Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Drive)   US Navy officially admits that in time of war, it will have no warships to spare to escort military supply convoys, advises them to put their cellphones in airplane mode so Chinese subs can't track them   ( thedrive.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, World War II, Military Sealift Command, United States Navy, ships, air defense capability, surge sealift ships, Sealift Command ships, Littoral Combat Ships  
•       •       •

3850 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2018 at 8:05 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-10-11 08:01:04 AM  
Yes. The Navy's problem is that it has too few ships to combat the vast fleets of wolfpacks and other enemy flotillas that will threaten the massive merchant convoys crossing the North Atlantic or South Pacific during the next two-front world war. We must all stay up at night worrying over this very troubling and concerning development and immediately send the admirals a blank check so they can correct this terrible problem. While we're at it, we should add another carrier group or two as well.
 
2018-10-11 08:09:23 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Yes. The Navy's problem is that it has too few ships to combat the vast fleets of wolfpacks and other enemy flotillas that will threaten the massive merchant convoys crossing the North Atlantic or South Pacific during the next two-front world war. We must all stay up at night worrying over this very troubling and concerning development and immediately send the admirals a blank check so they can correct this terrible problem. While we're at it, we should add another carrier group or two as well.


You heard it here, folks!  PN supports this plan, and that's good enough for me!  Send 'em the check!
 
2018-10-11 08:10:13 AM  
No problem. They can just loot and pillage as they go to get food, fuel and booze, just like in the good old days.
 
2018-10-11 08:12:25 AM  
We need more money!  $700 billion isn't enough!!  Bill Clinton cuts are hurting us.
 
2018-10-11 08:13:37 AM  
Just like in WWII, leave that task to Canada. We're good at that. And, in a year after the conflict starts, we will have a few crews for carriers if you can spare a few hulls. Americans may make pretty incompetent fighters, but they sure know how to build neat kit in huge quantities.
 
2018-10-11 08:13:41 AM  
Modern wars move too fast for sea lane shipping to play a meaningful part. If it can't get there by FedEx it is too late. The days of massive amphibious landings like D Day or Iwo Jima are as outdated as lining up infantry shoulder to shoulder and firing volleys by ranks.
 
2018-10-11 08:14:26 AM  
At least we have 3 of the original planned 31 Zumwalt-class destroyers, with a program cost (so far) of $22.5 billion, I mean, 3 destroyers, and they have empty spaces on the front where a big gun was supposed to go, but it's not there because the program to develop the gun was cancelled, so instead they're missile destroyers, like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, but they're far superior to the Burke destroyers, by which I mean they are even more ridiculously over budget, and are plagued by even more and worse operational problems, and there are a grand total of three of them.

Oh and by the way, the Navy just removed data about aviation safety from the internet, as accidents spike.

This is why we spend as much on "defense" as the next eleven countries combined.
 
2018-10-11 08:15:12 AM  
And, besides... everyone will be out of smart bombs and cruise missiles in about 24 hours of a modern conflict. Then, the nukes come out.
 
2018-10-11 08:15:35 AM  
We knew that. That's part of what all the fuss about recommissioning perry class and older ships was about.
 
2018-10-11 08:16:15 AM  

Deez Piles: No problem. They can just loot and pillage as they go to get food, fuel and booze, just like in the good old days.


Thats what the Marines are for. On a side note, I read a report that said hurricane Michael had " pillaged" Panama City. That is one nasty storm.
 
2018-10-11 08:16:20 AM  
They need to start holding bake sales on our aircraft carriers to pay for these support vessels.
 
2018-10-11 08:18:43 AM  
Unready U.S. Navy trifecta in play.
 
2018-10-11 08:19:20 AM  

Schmerd1948: Deez Piles: No problem. They can just loot and pillage as they go to get food, fuel and booze, just like in the good old days.

Thats what the Marines are for. On a side note, I read a report that said hurricane Michael had " pillaged" Panama City. That is one nasty storm.


