regional hegemony. They're telling other imperialist nations to stay out of their backyard, just like the US tells nations to stay out of the western hemisphere. As long as they refrain from overturning free governments or exporting human rights abuses I'm not sure the US has any moral basis for interfering in their peaceful economic and/or military expansion.

:o Peaceful military expansion.

I don't think the usa is china's main focus. Can you say India:-?

[SeaQueen]

A navy is essentially just a few things:

Means of Power Projection (and EU doesn't score high on a military imperialism scale)

It isn't just about imperial adventures, though. Naval forces have participated in UN peacekeeping efforts, and enforce economic sanctions. A good example of that includes the Balkans wars. It was a communications intercept by a Dutch submarine that led to the capture of Milosevich. Amphibious forces hit the beaches more frequently to do humanitarian relief work than they do for D-Day (ex: The Indian Ocean Tsunami). Participating in global affairs is important because it allows a country to have a lot more say in the way things go, and therefore they're more likely to be favorable to them.



Naval domain Police force (In adequately protected waters, pirates are a non-problem)

It's not just piracy. There's lots of law enforcement issues on the high seas. There's fishing rights (ex: The Cod Wars and tensions between Spain and Canada), environmental protection, and protection of natural resources. There's also illegal trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people. Navies play an important part in all of those.

[Bellman]

Thinking outside the box lets not forget that 'blue water' could be an achiles heel. Given a willingness to convert civilian ships to carry/deliver all sorts of nasties and given that it is not impossible to convert 'at sea' the size of any future policing navy is likely to expand.

The thought of the number of available empty holds is a little scarey particularly given a legal limitation on 'inspection' on the high seas.

Factor in also that global warming promises to open the north-east passage and ''every tramp steamer,'' it has been said, is a potential risk. :huh:

[nsquidc]

A little late to the conversation, but this one just caught my eye!

For the immediate future (10-15 yrs) ? Yes, blue water conflicts should be considered a much lower priority. The question is simply one of WHO we would fight that would have a blue water capability.

More a military standpoint, yes, China is nearing blue water capability, and Russia is shoring up her aging force. From all practical political projections, though, we wouldn't truly be in a fist fight with them any time soon. (Russia has a different sphere of influence, China is too economically linked, Taiwan and all.) Wars aren't simply fought for the heck of it.

Potential hotspots? Iran, North Korea, humanitarian aid to East Africa, etc... Each scenario would concentrate on littorial waters. There's a reason why Rumsfeld (now a dirty word...) wanted to concentrate on the Streetfighter concept. Investing on expanding a blue water force makes about as much sense as investing significant funds on a new main battle tank -- an adversary just doesn't exist.

The future conflicts for the immediate future will be assymmetric. Force projection is (of course), still important, but should be directed towards anticipating probable threats, not simply towards having a cool navy.

~NSC

[Ghost Dog]

Many posters have rightly identified the trends of recent times towards more littoral/brown water operations for western navies. agreed that the realm of naval related conflicts take place in areas of less developed nations, hence the lack of a technologically adept naval foe for western naval powers. BUT, I will outline a few scenarios in which blue-water ops may be seen. While some may be unlikely, it will show that a few possibilites remain.

1. China - India clash in South China Sea or Indian Ocean.

2. China - Japan in disputed Gas Field area. (Senkaku Islands)

3. NATO - Russia skirmish in Arctic Ocean over northwest passage and/or new energy areas.


I could name others, but they are less likely than any of the ones I named. For the record, the ones I named were offered up as potential naval conflicts in a recent conference of defence and security studies at my university. While these conflicts would certainly have littoral combat elements, some open water engagements could be envisaged.

[Fearless]

It depends who gets themselves involved and whether or not strategic positions are put in place to either attack or defend.

[nsquidc]

1. China - India clash in South China Sea or Indian Ocean.

2. China - Japan in disputed Gas Field area. (Senkaku Islands)

3. NATO - Russia skirmish in Arctic Ocean over northwest passage and/or new energy areas.


I could name others, but they are less likely than any of the ones I named. For the record, the ones I named were offered up as potential naval conflicts in a recent conference of defence and security studies at my university. While these conflicts would certainly have littoral combat elements, some open water engagements could be envisaged.

