ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

A mercenary military

The Saker's conclusion that the US military is in no shape to take on the Russian military these days is almost certainly correct:
The military is investigating whether two Navy SEALs strangled an Army Green Beret to death in Mali earlier this year, The New York Times reports. The Green Beret, Staff Sgt. Logan J. Melgar, was found dead on June 4 in his housing unit that he shared with other U.S. Special Operations troops. His death was ruled a homicide by strangulation, and the case was assigned last month to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. The two Navy SEALs, members of the elite Team 6, have since been placed on administrative leave.
It will be interesting to learn if these two Navy SEALs are Americans or Fake Americans. A lot of starry-eyed conservatives think that foreigners who serve in the U.S. military deserve citizenship, failing to realize that a nation that turns its military over to foreigners is usually in the late stages of societal decline and fall.

In light of Bergdahl's unpunished desertion, it will be interesting to see what, if any, consequences befall these SEALs, who as yet remain unidentified.

Labels: ,

100 Comments:

Blogger dc.sunsets November 14, 2017 11:01 AM  

It might be the pozzed AAII ads, but it seems like every other soldier (or ex-soldier) is Mestizo.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr November 14, 2017 11:13 AM  

Once you get into the SPECOPS community, there's a lot of money floating around...and stuff that can be turned into money. And the units with a counterterror assault mission have the most of it, and middling weak oversight.

Watch for exploding bolts on command pins in the Naval Special Warfare community. The Navy takes command responsibility seriously.

Anonymous johnc November 14, 2017 11:13 AM  

The guy who choked him to death has already been identified as Tony DeDolph.

US military is a total mess. If there's a real war, we're done.

Blogger Feather Blade November 14, 2017 11:15 AM  

Anyone want to place bets on whether it was a homosexual assignation gone wrong?

Anonymous Jordi November 14, 2017 11:17 AM  

When reading the book about 4th generation warfare published by Castalia House, I read that easily accessible cash as a tool for buying loyalties and paying bribes it a universal tool that each field officer should be provided with ample supply.

I suppose that this has drawbacks.

Aren't we observing the inherent risks of flooding uncontrolled cash in the hand of military operators ?

Anonymous Grayman November 14, 2017 11:25 AM  

The US military has fallen to the same fate as the roman legions. When things get sporty the US military WILL fire on civilians and no they wont be some invincible force (see recent westpoint letter & fiasco). Basic training is a joke now and more concerned with "social justice" than effective combatants.

Hell look at the naval collisions in the pacific, it has come out that it really was incompetence.... incompetence at such a level that a one of the largest types of ships on the seas, a ship that can be seen a mile out with the naked eye still wasnt avoided

I suspect engaging US civilians will be the trigger event that fractures the US military into multiple forces.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer November 14, 2017 11:27 AM  

A lot of starry-eyed conservatives think that foreigners who serve in the U.S. military deserve citizenship, failing to realize that a nation that turns its military over to foreigners is usually in the late stages of societal decline and fall.

Outsourcing the defense of your nation to foreigners is absolutely the most foolish thing you can do. Which is why the education establishment has eliminated teaching actual history and moved on to teaching about the inherent evil of whiteness.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer November 14, 2017 11:30 AM  

#6

Creating a military that will fire on US civilians is a goal.

Anonymous Grayman November 14, 2017 11:31 AM  

DC,

The diversification is exactly why they will fire on US civilians. A significant portion of us soldiers are no longer "American" they are Mexican American, African American... X-American, but not AMERICAN. Pulling the trigger on US civilians wont be any different for most of them than on some ragged ISIS guy in Syria.
The upside is they wont be a hiihgly effective killing force, the command structure is dead based on what is coming out of westpoint and the historical US strength of the NCO core pulling things out of the fire is largely gone since the senior NCO core has been diversified as well. While still dangerous certainly no juggernaut, and will probably respond poorly to coordinated guerilla tactics / 4th gen tactics.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 14, 2017 11:33 AM  

Scary stuff when you throw in the possibility the war mongering neo-cucks believe their own chickin'hawk propaganda.

I don't think this commander in chief will fall in line for them, but the next one might, and Merka' will be all aglow the day after.

Blogger Phelps November 14, 2017 11:34 AM  

Flavius Stilicho being half vandal is significant.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 14, 2017 11:49 AM  

Anyone want to place bets on whether it was a homosexual assignation gone wrong?

The SEALs were stealing the walking-around money, the Green Beret found out and turned down their hush money, so they killed him.

It is a total mess.

Anonymous Nobody November 14, 2017 11:49 AM  

@6

Hell look at the naval collisions in the pacific, it has come out that it really was incompetence.... incompetence at such a level that a one of the largest types of ships on the seas, a ship that can be seen a mile out with the naked eye still wasnt avoided

I read the whole unclassified report PDF. I don't buy it. It raised more questions than it answered. Incompetence was a factor, sure, but it doesn't explain things such as why the Fitzgerald CIC didn't talk to the bridge crew, or why the CO wasn't called to the bridge, or why the orders issued by the OOD to the helm to turn the ship were not followed for over a minute, or why there were no warning sirens activated, or why the bridge crew didn't even attempt to contact the other ship on radio.

The answers to those "whys" were conspicuously absent from the report, and I cannot accept mere incompetence as answers to all of them.

Anonymous Grayman November 14, 2017 11:51 AM  

One interesting variable is the National Guard (NG). The NG is essentially a state force (recently power was shifted to Feds), so you have local troops. As respect for and allegience to DC fade you could see NG forces break away fromt he FEDs and go state. That would be a serious game changer as you then have a core "professional" fighting force that is fighting on home ground and has the ability to be supported by and and to support extensive "unconventional" forces (i.e 4th gen warfare & guerilla warfare).
Look at the middleeast, get the right anti armor weapons in to "irregulars" hands as well as a few other tools and the region becomes a death trap for the Federal forces.
Some paintball guns, a little det-cord, and some gasoline/diesel mix, and you can cause a world of hurt to armored vehicles.

Blogger SDaly November 14, 2017 11:53 AM  

Other than the U.S., I think Australia has the most to lose from a weak U.S. military. Huge natural resources, small population, so close to China...

Blogger Stephen Davenport November 14, 2017 11:53 AM  

lol..here we go again, the usual bullshit of how powerful the Russian military is by libertarians and Neo-Cons, show me anywhere in the past few decades where the Russian military has done anything that would make these idiots believe they are that powerful. Any, give me one, I can name quite a few that says the Russian military is overrated and could not beat their way out of a wet paper bag. Lets see, Chechnya 1 & 2, Georgia, Donbas and Afghanistan. Not a shining performance is it. They do have a first rate propaganda machine that lies through its teeth and a bunch of fan boys like Vox Day who sit in the Amen corner of so called Russian Power and supposed American weakness. I got a dollar that says Estonia can whip that ass, any takers?

