"Today is Christmas. We will now celebrate. Hans, how is your wife? Hermann, how is your wife?" and without waiting for his officers, to answer, Rommel said, "That was Christmas. Now-get out the maps."
The only huge problem I had with the article was that it presented a problem without even attempting to offer a solution.
Also, while I don't know enough about this issue to comment on the article's acuracy, I would suspect that it is at least somewhat biased given its source.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the whole thing is over blown... it's an excercise and people learn things.
He's pissed because they "refloated" the ships? well, what else are they gonna do? call off the training?
I'm sorry, I've seen these stories many times and firmly believe that all of them mean very little, except that brass gets uptight about looking bad. Seal Team 6 was a great idea and has provided Richard Marchinko plenty of room to talk about how much better he is than the rest of the US Navy... and guys like Van Riper, Marchinko, and Billy Mitchell have their points...
But it's guys like Claire Chennault, who quietly take their theories elsewhere and then prove them in battle who change the face of war.
Anyhow, I participated in a couple of wargames in school and that's exactly what my instructor did to us. We exploited the rules to build a near impregnable defense (which turned out to be completely impregnable due to the type of offensive aircraft they used and, again, the rules of the game) and an offense that was capable of completely eradicating two targets a round. With only five airfields, it was only the third round before their entire air fleet was grounded. By the time they got their airfields back on line we had utter destroyed their fuel reserves.
So the instructor started bringing in allies to provide indestructible fuel shipments to them so the game could continue...otherwise, the other team wouldn't have gotten any practice at all...
Anyone who thought we really would have cooked an enemy like this was crazy.
Same with the scenario here: wargames are far more lethal than real war, in terms of being taken out of action. When some one at Red Flag gets a lock and says "Fox Two", the other guy *always* goes down... the real world doesn't work that way.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering what methods were used to take out the carriers. In real life, carriers can be positioned hundreds of miles away from their targets, with fighter screens and phalanx mini guns on the deck to take out incoming missiles.
I'm really curious as to what methods were used, and where these ships were.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nuts and bolts of this exercise is that the opposing forces commander used many Cessna small aircraft and kept them buzzing around the perimeter of the battle group's defense zones. There were such a large number of them, apparently, that the battle group got tired of tracking them and told them to leave the area. At that moment, they attacked and using anti-ship missiles managed to destroy 2/3s of the battle group.
His conclusions are pretty ridiculous. He states that this means that in any war situation, we'd face similar losses for all our carrier battle groups. Nonsense. First of all, even if it actually happened, it would work only once. If you think the USN is going to let a bunch of planes be buzzing around its rims without having major screening after this really happened, well, you're crazy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It says he used patrol boats and small planes armed with low tech anti ship missles...
Thing is, again, these things are a helluvalot more lethal in a wargame than in real life.
And trust me, in a real wartime scenario, nobody is going to let a swarm of cessnas and fishing boats just orbit around at the edge of missle range... the article makes it sound like it was impossible for the navy to intercept and destroy them, which might have been true under the ROEs of the scenario, but I guarantee you isn't true in real life.
Edit: not to mention that there is more to launching a harpoon or exocet than simply mounting the thing on a wing and lighting a match...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're quite right, it would never work more than once.
I'm not even sure it would work the first time, not completely. During time of war, battle groups project their defense zone out further, and it's pretty hard to miss an Exocet missile hanging from the wing of a Cessna. There would be plenty of time to try and shoot down the missiles, and those that weren't, many would be intercepted by the phalanx guns on the deck of the carriers and destroyers.
If these ships refused to leave after being ordered to, I have no doubt the fighters umbrella would mow them down pretty fast. The navy doesn't screw around in time of war, and pilots get trigger happy, often with good reason.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, thinking about it... a Harpoon weighs about a thousand pounds... don't know about an Exocet... but a single engined cessna would have a very difficult time getting off the ground with a Harpoon... even a twin-engined small plabe would have a tough time of it and would have seriously reduced range and loiter time...
it's unclear if they took this into consideration for the event...
"perhaps if two swallows carried it together?"
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The exercise is still, I think, very useful and informative. It sounds to me like it teaches alertness for the navy in the Persian Gulf-something that's hardly unwise and unnecessary.
But the conclusion is out of step with reality. It's a sky-is-falling conclusion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'd say it's a good exercise in learning to expect the unexpected, and to see what crazy schemes technologically inferior nations might attempt, but this is out there.
There are way too many things that have to be just perfect for this to take place. For example, this is impossible if the fleet is in deep water, or perched 200 miles off the coast of a nation. I find it hard to believe that a small plane can carry a missile that is more than half its own weight that far out.
Plus, the thrust produced by those things would than likely take the Cessna out with it. Not to mention there is a high level of sophistication involved in launching a missile like that. You need guidance systems so the missile can lock onto a target. Otherwise you're just taking a shot in the dark.
Same story with small patrol boats. Either way I have to believe the Navy would kill any threats that come within missile range, they aren't stupid, they know how close or far you have to be to fire any classification of missile, and you can't make an anti-ship missile in a back alley the same way you make a suicide bomber belt. You need high tech tools, expertise, and materials. Harpoons these days use Titanium warheads, and that is a rather famous metal for being hard to work without very advances machining tools.
Too much of this scenario supposes the absolute best case scenario for the attackers, and the absolute worst case scenario for the defending navy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: It says he used patrol boats and small planes armed with low tech anti ship missles...
Thing is, again, these things are a helluvalot more lethal in a wargame than in real life.
And trust me, in a real wartime scenario, nobody is going to let a swarm of cessnas and fishing boats just orbit around at the edge of missle range... the article makes it sound like it was impossible for the navy to intercept and destroy them, which might have been true under the ROEs of the scenario, but I guarantee you isn't true in real life.
Edit: not to mention that there is more to launching a harpoon or exocet than simply mounting the thing on a wing and lighting a match...
Originally posted by Lyrhawn: During time of war, battle groups project their defense zone out further, and it's pretty hard to miss an Exocet missile hanging from the wing of a Cessna. There would be plenty of time to try and shoot down the missiles
It's very true that mounting anti-ship missles on small civilian planes would be haphazard at best.
On the other hand, missles can easily be launched from very small boats, or the Iranian coast, or elsewhere from the Persian Gulf coastline. Ships are vulnerable to missles: the Falklands War proved that. That fact can't be argued away. And not just tactically, but economically: the Argentinians sank $100 million-plus ships with very inexpensive Exocets.
And an important consideration is just how cramped the Persian Gulf is to a full carrier battle group. There is no room to project defensive zones out to huge distances, particularly before combat begins. There are civilian airliners flying around, tankers, fishing boats...there's a lot going on in a small area. One good Iranian strategy would be to shoot missles off a tanker that comes close to a battle group... very little time for the USN to react. The Phalanx is a good system, but it doesn't have 100% effectiveness. It could be swamped with too many incomings.
The RoE make sense, if the scenario starts before combat breaks out. If we start shooting down Cessnas over Iran or international waters, that could be the first shots in a war. Then Iran would be reacting in self-defense (even though they were acting provocatively towards our fleet), giving them an excuse for a full-scale attack, which could very well take out a carrier and other ships. It puts a carrier group commander in a very tough spot: vulnerable, but unable to defend against provocations short of war.
And this is just Iran. Bringing a carrier force to bear on China would be even riskier.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect 50 caliber machine guns would make marvelous anti-cessna weapons, were a scenario like this to start playing out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect bringing a carrier force to bear against China would be easier, not harder.
This situation only works if there is a naval carrier group situated IN the Persian Gulf. From anywhere else it doesn't make tactical sense.
Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan novels actually include somewhat realistic portrayals of what warfare would be like against mainland China. They have too many fixed installations that would be easy to lob smart bombs at. We could bombard their shore defenses and radar stations with 5' shells, then send in fighter bombers to disable the rest of their defense apparatus while wiping out their air defenses with advanced ship to ship missiles and fighters. And we know where their ICBM silos are, sending in strike teams to disable them, or bunker busting bombs to render them inoperable wouldn't be too hard either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Ships are vulnerable to missles: the Falklands War proved that. That fact can't be argued away. And not just tactically, but economically: the Argentinians sank $100 million-plus ships with very inexpensive Exocets.
True, but they hardly "shredded the British Navy" as the article said. Anti ship missles are effective. They will be less so lauched from improvised platforms. They still have the potential to do great damage, which is why the gulf itself is a dangerous place, and will remain so for a long time to come yet.
But I still maintain that bringing down a carrier in real life is significantly harder than in an excercise...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure the British thought the Argentinians would be push-overs too. I believe at one point, a RN ship was being sunk every day by missile. edit:Hmmm, I guess I was wrong. According to http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/ships.htm# 2 RN destroyers and two frigates were sunk in the Falklands, with lots of others getting damaged.
Russell, the phalanx would be superb as an anti-Cessna system. That would be suicide, with no expectation of Cessnas getting through. I'm thinking of a mass attack of missles.
Yes, the nature of the Persian Gulf is unique. But the USN has had a presence there for years. It's a plausible scenario, even if it only works once.
posted
It would take several of those missiles to actually sink a carrier. Keep in mind that carrier crews are extremely good at fire suppression and patching holes. And those things are built to last. They cost a couple billion dollars a piece for a reason.
They would have to travel a long ways, without being gunned down by fighter craft, which I think is possible, though risky. Then they would have to get past the Phalanx, would, if the missiles are massed, will take out quite a few. Then enough have to survive the attack to hit and cause enough damage to sink it. That's a lot of missiles.
Sinking smaller ships will be easier and harder, smaller profiles make them harder to hit, also, there is less space that isn't armed, meaning more firepower per square inch. But it will take less missiles to down them.
The next generation of ships, DD Destroyers and the next generation of carriers will be much harder to destroy. They will be faster, have much smaller radar cross sections, and will be more compact.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I still maintain that bringing down a carrier in real life is significantly harder than in an excercise...
We agree on that. I suspect that even if the Iranians had a good battle plan, they would mess it up putting it into effect. At least I hope so.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
a note... the Phalanx CWIS system is the last line of defense... and Carriers as well as all their escorts carry them...
before it gets to that, you're going to have at least one Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser with loads of missles designed specifically to take out incoming cruise missles... and probably several frigates desinged to patch into the system and add their fire power.
Not to mention that the 5 inch guns can also be brought to bear on aerial targets...
Finally, this also assumes everything is on the deck for the carrier...
If there's an E-2 airborne, the Tico-class can directly downlink from it's radar system, giving it a status on anything moving for a long way.
If there are combat aircraft in the air... well... things become a lot harder for the enemy force.
Of course, if the enemy force *knows* the ROEs... (as they did here) well then they have a significant advantage.
And this, as much as anything else, is why too much transparency at the top levels of government is a bad thing from a security standpoint... but that's a whole 'nother argument for another day.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