I agree that all are possible conflict areas. The question from a public policy standpoint, then, would be whether the probability of such a conflict would warrant the investment in significantly modernizing the U.S. blue water capacity.

~NSC

[Gorshkov]

Truly science-fiction contemplations! :lol:

As I understand "blue water battles" there would be something like US fought Japs on the Pacific during World War II. It means naval battles mainly without land based weapons support. If so, both sides of such hypothetical conflict should possess independent shipborne air, anti-missile and ASW cover. It means creating fleet of super-carriers, universal guided missile cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines. As for now only US Navy has all these items. So, where is the other side? Where is the US naval enemy? Even Red Fleet never created real blue water capability and therefore it limited its war plans to, say, 2000 km radius sea denial zone adjacted to Soviet martime borders. In fact Soviets began building ocean naval power in 1980s (several super-carriers were laid down in Ukrainian shipyards then) but they couldn't finish this task because capitalist agent Gorbi knocked down Soviet empire.
Now you twaddle here about Chinese fleet as a future US naval competitor. Unfortunately at present Chinese Navy is a piece of crap! It possess 14 destroyers of which only four units can be compared with "Arleigh Burke" class DDGs and 16 frigates with only two considered as modern assets. Additionally China has 25 relatively modern conventional submarines with no AIP propulsion and thus mainly fitted for littoral operations. All five nuclear subs are poor junks technologically dated back to 1950s. Moreover no carriers, no cruisers, no larger landing ships is available.

So how do you think: How many time, money and technological breakthroughs need Chinese to be able to fight US Navy in the "second battle of Midway" on equal terms??? :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

Not many the soviet fleet had limited carriers it was a submarine navy, with over 550 at the hieght of the cold war in service to the american 147, the submarine posses thee single most threat to any vessel at sea and any city on land.

true the fact is it cant shoot down air targets but if theres no carriers for them to take off because they have been sunk and no land based airports because they have either been TLAM'd or worse nuked then really the submarine is the only victor.

[Gorshkov]

Note one big difference between US and Soviet naval situation. United States have open access to two World oceans. In contrary USSR was surrounded by thirteen closed littoral seas with problematic wartime access to the oceans. That is why US Navy was never interested in possessing warships smaller than a frigate and conventional submarines. Soviets were mainly concerned about littoral forces after World War II. Therefore Soviet Navy heavily invested in medium submarines. Your 550 sub strong fleet is taken from early 1960s when Z, W and Q classes building program was finished. However only a few dozens Zulu-class subs were oceangoing vessels. Later Soviets switched mainly to expensive nuclear subs and their fleet dropped to 270-350 submarines in 1980s, half of them conventional junk. As you can see in practical terms US and USSR undersea power was equal!

In sum, blue fleet navy program introduced in 1970s with leaving littoral fleet intact was rather stupid phantasmagoria in Soviet situation both economically and strategically...

[Kapitan]

yes 550 was taken in the 1960's however the one area that became renown for its strategic importance was on the doorstep of the USSR the arctic, yes you may have wide open ports on both oceans but the USSR had shields so while we could fire missiles plainly into your harbours you couldnt really do the same because you would have to come around an island or past a radar station at some time making your ships seen.

the pacific area has a fair amount of naval bases while yes there are more littoral ships you got to take into consideration that even a burke class aegis system can be over whelmed, your 1 DDG in the sea of okhotsk with a dozen soviet patrol craft carrying missiles your ship will swat down 2/3 of the incoming missiles but you couldnt take them all and you have no where to hide simply because your now trapped in the soviets ring.