Anonymous Grayman November 14, 2017 11:54 AM  

@13 nobody,

Even if that's the case, which is indeed plausible, the level of observed incompetence is still shocking (though not surprising) for what is supposedly the premier force on the open seas.

Blogger James Dixon November 14, 2017 11:56 AM  

> Outsourcing the defense of your nation to foreigners is absolutely the most foolish thing you can do.

Which is why you only assign them to foreign engagements.

Blogger James Dixon November 14, 2017 11:58 AM  

> ...the usual bullshit of how powerful the Russian military is by libertarians and Neo-Cons

It's not that the Russian military is powerful. It's that ours is incompetent and we'd be fighting them on their own turf. A prescription for disaster.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 14, 2017 12:01 PM  

The .mil fanboys are total fags, doubt me then go read any of their shitty blogs. At least gays can be honest these chumbos are just authoritarian sword swallowers

Blogger VD November 14, 2017 12:02 PM  

lol..here we go again, the usual bullshit of how powerful the Russian military is by libertarians and Neo-Cons, show me anywhere in the past few decades where the Russian military has done anything that would make these idiots believe they are that powerful.

They won in Syria and wiped out ISIS. The USA was not only unable to do so, but was also unable to establish air supremacy. Syria was an unmitigated disaster for the US military and every military analyst knows it.

Blogger Silly but True November 14, 2017 12:03 PM  

Tony Dedolph was a relatively bad MMA lightweight fighter before going straight into the Navy Seals. It's the same guy:
http://m.sherdog.com/fighter/Tony-DeDolph-1350

One of Glenn Greenwald's people confirms with Dedolph's photo:
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/04/navy-seal-under-investigation-in-death-of-green-beret-is-a-former-mixed-martial-arts-fighter/

Melgar looks like he should have taken him all things being equal, or at least ripped his ears off - if he wasn't sucker punched 2-on-1.

Anonymous qualitycontrol November 14, 2017 12:04 PM  

@13. Nobody
Rumors were that all these Navy crashes in the pacific were the result of electronic warfare coming from Chinese assets. It wouldn't surprise me if we are seeing the work of large scale infiltration and sabotage.

Blogger WynnLloyd November 14, 2017 12:10 PM  

But I thought M1A1s we're indestructible (sarc).

Blogger Ken Prescott November 14, 2017 12:13 PM  

Incompetence. Sheer, bloody incompetence.

A lot of the basic certifications needed to demonstrate that the ship can steam and navigate safely were waived by the squadron and type commanders. These certs need to be reviewed and refreshed because people transfer, people get lazy, and people start taking shortcuts. And every time they get away with it, those bad habits are reinforced.

The sea always tries to kill you. We are intruders in Neptune's realm. Death is the penalty for a lack of grace, presumption, stupidity, or mere inattention.

Blogger Ken Prescott November 14, 2017 12:16 PM  

US Navy navigation underway is just about the LEAST automated or computerized aspect of naval operations.

This was pure dumbassery.

Blogger CA3 November 14, 2017 12:19 PM  

Given what's coming out in the wake of the Sgt. Melgar murder, I think his being Mestizo did indeed play a part, but not in the way we would otherwise think. So far, only two names have come up related to the SEALs in this, specifically Petty Officer Anthony "Tony" DeDolph and Adam Cranston Matthews.

Those are definitely more American names than Melgar's would be considered, but if Melgar was a bad egg, he'd never have gotten as far as he did. It's also entirely plausible DeDolph and Matthews killed him for fear that whatever he would report to his command would lead to administrative action for embezzlement of Navy funds. Which, between you and me, is definitely as plausible a motive to kill a guy as any, especially given the sums of cash special forces tend to be given to keep informants around.

Anonymous ZhukovG November 14, 2017 12:27 PM  

The Russian Armed Forces defends only Russia. The US Armed Forces defend Israel, Sunni Islam and Social Justice. USA, USA!!!

Blogger Ken Prescott November 14, 2017 12:28 PM  

The US military is not in any condition to take on the Russian military.

However, the Russian military is not in any condition to take on the US military.

Which is all the more reason for both nations to avoid a clash, because it will be a replay of World War One: a long, bloody stalemate that fundamentally breaks the existing global order, and probably creates something much, much worse a generation later.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 14, 2017 12:31 PM  

Every thing we (in the USA) grew up with seems to be eroding to dust. The assumptions that underlie American arrogance appear to be on the way to complete oblivion, so observations that the .mil is more like the Baltic Fleet (rusting in harbor) than D-Day/Battle of Midway should not be surprising, I suppose.

I miss Ozzie and Harriet.

Blogger tuberman November 14, 2017 12:43 PM  

Yep,USA military not ready for fight with Russia, so great, none of us want that anyway.

As to the ME, what is going on there is somewhat confusing, but likely will not involve too many USA troops on the ground (wishful thinking?). I believe wait and watch on the ME is best, and the USA staying out of it.

The absolute best troops, up until the Muslim got in charge, were White Male special forces, who came from the South as a warrior elite, and a few more came from the Western USA, and even less from the Mid-West. These were the guys that did the real fighting up until say 6 years ago. A few would still be in the military, but far more are civilians, many still know their training.

Blogger Lazarus November 14, 2017 12:47 PM  

Globalfirepower.com lists Russia second ahead of China.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp


Interesting logistics stat:
US military consumes 19billion barrels per day
The US produces 8.65 billion barrels per day

Russian military consumes 3.32 billion barrels per day
Russia produces 10.11 billion barrels per day.

Blogger Anchorman November 14, 2017 12:57 PM  

I love when "experts" talk about war like there's instant and uninterrupted support and rearmament.

The US military, after decades of misuse, is a worse off and not at the 2000 level of expertise.

The Russian military remains a paper fucking tiger. Anyone telling you differently has never considered war lasting more than a week.

Blogger Anchorman November 14, 2017 12:58 PM  

#29 Precisely.

Blogger Anchorman November 14, 2017 1:00 PM  

Syria was an unmitigated disaster for the US military and every military analyst knows it.

Because, for years, the strategic guidance (Obama and his generals) were retarded. They couldn't figure out which end of a mule poops.

If you want to factor in national leadership, fine. However, in capable hands, the Syrian issue wouldn't have lingered. And I don't and didn't advocate us getting involved in it.

Anonymous Bobby Farr November 14, 2017 1:01 PM  

@32 No one is producing or consuming billions of barrels of oil per day.

Blogger VD November 14, 2017 1:07 PM  

If you want to factor in national leadership, fine.

