Are blue water conflicts a thing of the past?

[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

.

Peaceful military expansion.

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

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by kage

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Ghost Dog

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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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....
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.

Originally Posted by Kapitan

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!

Originally Posted by Kapitan

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:

Originally Posted by Kapitan

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.

Originally Posted by Gorshkov

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.

Chock