An All-Submarine Navy

[Wxman]

An All-Submarine Navy (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/mburleson_20070619.html)
by Mike Burleson
June 19, 2007

Last week, the third in a new class of underwater battleships, the USS MICHIGAN, joined the fleet after a $1 billion face lift. The 4 converted subs of the OHIO class, former Trident missile ships, are the undersea equivalent of the reborn IOWA class from the 1980’s. Armed with over 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus the ability to carry special forces and unmanned vehicles, they give the Navy an incredible ability to strike decisively from the sea.

I am of the opinion that in full-scale shooting war at sea, the US surface navy will be devastated in the first day., by the combination of cruise missiles and stealthy submarines. The survivors would all be forced into port, unable to participate in the counterattack, which would likely be initiated by our own deadly nuclear attack submarines.

What this means is, our current force of colossal and pricey warships including aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious ships are obsolete in today’s precision, push button warfare. They are also tremendously expensive to build and operate, with only the richest of earth’s superpowers able to afford them in ever declining numbers. If this wasn’t reason enough for maritime nations to reevaluate their shipbuilding priorities, there are few if any jobs the surface fleet can do which the submarine cannot. I’ll elaborate:

Command of the Sea

Submariners say there are only 2 types of ships: submarines and targets. There’s valid reasons for this. Since World War 2 anti-submarine defenses have failed to match the attack boat’s advancements in speed, stealth, and weaponry. For instance, since 1945 the average speed of destroyers have remained at 30 knots, with only nuclear vessels able to maintain this rate for any period. In contrast, the velocity of nuclear attack submarines, beginning with the launch of USS NAUTILUS in 1954, has tripled and quadrupled from around 10 knots submerged to 30-40 knots.

Also, an antisubmarine vessel must get within a few miles of an enemy sub to fire its rockets or torpedoes. Its only long-range defense, the helicopter, is slow and must linger in a vulnerable hover while its sonar buoys seek out their prey. Some Russian-built boats come equipped with anti-aircraft missiles which makes this standard ASW tactic suicidal.

In contrast, a modern submarine can launch its missiles from 75 miles away and farther. Should it choose to close the distance, as occurred when a Chinese SONG class stalked the USS KITTY HAWK last year, to fire its ship killing torpedoes, it can do so at speeds as fast as and sometimes surpassing surface warships. Whether attacking with cruise missiles or wake-homing torpedoes the attack boat remains submerged; the preeminent stealth vessel.

The sub has likely held this dominate position on the high seas, since the dawn of the first nuke ships beginning in the 1950’s. The only lacking factor has been a full-scale naval war to prove it. The single example is the sinking of the Argentine cruiser BELGRANO 25 years ago by the British submarine HMS CONQUEROR in the Falklands Conflict. Afterward, the Argentine Navy fled to port and remained there!

Commerce Raiding/Protection:
This traditional role of the submarine is one which it excelled in the last century. The difference today is, neither America nor Britain has the capability to mass produce the thousands of anti-submarine escorts which just barely defeated Germany’s U-boats in 2 world wars, even if it would matter. In the next war at sea, the submarine would bring all commerce to a halt, making a mockery of the globalized free market system. The only counter to this menace is perhaps a combination of aircraft and submarine escorts, with the latter acting as the destroyer, shepherding its convoy through the “shark” ridden waters.

Amphibious Assault

Admittedly, this is not a role in which the submarine excels at , with its sparse crew and cargo capacity. Where they do stand out is the ability to land small raiding parties, like the elite Navy SEALs, and underwater demolition teams in preparation for a full-scale assault.

Still, with the submarine maintaining command of the seas, it would allow a surface amphibious task force free reign against an enemy beachhead. Rather than requiring expensive standing amphibs, reserve vessels could be maintained on both our coasts, with a cadre crew ready for any emergency. Some could also be rapidly converted with landing strips for heloes or whatever air assets are needed. Some small and inexpensive littoral ships fitted with cannon could provide escort close to shore.

For standard peacekeeping operations, some large subs could be built or converted for troop carrying, as in the above mentioned MICHIGAN. The ex-ballistic missile warship and her three sisters can load up to 66 SEALs, or more, I imagine, in a pinch, plus their equipment.