That's only because heads would have rolled if the report had said "raped."
 
2018-10-11 08:22:20 AM  
Looks like it's time to double the Pentagon's budget.
 
2018-10-11 08:22:40 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Just like in WWII, leave that task to Canada. We're good at that. And, in a year after the conflict starts, we will have a few crews for carriers if you can spare a few hulls. Americans may make pretty incompetent fighters, but they sure know how to build neat kit in huge quantities.


What are you talking about? It's Canada we'll be going to war against. We want your poutine!!!
 
2018-10-11 08:23:50 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Yes. The Navy's problem is that it has too few ships to combat the vast fleets of wolfpacks and other enemy flotillas that will threaten the massive merchant convoys crossing the North Atlantic or South Pacific during the next two-front world war.


They're saying we don't even have enough for a single front war, even a limited one against an adversary that has a significant submarine force.  Significant, meaning "Better than Germany's 6 submarines that are laid up and can't sail for lack of spare parts".

I hate to break the news to you, but unless something radically changes, we're likely to get into a shooting war with China in the next 2 or 3 decades.

They've had a plan to replace the US as the world's dominant superpower for decades now, and have been diligently working towards making it happen.  They view the 21st Century as "China's Century", much like the 20th Century was "America's Century".  This is why they've worked so hard to become our indispensable supplier of high-tech (and low-tech) manufactured goods.  It's why they've worked diligently at making the PLAN transition from a brown water navy, to a green water navy, and towards becoming a blue water navy.

When the inevitable conflict between the US and China comes, even if it's a proxy war, the US is going to need to be able to ship* goods into the conflict area without being threatened seriously by the PLAN or PLAAF, or the puppets thereof.

The US can't replace hulls like it did in WWII.  We simply do not have the capability to build ships like we did in the 1940s.  We lost it all to foreign nations.  And do you know who is the largest maker of ships now, accounting for about half of all the merchant tonnage launched in 2017?  The People's Republic of China, that's who.


*And manufacture, but that's a different issue than the one under discussion.  If all the chips needed for a guidance system are made in China, China can simply stop making or shipping them.  Not to mention possibly inserting a "kill switch" surreptitiously ahead of time, rendering the weapons useless against them.
 
2018-10-11 08:23:59 AM  
The tentacles will protect us...

laughingsquid.comView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 08:25:14 AM  

Summoner101: Pocket Ninja: Yes. The Navy's problem is that it has too few ships to combat the vast fleets of wolfpacks and other enemy flotillas that will threaten the massive merchant convoys crossing the North Atlantic or South Pacific during the next two-front world war. We must all stay up at night worrying over this very troubling and concerning development and immediately send the admirals a blank check so they can correct this terrible problem. While we're at it, we should add another carrier group or two as well.

You heard it here, folks!  PN supports this plan, and that's good enough for me!  Send 'em the check!


It's not like people are developing transcontinental missiles that can be used to attack ships. I'm sure more destroyers will be able to help with that.
 
2018-10-11 08:25:52 AM  

dittybopper: I hate to break the news to you, but unless something radically changes, we're likely to get into a shooting war with China in the next 2 or 3 decades.


I have it on good authority that the war will end on October 23, 2077.

Because war... war never changes.
 
2018-10-11 08:27:46 AM  
So, war is a certainty then...
 
2018-10-11 08:38:09 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Unready U.S. Navy trifecta in play.


Jebus. If we're unready with abudget like ours, what the fark state of readiness are the rest of the world's navies in?  I mean I know Canada has its ready fleet of bass boats and canoes (with trolling motors) to assist us, but what aboot our rivals? How do they stand?
 
2018-10-11 08:39:43 AM  
War!
Hunh, what is it good for?
 
2018-10-11 08:41:31 AM  

dittybopper: Pocket Ninja: Yes. The Navy's problem is that it has too few ships to combat the vast fleets of wolfpacks and other enemy flotillas that will threaten the massive merchant convoys crossing the North Atlantic or South Pacific during the next two-front world war.

They're saying we don't even have enough for a single front war, even a limited one against an adversary that has a significant submarine force.  Significant, meaning "Better than Germany's 6 submarines that are laid up and can't sail for lack of spare parts".

I hate to break the news to you, but unless something radically changes, we're likely to get into a shooting war with China in the next 2 or 3 decades.

They've had a plan to replace the US as the world's dominant superpower for decades now, and have been diligently working towards making it happen.  They view the 21st Century as "China's Century", much like the 20th Century was "America's Century".  This is why they've worked so hard to become our indispensable supplier of high-tech (and low-tech) manufactured goods.  It's why they've worked diligently at making the PLAN transition from a brown water navy, to a green water navy, and towards becoming a blue water navy.

When the inevitable conflict between the US and China comes, even if it's a proxy war, the US is going to need to be able to ship* goods into the conflict area without being threatened seriously by the PLAN or PLAAF, or the puppets thereof.

The US can't replace hulls like it did in WWII.  We simply do not have the capability to build ships like we did in the 1940s.  We lost it all to foreign nations.  And do you know who is the largest maker of ships now, accounting for about half of all the merchant tonnage launched in 2017?  The People's Republic of China, that's who.


*And manufacture, but that's a different issue than the one under discussion.  If all the chips needed for a guidance system are made in China, China can simply stop making or shipping them.  Not to mention possibly ...


China has nothing to do with Trump who has pretty much singlehandedly stopped us from being the worlds dominant super power.

The US is reaping what it sowed for 70+ years for meddling in other countries affairs.

Other countries have modernized while the US has not yet American's still think the rest of the world is a shiathole.

IF the rest of the world views the USA as an asshole, then maybe the rest of the world is right.
 
2018-10-11 08:42:58 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Just like in WWII, leave that task to Canada. We're good at that.


Actually, no, you weren't.  The British, who were top notch at it, viewed the Canadians as third class, behind the US.  Some of that was prejudice on the part of the Royal Navy, who viewed the RCN as country bumpkins, but some of it was based on fact.

And in fact, Canadian escorts helped the German codebreakers decipher Allied convoy messages.  Because Canadian escorts were given First People's tribal names like HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Iroquois, names that weren't in any standard code code book, they had to be spelled out letter for letter, and that resulted in patterns that the Beobachtungsdientcould easily recognize.

That particular sad state of affairs didn't change until the Germans made a mistake:  The US had a force of 6 Fleet submarines based in the UK, and in July 1943 it was decided that they were accomplishing nothing so they were recalled to be sent to the Pacific.  So the Allies sent out a message detailing the course that the 6 US submarines would be taking so they wouldn't be mistakenly attacked, which the Germans intercepted and then subsequently sent out a message to all U-boats in the area, warning them of enemy submarines.  The message was detailed enough that the when the Allies read it (having broken back into Enigma 7 months earlier) it was obvious that the Germans were reading the Allied convoy codes.  The Allies then subsequently tightened up the code and the Germans were never able to consistently break back into it in a timely manner.

Of course, having said all that, the Royal Canadian Navy today is nothing like the RCN of 1945.  In 1945 the RCN had 375 warships.  Today, it has 12 frigates, 4 submarines, and 12 coastal defense ships.

Canada, if pressed, couldn't even protect shipping going into and out of Canada, much less significantly contribute to a conflict thousands of miles away.
 
2018-10-11 08:47:13 AM  

theflatline: China has nothing to do with Trump who has pretty much singlehandedly stopped us from being the worlds dominant super power.

The US is reaping what it sowed for 70+ years for meddling in other countries affairs.


Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just typed?

How can someone who has been in office less than 2 years be the cause of 70 years of meddling?  WTF?  Did you even read what you typed before you hit the "Add Comment" button?
 
2018-10-11 08:48:48 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: dittybopper: I hate to break the news to you, but unless something radically changes, we're likely to get into a shooting war with China in the next 2 or 3 decades.

I have it on good authority that the war will end on October 23, 2077.

Because war... war never changes.


In that case I'm investing in vaults.
 
2018-10-11 08:50:08 AM  

One Bad Apple: Modern wars move too fast for sea lane shipping to play a meaningful part. If it can't get there by FedEx it is too late. The days of massive amphibious landings like D Day or Iwo Jima are as outdated as lining up infantry shoulder to shoulder and firing volleys by ranks.


The past two wars in iraq, and the one in afghanistan, would beg to differ
 
2018-10-11 08:50:39 AM  

dittybopper: theflatline: China has nothing to do with Trump who has pretty much singlehandedly stopped us from being the worlds dominant super power.

The US is reaping what it sowed for 70+ years for meddling in other countries affairs.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just typed?

How can someone who has been in office less than 2 years be the cause of 70 years of meddling?  WTF?  Did you even read what you typed before you hit the "Add Comment" button?


You realize both can be true, right?
 
2018-10-11 08:54:32 AM  
In the era of satellites and UAVs, the Navy is still relying on "turn off your lights and drive fast" to try and keep a shipping convoy hidden? Yikes.

Maybe POSSIBLY you could sneak a small group of ships through a stormy night without getting spotted by everyone and their dog, but you're not covering an ocean in a single night.

Not to mention "drive fast" is going to light up every sonar bouy within a thousand miles.

Speaking of UAVs, is there any real defense strategy to protect a convoy of slow moving targets? We see a few articles here and there about fancy "almost deployed" laser replacements for battery guns, with potential application as a longer-range point defense replacement. I'm sure there's plenty of development in blocking the control signals for drones... But what do you do against a whole swarm of drones chucked out of a transport plane at 30k feet, that only need GPS long enough to plan a parabolic trajectory and then just drop out of the sky like a thousand high-explosive lawn darts?

Not sure MOAR BOATS is the answer here.
 
2018-10-11 08:55:51 AM  

dittybopper: theflatline: China has nothing to do with Trump who has pretty much singlehandedly stopped us from being the worlds dominant super power.

The US is reaping what it sowed for 70+ years for meddling in other countries affairs.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just typed?

How can someone who has been in office less than 2 years be the cause of 70 years of meddling?  WTF?  Did you even read what you typed before you hit the "Add Comment" button?


¯\_(ツ)_/¯  But it felt accurate.
 
2018-10-11 08:58:09 AM  

dittybopper: theflatline: China has nothing to do with Trump who has pretty much singlehandedly stopped us from being the worlds dominant super power.

The US is reaping what it sowed for 70+ years for meddling in other countries affairs.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just typed?

How can someone who has been in office less than 2 years be the cause of 70 years of meddling?  WTF?  Did you even read what you typed before you hit the "Add Comment" button?


1.US is reaping what it sowed for meddling.
2.Trump is singlehandedly destroying us by killing any goodwill we had left.

Both are true.

I never said Trump was the cause of 70 years of meddling.

Yet, again you go out of your way to carry water for Trump.
 
2018-10-11 08:58:20 AM  

One Bad Apple: Modern wars move too fast for sea lane shipping to play a meaningful part. If it can't get there by FedEx it is too late. The days of massive amphibious landings like D Day or Iwo Jima are as outdated as lining up infantry shoulder to shoulder and firing volleys by ranks.


The ongoing wars in the Middle East, Croatia, the Ukraine wouldcbeg to differ.

The moment you get tanks involved the logistical train required to support the tanks is either rail or ship. Planes can't move enough fast enough.
 
2018-10-11 08:58:21 AM  

dittybopper: theflatline: China has nothing to do with Trump who has pretty much singlehandedly stopped us from being the worlds dominant super power.

The US is reaping what it sowed for 70+ years for meddling in other countries affairs.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just typed?

How can someone who has been in office less than 2 years be the cause of 70 years of meddling?  WTF?  Did you even read what you typed before you hit the "Add Comment" button?


I think the argument is that Trump being a colossal dick to the rest of the world has made a lot of other countries no longer willing to overlook it.

It was a nice republic while it lasted, but if anything it will be our own greed, corruption and hypocrisy that brings us down. Seems appropriate given who was elected as President. We repeatedly ask where does our defense budget go and what is it buying? I don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer. But I'm sure if you ask navy brass they'll tell you they need another carrier group or two.
 
2018-10-11 08:59:22 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: dittybopper: I hate to break the news to you, but unless something radically changes, we're likely to get into a shooting war with China in the next 2 or 3 decades.

I have it on good authority that the war will end on October 23, 2077.

Because war... war never changes.


That's why I have my handy Vault-Tec(tm) Educational Materials that I consult regularly, so I know what makes me S.P.E.C.I.A.L.!
 
2018-10-11 09:02:16 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Just like in WWII, leave that task to Canada. We're good at that. And, in a year after the conflict starts, we will have a few crews for carriers if you can spare a few hulls. Americans may make pretty incompetent fighters, but they sure know how to build neat kit in huge quantities.


How do you know we will be on the same side?
 
2018-10-11 09:02:34 AM  

Nick Nostril: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Unready U.S. Navy trifecta in play.

Jebus. If we're unready with abudget like ours, what the fark state of readiness are the rest of the world's navies in?  I mean I know Canada has its ready fleet of bass boats and canoes (with trolling motors) to assist us, but what aboot our rivals? How do they stand?


Part of the problem is the amount we spend on the ships. They're too big to sink-losing a carrier is an unthinkable proposition-so we can't build many of them, what we can build can't be subjected to risk, and we're so scared of losing them that their loadouts are weighted heavily toward self defense.

Some strategists have questioned whether modern guided missile ships would even be effective at blockading shipping and/or sinking freighters.
 
2018-10-11 09:02:38 AM  

dittybopper: Tr0mBoNe: Just like in WWII, leave that task to Canada. We're good at that.

Actually, no, you weren't.  The British, who were top notch at it, viewed the Canadians as third class, behind the US.  Some of that was prejudice on the part of the Royal Navy, who viewed the RCN as country bumpkins, but some of it was based on fact.....
Of course, having said all that, the Royal Canadian Navy today is nothing like the RCN of 1945.  In 1945 the RCN had 375 warships.  Today, it has 12 frigates, 4 submarines, and 12 coastal defense ships.

Canada, if pressed, couldn't even protect shipping going into and out of Canada, much less significantly contribute to a conflict thousands of miles away.


Sadly all of that ^.

In WWII, we didn't start 'good', we did eventually get good.
However, it is the shame (or should be) of every government since the 1960's that Canada's navy is the sad state it is in.     At one time I considered joining the RCN, but eventually went off into other things as the future was murky (even in the late 1980's) of long term government support for the armed services.
 
2018-10-11 09:02:57 AM  

pup.socket: So, war is a certainty then...


Yes. China is going full 1930's Germany and everyone is looking the other way because it's politically incorrect to try and do anything about it.  While it might not go nuclear, the chances that we will end up in another proxy war with them are pretty damn unavoidable.

Hence why the recommissioning of ships and development of a larger fleet are critical. This is why we need hypersonic missiles and a space force. These are the systems that make it more difficult for them to pelt you with long range missiles, and make a direct conflict with us or our allies less apitizing for any of their war planners.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 09:03:32 AM  
Lemme get this straight. We have a military budget that exceeds the entire planet's by leaps and bounds.......and OOGA BOOGA IT ISN'T ENOUGH! We need more money!

GTFO, you have enough. Make it work.
 
2018-10-11 09:05:04 AM  

way south: pup.socket: So, war is a certainty then...

Yes. China is going full 1930's Germany and everyone is looking the other way because it's politically incorrect to try and do anything about it.  While it might not go nuclear, the chances that we will end up in another proxy war with them are pretty damn unavoidable.

Hence why the recommissioning of ships and development of a larger fleet are critical. This is why we need hypersonic missiles and a space force. These are the systems that make it more difficult for them to pelt you with long range missiles, and make a direct conflict with us or our allies less apitizing for any of their war planners.

[img.fark.net image 850x565]


I would say the US is closer to 1930s Germany currently.
 
2018-10-11 09:05:30 AM  

Sgygus: War!
Hunh, what is it good for?


Continuin' policy by other means-ah!
 
2018-10-11 09:06:37 AM  

One Bad Apple: Modern wars move too fast for sea lane shipping to play a meaningful part. If it can't get there by FedEx it is too late. The days of massive amphibious landings like D Day or Iwo Jima are as outdated as lining up infantry shoulder to shoulder and firing volleys by ranks.


And as a follow up- modern shipping can move right along. A container ship can can cross the Atlantic in 4-6 days. And depending upon where you planning on landing, container ships can cross the pacific in 8-12 days.

Yes, the ships have to be loaded, unloaded and the material has to be transported to the front after that which could easily take another 6-30 days depending upon  prep, inefficiencies, distance, politics, etc.

But unless a conflict is literally over and done in 30 days, countries will still use container ships to move their tanks to the conflict areas.
 
2018-10-11 09:06:39 AM  

Pocket Ninja: While we're at it, we should add another carrier group or two as well.


I think that's the problem: too much spend on supercarriers and fancy subs, not enough on destroyers and frigates.

If we had enough spare escorts they could be in the Indian Ocean squashing Somali pirates with gusto.
 
2018-10-11 09:08:12 AM  

ijason: In the era of satellites and UAVs, the Navy is still relying on "turn off your lights and drive fast" to try and keep a shipping convoy hidden? Yikes.

Maybe POSSIBLY you could sneak a small group of ships through a stormy night without getting spotted by everyone and their dog, but you're not covering an ocean in a single night.

Not to mention "drive fast" is going to light up every sonar bouy within a thousand miles.

Speaking of UAVs, is there any real defense strategy to protect a convoy of slow moving targets? We see a few articles here and there about fancy "almost deployed" laser replacements for battery guns, with potential application as a longer-range point defense replacement. I'm sure there's plenty of development in blocking the control signals for drones... But what do you do against a whole swarm of drones chucked out of a transport plane at 30k feet, that only need GPS long enough to plan a parabolic trajectory and then just drop out of the sky like a thousand high-explosive lawn darts?

Not sure MOAR BOATS is the answer here.


Pretty sure the actual smart people in charge have known about the viability (cost in human life and dollars, ease of deployment, replaceability, force projection with minimal support required) of an all-drone force for decades. It is not being done because of the entrenched military industrial complex with decade long cost-plus contracts that would have to be cancelled (politics). The service branches don't want it because it will essentially turn everything into "Air Force", and sometimes you really do need boots on the ground (military) and people worldwide would react poorly to a semiautomous fighting system deployed in a combat zone, able to kill people with limited or no operator input (social).

The logistical and tactical reasons to switch to "robots only" should outweigh all other concerns. But people like money, so here we are.
 
2018-10-11 09:08:44 AM  
Sounds like it's time to cut some military contractor's top level pay and put that money towards building the equipment needed instead of some defense contractors 15th house payment with them in the market for house number 16.
 
2018-10-11 09:12:11 AM  

goat012006: Lemme get this straight. We have a military budget that exceeds the entire planet's by leaps and bounds.......and OOGA BOOGA IT ISN'T ENOUGH! We need more money!

GTFO, you have enough. Make it work.


The problem is the exchange rate.
They can take a little money and buy a few third world suicide bombers or some cheap tanks and cause a lot of shiat. They can knock together a tin can missile that's enough to level any of our city blocks.
If you want to stop them, reliably, using the first world manpower and the equipment it takes to keep your men safe (purchased from first world laborers), you then have to pay ten times as much. You pay this difference on every gun and man, even if you don't decide to go full USA, USA, USA!!

So maybe the good idea fairy strikes and you get to thinking you can pay some third world group to do the job at the lower rate, but every past president has found out how that goes...

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 09:12:24 AM  

grinding_journalist: ijason: In the era of satellites and UAVs, the Navy is still relying on "turn off your lights and drive fast" to try and keep a shipping convoy hidden? Yikes.

Maybe POSSIBLY you could sneak a small group of ships through a stormy night without getting spotted by everyone and their dog, but you're not covering an ocean in a single night.

Not to mention "drive fast" is going to light up every sonar bouy within a thousand miles.

Speaking of UAVs, is there any real defense strategy to protect a convoy of slow moving targets? We see a few articles here and there about fancy "almost deployed" laser replacements for battery guns, with potential application as a longer-range point defense replacement. I'm sure there's plenty of development in blocking the control signals for drones... But what do you do against a whole swarm of drones chucked out of a transport plane at 30k feet, that only need GPS long enough to plan a parabolic trajectory and then just drop out of the sky like a thousand high-explosive lawn darts?

Not sure MOAR BOATS is the answer here.

Pretty sure the actual smart people in charge have known about the viability (cost in human life and dollars, ease of deployment, replaceability, force projection with minimal support required) of an all-drone force for decades. It is not being done because of the entrenched military industrial complex with decade long cost-plus contracts that would have to be cancelled (politics). The service branches don't want it because it will essentially turn everything into "Air Force", and sometimes you really do need boots on the ground (military) and people worldwide would react poorly to a semiautomous fighting system deployed in a combat zone, able to kill people with limited or no operator input (social).

The logistical and tactical reasons to switch to "robots only" should outweigh all other concerns. But people like money, so here we are.


We also assume there isn't already a secret US project in place that would release UAV swarms over the skies of an enemy like China. Every one of them loaded with coordinates of critical infrastructure and top officials. By all account we should have the technological prowess to do so, although I wouldn't put it past defense contractors to cock it up.
 
2018-10-11 09:15:33 AM  
Elfich:
The ongoing wars in the Middle East, Croatia, the Ukraine wouldcbeg to differ.

Croatia? I must've missed that one...
 
2018-10-11 09:15:36 AM  

Elfich: One Bad Apple: Modern wars move too fast for sea lane shipping to play a meaningful part. If it can't get there by FedEx it is too late. The days of massive amphibious landings like D Day or Iwo Jima are as outdated as lining up infantry shoulder to shoulder and firing volleys by ranks.

The ongoing wars in the Middle East, Croatia, the Ukraine wouldcbeg to differ.

The moment you get tanks involved the logistical train required to support the tanks is either rail or ship. Planes can't move enough fast enough.


I think his point is by the time armored vehicles get to a conflict area by sea, the fighting will be over.  OIF/OEF/Ukraine/Croatia would be a flash in the pan compared to a major engagement between two superpowers.  War moves too quickly now.  If your assets aren't in theater by the times the balloon goes up, forget it.
 
2018-10-11 09:22:03 AM  

theflatline: way south: pup.socket: So, war is a certainty then...

Yes. China is going full 1930's Germany and everyone is looking the other way because it's politically incorrect to try and do anything about it.  While it might not go nuclear, the chances that we will end up in another proxy war with them are pretty damn unavoidable.

Hence why the recommissioning of ships and development of a larger fleet are critical. This is why we need hypersonic missiles and a space force. These are the systems that make it more difficult for them to pelt you with long range missiles, and make a direct conflict with us or our allies less apitizing for any of their war planners.

[img.fark.net image 850x565]

I would say the US is closer to 1930s Germany currently.


China literally has enthnic minorities in concentration camps. It's a one party system that plucks people off the street for the slightest hint of dissidence. It's building a massive navy and expanding its military influence into North Africa and the pacific. Their president has decided to make his office a lifetime position.
They are behaving like pre-war Germany to a very alarming degree.

/Trump is not Hitler.
/People actually liked Hitler back then.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report