Zumwalts Gets Seawolfed

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Zumwalts Gets Seawolfed
SYSOP 9/21/2011 5:32:14 AM

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT

Thomas 11/12/2011 8:47:10 AM

An 80 kt ship handles better than a 40 kt. ship.

Not necessarily! Among other things a 80 kt. carrier does not handle at all in the Baltic Sea - they have tried.

Do I claim the Danish Navy superior to the USNavy?

Originally no - but the comments here have led me to revise that position.

1) ALL units have been launched post 1989. I am talking rowing boat to the largest units the Danish Navy has ever had.

2) Do we have better sailors: Definately - if sea time is any factor.

3) Do we have better officer: Definately - if time in command is a factor.

4) Do we have better admirals: It seems so, as vastly greater tasks have been assumed on the same budget.

Are Danes better than Americans? Not necessarily! Take Danish Rail - they have worked themselve into the same hole as the USNavy. Late, overweight, overcost and generally not running; but don't get me started on that tack.

The fact is: We have always had to make do with limited funding and nasty neighbours - that sort of gives you a result oriented approach.

But some thoughts:

1) We FOUND Amerika. Not only did we let it go as a bad idea (strategically unsound); but tried - with succes for several hundred years - to keep its existence a secret. Those PIIGS countries still remain an unsolved problem.

2) We have survived for more than a thousand years - at times it was a precarious existence - very.

Quote Reply

Reactive 11/12/2011 11:52:07 AM

So rather than dealing with any of the specific points that JFKY has raised, points that have been made many times in the course of this thread, you are now going back to talking about the Danish navy...again...

This is not about Denmark, the points made about stores, replenishment and escort requirements are utterly valid given your earlier assertion that 10 Nimitz CBG's should become 16 QE-type CBG's, despite this resulting in higher costs and manpower requirements, as well as dramatically reduced capabilities you continue to make similar assertions without, as I have said previously, doing even the most rudimentary analysis.

Rather than giving endless parables about the Danish Navy please try to actually answer some of the points raised without being quite so glib.

Quote Reply

JFKY Post-1989 11/12/2011 4:58:49 PM

) Do we have better admirals: It seems so, as vastly greater tasks have been assumed on the same budget

I didn't realize that the Danish Navy supported:

1. Kuwayt in re-flagging tankers,

2. defeated the Iranian Navy in a day,

3. rolled back its "guerrilla campaign" in the Persian Gulf,

4. Protected Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia in August 1990;

5. Convoyed 90% of the material for Desert Shield safely to Saudi Arabia;

6. Helped over-throw the Taliban,

7. Supported Enduring Freedom for 10 years;

8. Aided the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and

9. Helped defeat the Post-Saddam Insurgency; all the while;

10. Operating in the Philippines;

11. Opposing piracy, and

12. Having undertaken several humanitarian efforts and evacuations.

I didn't realize that the Danish Navy had done all these things, all with a much smaller budget than the USN. If I want advice on how to run a Offshore Patrol/Economic/Fishery Zone Protection Force, with the supplemental mission of fighting in the restricted waters of the Baltic, in SUPPORT OF COALITION ALLIES, against a second-rate Soviet Fleet (Red Fleet-Baltic) I'll give the Danish Admiralty House a "ring." If I want to see how to run a force capable of projecting force WORLDWIDE, I think I'll visit the "E-Ring" of the Pentagon.

I don't mean to be dismissive or arrogant, Denmark , no doubt, has many fine vessels and crews...but it ain't the US Navy...and the "points" you made, and to which I responded were historically bad points, and ignorant of many facts regarding ship design, cost, and usage.

I'd recommend Friedmans's US Destroyers: A Design History and his US Carriers: A Design History. I have them and they are EYE-OPENING...they are the only two I can currently afford, but, reading them will be an introduction into the "why's and wherefore's" of ship design! Once you read them, you'll begin to see why the US Navy looks the way it does, and how technical and doctrinal and Legal constraints have driven the force. If you can afford it, he has a series on US Cruisers and on British escorts, both of which would be illuminating as well, on the size, roles, cost, and mission of escort vessels, and why the US Navy and the Royal Navy have evolved as they have. BUT UNTIL YOU DO, your arguments are weak, because I'm an amateur and am merely regurgitating Friedman, and I'm demolishing you.

Quote Reply

Thomas JFKY 11/12/2011 10:18:47 PM

I never intended to imply that the Danish Navy was the USNavy.