Conclusion

If America were to suddenly lose her preeminent surface fleet of carrier groups in such a future conflict, she would still have an excellent and capable submarine force to carry the fight to the enemy. The Navy says it must build 2 boats per year to maintain 50 in commission. Perhaps a doubling or tripling of this number would be necessary to replace the surface ships in the manner I propose. A fleet of 100-150 nuke submarines would be far cheaper to maintain, but also doubtless give the USN an unmatched mastery at sea for the rest of the century.

###

Mike Burleson is a regular columnist with Sea Classics magazine and an advocate of Military Reform. He resides in historic Charleston, SC.

tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/honestnews/ (http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/honestnews/)
newwars.blogspot.com/ (http://newwars.blogspot.com/)

charbookguy@myway.com (charbookguy@myway.com)

[Packerton]

They really should spend less money on military stuff and MORE on the REAL problems.

[Heibges]

An All-Submarine Navy (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/mburleson_20070619.html)
by Mike Burleson
June 19, 2007

Last week, the third in a new class of underwater battleships, the USS MICHIGAN, joined the fleet after a $1 billion face lift. The 4 converted subs of the OHIO class, former Trident missile ships, are the undersea equivalent of the reborn IOWA class from the 1980’s. Armed with over 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus the ability to carry special forces and unmanned vehicles, they give the Navy an incredible ability to strike decisively from the sea.

I am of the opinion that in full-scale shooting war at sea, the US surface navy will be devastated in the first day., by the combination of cruise missiles and stealthy submarines. The survivors would all be forced into port, unable to participate in the counterattack, which would likely be initiated by our own deadly nuclear attack submarines.

What this means is, our current force of colossal and pricey warships including aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious ships are obsolete in today’s precision, push button warfare. They are also tremendously expensive to build and operate, with only the richest of earth’s superpowers able to afford them in ever declining numbers. If this wasn’t reason enough for maritime nations to reevaluate their shipbuilding priorities, there are few if any jobs the surface fleet can do which the submarine cannot. I’ll elaborate:

Command of the Sea

Submariners say there are only 2 types of ships: submarines and targets. There’s valid reasons for this. Since World War 2 anti-submarine defenses have failed to match the attack boat’s advancements in speed, stealth, and weaponry. For instance, since 1945 the average speed of destroyers have remained at 30 knots, with only nuclear vessels able to maintain this rate for any period. In contrast, the velocity of nuclear attack submarines, beginning with the launch of USS NAUTILUS in 1954, has tripled and quadrupled from around 10 knots submerged to 30-40 knots.

Also, an antisubmarine vessel must get within a few miles of an enemy sub to fire its rockets or torpedoes. Its only long-range defense, the helicopter, is slow and must linger in a vulnerable hover while its sonar buoys seek out their prey. Some Russian-built boats come equipped with anti-aircraft missiles which makes this standard ASW tactic suicidal.

In contrast, a modern submarine can launch its missiles from 75 miles away and farther. Should it choose to close the distance, as occurred when a Chinese SONG class stalked the USS KITTY HAWK last year, to fire its ship killing torpedoes, it can do so at speeds as fast as and sometimes surpassing surface warships. Whether attacking with cruise missiles or wake-homing torpedoes the attack boat remains submerged; the preeminent stealth vessel.

The sub has likely held this dominate position on the high seas, since the dawn of the first nuke ships beginning in the 1950’s. The only lacking factor has been a full-scale naval war to prove it. The single example is the sinking of the Argentine cruiser BELGRANO 25 years ago by the British submarine HMS CONQUEROR in the Falklands Conflict. Afterward, the Argentine Navy fled to port and remained there!

Commerce Raiding/Protection:
This traditional role of the submarine is one which it excelled in the last century. The difference today is, neither America nor Britain has the capability to mass produce the thousands of anti-submarine escorts which just barely defeated Germany’s U-boats in 2 world wars, even if it would matter. In the next war at sea, the submarine would bring all commerce to a halt, making a mockery of the globalized free market system. The only counter to this menace is perhaps a combination of aircraft and submarine escorts, with the latter acting as the destroyer, shepherding its convoy through the “shark” ridden waters.

Amphibious Assault

Admittedly, this is not a role in which the submarine excels at , with its sparse crew and cargo capacity. Where they do stand out is the ability to land small raiding parties, like the elite Navy SEALs, and underwater demolition teams in preparation for a full-scale assault.

Still, with the submarine maintaining command of the seas, it would allow a surface amphibious task force free reign against an enemy beachhead. Rather than requiring expensive standing amphibs, reserve vessels could be maintained on both our coasts, with a cadre crew ready for any emergency. Some could also be rapidly converted with landing strips for heloes or whatever air assets are needed. Some small and inexpensive littoral ships fitted with cannon could provide escort close to shore.

For standard peacekeeping operations, some large subs could be built or converted for troop carrying, as in the above mentioned MICHIGAN. The ex-ballistic missile warship and her three sisters can load up to 66 SEALs, or more, I imagine, in a pinch, plus their equipment.

Conclusion

If America were to suddenly lose her preeminent surface fleet of carrier groups in such a future conflict, she would still have an excellent and capable submarine force to carry the fight to the enemy. The Navy says it must build 2 boats per year to maintain 50 in commission. Perhaps a doubling or tripling of this number would be necessary to replace the surface ships in the manner I propose. A fleet of 100-150 nuke submarines would be far cheaper to maintain, but also doubtless give the USN an unmatched mastery at sea for the rest of the century.

###

Mike Burleson is a regular columnist with Sea Classics magazine and an advocate of Military Reform. He resides in historic Charleston, SC.

tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/honestnews/ (http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/honestnews/)
newwars.blogspot.com/ (http://newwars.blogspot.com/)

charbookguy@myway.com (charbookguy@myway.com)

Yep, Hyman Rickover made this clear starting 40 years ago, and stated it over and over until the day he died. But if you're a career Admiral, you want your butt parked on a big old aircraft carrier, regardless of whether it is obsolete or not.

[geetrue]

Quanity over quality will hurt more than help, but I'm all for it.

I want a fleet of diesel boats for coastal protection.

I want a submarine tender for the conventional powered boats to be like those new LPH's ... a tri-hull perhaps with the ability to house and supply twin diesel submarine's. Not even a satelite could tell if the tender has the subs at home or if they were on the range. I call them "Nasties"

These are my wants and my dreams and my prayers for America to be ready to kick ass in any global naval conflict. :yep:

[Heibges]

Quanity over quality will hurt more than help, but I'm all for it.

I want a fleet of diesel boats for coastal protection.

I want a submarine tender for the conventional powered boats to be like those new LPH's ... a tri-hull perhaps with the ability to house and supply twin diesel submarine's. Not even a satelite could tell if the tender has the subs at home or if they were on the range. I call them "Nasties"

These are my wants and my dreams and my prayers for America to be ready to kick ass in any global naval conflict. :yep:

I agree. With their super quiet deisal subs, the Europeans are in the perfect position to "Pearl Harbor" us all over again. They are the only folks on the planet with the military and economic muscle to challenge the United States, so these are the folks we should protect ourselves against, not some folks living in mudhuts.

Plus the British know all about the whole SOSUS thing which gives them a huge advantage.

I only say this because the English started planning for War with the US 5 minutes after WWI ended, because I believe Winston Churchill said that trade caused wars, and the US would be Britains major competitor. Luckily the Washington Naval Conference defused the situation.

[Chock]

To claim that an aircraft carrier is obselete, is accurate if you assume that the only war it's ever going to fight is a full-on push the button armageddon-type scenario, and if that's the case, you could also argue that you'd be just as well off with no submarines, aircraft carriers or anything else for that matter, since you'd be screwed whether you were in a submarine, or your cellar under your house.

Recent military conflicts have shown that this is quite clearly not the case, and I think it might be a bit tricky for a submarine to enforce a no-fly zone halfway across a land mass, whereas this is the kind of thing a carrier is suitable for. Yes a submarine could launch a UAV to do this, providing the sea was calm enough (possibly even one with weapons on board), but I'd like to see one coming in for a landing back on the thing! (and yes I do know the Japs had seaplane fighters that did this).