In all the soivets could afford to loose a few, and in the 1980's typhoon stepped up the soviets game, here was a submarine capible of launching its payload without leaving dock, murmansk in summer is a hard port to get into, but in winter its even harder.

take the oscar class they were designed to go out in packs and sink enamy carriers one is capible of killing a carrier the reason 3 or 4 go out at a time simple over whelm enamy systems even with 0 or more missiles flying about you aint gunna get all of them.

a ship is only as good as the captain and crew, could you fit a DDG up the neva river after a fast patrol craft probably not, just because the nanchuka and trantu craft dont look big doesnt mean to say they are not in anyway un capible of sinking a ship the size of a DDG.l

[Gorshkov]

yes 550 was taken in the 1960's however the one area that became renown for its strategic importance was on the doorstep of the USSR the arctic, yes you may have wide open ports on both oceans but the USSR had shields so while we could fire missiles plainly into your harbours you couldnt really do the same because you would have to come around an island or past a radar station at some time making your ships seen....
In all the soivets could afford to loose a few, and in the 1980's typhoon stepped up the soviets game, here was a submarine capible of launching its payload without leaving dock, murmansk in summer is a hard port to get into, but in winter its even harder.

I think you can't differentiate between "global nuclear conflict" and "conventional open ocean battles". I write here about the letter all the time. In such battles submarines are not normally involved as a first line combatants.
Of course, nuclear boomers are the best deterrence platforms but note that US Navy also had similar capabilities. Simply Soviet SSBN's free access to quite safe arctic waters was compensated by US boomers very secure station areas on the open oceans.


the pacific area has a fair amount of naval bases while yes there are more littoral ships you got to take into consideration that even a burke class aegis system can be over whelmed, your 1 DDG in the sea of okhotsk with a dozen soviet patrol craft carrying missiles your ship will swat down 2/3 of the incoming missiles but you couldnt take them all and you have no where to hide simply because your now trapped in the soviets ring.
Only if Burke's AEW helo can't spot your littoral corvettes earlier and enable DDG to sink them with TLAMs or Harpoons first! :yep:


Take the oscar class they were designed to go out in packs and sink enamy carriers one is capible of killing a carrier the reason 3 or 4 go out at a time simple over whelm enemy systems even with 0 (?) or more missiles flying about you aint gunna get all of them.
Yes, Oscars posed sole real threat to American CBGs screened by AEGIS ships. Unfortunately there were only several Oscars available in 1980s. Remaining Soviet SSGNs were already outdated at that time. You know: surface missile launch (Julliet and Echo, maybe except those fitted with relatively modern SS-N-12) and very short range SLCMs (Charlie, Papa) were good for sinking Chinese Navy galleons but not US Navy ships! :rotfl:


a ship is only as good as the captain and crew, could you fit a DDG up the neva river after a fast patrol craft probably not, just because the nanchuka and trantu craft dont look big doesnt mean to say they are not in anyway un capible of sinking a ship the size of a DDG.l
Theoretically they can but practically it is very hard or even impossible. Look at First Gulf War: US Navy and Royal Navy hadn't any troubles with sinking all Iraqi small coastal warships using heloes armed with anti-ship missiles.
Besides we talk here about blue water engagements. There is no place for missile corvettes in such battles...

[SeaQueen]

I don't know if this adds anything to this discussion, but I figured I'd just say it.

It's important to recognize that most naval discourse in public forums such as Congressional hearings and what not is not about what the present-day threat actually is.

Due to the long lead-times and great expense of shipbuilding, the Navy is pretty much forced to meet present threats with whatever it has at the present time. They really can't change how many ships are in the present day Navy and basically crosses it's fingers that the admirals of yesteryear were able to convince Congress to build enough ships or more for them to do what they currently need to do. In this sense, the Navy is used to making do.

Instead, the Navy generally talks about worst-case projections of a threat some time 15-20 years in the future so that it can justify building what it thinks it needs to meet the future projected threat. The future is, of course, subject to great uncertainty and nobody antipated the Soviet union collapsing as rapidly as it did. So, even though at the time they were talking about Oscars being a major problem they probably weren't, because the Navy wasn't really talking about present day Oscar force. The Navy anticipated that the Oscar's present construction rate would be the same or greater in the future, hence their numbers would be far larger, they would need more ships and the associated construction budget to build them.

Of course, once the Soviet Union collapsed, construction slowed and stopped. Once the next Congressional budget cycle came around, the Navy had to re-justify it's construction budget again based on a new projected threat which maybe didn't include so many Oscars.

In this sense, one should always take whatever the Navy says to be the most dangerous threat with a grain of salt. They don't really know, they're only ever making their best guess about the future based on what is known.

From the perspective of a wargamer, though, this means that when reading in the news, Proceedings, Surface Warfare, or whatever, and trying to imagine what was going through the heads of the admirals that are writing there, you shouldn't ask yourself, "In 1988 the Soviets has N Oscars and our CVBG looked like this, how would the battle play out?" Instead, you have to ask, "In 1988 they had N Oscars and by 2008 they'd have M more. How would the battle play out?" That really says something about how Admirals think when talking in public about naval matters. Looking at it through that lens, you'd also have to imagine a navy with a whole fleet of Seawolf submarines and various other radical differences from what we actually have today. That was the time of the Lehman's 600 ship navy. Today we have around 300 ships.

In light of that consideration, Oscars look a lot scarier, our Navy looked a lot beefy-er and the whole game would have been something totally different.

Yes, Oscars posed sole real threat to American CBGs screened by AEGIS ships. Unfortunately there were only several Oscars available in 1980s. Remaining Soviet SSGNs were already outdated at that time. You know: surface missile launch (Julliet and Echo, maybe except those fitted with relatively modern SS-N-12) and very short range SLCMs (Charlie, Papa) were good for sinking Chinese Navy galleons but not US Navy ships!

[Chock]

I wouldn't rule out future Blue Water conflicts at all, and you can be sure the Navies of the world will not do so either. Sure tiny diesel subs might be the sexy stars of the moment, particularly when the US and Iran are rattling sabres over the Gulf. But in years to come, with a resurgent Russia, China on the up, the US having to protect it's finger in various oil pies and all the other players too, at some point the sabre rattling may go to the next level as resources dwindle and the protaganists have to make a choice between fading away and making a move to stay on top.

Not a nice scenario, but certainly one planners for future procurement of weaponry have to consider.

:D Chock

[JM850]

As one option said, the PLAN (PRC navy) is getting better at blue water ops, there was a story on CNN a while back about a Chicom Kilo penetrating a CVBG's ASW screen. (The Kitty Hawk group, IIRC)

[Kapitan]

Yes it was a publicity stunt by the chinese, in real life if the USN or any navy was sailing into potential hostile waters, it would have been found the chinese submarines are not exactly the suttlest of things.

[NFunky]

I don't see how we can really make an educated guess. Most of what we know about the current naval capabilities of any country (definately including the U.S.) is unclassified information. I highly doubt that any unclassified info is less than five or six years old. Though I'm sure we can all agree that the U.S. has far more naval power than any other nation at the moment, how are we to know what technological and/or shipbuilding advances are being made by other countries.

All that being said, I don't think there will be any blue water conflicts until another nation has a sufficiently powerful carrier force. All naval forces must have air cover in these modern times, and the only way to have it without a carrier is to be close to land-based aircraft. And right now no other nation posesses a single carrier as large and sophisticated as those of the U.S. Navy, let alone three or four (which is the minimum number that would be sent to a major engagement).

The Russian Kuznetsov and, to a lesser degree, the French Charles De Gaulle have about two-thirds the air power of a Nimitz class carrier. And each country only has one unit in service and no plans to build two or three more any time soon.

So my vote is a "Heck if I know" leaning towards a no within the next 20 years or so.

On a slightly different note, though chinese subs are not nearly as sopisticated as they'd like everyone to believe, they should in no way be underestimated. The fact that a fairly "useless" sub was able to surface within weapons range of a U.S. CV is something to consider. If such a sub could do it in peacetime, how many more sophisticated subs (such as the Project 636 Improved Kilo) would it take to get within weapons range in wartime conditions?

[Iron Budokan]

Blue water battles are neither a thing of the past nor unlikely. It only takes the right set of events to bring it about.

[Sea Demon]

On a slightly different note, though chinese subs are not nearly as sopisticated as they'd like everyone to believe, they should in no way be underestimated. The fact that a fairly "useless" sub was able to surface within weapons range of a U.S. CV is something to consider. If such a sub could do it in peacetime, how many more sophisticated subs (such as the Project 636 Improved Kilo) would it take to get within weapons range in wartime conditions?