My intention is actually to make the USNavy as strong and capable as possible.

If for no other reason, than a strong USNavy will exert some sort of control/policing of the oceans of the world.

What I don't want to see a China (or India for that matter) running wild bombarding peacefull coastal towns. Extrapolating form their economic policies - they are far from capable, predictable or rational.

F.i. I've heard repeatedly, that they will make their currency substitute the USD as a reserve currency. That is absolute lunacy!

To be a reserve currency it is absolutely necessity to be a net debtor - and (as some of us have noted) China is a CREDITOR.

It may be politically correct to revoke gravitation as a physical law; but water will still run down hills. Any attempt to put that political desire into practise will be costly, in vain and generally disruptive. Not that China wouldn't put its mind to it.

Under Mao they tried to exterminate minor birds, as they ate to much of the harvest - partially succeeded - only to have even more eaten by insects.

That is not the entourage I would like to have as janitor of the post-cold war loony-bin called the world.

I critisize the way USNavy go about what I consider their very important business.

The USNavy repeat historical mistakes, as I have outlined. We all make mistakes; but to repeat them with regularity is devastating. If a small nation - like Denmark or Libya - makes a dogs dinner out of things - it is unfortunate; but if the USA does the same it will devastate the world.

The USA might be a jerk; but I vastly prefer that jerk to a homicidal maniac in Peking. China does not make mistakes - it is persistent lunacy.

I want to contain China in their own large scale hellhole of an asylum.

What I fear is:

1) With an economy in the toilet - without any realistic prospect of getting out of it in my lifetime and longviety runs in our family - there will be very limited resources (even and especially) for the USA to lift the burden. The depression of the 1930'ies left the armed forces of the USA in a deplorable state - true the US armed forces in 1944 was a different kettle of fish; but a lot of lives were lost and vast devastations: Due to the sorry starting position in 1938-39.

Can the USA afford to repeat that mistake? Maybe - maybe not.

2) As the examples in this thread indicate: There has in the past 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall NOT been a reassesment of the situation - particularly in the USNavy. Not that it could not have been done - which is my point in bringing up the Danish Navy - where every ship has been reassed, concerning suitability - and found wanting. Not only has every welding seem been analysed; but action has been taken.

To rely on, that China is similarly smug in their feeble minds might be appropriate; but it is dangerous folly to think that persistent idiocy is a particular inherent characteristic of the "chinese race". It is sitting down at a rigged roulette table - and expecting to win a fortune.

Hitler was criminal and mad; but he did cause no end of pain. Japan - well they pushed the USA to the brink of destruction.

Quote Reply

Thomas JFKY cont. 11/12/2011 11:02:09 PM

3) The US has repeatedly - I would say implored - its European allies to shoulder a greater part of the burden. Again we hear you loud and clear, and so does several others - we are not all greek geeks! (or swedes for that matter - I can elaborate on that; but that is probably not wanted). Stop moaning like a Wall Street banker!

Be a bit constructive!

First of all, let us take up the tasks according to ability without telling us how to do our job: Your solution might not be the best - which I persistently point out. Just because your navy is a bottomless hole to sink borrowed money into doesn't make it a very good navy - competence is an ongoing process constantly challenged.

If I have an agenda it is in the direction of the F-35 and what our role in the game is. We can take a larger load - and have done so, then it is NOT helpfull to also make us subsidy your industry. The F-35 is overpriced; but if we don't get it at a fair price, there is a lot of tasks USA will have to perform expensively and in a mediocre way.

What the US want from us is to put a cork in the Baltic, in Murmansk and in the Arctic. The Norwegeans take care of Murmansk - we have a solution for Sct. Petersburg, that even the Russians are coming round to accept - not willingly - believe me; but they are slowly realising the cost connected to the alternative.

Technically the USA could have a solution to the Arctic problem, but experience tells us it will be late, overdimentioned and amateurish - not to mention unaffordable - even to the USA - especially to the USA.

So: Get your act together: The performance in the last 20 years leaves something to be desired. We have abundant examples to make even a US Admiral wince.

World leadership is far from assured - it is an ongoing process - every day; but it does not mean you have to do every detail yourself: That is not leadership - that is insect fornication (expression doesn't translate well).

Quote Reply

max motor Thomas 11/13/2011 9:06:15 AM

Thomas....As military professional (army), naval enthuthiast and fellow dane, i strongly suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror and think about what you are writing! Your ramblings about the danish navy in particular, makes you sound like a patriotic megalomaniac!....and frankly you are embarrassing yourself. ...Look i am proud of our navy too, they are very good at what they do, and because we have allways had to do more with less, we have come up with some very novel and innovative solutions wrt shipbuilding, design,modules,mcm etc.....That said we do not play in the same league as the US navy....not by a long seamile!! Infact , wrt size, capabilities, mission and strategic outlook, we have a damn sight more in common with the US Coast guard, than we do with the US navy. Wich brings me to my point:.....that we (Denmark) have never conducted naval operations off remotely the same character and scale as the USN and is therefore in no position to teach or tell them what works and what doesnt. You doing exactly that, shows an amazing level of arrogance AND ignorance!

Quote Reply

Thomas 11/13/2011 9:37:56 AM

The problem is not the Danish Navy - which is limited in scope, ambition and operations.

The problem is the USNavy, that has to take a long hard look at itself. It landed in the unfortunate situation of having won the cold war. That made them believe they had found the eternal truth - because they had won.

The USNavy cannot continue that policy - there is no money for it - simply as that.

The Danish Navy is just an example of what can be done.

The USNavy's enemy is not the Chinese - it is the USNavy and fossilation.

Quote Reply

Thomas 11/13/2011 10:31:33 AM

Max Motor: YOU are making that leap (and some of the others as well): I am not.

I am trying to point out consistent and persistent errors in planning and judgement in the USNavy. To show, that it had not had to be this way I took a counterexample - I could have taken the Turkish Navy, but I took one closer at hand.

The counterexample does not prove anything positive; but it does prove, that the USNavy's approach is wrong - it is not a series of unfortunate incidents - it is top management not capable.

I have taken the banking "industry" as an other example of sector that unintentionally has brought itself down. There is no singularity in the USNavy.

It not that the USA is "wrong" - that would another faulty leap.

If it comes across as such - the fault lies with the reader, as I generally do not suffer from muddled thought and inability to make my point.

(That is one benefit from winning unpopularity contests all the time)

Quote Reply

JFKY A Shorter Version of Thomas 11/14/2011 9:31:18 AM

Danmark, Danmark om alt

Long on assertions, short on EVIDENCE....I'm glad to see that a proponent of an advanced Naval Gendarmerie/Coast Guard can presume to explain SLOC Protection, Sea Control, and Power Projection to the US Navy.

Again, Thomas read any one of Friedman's books on Design History, and you will begin to understand why modern warships, in general, look as they do and what trade-offs are. Once you've done that get back to us about the USN and its "mistakes."

Right now all we've got from you is amateur assertions that the USN is on the Wrong Track and Danish Flag-Waving about alternative paths.

Try reading Friedman, Corbett, and Mahan.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 11/14/2011 2:49:06 PM

Thomas, I'm still struggling to work out whether you're being controversial or whether you have seriously formed these views from your planning days....

the construct of the USN is a legacy of who owns her and what life experiences she has had over various capital ship centric wars (and those capital ships changing the course of events)

I've seen a fair bit of the data as to why the USN has Stennis sized carriers and why the arleigh burkes are the new greyhounds of the sea.. everything I've seen points to efficiencies at sea, time on station, capacity to bring firepower to bear in a sustained manner until support assets arrive on station (and this means weeks, not just days).

Apart from a budgetary constraint (never a good way to design capability and effectiveness into your armed forces), the size and scale makes sense - even aganst the PLAN.

the assets have changed from their cold war delivery to a new paradigm, ie its about constraining, containing and dictating your will as opposed to the original cold war mentality paradigm of dealing with soviet blunt force trauma with superior platforms and more precise weapons delivery.

for all the boogey man views of china that can fester on the internet, the reality is that she has some huge and significant emergent problems, and I don't see a linear transition of china to being a military threat to the US while she concurrently manages emerging problems at home. The current maritime orbat just makes it even harder for china to step up to the US and china will travel the same road as the soviets if they try to beat the US at a military on military basis, quite frankly her problems at home are usually conveniently ignored when some try to make a case about chinas emerging power and tipping the US off the perch. Thats a 20 year journey (still IMO) and the US would need a completely passive or "bought" congress to decay so quickly.

china can only impose soft political power at will, she can only convert to hard power once her military has the capacity to project that political will at a time and place any time of her choosing. she's 15-20 years away from that capability. India will also be changing in that time frame, so its not a one horse race by any means.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT