6 years ago
Sometimes the web is a wonderful thing. Other times not so much. We love the ability to communicate electronically, but we hate know-it-alls. We hate know-it-alls, but we love the ability to expose them for what they are.
Every now and again a good example surfaces and it’s good to send it to our readers. The most recent example of stupidity arises from a comment at the Small Wars Journal blog. The wise and highly knowledgeable Frank Hoffman has written an analysis on American Maritime Power in the 21st Century. It was linked by our friends Dave and Bill at the Small Wars Journal blog. Now comes the stupidity with comments that add nothing to our knowledge.
This is drivel.
There has to be a better justification for spending money on big ships and expensive weapons systems than ‘to preserve our navel power’ (Fighting WW2 again).
Reaching back to the “American Century” for justification is backward looking and not a way for forward planing.
Go show us you can take care of a few boat loads of prates firing RPG’s. If you can’t do that with what you have now, we are not going to spend billions more getting more of it for you.
Ships are extremely vulnerable to air power (WWII), even the simplest missiles (Falklands), and a man in a row boat with a bit of explosive (USS Cole).
In the high speed world of today ships are slow, incredibly un-stealthy, and make wonderfully good targets when ever they get anywhere near hostile land.
The disadvantage with ships is they are not very large and easy to hit, and when hit the damage is compounded by the tendency for water to flow in through the holes.
They are really nice platforms for launching long range stand off weapons, like cruise missiles or aircraft, so long as the craft is far enough off shore to keep out of harms way.
As an off shore support system for operations in and against small backward nations like Vietnam and Iraq they are very useful.
In the age of satlights and cloud penetrating radar I am not sure that ships will continue to be a available fighting platform for use against a large modern state, like Russia or china, who have such technology.
They have one fatal flaw. You only have to get one or two good hits and the whole thing sinks. Resiliency and defensive systems are big problems for a modern navy.
No other military encampment takes down so much gear and men when when taking incoming fire. Maybe the future is not a navy as we know it now, but a fleet of much smaller fast boats that work together as a swarm.
Maybe the future of aircraft carries is a very high speed 150 foot long craft that can launch and recover automated predictor or raptor type aircraft.
To which The Captain’s Journal responded:
Yesterday Mr. Hoffman forgot some infinitesimally small amount of the information he knew on the subject about which he writes. This forgotten information from yesterday is more than you will ever know about this subject in one hundred lifetimes.
Also, your bravado concerning fluid mechanics is unimpressive. Some ships with holes sink, like aircraft with missing wings crash and tanks hit by EFPs break. And it took you some 70 – 80 words to state this fact and then repeat it for us. Wow.
As for the balance of your comment, I see nothing thoughtful about it. I, too, have concerns. Mr. Hoffman knows, like we all do, that money will be tight and that programs will have to husband their resources. I am concerned about the whole littoral combat program, whether maybe the USMC should re-evaluate their EFV program, etc. But I’ll attempt to address these issues without calling studied men out to have uttered drivel. I’ll follow this up on my own web site.
As for Naval power, the reason that China is pursuing an aircraft carrier is for force projection. We have 11, 5 or 6 or more active at any one time, and this takes cash. Maybe you should call up the Premier of the PRC and tell him your conerns about China pursuing Naval power. I’m sure he’ll listen. Let me know how it goes. Send me a note.
The only real “drivel” here is your comment. Now. I’m angry because I feel like I have wasted my time in responding to this comment. Finally, Dave and Bill are more gracious than am I. Your stupid URL http://drivel to which I am sent upon clicking on your name is enough to ban you forever from my own web site. I don’t suffer fools very well.
And we don’t suffer fools. Smaller, faster naval craft phooey! Small ships can be shot out of the water just like larger craft can. But just as we don’t suffer people like JamesM, we wonder very deeply about the USMC EFV program. We like the Osprey V-22 (although it needs more proving time), but we wonder about the notion of a floating tank, ready to swim and fight at the same time (or right after swimming). Where are we going to perform a major amphibious assault of another sovereign country? For what reason would we do something like this? Really. We understand the notion of ready reserve, and the idea of countries that go bad and embassies that have to be evacuated, and so forth. We get it. But the EFV? Really?
As for high power force projection, China is pursuing an aircraft carrier because it is the very definition of power. Guided missile destroyers can send ordnance even further into countries than aircraft can from aircraft carriers. Yet the notion of using the 26th MEU for CENTCOM ready reserve is pushing the envelope when colleagues are suffering and dying in Afghanistan. Ready reserve for what? What’s going to happen that a single Marine Landing Battalion can handle? Pirates? The lawyers have prevented that.
Now. Maintenance of force projection across the globe is one thing, but extravagance is another. Should we really pursue the idea of the EFV? Really?
In summary, we have concerns, but jamesM is an idiot and we aren’t. We understand fluid mechanics. So there you have it.
The Captain’s Journal, 26th MEU Stuck at Baharain
The Captain’s Journal, The USS San Antonio
The Captain’s Journal, Can the Afford the New Destroyers?