The mighty us navy - a vulnerable dinosaur?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

http://www.exile.ru/156/156032003.html

This is kind of lengthy, but highly interesting to read

[Warin 0]

Heh... look at this, I am about to defend the US Armed Services!

That is a half baked article. It tries to imply that the US wont learn from that exercise...that they want to just ignore the results. Well, here is how I see it:

They refloated the fleet and continued not out of a sense of 'lets hide our head in the sands' but because you dont pack up and end wargames just because one side 'wins' You keep wrking problems and setting up situations. Otherwise you waste a lot of time, and money and planning.

If anyone thinks for a moment that the USN isnt taking very seriously what happened, then I really wonder what colour the sky is in their world. If I was an Admiral in charge of a carrier group, I would take exactly these lessons and not only learn from them, but change theater doctrine to let me sink anything that came even remotely close enough to fire an anti ship weapon. And you can bet that if/when a carrier group sails near the GUlf, there will be a very public announcement that will amount to: Get within X distance of the fleet and you WILL be sunk or shot down' and then they will enforce it.

This article is the worst kind of fear mongering... total knee jerk silliness that assumes the men running the US Armed Services are worse than morons. And as much as the guys making the policy may be a little...thick... I have a lot of faith that the guys at the pointy end of the spear are a little more rational... and worry about their men.

[FSPilot 0]

I think the scary thing about the article was the link to "death porn" at the bottom of the page.

[Badgerboy 0]

That article was pretty crap. There was a far better report in the Guardian some months back, and that had the OPFOR commander explaining what had happened.

He did very well, but it was never recognised by the Navy brass, I believe he has retired now.

The style of writing in that report does dumb down the information containedwithin

[FSPilot 0]

I liked the reference to Dungeons and Dragons.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They refloated the fleet and continued not out of a sense of 'lets hide our head in the sands' but because you dont pack up and end wargames just because one side 'wins' You keep wrking problems and setting up situations. Otherwise you waste a lot of time, and money and planning.<span id='postcolor'>

I think the problem was, they didn't refloat the fleet and reset the exercise, it was decided to refloat the fleet, and continue the exercise from that point, which is a bit unsporting if you ask me.

I'll try to find the proper article, it raises some interesting points, and doesn't babble on like the bumbling idiot who wrote that article.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I'm not sure where this guy is getting his info- I can't find anything more incriminating against MC02 than that the evaluation of the Stryker Force participating in the exercise was rigged. Until a full, non anecdotal account of the exercise is released, I would reccomend that you take everything you read (especially if it is written by an American hosted on a russian site with a link to "Death Porn" on it) with a grain of salt. Listen to his account:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.<span id='postcolor'>

Lots of details, huh? I would be surprised if this guy could recognize his ass from a hole in the ground.

On a seperate note, this guy is talking out of his ass when it comes to his analysis of the aircraft carrier's obsolesence. He completely ignores the fact that there is no better way to project power around the world than the carrier, and without full evidence, this amateur pronounces one of the most proven platforms in the US inventory useless. He seems to link stupidity of the command in trying to ensure success with the downfall of one of the deadliest ships we have. I would look at a proven combat record before I listened to the half-ass analysis of an armchair general who obviously doesn't even know the whole story.

Other than that though, I agree with him that any wargames conducted should be as objective and non-rigged as possible, and that it is stupid and dangerous to fix the game just to prove orthodox dogma.

[Frisbee 0]

Hm,doubtable any officials will just blatantly ignore evidence nowadays :]

Even the antiship missiles can be downed,exocets were shot down by the english in the falklands too.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">shot down by the english in the falklands too.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats British, you bloody foreigners! It's like saying only Texans fought in the Gulf War!

Tex, I read a reasonable report about that exercise, and van Ripen did indeed do alot of damage to the Blue force. Not only was he a cunning bastard, he also got lucky in some places.

No the carrier is not obsolete, but it must be protected well. A USMC Officer managed to catch the Navy guys napping, and put some virtual holes in the carrier. I hope from that lesson, the US Navy learn a thing or two, a loss of a carrier to a ragtag fleet would be a political disaster.

Anyways, this is why countries have war games, and seriously, do youthink the US Navy are going to admit they got beaten by Marines? Nah!

[NavyEEL 0]

Go Navy!

fleets aren't invincible, but i don't find it very realistic for an entire fleet to be sunk. did you know that at any given time, a US nuclear submarine is the "3rd most powerful country in the world"? that's not to say that the sub has its own government and economy, but as far as firepower goes... sinking a US Naval Fleet would be the equivalent of destroying an Army or Air Force base. there are so many sailors and marines, so much firepower both from the sea, under the sea, and from the air... anti-ship missiles, anti-air missiles, anti-sub missiles, anti-missile missiles, anti-missile guns, and the most sophisticated technology available. not to mention all the small arms and special operations units, plus mines and defensive maneuvers. standoff weapons can destroy enemy targets from nearly 1,000 miles out. tell me again how they will destroy the entire fleet? maybe one ship will get hit, maybe severely, but after that it's all over.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Absolutely. I don't doubt at all that the Navy got their asses kicked by a Marine, but I think that this idiot's conclusions are complete BS. I would like nothing more than to see this spawn a congressional investigation that ruins a few careers and may end up saving a few lives.

If that makes any sense

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 26 2002,05:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Absolutely. I don't doubt at all that the Marines got their asses kicked by a SEAL, but I think that this idiot's conclusions are complete BS.<span id='postcolor'>

i'm glad that you agree, Tex

[Tex -USMC- 0]

lol, sneaky editing bastard

[Lazarus_Long 0]

I suspect that this guy is just plain stupid so I'm not going to try to argue against his dumb ass conclusions. He's too wrong on too many points. I felt like vomiting when I read that crap. What a waste of 2 minutes.

[Guest]

Here is a more serious article on the event (the Guardian).

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 26 2002,15:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is a more serious article on the event (the Guardian).<span id='postcolor'>

Ah! That's better! I went searching for something like that and couldn't find it.

OK. No more excuses. Let them play again and see what happens after blunderring the first time.

[Jinef 2]

There is a point in this, the US military isn't very dynamic when their plans go to shit which happens a lot in every military.

I remember reports about NATO exercises in Europe where the Russians (always us and usually half the Germans) would be advancing rapidly and the Americans would radio us saying "stop. we can't retreat fast enough!" and we just laughed because back then i doubt the Russians would stop politely if asked!

Also in flag exercises in America we would be invited to play as the bad guys and we would take a few phantoms over and and Vulcan bombers and they would have F14 tomcats and B52s. Our vulcans usually trained in Scotland over the lochs where they would fly very low and deliver ungided cluster ordnance with great accuracy.

Well you had these F14 guys flying at thousands of feet looking down at their radar screens and our guys blasting along at 50 ft with their radars off looking around for tomcats and when they found one they would blast up in the blindspot and eventually we took out 30 or so tomcats without a single loss! reminding you that we were flying in Phantoms that was pretty good going. While they were doing this the vulcans would only appear to blow up a target or radar site.

But the point of the story is that even the high tec stuff is vulnerable like what this marine guy showed. We had a similar incident recently up in Norway where Nowegian infantry who can't be detected (to avoid thermal imaging sats they lie under layers of snow with air layers between snow - keeps them warm underneath but undetectable above) sunk HMS Invincible and all her Harriers with small Suface to sea land based portable missiles. Damn the Norwegians! lol

Considering they only have 4 million people in their very cold and dark country (unlike sunny holiday britain of course) they are quite capable and prove to be powerful in NATO exercises.

Unlike of course us and the Americans!

[MrMilli 0]

A lot of people are missing the point about this exercise.

What else were they supposed to do?

pat the guy on the back and go home for tea and medals?

then there would be another article up here about how the US wasted $250m on a useless exercise that didn't even get off the ground.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Dec. 26 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then there would be another article up here about how the US wasted $250m on a useless exercise that didn't even get off the ground.<span id='postcolor'>

That would have been money well spent, had they learned their lesson.

[Lazarus_Long 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Dec. 26 2002,18:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A lot of people are missing the point about this exercise.

What else were they supposed to do?

pat the guy on the back and go home for tea and medals?

then there would be another article up here about how the US wasted $250m on a useless exercise that didn't even get off the ground.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree, training is training. You have to try to get the most out of it once it's rolling. It would be considered "waste fraud and abuse" to just end it once you failed.

If things go to shit and the opfor's get the upper hand, you call a time-out, figure out what went wrong, then try the excercise again until you get it right. This is what all military services do. Many lessons were learned from Van Ripen's initial successes, and you can bet your boots that many people got a major ass chewing for it. Reading about Van Ripens tactics, I also found them a bit unrealistic, so I understand why some of the Navy brass complained.

This is what training is all about. Finding weaknesses in your own tactics. When you realize you've made a fatal mistake, you go back and correct it, then do it again until you make another fatal mistake, and so on. As far as scripting, there is nothing wrong with that either if you are practicing for a specific situation. You have to this in order to prepare for certain situations. Most of our enemies are not going to be West Point graduates so you have to train according to what you most likely have to deal with in the real world.

There probably are some old school type generals and admirals out there still who still train like we may be going to war with the Soviet Union, but it is in exercises such as these that the weakness in their tactics is shown. At the end of the day, even flag-officers have to answer to their superiors.

I for one do not doubt for a second the abilities of the US Navy and Marine Corps.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 26 2002,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the point of the story is that even the high tec stuff is vulnerable like what this marine guy showed.<span id='postcolor'>

One of the reasons I want to fly the A-10. No radar. The most high-tech thing it can carry is probably the AMG-65 (maverick, IR guided missile). The only problem is that it's slow and basically MiG bait.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 26 2002,20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 26 2002,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the point of the story is that even the high tec stuff is vulnerable like what this marine guy showed.<span id='postcolor'>

One of the reasons I want to fly the A-10.  No radar.  The most high-tech thing it can carry is probably the AMG-65 (maverick, IR guided missile).  The only problem is that it's slow and basically MiG bait.<span id='postcolor'>

No radar? Where do you get that? I dont know of a modern military combat ac that doesnt have radar of some sort! I seem to remember flying the thing in a sim and it had both ATG and ATA radar. It also needs radar for it's low flight assistance.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No radar?  Where do you get that?  I dont know of a modern military combat ac that doesnt have radar of some sort!  I seem to remember flying the thing in a sim and it had both ATG and ATA radar.  It also needs radar for it's low flight assistance. <span id='postcolor'>

None of the RAF Harrier Gr fleet have radars, neither do Jaguars, or A-10's. They either use televison or FLIR guidance, or the Mk 1 eyeball.

Plus there is no way in hell a A-10 would need a A/A radar. It would result in giving away its position, and getting a BVR missile in the chuff. The 9 L/M's on a A-10 are purely for show really. Ok they can hit helicopters with them, but against a fighter they are shafted.

[Jinef 2]

The A10s are going out of service anyway.

[NavyEEL 0]

yep, the A-10's are being replaced with the new Sopwith Camels that BIS released.