The Germans totally would have won WWII if it hadn't been for Hitler....

Blogger VD November 14, 2017 1:11 PM  

The Russian military remains a paper fucking tiger.

It wasn't much at the beginning of WWII either. The USA is now in the position of Germany then; more advanced, more complicated, more expensive weapons. Who has all the manufacturing capacity now?

Hint: not the USA.

Anonymous BBGKB November 14, 2017 1:11 PM  

I wonder if the navy did away from the swimming requirement to have nigseals?

I was a medic. While a lot of vets brag about how many they killed, I would like to say I have killed no where near as many as any non-Asian-minority healthcare coworkers.

Anyone want to place bets on whether it was a homosexual assignation gone wrong?

The gay jews who produce the NCIS show have a new overarching enemy- Patriots in the US military who don't believe moslems are good. If any of those gay jews are reading here I not only can give a better reason to nuke Meca but I would have a niggenius nigseal chimping out if he told me he and his squatlings were moslem.

I thought it was bad enough when they turned the NCIS show into NigCuntIdiotSupervisor.

Anonymous VFM #7916 November 14, 2017 1:15 PM  

@16

Donbas and Crimea was pretty successful. Especially with volunteers.

Besides, starting a land war in Aisa has always been one of the great mistakes of history, if I recall my princess bride quotes.

Blogger tuberman November 14, 2017 1:17 PM  

Yes, this is the sort of thing I was referring to earlier, as in, look to who's been in control for a while now.

IF HRC got elected imagine what would have happened next to the military.

Anonymous Crew November 14, 2017 1:24 PM  

@32: According to this site: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M

the US produces around 270M barrels of crude oil a day. That seems to be a long way from 8.65B.

Anonymous FC November 14, 2017 1:25 PM  

"The SEALs were stealing the walking-around money, the Green Beret found out and turned down their hush money, so they killed him."

Sounds like the mafia alright. No honor among thieves or SEALs.

Anonymous Grayman November 14, 2017 1:30 PM  

@41 tuberman

Unfortunately its a ratchet effect. The purge & replace that obama and friends undertook was the icing on the cake, after the slow subversion and deconstruction of the US military through diversity efforts.

You cant undue those effects by simply reversing them, the institutional skillsets, camaraderie, esprit de corps etc take time to build but can be deconstructed by little more than a gay muslim and a pen.

For all intents and purposes the US military has gone the way of leave it to beaver. yes still dangerous, but the juggernaut is dead and the high-tech complex systems are rapidly approaching the point of being more of a liability than a force multiplier.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club November 14, 2017 1:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Lazarus November 14, 2017 1:35 PM  

Bobby Farr wrote:No one is producing or consuming billions of barrels of oil per day.

I should have wrote million according to the site, but even that seems excessive.

Never mind.........

Anonymous Tipsy November 14, 2017 1:36 PM  

There's a story in the news today about how the Tesla factory in Fremont is a hotbed of racism. The headline suggests that it's white racism, but my guess is that it's not. I work in the same general area, and I know the demographics of factory workers: Philippino, Vietnamese, Hispanic. In short, diverse.

I'm guessing that the competition for jobs and pay, coupled with ethnic tribalism and resentment is an explosive mix.

I'm also thinking it's pretty similar in the military.

Anonymous badhairday November 14, 2017 1:39 PM  

The USA was not only unable to do so, but was also unable to establish air supremacy. Syria was an unmitigated disaster for the US military and every military analyst knows it.

Was the US actually serious about destroying ISIS?

As an aside, in the UK General Sir Richard Barrons has been saying much the same about the UK's level of preparedness for a war with Russia.

Anonymous Bobby Farr November 14, 2017 1:44 PM  

@42 US production is approaching 10 million barrels per day, not 270M.

Anonymous Grayman November 14, 2017 1:47 PM  

Just like the economies of the west, the militaries are largely hollowed out shells of their former selves.
There are so many pieces on the great chess board that its going to be very interesting to see how the pieces start moving once things start to get kinetic.

Anonymous Crew November 14, 2017 1:48 PM  

@49, @42: Yes, I used the wrong chart. That seems to be monthly totals.

This is the correct chart: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m

Anonymous Fran November 14, 2017 1:48 PM  

@48 To answer your question, no. Remember Obama was in charge. He said he wanted to create a civilian army. Not sure what he meant by that at the time but I'm sure groups like antifa and BLM are his. But so is ISIS. Did he not state he would side with the muslims if things got ugly.
Something about Benghazi cover up tells me this is his shit in action.
Yeah we could have destroyed ISIS..if we really wanted to.

Anonymous TheTruthIsAlwaysUnacceptable November 14, 2017 1:51 PM  

Bobby Farr wrote:@42 US production is approaching 10 million barrels per day, not 270M.

Production for 11/3/2017 was 9.62 million barrels.

Blogger pnq8787 November 14, 2017 1:56 PM  

This is truly a heartwarming story! The faster the U.S. Navy is blown out of the water the faster the real nations of the world can get back to the business of preserving their peoples and cultures!

Anonymous Athor Pel November 14, 2017 2:01 PM  

" 32. Blogger Lazarus November 14, 2017 12:47 PM
Globalfirepower.com lists Russia second ahead of China.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Interesting logistics stat:
US military consumes 19billion barrels per day
The US produces 8.65 billion barrels per day

Russian military consumes 3.32 billion barrels per day
Russia produces 10.11 billion barrels per day."



Those are whole nation oil numbers. They are NOT military-only numbers.

The numbers are also millions and not billions.

Anonymous c matt November 14, 2017 2:03 PM  

failing to realize that a nation that turns its military over to foreigners is usually in the late stages of societal decline and fall.

Modern America, meet (late) Ancient Rome. At least we haven't debased our currency, right?

Blogger Frank Brady November 14, 2017 2:10 PM  

16. Stephen Davenport wrote this about Russia "They do have a first rate propaganda machine that lies through its teeth and a bunch of fan boys like Vox Day who sit in the Amen corner of so called Russian Power and supposed American weakness. I got a dollar that says Estonia can whip that ass, any takers?"

I'll take that. You're not paying attention. Russia is NOT the U.S.S.R. and Putin is not Gorbachev.

Anonymous johnc November 14, 2017 2:14 PM  

The guys responsible have to be executed live on TV / YouTube while in uniform. A strong and unequivocal message must be sent.

Blogger Gospace November 14, 2017 2:26 PM  

Navy ships underway have a bow, stern, port and starboard lookout. Their sole job is to constantly scan the sea, sky, and horizon for contacts. If you see a red and green light it means what you're looking at is pointed at you. You inform the bridge. If 5 minutes later you still have the same view, you're looking at constant bearing decreasing range. You inform the bridge. If the same aspect is still there in 3 minutes you start telling them to remove their heads from their asses. It was watchstander failure, not mechanical nor electric nor electronic.

Anonymous c matt November 14, 2017 2:26 PM  

Syria was an unmitigated disaster for the US military and every military analyst knows it.

Depends upon what the goal of the exercise was for the US. I don't think our goal has ever been to win a conflict. It has always been to sow disruption, thus perpetuating the MIC. From that measure, the US military is a resounding success.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 14, 2017 2:52 PM  

The United States is incapable of deploying a force the size of what it deployed in the first Gulf War in terms of both logistics and manpower. Further, such a force would be inadequate to successfully invade Russia, and it's doubtful that Russia would allow such a buildup to occur near its border without attacking first.

Blogger Anthony November 14, 2017 2:57 PM  

"Modern America, meet (late) Ancient Rome. At least we haven't debased our currency, right?"

Not since we debased the penny in 1982.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass November 14, 2017 3:01 PM  

"There are two myths which are deeply imprinted in the minds of most US Americans which are extremely dangerous and which can result in a war with Russia.

The first myth is the myth of US military superiority.

The second myth is the myth of US invulnerability.

I believe that it is therefore crucial to debunk these myths before they end up costing us millions of lives and untold suffering.

In my latest piece for the Unz Review I discussed the reasons why the US armed forces are nowhere nearly as advanced as the US propaganda machine would have us believe. And even though the article was a discussion of Russian military technologies I only gave one example, in passing, of Russian military technologies by comparing the T-50 PAKFA to the US F-35 (if you want to truly get a feel for the F-35 disaster, please read this and this). First, I am generally reluctant to focus on weapons systems because I strongly believe that, in the vast majority of real-world wars, tactics are far more important than technologies. Second, Andrei Martyanov, an expert on Russian military issues and naval warfare, has recently written two excellent pieces on Russian military technologies (see here and here) which gave many more examples (check out Martyanov’s blog). Having read some of the comments posted under Martyanov’s and my articles, I think that it is important, crucial, in fact, to drive home the message to those who still are thoroughly trained by the propaganda machine to instantly dismiss any notion of US vulnerability or, even more so, technological inferiority. I am under no illusion about the capability of those who still watch the idiot box to be woken out of their lethargic stupor by the warnings of Paul Craig Roberts, William Engdal, Dmitrii Orlov, Andrei Martyanov or myself. But I also think that we have to keep trying, because the war party (the Neocon Uniparty) is apparently trying really hard to trigger a conflict with Russia. So what I propose to do today is to connect the notions of “war with Russia” and “immediate and personal suffering” by showing that if Russia is attacked two of the most sacred symbols of the US, aircraft carriers and the US mainland itself, would be immediately attacked and destroyed.

The aircraft carriers myth

I have to confess that even during the Cold War I always saw US aircraft carriers as sitting ducks which the Soviets would have rather easily destroyed. I formed that opinion on the basis of my study of Soviet anti-carrier tactics and on the basis of conversations with friends (fellow students) who actually served on US aircraft carriers.

I wish I had the time and space to go into a detailed description of what a Cold War era Soviet attack on a US aircraft carrier battle group would typically look like, but all I will say is that it would have involved swarms of heavy air and sea launched missiles coming from different directions, some skimming the waves, others dropping down from very high altitude, all at tremendous speeds, combined with more underwater-launched missiles and even torpedoes. All of these missiles would be “intelligent” and networked with each other: they would be sharing sensor data, allocating targets (to avoid duplication), using countermeasures, receiving course corrections, etc. These missiles would be launched at standoff distances by supersonic bombers or by submerged submarines."

Tom Clancy in Red Storm Rising shows the Soviets using Kelts to spoof American radar into thinking they're MIGs.

"On 9/11 the loss of 3000 innocent people placed the vast majority of US Americans into a total state of shock which resulted in a massive over-reaction at all levels (which was, of course, exactly the purpose of this false flag operation by the US and Israeli deep states)."

Let's not jump to conlcu....and it's Muslims!

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass November 14, 2017 3:03 PM  

"You can think of the RS-28 Sarmat as a successor of the already formidable RS-36 Voevoda (SS-18 Satan in US classification) missile: it is a heavy, very powerful, intercontinental ballistic missile with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (warheads):
• Weight: 100 tons
• Payload: 10 tons
• Warheads: 10 to 15
• Hypersonic glide vehicles: 3-24 (that’s the Yu-71 we will discuss below)
• Range: 10,000km
• Guidance: Inertial , satellite, astrocelestial
• Trajectory: FOBS-capable"

Sooooo glad I took that class on nuclear warfighting in graduate school, heh. It's going to come in vogue again soon enough.

"But what this mindset also indicate is a complete mental inability to operate in a scenario when deterrence has failed and the “other guy” is coming for you."

As we used to say deterrence does not need to be explained because "the other guy" already knows what you're going to do. If deterrence has failed, they're coming for you.

"It will be interesting to learn if these two Navy SEALs are Americans or Fake Americans. A lot of starry-eyed conservatives think that foreigners who serve in the U.S. military deserve citizenship, failing to realize that a nation that turns its military over to foreigners is usually in the late stages of societal decline and fall."

The Romans did that and we see how that turned out.

"Hell look at the naval collisions in the pacific, it has come out that it really was incompetence.... incompetence at such a level that a one of the largest types of ships on the seas, a ship that can be seen a mile out with the naked eye still wasnt avoided

I suspect engaging US civilians will be the trigger event that fractures the US military into multiple forces."

@6 Agreed on the trigger event. If my girlfriend's dad were alive today he'd be ashamed of what the Navy became (he was a lifer).

"I got a dollar that says Estonia can whip that ass, any takers?"

Someone has not read the RAND report on overrunning of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 72 hours.

"Rumors were that all these Navy crashes in the pacific were the result of electronic warfare coming from Chinese assets. It wouldn't surprise me if we are seeing the work of large scale infiltration and sabotage."

@23 If true it would be wholly unsurprising. Remember how we had near real time data on Iraqis during the first Gulf War courtesy of a few microchips in copiers that we allowed to get into Iraqi military hands?

"The US military, after decades of misuse, is a worse off and not at the 2000 level of expertise."

@33 We only have one plant making Abrams, located in Lima, Ohio. We have under 300 tanks, many of which require refit, etc. after 16 years of war, some of which will have to be scrapped. Yet, people don't see that.

"IF HRC got elected imagine what would have happened next to the military."

@41 World War 3.

"Was the US actually serious about destroying ISIS?"

@44 Under Dear Leader, they were not.