:D Chock

[Reaves]

There will always be space for aircraft carriers and they need surface escorts. I do agree that the days of the large battleships and destroyers are over however.

[CCIP]

I agree with Chock. I think the total war scenario is one thing, but let's say that one would suggest ICBMs as possibly an even better investment. But is that a war anyone is naive enough to plan on winning? :hmm:

The reality of things however is a lot of more limited conflicts where other ships can be better than subs at performing certain tasks that are very relevant. Carriers especially have a massive role in projecting power in these limited conflicts that subs can never replace (unless we have real, actual submerged carriers someday).

[Heibges]

I agree with Chock. I think the total war scenario is one thing, but let's say that one would suggest ICBMs as possibly an even better investment. But is that a war anyone is naive enough to plan on winning? :hmm:

The reality of things however is a lot of more limited conflicts where other ships can be better than subs at performing certain tasks that are very relevant. Carriers especially have a massive role in projecting power in these limited conflicts that subs can never replace (unless we have real, actual submerged carriers someday).

I agree with Chock and CCIP on the strategy, if you think the United States has any business projecting power in limited conflicts. If we want a Navy for defense then the all submarines would work.

But if the United States wants to continue to wage economic imperialism around the world, the aircraft carriers are neccessary.

[Puster Bill]

I agree with Chock and CCIP on the strategy, if you think the United States has any business projecting power in limited conflicts. If we want a Navy for defense then the all submarines would work.

But if the United States wants to continue to wage economic imperialism around the world, the aircraft carriers are neccessary.

Leaving aside the last sentence, you're wrong.

Here is why:

Assuming a full blown, non-nuclear war, you'd still need surface assests.

Submarines are lousy for escort duty. They are, for all intents and purposes, an offensive weapon. Even given the capabilities of a modern nuclear sub, they are vulnerable to aircraft. One of the big lessons of WWII is that while aircraft carriers are vulnerable to submarines, submarines are more vulnerable to aircraft. This still holds true today: Ask a modern submariner what they fear most in a shooting situation, and it won't be a surface ship or other submarine (they have comparable performance, and you can shoot back at them), but a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft configured for ASW. You can't outrun them, and except for a very few experimental systems installed on very few subs, you can't shoot back at them.

Additionally, at some point in such an all-out war you will need to project power. Submarines are great for preventing the other guy from projecting power, but lousy at doing it themselves. You need to be able to put boots on the ground. Submarines suck at that, except for stealthy insertions of very small units. You will also have to provide air cover for those troops, which submarines are incapable of providing. That means troopships, or failing that (say you airlift the troops), you still need to send their equipment by ship, protection for those troop/supply ships in the form of a carrier battle group. A CBG is well equipped to protect the ships, fight for air superiority, and perform ground attack missions in support of invading troops.

If you posit that we should only fight a defensive war, then you have already lost it mentally before you start. True, the preferrence is to not attack first. But once you are in the fight, you don't fight it defensively, you force the other side to fight defensively. Otherwise, you are bound to lose.

While I respect people like Hyman Rickover, and the person who wrote the article above, I suspect that they suffer from 'Hammer Syndrome' (ie., when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). We need a full toolbox.

[Letum]

The destroyers are being replaced by subs.
The Airoplanes are being replaced by missiles.
The human is being replaces by CPUs.

World war 3 will be strange and terrible.

[micky1up]

They really should spend less money on military stuff and MORE on the REAL problems.



the said that before the ww1 , ww2 and the falkands you never know whats going to happen or what your going to need

[Heibges]

I agree with Chock and CCIP on the strategy, if you think the United States has any business projecting power in limited conflicts. If we want a Navy for defense then the all submarines would work.

But if the United States wants to continue to wage economic imperialism around the world, the aircraft carriers are neccessary.

Leaving aside the last sentence, you're wrong.

Here is why:

Assuming a full blown, non-nuclear war, you'd still need surface assests.