The Song is not a useless submarine. It is a modern diesel sub in every sense of the word. While there are many examples of subs being able to successfully penetrate carrier group defenses, I'm not sure we have all the details regarding the circumstances of this incident. And we still are unable to validate the effectiveness of conventional subs in wartime conditions vs. real ASW efforts directed at them, and other assymetric tactics to reduce their effectiveness. When the CSG is not limited to a confined battlespace in an exercise, I'd really love to see if a conventional sub can actually track one down. There would probably have to be team tactics and forward positioning involved. Even so, something tells me it wouldn't be as easy as one can deduce from naval exercise results.

[Ghost Dog]

that being said about the Song class, one has to keep in mind that it's not hard to penetrate a battlegroup when its on a 'peacetime' footing. Had the kitty hawk group been battle ready or wary of a sub threat (as they would be in time of crisis or war), getting through the ASW screen becomes a bit harder.

[NFunky]

I bet it would be a LOT harder to penetrate a wartime battlegroup. However, the point I was trying to make was, one Song managed to penetrate the screen in peacetime. How many Project 636 class Kilos with full Klub-S loads would it take to get a hit on a wartime carrier? They could each be more than 20 nm from the carrier and, with say four Kilos, could launch a salvo of 24 supersonic missile which reportedly perform evasive maneuvers during terminal homing. I suppose they would have to be enabled early to be as hard to knock down as possible, but a carrier is always the biggest radar signature in a battlegroup and would probably draw most of the missiles. Even if they all failed to lock onto the carrier, losing two-four AEGIS cruisers/destroyers would seriously impair a CSG's ASW/anti-missile screen which would allow another group of torpedo-armed subs or cruise missiles to penetrate more easily.

Anyway, this is all hypothetical and probably wildly innacurate due to the fact that I have no classified information about CSG ASW capabilities or the Kilo/Klub combination. On the other hand, what if this attack was coordinated with a massive bomber strike and surface vessels all firing sophisticated cruise missiles? On the other hand, the US would never send a single CSG into a war zone, so this really isn't much of a possibility. I find it hard to imagine that any hostile country would stand a chance against three or four CSGs plus whatever USAF assets were deployed in the area.

What all this really is supposed to say is that it is definately possible for someone to kill a US carrier, but that it probably wouldn't be much of an issue.

[Kapitan]

The problem with the USN at the moment is that it lacks a sutible sole ASW unit, the perry is all well and good it has torpedos and two helos, great send it out, chances are the submarine will hear it before the perry find it, and as its supposed to be an ASW unit it would get sunk, now with a missile its not that hard four Klubs simaltaniously fired at a perry would overwhelm them, because they no longer have MK13 Launchers for the SM-2, so 50% of thier own self defence weaponary has been taken away.

phalanx can only deal with one missile at a time and only when its within 1.5nm range of the ship so the enamy is garenteed at least one is going to hit which would kill a perry, the only other defence a perry has is the nixie good when one torpedo is fired at you but when three in a spread are fired your screwed first torpedo goes after the nixie boom, the second and third home in on you and kaboom.
Another big issue is note that most other naval platforms have twin screws why well incase one cant be used due to damage or something, the perry has a single screw disable that and you got a nice floating target.

The only way to make an effective defence using the perry is couple it with a burke DDG to provide its defence against missiles, but then thats a complete waste of a ship that could be doing other things like escorting a much more mission critical vessel like a carrier, so basically you have just robbed from peter to give to paul, and the AEGIS system is good for ASUW and no good for ASW.

This is the sole reason why the swedish gotland submarine has run rings around the USN for over a year, the USN lacks a sutible vessel to conduct ASW warfare.

The royal navy has thier type 23's
The Russian navy has Udaloys and Krivacks and Grishas
The french navy has D'estine D overs
Germans have type 122
japanese have asagiri class (i think)

so why does the USN fizzle out thee most important part of naval warfare to come?

[Sea Demon]

The problem with the USN at the moment is that it lacks a sutible sole ASW unit, the perry is all well and good it has torpedos and two helos, great send it out, chances are the submarine will hear it before the perry find it, and as its supposed to be an ASW unit it would get sunk, now with a missile its not that hard four Klubs simaltaniously fired at a perry would overwhelm them, because they no longer have MK13 Launchers for the SM-2, so 50% of thier own self defence weaponary has been taken away.

The USN is all about multi-mission warships. And completely intertwined with joint warfare concepts. Your scenario of a lone Perry, or a measly escort and a Perry is completely unrealistic. The USN will deploy assets based on threat assessments and intelligence outlooks. Right now, there isn't much enemy wise that can deal with the USN. Perry class ships as dedicated ASW vessels right now is a no-brainer. The launcher has been removed because the Perry does not have the ability to handle large AAW or ASuW engagements. Never really did. From this point on, it will be an primary ASW ship. While I wish she could still support the other two missions, this doesn't really present that much of a problem right now as Russian Naval forces are largely anemic(presents no credible threat), and China is still trying to figure itself out.

phalanx can only deal with one missile at a time and only when its within 1.5nm range of the ship so the enamy is garenteed at least one is going to hit which would kill a perry, the only other defence a perry has is the nixie good when one torpedo is fired at you but when three in a spread are fired your screwed first torpedo goes after the nixie boom, the second and third home in on you and kaboom. Another big issue is note that most other naval platforms have twin screws why well incase one cant be used due to damage or something, the perry has a single screw disable that and you got a nice floating target.

Perry ships will never operate alone. And USN can put alot more submarine assets into play than Russia or China could. I mean actually deployed and in theatre with support.

The only way to make an effective defence using the perry is couple it with a burke DDG to provide its defence against missiles, but then thats a complete waste of a ship that could be doing other things like escorting a much more mission critical vessel like a carrier, so basically you have just robbed from peter to give to paul,

Absolute nonsense. The USN has more than 70 AEGIS ships, and alot of carrier strike support. Would you like to discuss the potential USN submarine presence or joint ops with the USAF? How about US National Command Authorities ability to pre-emptively strike enemy land-based components.

and the AEGIS system is good for ASUW and no good for ASW.

Again, total BS. USN AEGIS surface units excel at AAW. But can conduct ASuW, ASW, deep Strike Warfare, and a variety of support roles. And they are all very good in any of these roles. In addition, they are gaining momentum in the Ballistic Missile Defense role. These are ships nobody has been able to match. Other nations who have been given our support to build their own versions of our AEGIS ships have gotten a real deal.

This is the sole reason why the swedish gotland submarine has run rings around the USN for over a year, the USN lacks a sutible vessel to conduct ASW warfare.

The work on it continues. Despite this, there was a link from last year where a commander of a participant vessel said they were tracking Gotland. Just not consistently. Quiet diesels in the littorals are a problem for any country that will face them. But even these conventional subs have their limitations. And to my knowledge, the USN is the Navy best equipped to deal with it.

The royal navy has thier type 23's
The Russian navy has Udaloys and Krivacks and Grishas
The french navy has D'estine D overs
Germans have type 122
japanese have asagiri class (i think)

so why does the USN fizzle out thee most important part of naval warfare to come?

Fizzle out?? Where do you get this garbage? Despite the fact that the USN scaled back their surface ASW mission from Cold War days, they are still the most robust and capable in this mission. The USN uses Perry class FFG's, Tico's, and Arleigh Burkes of all varieties. Have we forgotten about US Navy subs and aircraft that also conduct ASW missions? The USN is not fizzling out, quite the opposite is true. It's really unfortunate they got rid of S-3 aircraft and Sprucans. Those were good ASW assets. But what the USN has is more than adequate if used correctly and if development in ASW equipment and tactics continues. In fact, it's still significantly much more than the nations you list here. The Russian Udaloy's, Krivaks, Grisha's are largely obsolete Cold War relics that have not seen much technological updates at all. In fact I've seen many USN periscope shots at close range on these units. I doubt any Russian ASW surface unit would survive against USN submarine forces.

[SeaQueen]

The USN is all about multi-mission warships. And completely intertwined with joint warfare concepts.

LCS is a single mission ship. Assuming they ever build more...

[sonar732]

All this talk about the Perry...you are forgeting one major thing Kapitan.

They were built cheaply and quickly to escort our convoys in case Europe was attacked. So, that being said...multiple units would escort the convoy to "help" the defense inadequacy in this regard.

[TopTorp '92]

I'm interested in people's idea's on what the conceivable naval conflicts in the near term would be.

Near term naval conflict (next 6-9 months) will probably resemble the recent riff between the US and those Iranian speedboats.

[Sea Demon]

The USN is all about multi-mission warships. And completely intertwined with joint warfare concepts.
LCS is a single mission ship. Assuming they ever build more...

I'm not so sure that's accurate. LCS as conceived was supposed to carry mission modules that would allow it to configure for differing missions based on needs from their respective commands. They were to carry a minewarfare module, an ASW module, or an ASuW module. Unless that's changed recently, LCS was to be a multi-mission platform able to carry out a variety of naval tasks.

[NFunky]

Sea Demon/Sea Queen,

I believe you are both right in part. The LCS is modular which gives it the ability to be swiftly modified for a certain mission. On the other hand this means the LCS, once comitted to a mission cannot easily attempt another. If equipped for ASW, for example, the LCS would have to retreat to a tender or dock to switch modules, whereas a truely multirole ship would be capable of ASW and other missions in the same action.

[SeaQueen]

I believe you are both right in part. The LCS is modular which gives it the ability to be swiftly modified for a certain mission. On the other hand this means the LCS, once comitted to a mission cannot easily attempt another. If equipped for ASW, for example, the LCS would have to retreat to a tender or dock to switch modules, whereas a truely multirole ship would be capable of ASW and other missions in the same action.

As it stands right now, it would have to go into port to switch modules.

Personally, I think the single mission-ness of the LCS needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Even though on paper, it's only capable of performing one role at a time, there's nothing preventing the LCS-SuW, say, from stowing a few ASW torpedoes somewhere. Similarly, they might also decide to put an MH-60S on an LCS and add more Hellfires. My suspicion is that if they build any more LCS, in practice they will be forced by reality to perform as multi-role ships. I think that will end up being the true measure of their flexibility as warships. In this respect the baseline LCS with it's modules is really the least interesting thing about the LCS. I'm curious to see how they adapt it, given that it's basically a single mission ship that will in all likelihood be confronted with adversaries intent on challenging multi-mission warships.

[Sea Demon]

I believe you are both right in part. The LCS is modular which gives it the ability to be swiftly modified for a certain mission. On the other hand this means the LCS, once comitted to a mission cannot easily attempt another. If equipped for ASW, for example, the LCS would have to retreat to a tender or dock to switch modules, whereas a truely multirole ship would be capable of ASW and other missions in the same action.

As it stands right now, it would have to go into port to switch modules.

Personally, I think the single mission-ness of the LCS needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Even though on paper, it's only capable of performing one role at a time, there's nothing preventing the LCS-SuW, say, from stowing a few ASW torpedoes somewhere. Similarly, they might also decide to put an MH-60S on an LCS and add more Hellfires. My suspicion is that if they build any more LCS, in practice they will be forced by reality to perform as multi-role ships. I think that will end up being the true measure of their flexibility as warships. In this respect the baseline LCS with it's modules is really the least interesting thing about the LCS. I'm curious to see how they adapt it, given that it's basically a single mission ship that will in all likelihood be confronted with adversaries intent on challenging multi-mission warships.

Ahh. I see what you're both talking about. I didn't really think of that. In that regard, I guess it is a single mission ship when configured and deployed. And can only be refitted for other missions in port somewhere. So it seems to be multi-mission in concept, single mission/single purpose while underway and tasked. I'm wondering though if the Navy will allow another forward deployed asset to carry a number of mission modules to re-equip the LCS when at sea. How big are these mission modules anyway?

At any rate, I'm interested in your last point SeaQueen. That poses a very pressing issue that naval commanders will absolutely need to take into consideration. I don't see how that can be avoided in todays littoral environment where alot of US naval adversaries will operate, and where LCS is thought to be needed most.