What impressed me is what Saker left out of the article: John Anthony Walker. Had the Cold War gone hot before that comms refit in the mid 80s we would've gotten destroyed.

Given what the SVR didn't take from that Canadian naval officer a few years back in Halifax as well as what they took from Snowder, it stands to reason they probably have the updated comms stuff as well.

Anonymous TheHiss November 14, 2017 3:10 PM  

If the US Navy is anything like the Royal Navy, the reason warship captains are incompetent is because there are far more officers of the requisite rank than there are ships. So someone who has spent the last ten years as a Staff Officer at a land-based HQ, as an instructor at a staff college and as a Defence Attache suddenly finds himself (or possibly herself) in charge of an aircraft carrier.

Merchant ships on the other hand are captained by people who spend their entire working lives at sea.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass November 14, 2017 3:27 PM  

That should read Snowden not Snowder. How did I miss that?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 14, 2017 3:46 PM  

"I wish I had the time and space to go into a detailed description of what a Cold War era Soviet attack on a US aircraft carrier battle group would typically look like, but all I will say is that it would have involved swarms of heavy air and sea launched missiles"

This is exactly correct, and it would literally look like swarms if you had a top-down view. In addition, while sea-wiz (automated anti air turrets) are nifty, one of them couldn't deal with more than maybe 2-3 missiles incoming simultaneously even in optimal conditions. What the Russians fire from a single boat is more on the order of 20+ simultaneous missiles. In addition, the missiles we're talking about are designed to use intelligent tactics such as "hiding" in a duck line behind the forward-most missile.

"These missiles would be launched at standoff distances by supersonic bombers or by submerged submarines."

Submerged might be a slight overstatement (barely underwater, or actually on the surface) but it really doesn't matter considering the ranges they can fire from.

"Rumors were that all these Navy crashes in the pacific were the result of electronic warfare coming from Chinese assets."

Physically not possible. That might invalidate a single layer of redundancy. What happened was the result of massive incompetence in conjunction with most of the personnel involved simply not giving a flying f***. There is no other possibility unless your ECMs can somehow blind multiple guys with binoculars (who would have seen this coming with the naked eye for nearly half an hour) who could have physically gone and yelled into Control in a small fraction of the time it took to collide. Radar or electronic communications malfunctions are not even remotely close to being a sufficient excuse.

Blogger Elder Son November 14, 2017 3:50 PM  

Not since we debased the penny in 1982.

Holy crap! Come to think of it, we did! LOL.

MuriKa!

Goes right along with its moral debasement.

Blogger Elder Son November 14, 2017 3:57 PM  

I don't think our goal has ever been to win a conflict.

Our goal is to turn the Middle East and Persia into a peaceful Sunni-Wahhabi enclave at peace with Israel.

Or, getting the prophetic ducks all in a row.

Blogger JohnG November 14, 2017 5:00 PM  

More than a few places suggesting a dust up with the Russians would be extremely bad for us. We've not faced accurate mortar and artillery fire, let alone people that could use their sights on their weapons and understand cover and concealment. The key is air superiority, now when our guys get stuck they can simply call in an attack helicopter, A10 or another bird to drop a JDAM on the pocket of Haji giving them trouble. That's not at all guaranteed when the Russians park a lot of SA300s and SA400s close by. Syria right now is a no-fly zone for us, the Russians say where we can go.

Blogger Gospace November 14, 2017 5:11 PM  

Another thing about collisions at sea. Everything happens very slowly, until the last few moments when it happens very quickly. And it changes from very slowly to very quickly very quickly.

Blogger Doom November 14, 2017 5:16 PM  

Just had a cousin become a ranger. She is in her late 30's to early 40's. I just laughed, now calling the mil the new make-a-wish foundation. An out dyke, too, but only because men really are stronger and her ego couldn't handle it. Fucking retards.

Anonymous Nick November 14, 2017 5:40 PM  

"Russia represents absolutely no threat to the United States or anybody else (including the three Baltic statelets)."This is a lie. I'm sitting in a place 5 minutes flight time from Belarus of Russian fighter jets stationed there, host to massive military exercises a few weeks ago (they weren't practicing for Syria). The Russian propaganda machine is as active as it was fifty years ago in the Soviet Union, seeking to undermine its neighbors. A sampling of texts on the subject that I translated: https://warsawinstitute.org/the-warsaw-institute-review/ This "cakewalk" rhetoric may be prevalent in Neocon circles, but it's news to me. No one in East-Central Europe underestimates Russian capabilities, nor is there ANY desire to strike Russia, that would be insane. You can oppose Neocon warmongering without automatically siding with Russia. It's certainly not the bogeyman that it's made out to be, but its current government relies on destabilizing its neighbors to maintain power. As far as mercenaries, Russia uses Chechens to carry out their dirty work in Syria and elsewhere, just as one example. It's not some ethnically pure monolith.

Blogger Madame Ringading November 14, 2017 5:44 PM  

@25

Your last paragraph should be engraved on brass plates and mounted on the bulkhead of every ship's bridge.

Anonymous BBGKB November 14, 2017 6:02 PM  

OT:Coalition of fringes

Asian cop caught on body cam planting drugs on black.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16649034/lapd-police-plant-evidence-ronald-shields

Blogger Daniel Bendele November 14, 2017 6:05 PM  

Hey Vox, have you seen the new Hijab Barbie? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/564122224/barbie-heads-into-new-ground-with-hijab-sporting-doll

It's even better than Obese Soldier of the World G.I. Joe

Anonymous Pitcrew November 14, 2017 6:06 PM  

@73
Russia is almost as diverse as the states. It's core ethnic block of Russians is just alot more confident than U.S. whites. It should also be pointed out that that's a good thing for non-Russian Orthodox minorities.

Just curious, what do Poles think of Belarussians? Ukrainians? Is there a slavic brotherhood thing or is that just hype?

Anonymous Lord of the Fleas November 14, 2017 6:08 PM  

@64 Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass

Given what the SVR didn't take from that Canadian naval officer a few years back in Halifax...

Hello? What's this? Obviously this retired Cdn Air Force type missed something and wants to know what this was about ...

Anonymous Jack Hinson November 14, 2017 6:40 PM  

We know how to beat our military. See Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...No need for NG troops or active duty; most won't know what gender they are anyway. The ones that do will be trying to fuck their female officers or virtue signaling about how they "don't care if someone is black, white, brown, purple, or upside down. They are fair to everyone!" Fuck, I got sick of that line while I was in...

Blogger Robert Browning November 14, 2017 6:44 PM  

La David Johnson ran. His comrades fought and died. His body was found with his hands tied. Which means he gave up after running away.