Submarines are lousy for escort duty. They are, for all intents and purposes, an offensive weapon. Even given the capabilities of a modern nuclear sub, they are vulnerable to aircraft. One of the big lessons of WWII is that while aircraft carriers are vulnerable to submarines, submarines are more vulnerable to aircraft. This still holds true today: Ask a modern submariner what they fear most in a shooting situation, and it won't be a surface ship or other submarine (they have comparable performance, and you can shoot back at them), but a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft configured for ASW. You can't outrun them, and except for a very few experimental systems installed on very few subs, you can't shoot back at them.

Additionally, at some point in such an all-out war you will need to project power. Submarines are great for preventing the other guy from projecting power, but lousy at doing it themselves. You need to be able to put boots on the ground. Submarines suck at that, except for stealthy insertions of very small units. You will also have to provide air cover for those troops, which submarines are incapable of providing. That means troopships, or failing that (say you airlift the troops), you still need to send their equipment by ship, protection for those troop/supply ships in the form of a carrier battle group. A CBG is well equipped to protect the ships, fight for air superiority, and perform ground attack missions in support of invading troops.

If you posit that we should only fight a defensive war, then you have already lost it mentally before you start. True, the preferrence is to not attack first. But once you are in the fight, you don't fight it defensively, you force the other side to fight defensively. Otherwise, you are bound to lose.

While I respect people like Hyman Rickover, and the person who wrote the article above, I suspect that they suffer from 'Hammer Syndrome' (ie., when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). We need a full toolbox.

I'm a firm believer in combined arms warfare, but we can really never fully agree, because I do not believe the United States should fight limited wars that do not directly threaten our security. But I do see the point of folks who argue for a "Pax Americana".

I fully agree what once you go to war, you should be fully offensive. To paraphrase Napolenon, defensive war dooms you to defeat. But as you say the submarine is a fully offensive weapon.

Rickover came to his conclusions in a manner similar to Doenitz: through wargames. Doenitz tactics were proven in WWII, so unless we have WWIII we will never really know who was the right when it comes to modern naval warfare.

But I would say that WWII taught us that like the submarine, the aircraft carrier can be extremely vulnerable to the aircraft. I'm just not convinced you could defend a fleet from a barrage of nuclear cruise missles fired from a submarine a thousand miles away. Or land based aircraft with in-air refueling.

I don't think we will every see a ReForGer situation again where huge numbers of American troops go overseas to fight an all out war. The Army hasn't trained for that eventuality since 1987. But you could say that the First Gulf War and Second Gulf War were super-ReForGers, but we weren't exaclty fighting the crack Soviet troops either.

[Puster Bill]

I'm a firm believer in combined arms warfare, but we can really never fully agree, because I do not believe the United States should fight limited wars that do not directly threaten our security. But I do see the point of folks who argue for a "Pax Americana".

I fully agree what once you go to war, you should be fully offensive. To paraphrase Napolenon, defensive war dooms you to defeat. But as you say the submarine is a fully offensive weapon.
This is true, but being offensive doesn't mean just striking from the sea. You have to have guys on the ground with guns, which means you have to support them with food, ammunition, and equipment. You have to have all of that capability *BEFORE* the shooting starts. You have to be able to get the stuff there, which means cargo ships, which means you need air cover to protect the convoy from things like aircraft firing anti-ship missiles, which of course means you need carriers, and by extension you need ships to protect the carrier.


Rickover came to his conclusions in a manner similar to Doenitz: through wargames. Doenitz tactics were proven in WWII, so unless we have WWIII we will never really know who was the right when it comes to modern naval warfare.
Doenitz *FAILED* in WWII. His tactics remained pretty much static, and when they did change they were in response to Allied technical and doctrinal advances. In fairness, though, he was hobbled by a leadership that didn't understand what the submarines of the time were capable of, and not capable of.


But I would say that WWII taught us that like the submarine, the aircraft carrier can be extremely vulnerable to the aircraft. I'm just not convinced you could defend a fleet from a barrage of nuclear cruise missles fired from a submarine a thousand miles away. Or land based aircraft with in-air refueling.

Currently, the US and the UK, but mainly the US, are the only forces capable of staging long distance sustained refuelings to hit targets half a World away. It really isn't that much of an issue.

As for a barrage of nuclear missiles, again I was talking about a non-nuclear conflict. If you start talking nukes, then even submarines aren't going to help.


I don't think we will every see a ReForGer situation again where huge numbers of American troops go overseas to fight an all out war. The Army hasn't trained for that eventuality since 1987. But you could say that the First Gulf War and Second Gulf War were super-ReForGers, but we weren't exaclty fighting the crack Soviet troops either.
Don't be too sure: Europe in the 1920's didn't see WWII coming, and Europe in 1900 didn't see WWI coming. You really don't know what is going to happen.

As far as fighting crack Soviet troops, they weren't all they were cracked up to be. Even back in the 1980's, it was well known that they had some serious deficiencies that they attempted to cover up, but that were patently obvious to an outside observer who cared to look.

[SUBMAN1]

I doubt surface ships would be smashed to peices in the first day. Some may be lost, but this is a little overboard.

What happens when the all seeing submarine tech comes out? Hiding under the waves is going to become obsolete.

The Defense department has restrictions on satilite tech designed for commericial purposes for this fact. Apparently, the DOD operates satilites that can pick up the ripple of a sub wake on the surface of the ocean and doesn't want this tech in anyone elses hands. It is only a matter of time before subs are unable to hide anymore.

-S

[Heibges]

I doubt surface ships would be smashed to peices in the first day. Some may be lost, but this is a little overboard.

What happens when the all seeing submarine tech comes out? Hiding under the waves is going to become obsolete.

The Defense department has restrictions on satilite tech designed for commericial purposes for this fact. Apparently, the DOD operates satilites that can pick up the ripple of a sub wake on the surface of the ocean and doesn't want this tech in anyone elses hands. It is only a matter of time before subs are unable to hide anymore.

-S

And then the entire Navy will be obsolete, and we can spend what President Bush referred to as the "Peace Dividend" on something else.

But we would definitely need to drastically increase the number of operational fighter wings in the Airforce to defend against new types of attack created by the obsolecense of submarines.

One definite lesson of WWII is that it takes a long time to train good fighter pilots.

[Heibges]

I'm a firm believer in combined arms warfare, but we can really never fully agree, because I do not believe the United States should fight limited wars that do not directly threaten our security. But I do see the point of folks who argue for a "Pax Americana".

I fully agree what once you go to war, you should be fully offensive. To paraphrase Napolenon, defensive war dooms you to defeat. But as you say the submarine is a fully offensive weapon.
This is true, but being offensive doesn't mean just striking from the sea. You have to have guys on the ground with guns, which means you have to support them with food, ammunition, and equipment. You have to have all of that capability *BEFORE* the shooting starts. You have to be able to get the stuff there, which means cargo ships, which means you need air cover to protect the convoy from things like aircraft firing anti-ship missiles, which of course means you need carriers, and by extension you need ships to protect the carrier.


Rickover came to his conclusions in a manner similar to Doenitz: through wargames. Doenitz tactics were proven in WWII, so unless we have WWIII we will never really know who was the right when it comes to modern naval warfare.
Doenitz *FAILED* in WWII. His tactics remained pretty much static, and when they did change they were in response to Allied technical and doctrinal advances. In fairness, though, he was hobbled by a leadership that didn't understand what the submarines of the time were capable of, and not capable of.


But I would say that WWII taught us that like the submarine, the aircraft carrier can be extremely vulnerable to the aircraft. I'm just not convinced you could defend a fleet from a barrage of nuclear cruise missles fired from a submarine a thousand miles away. Or land based aircraft with in-air refueling.

Currently, the US and the UK, but mainly the US, are the only forces capable of staging long distance sustained refuelings to hit targets half a World away. It really isn't that much of an issue.

As for a barrage of nuclear missiles, again I was talking about a non-nuclear conflict. If you start talking nukes, then even submarines aren't going to help.


I don't think we will every see a ReForGer situation again where huge numbers of American troops go overseas to fight an all out war. The Army hasn't trained for that eventuality since 1987. But you could say that the First Gulf War and Second Gulf War were super-ReForGers, but we weren't exaclty fighting the crack Soviet troops either.
Don't be too sure: Europe in the 1920's didn't see WWII coming, and Europe in 1900 didn't see WWI coming. You really don't know what is going to happen.

As far as fighting crack Soviet troops, they weren't all they were cracked up to be. Even back in the 1980's, it was well known that they had some serious deficiencies that they attempted to cover up, but that were patently obvious to an outside observer who cared to look.

Again we disagree about the type of war we should be fighting. I see our only need for land forces is if someone makes it to America. I depend on the Navy and Airforce to blow anyone out of the sky/water who tries to make it across any body of water to reach us.

And I see the Europeans as our likely enemy in the future, and as you say, they only ones with the industrial and military capability to threaten the United States' existance. The longer we can keep the English friendly towards us the better.

I disagree that Doenitz's tactics failed, as a small group of USN Submarines sent the almost entire Japanese Merchant Marine to the bottom of the Paficic using them.

I also think the Soviet ThrEAt would have been pretty tough to beat without at least tactical atomic weapons. The US Army faced many of the same types of issues as the Soviets in the 1980's.

[SUBMAN1]

And then the entire Navy will be obsolete, and we can spend what President Bush referred to as the "Peace Dividend" on something else.

But we would definitely need to drastically increase the number of operational fighter wings in the Airforce to defend against new types of attack created by the obsolecense of submarines.

One definite lesson of WWII is that it takes a long time to train good fighter pilots.
That is probably why the Air Force gets funding for pretty much anything they want.

[SUBMAN1]

Again we disagree about the type of war we should be fighting. I see our only need for land forces is if someone makes it to America. I depend on the Navy and Airforce to blow anyone out of the sky/water who tries to make it across any body of water to reach us....

I have to disagree with this one. A land force is a requirement for any power projection. Navy and Airforce can do what they want, but without the man on the ground, not much will really change. This is why the Army is still given ultimate command over all other forces in any conflict.

-S

[Heibges]

And then the entire Navy will be obsolete, and we can spend what President Bush referred to as the "Peace Dividend" on something else.

But we would definitely need to drastically increase the number of operational fighter wings in the Airforce to defend against new types of attack created by the obsolecense of submarines.

One definite lesson of WWII is that it takes a long time to train good fighter pilots.
That is probably why the Air Force gets funding for pretty much anything they want.

It's funny that the Army has "relatively" cheap weapon systems, so they make deals with the Air Force and Navy so they can afford their bigger systems. Then the Army can collect on its favors.

[Heibges]

Again we disagree about the type of war we should be fighting. I see our only need for land forces is if someone makes it to America. I depend on the Navy and Airforce to blow anyone out of the sky/water who tries to make it across any body of water to reach us....

I have to disagree with this one. A land force is a requirement for any power projection. Navy and Airforce can do what they want, but without the man on the ground, not much will really change. This is why the Army is still given ultimate command over all other forces in any conflict.

-S

I agree with you Subman, I'm saying I think the Army should only be used to fight on US soil. Of course, if another Superpower arises I reserve the right to change my mind.

But I do think the President should be able to use special ops and run appropriate intelligence operations overseas.

[Heibges]

If you ask me (And you didn't, I know) Puster bill has answered this thread perfectly.

"I suspect that they suffer from 'Hammer Syndrome' (ie., when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). We need a full toolbox."


No one knows what shape the next conflict a country may face. Preparing to fight the last war again is definitly a huge mistake.
The only solution is to try and attempt to have mixed balance of forces to attempt to cater for as many situations as possible. "Full Toolbox"
Of course for most countries this is economically and politically unrealistic.

I think for the United States it is economically unrealistic. We spend more now than all of NATO and Russia combined. I know folks will say it is still a relatively small percentage of our GNP, but we're talking a huge amount of money that could be used to build and repair a lot of our infrastructure.

[baggygreen]

I agree with you Subman, I'm saying I think the Army should only be used to fight on US soil. Of course, if another Superpower arises I reserve the right to change my mind.
China?

But I do think the President should be able to use special ops and run appropriate intelligence operations overseas.
agreed!:D