Blogger Ken Prescott November 14, 2017 7:35 PM  

The aircraft carriers myth

I have to confess that even during the Cold War I always saw US aircraft carriers as sitting ducks which the Soviets would have rather easily destroyed. I formed that opinion on the basis of my study of Soviet anti-carrier tactics and on the basis of conversations with friends (fellow students) who actually served on US aircraft carriers.

I wish I had the time and space to go into a detailed description of what a Cold War era Soviet attack on a US aircraft carrier battle group would typically look like, but all I will say is that it would have involved swarms of heavy air and sea launched missiles coming from different directions, some skimming the waves, others dropping down from very high altitude, all at tremendous speeds, combined with more underwater-launched missiles and even torpedoes. All of these missiles would be “intelligent” and networked with each other: they would be sharing sensor data, allocating targets (to avoid duplication), using countermeasures, receiving course corrections, etc. These missiles would be launched at standoff distances by supersonic bombers or by submerged submarines.


And all you have to do is magically assume away the following:

1. Scouting. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of naval warfare understands that scouting is EVERYTHING in naval warfare. Finding the enemy is not easy, even if he's not trying to screw up your tactical picture--heck, more than once in the Med, the COD never showed up, and they (supposedly) knew our PIM (which we had conveniently supplied for them). The Soviet Ocean Surveillance System (SOSS), even at its peak, was not omniscient; it had a lot of exploitable flaws. The Russian Federation has not maintained the SOSS anywhere near its Cold War level of performance.

Everything seems to start with "The USN was kind enough to tell Ivan when and where they would be, AND polite enough to not respond to the MASSIVE amounts of data coming in that indicate a coordinated Backfire/surface ship/submarine attack is underway."

Which brings us to . . .

2. Things like the Outer Air Battle, SLCM attacks against airbases (Backfires are WAY too big for hardened shelters; about the best that can be done for them is open revetments) and port facilities, mining operations, etc. Neither side has maintained its peak combat power in terms of hulls or aircraft, but my bet is on defensive firepower (missiles have not gotten any faster, but there are fewer of them to shoot and far more SAM guidance channels per CG/DDG than there were in the 1980s).

Doesn't mean that CVNs are invincible. But killing a CVN is going to take a VERY large fraction of the total antiship firepower of the Russian Federation, and that brings to light the real problem: those CVNs are NOT the primary targets. They're missile sponges.

Aircraft carriers, Aegis ships, nuclear submarines . . . they're sexy beasts, indeed. Container and bulk cargo ships are boring.

But war at sea is about those boring ships, not the sexy ones. Because war at sea is about the freedom to use the sea for maneuver, resupply, and reinforcement. If the US loses a significant portion of the CVN force, the US is going to have a problem. If the Russians can't stop those ships from sailing the ocean blue because they expended their entire war reserve on bagging a portion of the US CVN force . . . the Russians are going to have a very serious problem.

Again, I do not view the US as being able to defeat Russia in a war; but that doesn't mean Russia would defeat the US, either.

Blogger Matt Davis November 14, 2017 7:53 PM  

Keep in mind that, unlike their US counterparts, the Russians typically like to under-evaluate Russian military capabilities. You will find the Russia media bragging about how “totally awesome and best in the world” Russian weapons systems are, but military personnel in Russia still have a corporate culture of secrecy and under-reporting your real capabilities to the enemy.

None of the above is a big secret, by the way. Just place “zircon missile” in your favorite search engine and you will get a lot of hits (131,000 on Google; 190,000 on Bing). In fact, a lot of specialists have declared that the Zircon marks the end of the aircraft carrier as a platform of modern warfare.

Thank goodness we have this guy writing articles to let us know what Russia's capabilities actually are.

Here is a summary of what we think we know about this HGV:

Max Speed: from Mach 5, according to Scott Ritter, to Mach 9, according to a quasi official Russian source, to Mach 15, acccording to Sputnik, to Mach 20 (that’s 7 kilometer per second, or 25,200kh/h, or 15,000mph), according to Global Security. Whatever the true speed, it will be fantastic and far, far beyond the kind of speeds current or foreseeable US anti-missile systems could hope to engage.


Mach 5? Mach 8? Mach 20? Numbers don't matter when you are dealing with technology this advanced.

Introducing the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)

Though officially very little is know about the Sarmat and the Yu-71, the reality is that the Internet has been full of educated guesses which give us a pretty clear idea of what kind of systems we are dealing here.


If you didn't read the article, brace yourself:

You can think of the RS-28 Sarmat as a successor of the already formidable RS-36 Voevoda (SS-18 Satan in US classification) missile: it is a heavy, very powerful, intercontinental ballistic missile with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (warheads):

Weight: 100 tons
Payload: 10 tons
Warheads: 10 to 15
Hypersonic glide vehicles: 3-24 (that’s the Yu-71 we will discuss below)
Range: 10,000km
Guidance: Inertial , satellite, astrocelestial
Trajectory: FOBS-capable
That last line, about being FOBS-capable, is crucial as it means that, unlike most Soviet/Russian ICMBs, the Sarmat does not have to fly over the North Pole to strike at the United States.


This is the "Satan 2" missile that Russian media warned us could destroy an area the size of Texas. Not only have they mastered "astrocelestial" guidance technology, they can trick us by putting conventional weapons on the missile instead of nuclear warheads.

The author is right, our nuclear deterrent is useless. We cannot possibly fight a conventional war with Russia because they will be free to rain destruction on our cities while we stand around trying to decide which missiles have nuclear warheads and which ones don't.

I saved the worst for last:

To make things even more potentially dangerous for the US, the very same geography which protected the US for so long is now becoming a major vulnerability. Currently 39% of the US population lives in counties directly on the shoreline. In fact, the population density of coastal shoreline counties is over six times greater than the corresponding inland counties (source).

How could we have been so stupid? We have less than two years before BOTH of Russia's battlecruisers are armed with these new missiles.


Please tell me you didn't actually read this article Vox.

Anonymous Steve November 14, 2017 8:05 PM  

I can name quite a few that says the Russian military is overrated and could not beat their way out of a wet paper bag. Lets see, Chechnya 1 & 2, Georgia, Donbas and Afghanistan.

Chechenya - Russian victory

Donbass - stalemate so far, but already a Russian victory from a strategic POV (they really just wanted Crimea back, Donetsk and Luhansk aren't all that valuable unless we think Putin thinks it's worth going to war for coal)

Afghanistan - Russian victory on the battlefield, defeat on the occupation. But they had the sense to withdraw in less than 10 years. How long has the US/Nato been pouring blood and money into the armpit of central Asia? It's been going on since Zoolander was in cinemas.

Russia isn't a world beating war machine, but they don't have to be. Nato had to spend £30Bn and assemble a huge multinational task force to defeat Serbia - a country the size of a postage stamp which was already exhausted by nearly a decade of civil war and operating antique Soviet weaponry. Even so, it took more than two months of constant bombing over uncontested airspace to force them to submit. And that was before we degraded our military capabilities through pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Rooskies have more and better kit than the Serbs ever did, a vast hinterland, a population which is demographically united and psychologically prepared to accept far greater casualties than any Western country, and a considerable advantage over Western forces due to not being pozzed. There's no women or trannies larping as warriors in the Russian military, they're not beating their men up over sexual harassment or white guilt, and they're not dependent on Third World randos to flesh out their infantry regiments. It's inconceivable that Russian media would accuse their own troops of atrocities or chant PUTIN LIED, PEOPLE DIED to demoralise the folks back home in the event of conflict.

Compare their recent track record with, say, the reaction of the Germans when they lost a few men in Afghanistan - instant psychological meltdown. Or British admirals boasting about transgendered sailors. Or West Point graduates grinning and posting selfies saying "communism will win" and the US Army being too cucked to do anything about it.

If we went to war with Russia (or Iran) we would lose, bigly. If we can't even stop our territory from being invaded by semi-retarded goatherds turning up in dinghys, we don't have the spine to win a proper shooting war against a country that isn't a demoralised basket case.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales November 14, 2017 9:08 PM  

As Mr. President likes to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_etl_qkelX0

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales November 14, 2017 9:10 PM  

@83

Which is why MAD would have to come into play.

Anonymous grayman November 14, 2017 9:40 PM  

Lmao.... in case there was any question left..... US military is TOAST.

https://twitter.com/passantino/status/930611601593442304

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 14, 2017 9:58 PM  

@85. You also forgot Georgia. They easily rolled over the Georgian army and their CIA/Mossad mercenaries (mainly dindus from Africa - who were machine-gunned into trenches as they deserved) in the twilight of Curious Jorge's misunderestimated clown-show. They could have easily rolled over the rest of Georgia, which is another example of Fake-Banana Empire sponsored "color revolutions".

Anonymous JI November 14, 2017 10:40 PM  

The incident in which two small boats and 10 crew were captured by the Iranians was a disgrace for the Navy from top to bottom. There's a shameful trend taking place.

Blogger thordaddy November 14, 2017 11:53 PM  

It is a simple formula.

Any military that fights for "universal equality" must be mercenary, i.e., operate by any means necessary.

In other words, said military is self-annihilating and thus progressively losing its ability to war successfully.

Then again...

It could all just one more mass culling mechanism under the direction of "default elite."

Mercenaries contract to die without liability.

Blogger Paradise Lost November 15, 2017 12:02 AM  

Those foreign looking "American" troops will stand out here in white middle America. As would raiding intruders fleeing urban disasters.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 15, 2017 12:34 AM  

"And all you have to do is magically assume away the following:"

Magically? No. I've actually served aboard a submarine. Unless you have some similar or greater experience, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

"scouting is EVERYTHING in naval warfare

Accurate enough.

"Finding the enemy is not easy,"

Unless it's a moving carrier that can be heard from hundreds of miles away with even moderately cooperative conditions. Submarines? You aren't going to effectively scout for halfway capable ones outside of maybe a thirty mile radius of a carrier, even with full escort.

"Everything seems to start with "The USN was kind enough to tell Ivan when and where they would be, AND polite enough to not respond to the MASSIVE amounts of data coming in that indicate a coordinated Backfire/surface ship/submarine attack is underway.""

You haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. See above and below for exhibit #1.

I can't speak for high flying supersonic aircraft detection, but as for submarine vs carrier group? Even assuming the carrier escort features several submarines (basically pointless because of how fast they move) their chances of finding lurking enemy submarines aren't great. You're talking a massive displacement vessel in the middle of a large escort doing 35+ knots in all likelihood, featuring sonar crews who are comparatively both massively underequipped and incompetent vs a stealth-designed boat with the equivalent of a skin made of ears, a very proficient sonar crew, and a speed that is likely below ten knots, if not below five.

"Kindness" and "Massive data" my ass. Everything "seems to start" that way because that's actually how it is for carrier vs sub.

"killing a CVN is going to take a VERY large fraction of the total antiship firepower of the Russian Federation"

All it would take is one to two missile subs with reasonably good bearings within about two-hundred miles range to cripple one. Two to three subs would have a very good chance of sinking that carrier. And that would be with a well trained, well disciplined, highly motivated and cohesive crew.

"those CVNs are NOT the primary targets. They're missile sponges.

Not entirely accurate on the first part, flat out wrong on the second.

"But war at sea is about those boring ships, not the sexy ones."

Flat wrong. It's about both. Without those sexy ships your boring ships are toast. This isn't even mentioning the sexy ships annihilating ports or even inland cities and industrial centers.

"Again, I do not view the US as being able to defeat Russia in a war; but that doesn't mean Russia would defeat the US, either."

Doesn't really matter. We're pretty fragile. It'd definitely mess us up to even get involved. Win or lose, we'd actually end up in realistic and tempting range of a second-rate naval power like, say, China.

Sorry, Ken.

"Mach 5? Mach 8? Mach 20? Numbers don't matter when you are dealing with technology this advanced."

Good joke.

"The Rooskies have more and better kit than the Serbs ever did, a vast hinterland, a population which is demographically united"

Demographically united is definitely a stretch, Steve. The rest of what you said appears spot-on from where I'm standing.

Blogger ZhukovG November 15, 2017 1:09 AM  

@Azure Amaranthine: I think demographically united is a fair assessment. The Russian Federation is approximately 80% ethnic Russian. The largest minority nation is Tatar at only 5%.

One thing that people seem to be overlooking is that the Russian Federation isn't looking for a fight with the US. If we fight, the US will have to start it. The Russian military is all about defending Russia, not invading Poland.

Blogger Akulkis November 15, 2017 2:12 AM  

Probably participating in co-ed extracurricular activities when (s)he should have been watching and reporting.

Blogger Akulkis November 15, 2017 2:24 AM  

Outside of the Cold War, both the U.S. and the British Isles have been long-time allies with the Russians. The Brits going back to the 1600's, and the U.S. back to about 1790. John Paul Jones is the father of the Russian Navy.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 15, 2017 2:41 AM  

"I think demographically united is a fair assessment. The Russian Federation is approximately 80% ethnic Russian."

I suppose by comparison to the US or much of Europe, that's a fair assessment. I think I was thinking more of religion than genetics, for whatever reason.

"One thing that people seem to be overlooking is that the Russian Federation isn't looking for a fight with the US."

We've had more fights with Germans (Hessians) even when not counting the World Wars. Are most people overlooking our and Russia's general ambivalence toward each other outside of the Cold War? I'm not sure. I think most of us here are just trying to hammer home a couple of points:

A: The Russian military really is much less FUBAR than ours at the current time. Do we have more and better toys? Probably, but holding a sword doesn't help a man who has neither the strength nor discipline to use it correctly.

B: War with Russia would be really stupid for many, many reasons.

Anonymous Futtbucker November 15, 2017 3:39 AM  

The murder Green Beret was one of your so-called "fake Americans".

Blogger Ken Prescott November 15, 2017 9:29 AM  

I know, submarines rule, skimmers drool. At least in exercises.

Real world's a tad different, because submarines are solo platform players in an environment that's been network-centric (actually, picture-centric) for over a century.

"Everything seems to start with "The USN was kind enough to tell Ivan when and where they would be, AND polite enough to not respond to the MASSIVE amounts of data coming in that indicate a coordinated Backfire/surface ship/submarine attack is underway.""

I can't speak for high flying supersonic aircraft detection, but as for submarine vs carrier group? Even assuming the carrier escort features several submarines (basically pointless because of how fast they move) their chances of finding lurking enemy submarines aren't great. You're talking a massive displacement vessel in the middle of a large escort doing 35+ knots in all likelihood, featuring sonar crews who are comparatively both massively underequipped and incompetent vs a stealth-designed boat with the equivalent of a skin made of ears, a very proficient sonar crew, and a speed that is likely below ten knots, if not below five.


Fine. So what can you do about it at that range? You can do a bearing-only launch of your ASCM loadout and hope that the other guys' radar and SSES guys are asleep. That's it.

"Kindness" and "Massive data" my ass. Everything "seems to start" that way because that's actually how it is for carrier vs sub.

In canned exercises that are designed to teach the CSG staff what NOT to do; they give the sub a pretty good idea of where to start looking. Open-ocean carrier hunting under uncontrolled conditions is a LOT more difficult.

"killing a CVN is going to take a VERY large fraction of the total antiship firepower of the Russian Federation"

All it would take is one to two missile subs with reasonably good bearings within about two-hundred miles range to cripple one. Two to three subs would have a very good chance of sinking that carrier. And that would be with a well trained, well disciplined, highly motivated and cohesive crew.


See my discussion above. There are WAY more SAM guidance channels today than during the Cold War, and a lot fewer missiles to shoot at the carriers. Platform-centric tactics to maintain stealth and bearing-only launch means that Oscar #1 fires a salvo, the Aegis ships swat it down, Oscar #2 fires a salvo, it's thirty miles off target and acquires a container ship (they're not shooting at the carrier group's location, they're shooting at where they think it will be one missile TOF later, and you have a big smudge on that bearing because you're using the very low frequency sonar for detection at that range--and the price tag of guessing wrong is a wasted salvo and empty missile tubes), Oscar #3 fires its salvo, CIC crew is back from noon chow and swats that salvo down.

A coordinated time-on-target strike with air, surface, and subsurface assets (which was the original scenario described) would require MASSIVE amounts of two-way conversations over radio between all of the shooters. It'd be like sitting next to Radio Raheem on the subway; you couldn't help but notice.

I do not say carriers are unsinkable. I say it's not nearly as simple as you describe, and sinking a few (which would be a political calamity for the US) would likely result in the Russian Federation not having any ability to exploit the victory (which would be a political calamity for Russia).

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 15, 2017 1:26 PM  

"submarines are solo platform players in an environment that's been network-centric"

No. They are more like solo players. As far as defending themselves, they're stealth. As far as being able to communicate, coordinate and pick or be assigned targets along with other units... very untrue.

"You can do a bearing-only launch of your ASCM loadout and hope that the other guys' radar and SSES guys are asleep. That's it."

Even if they're all awake one salvo would still probably sink the carrier. It's other people who actually stop those missiles. I haven't actually been stating the best-case-scenarios for subs. In the best case scenario one sub could sink two to three carriers with one salvo. Obviously none of these three are realistic scenarios.

It's unlikely that sonar bearing is the only targeting data they have, especially if they've just come up to PD to pick up communications in preparation for firing.

"Open-ocean carrier hunting under uncontrolled conditions is a LOT more difficult."

Not at all, it's just more time consuming. In a real world transit situation, the subs might well have an idea within a few hundred miles of the likely track days before the carrier group is due to come through, due to intelligence from other Russian assets.

"There are WAY more SAM guidance channels today than during the Cold War, and a lot fewer missiles to shoot at the carriers."

Valid as far as the guidance channels. Quite possibly wishful thinking as far as there being fewer missiles.

"Platform-centric tactics to maintain stealth and bearing-only launch means that Oscar #1 fires a salvo"

Maintenance of stealth does not require bearing-only launch. Not even close.

"the Aegis ships swat it down"

That's an optimal scenario from you. In all likelihood the Aegis ships would swat... most of it down. It only takes a quarter of the salvo to possibly sink a carrier, and one or two missiles could cripple it with lucky hits.

"Oscar #2 fires a salvo, it's thirty miles off target and acquires a container ship"

There's very little reason that would ever happen in reality. In reality subs can indeed network.

"the price tag of guessing wrong is a wasted salvo and empty missile tubes"

Which is exactly why no one's going to be firing on ONLY a LF smudge. That intel goes into the pot for some mixing, and then you end up with more scouting focusing on that specific vicinity, be it from aircraft, oceangoing vessels with superior radar equipment, or other submarines.

"It'd be like sitting next to Radio Raheem on the subway; you couldn't help but notice."

Not really accurate. You could notice the communications relatively nearby (again, ~20-30 miles) but outside that? Not necessarily. You also can't really do anything about radio-Raheem on the subway. Unless that carrier group is practically inside the US territorial waters, you can't guarantee that they have complete, omniscient control over the situation. Surveillance and monitoring by opposed aircraft and radar at relatively long range would be expected, unrealistic to stop in some cases. It'd probably be happening almost constantly by the time the carrier group got even halfway to its destination.

"I do not say carriers are unsinkable. I say it's not nearly as simple as you describe, and sinking a few (which would be a political calamity for the US) would likely result in the Russian Federation not having any ability to exploit the victory"

Defending them is also not nearly as simple as you describe. Incompetence is really what it all boils down to, as well as being what we're ultimately talking about.

I seem to recall news about a Chinese sub surfacing RIGHT NEXT to a carrier not that long ago in order to show off, and the Chinese suck at subs compared to the Russians.

OpenID tonsplace November 15, 2017 5:17 PM  

Threads like this let you know who has 1st hand military experience and who is talking out there ass

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 15, 2017 6:54 PM  

Or who has experience in what areas.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts