In the Navy; you can spend a pretty dime; In the ...

[tw]

Warning: This will be long - probably 200+ lines.

In VietNam, the Navy simply wiped out North VietNam's AirForces while the US Air Force struggled with embarrassingly high losses. But then both wildly struck at useless ground targets often missing those targets while losing many pilots and aircraft. VietNamese history notes a few historical bridges that remained standing as US airplane losses only increased attacking those two bridges. In fact, it was something new and rare, smart bombs, that finally destroyed those bridges. The Navy was not an offensive weapon. They could shoot down an enemies attack aircraft, but did little else. Of course Nam is really about a military industrial complex that openly and repeatedly lied to the American public.

Many lies came from a Navy MBA mentality that talked about bomb tonnage, sorties - but nothing productive. Yes, as the MBA mentality began to subvert American industry, it also did same in the Navy. The Navy was not even designed to effectively support Marine combat forces - and then only if the air was safe for low level support attacks.

Jimmy Carter finally demanded the Navy take accounting of its mission; in particular its hype and love of carriers. For all those resources committed to carriers, why was the Navy so incapable in a 'cold war turned hot' or in support of their own expeditionary ground forces? Carter asked the correct, embarrassing questions - and we generally did not understand.

Esquire magazine exampled the problem in a cover story article that featured sitting ducks with little planes landing on their backs. It really was not an exaggeration. As one submarine captain demonstrated in a war game: he placed five torpedoes into the carrier, and yet the Navy war games claimed the carrier was still 90% effective. Even the Navy's own war game simulators were subverted to protect the carrier at all costs. In joint American - Japanese war games, three US and two Japanese subs effectively turned back three carrier task forces including the sinking of one carrier and making another non-functional. Carrier attack forces were that incapable of offensive abilities.

The Russians had a simple and effective carrier solution: two submarines simply trailed the Carrier battle group monitoring carrier's noisy propellors from 50 to 100 miles away. Using geometry from both submarines, one sub simply launched a nuclear 'sub to surface' supersonic missile at the 'sitting duck' carrier - a missile that carriers are just, in the past few years, obtaining defenses against. Twenty years ago, carriers were sitting ducks. Rickover said it best. The carrier would only, at most, last three days in WWIII.

With Carter's demands, the Navy abandoned convoy escort tasking to other NATO countries and tried to learn how to attack the Soviet mainland. New wargames included Artic operations. But carriers suffered from a nagging problem - their planes have no range. Carriers had to get within a few hundred miles of the target to attack. Even then, their only effective weapons were nuclear bombs - still they had no smart weapon abilities. Carter therefore starved the Navy of funds - which any responsible political leader does to ineffective weapon systems. He also canceled another useless and expensive weapon - B1 bomber.

Along comes Reagan - who never saw a weapon system to dislike. Reagan built the B1 bomber (a plane that remains almost useless today and is already being scrapped because even the much older B-52 is a better plane). His Navy secretary, John Leamen, advocated a 600 ship Navy featuring 16 aircraft carriers. The Navy went hog wild with a new Nimtz class nuclear carrier, w/ cruisers, destroyers, frigates, deep water supply ships, and nuclear subs all in support of this crown jewel. One small problem. With all the hype and glory, the Navy forgot to supply carriers with effective aircraft.

One of the most capable planes in Navy history is the F-14 TomCat. Named after Admiral Tom Connelly who almost lost his carrer by telling the truth in this famous quote, "Senator, there is not enough thrust in all Christendom to make a fighter out of the F-111!" He was telling the truth about an aircraft being forced into both Navy and Air Force by that famous MBA McNamara.

The resulting F-14 is a fighter that can sit far enough outside to protect a carrier task force. But it is really only a fighter rushed out with some serious deficiencies - because carriers desperately needed an airplane. In Top Gun, Tom Cruise's wingman is killed when one F-14 engine flames out. This problem was well known before the plane went into production. There was not time nor money to develop a proper engine. So F-14As and many F-14Bs had this defect. Almost no F-14s were ever lost in combat but something less than 100 were lost to failures such as that engine flameout.

An engine was available to fix those planes and to make them combat equal to F-16s/F-15s. But Navy MBA mentalities loved their crown jewels more - the 'bigger is better' and 'more power' mentality prevailed.

How MBA was the Navy? A frigate struck a mine in the Persian Gulf. Pentagon Admirals ordered the Captain to abandon ship. However the Captain consulted his crew and therefore saved his ship. Therefore those MBA mentality Admirals ordered the Captain court marshalled - until John Leamen asked this embarrassing question, "Who is ultimately responsible for the ship?" Only then did those dicators, also called MBA mentalities, back down.

Saddam all but said directly that he would invade Kuwait. When he did, the US and Arab neighbors were still in denial or caught flatfooted. First to arrive were the famous speed bumps, the 82nd Airborne, and a Carrier Battle Group centered around the USS Independence. However a timid Navy brass kept the carrier out in the Indian Ocean where its planes required multiple refueling just to reach combat areas. IOW Navy planes would take hours to provide combat support and could spend no time providing air cover for the 82nd. Eventually the Navy did concede and send multiple carriers into the Gulf - which they still do so today.

As the Gulf Airwar began, it is a dirty little and often leaked secret that Navy planes were almost useless. Gen Horner, the air commander said the only effective Navy planes were A-6s - the same planes from VietNam and now so old that wings had numerous cracks. A-6 pilots could not manuever fast for fear of losing wings. These planes were retired within two years after the Gulf War. F-14s spent almost the entire war protecting carriers. F-18 Hornets carry so little fuel that they require mutliple mid-air refueling. Since air tankers were so short in supply, the F-18s often had no missions.

How many decades after VietNam - and Navy planes still could not carry smart bombs. Since this new war required bombing from mid-altitudes, Navy planes generally hit their targets only about 20% of attacks. Basically Navy planes were designed to do what carriers were best at - defending themselves. The Navy still had useless offensive weapons. Their only effective offensive weapons was the obsolete and deteriorated VietNam War bomber. Their newest plane, the F-18 Hornet was their least capable aircraft.

The Marine's were assigned a frontal attack towards Kuwait to attract Iraq's Republican Guard into a trap. Because Navy planes had no "all weather" abilities, the Marines attacked without any carrier air cover. Again, the Navy planes were totally useless when the ground war started. The Navy carrier battle group was still only a defensive weapon - and yet received most Navy's funds.

In 1995/1996, Saddam stopped cooperating with weapons inspectors when he declared they were US spies. He was correct. Arab nations also knew it and would not permit US aircraft to attack Saddam from their nations. Clinton called for a Navy attack; but Saddam relented. All the better because Saddam would have learned how incapable the Navy really was.

Now for what I have since learned. The Navy recognized they had no effective aircraft after massive carrier construction was started. They had no stealth, smart weapons, ground support, or long range abilities. This was to be the A-12; a plane to do all those things. Unfortunately, the Navy's MBA mentalities again got into the way. They speced a plane that was not possible, then blamed the two prime contractors for the problems. They lied straght out to the Sec of Defense, who eventually uncovered massive mismanagement and did something unprecedented in military history; he canceled the entire program. The Navy then did something unique - sued the contractors for development and engineering costs. IOW the US Navy is now so MBA entrenched that they blame everyone but themselves.

During the Gulf War, the Navy had no abilities to coordinate with any other combat units. The Gulf War involved detailed Air Tasking Orders (ATO) be transimitted to every combat unit daily. Carrier task forces, even with their extensive satellite communications, could not receive those tasking orders - which had to be flown out every day to the carrier. The Navy never considered a Carrier Battle Group to be part of a bigger attack force. In fact it is just recent that Marine Expeditorary forces have been integrated into Carrier Battle Groups.

Also a few F-14s did get some Iraq missions. A few F-14s had been modified to carry a sophisticated recon pod. Therefore a few F-14s, including the only one shot down in combat, were sent into Iraq for bomb damage assessment (BDA). F-14s could not be offensive but they could do reconaissance.

During the Hati liberation, carriers did something considered heresay even in the Gulf War days. The carriers unloaded all their aircraft and instead became attack platforms for the Army - in particular the 10th Mountain Division and the sneakies - those special forces that never exist in reports. IOW the carriers were converted to what they did best in Hati - troop transports. This means that only recently has the Navy's MBA mentality started to break down.

We now know that those F-14s with engines that flame out - even those replacement engines were canceled to rechannel money into the mismanaged A-12 program. Most other Navy aviation upgrades and development was canceled to steal more funds for A-12. So fraudulent probably was the A-12 program, that it remains entirely classified today - ten years after it was canceled.

Today, the Navy has planes that were retrofitted. Those Top Gun flameout engines have recently been replaced - finally after how many pilots were lost just to that long overdue defect? Carriers have no medium attack bombers; just the nearly useless F-18A. However they are finally just getting a patched together solution: F-18 Super Hornets that don't have the A-6 abilities but at least can carry enough fuel. Super Hornets don't have the range of F-14s to provide the necessary protective bubble, but at least the F-18s can provide combat air cover - a carrier defense - necessary as the worn out F-14s are eliminated. Yes, Navy aircraft were in such poor shape that carriers were even losing their defensive abilities.

The Navy does have some offensive abilities installed on ships originally intended to defend the carrier - those subs, cruisers and destroyers. Cruise missiles did what carrier aircraft could not and probably never will do. The Navy spent very little on cruise missiles so that the entire supply was depleted in Iraq and Serbia. The last remaining 90 Cruise Missiles were converted from nuclear arsenals. In the mid-1990s, Saddam probably did not realize that the Navy had very few weapons, including Cruise Missiles, to attack him.

But Cruise Missiles represent something more important to future weapons. UAW and their combat versions UCAW are pilotless aircraft that can or will be able to outfly any manned aircraft. Humans cannot withstand the necessary G forces required of future combat aircraft. Already ACAW flight tests have won every combat with F-4 Phantom aircraft. Why does the Navy not test these unmanned fighters against their current carrier aircraft? Maybe they have and don't like the results. MBA mentalities fear innovation - especially when it demonstrates the inferiority of their crown jewels - 15 current aircraft carriers.

The Navy is concentrating on F-18 Super Hornets on a Navy version of the Joint Strike Force (JSF) fighter bomber. They need new equipment for their Year 2000 Battleships - the super carrier. These are not just 15 very large ships with 5,000 crewman. They involve about 10,000 including the many other support ships required with a carrier - and how many tens of thousands at home to keep these battleships at sea.

The US has more carriers than all other world Navies combined. The reasoning is that a carrier can be ready to attack within days of a crisis. So why did it take over two weeks to assemble enough carriers to attack Libya - and even then the attack had to be led by Air Force planes flown from Britian. Even submarines with Cruise Missiles appear to be better offensive weapons than a carrier. But MBA mentality Admirals love the Home Improvement concept of "More Power" - screw us that more power does not result in an offensive ability.

[Undertoad]

Awesome as usual sir!

[Griff]

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ep-3_aries.htm

that link will show you the Navy plane seized by the Chinese. The GOP seems very interested in starting up a new cold war. We are as George Carlin put it "circling the toilet bowl". I once met a language guy who used to do that crap for a living. I wonder whose airspace they were in? My old English teachers would be proud of my mumblings here but y'all get the point... Griff

[adamzion]

You'll rarely hear this problem mentioned, because it goes against the whole "Home Improvement" mindset which Tom mentioned, but aircraft carriers have the very real potential to be, in combat, very large, very slow targets. Imagine how much chance there would be for an aircraft carrier to avoid being sunk by a determined attack with cruise missle-type missiles, or even more stanard surface-to-surface missiles. The answer to that is <b>very</b> little chance- unless the carrier is armed with very accurate, very fast anti-missile guns of some sort, it has virtually no way to defend itself against missile attacks.

In effect, the carriers could well wind up as nothing more than large, expensive targets, unless they're placed so far behind the "lines" of combat that they lose virtually all of the advantages of bringing an airstrip close to combat.

Of course, the only other option is to fly in aircraft from the closest land bases, and that might not be practical either. Does this make the carrier a better option? I suppose, but only better in the way that Shawn Bradley was a better center than Manute Bol.

Or the other way 'round,
Z

[russotto]

Originally posted by adamzion
surface-to-surface missiles. The answer to that is <b>very</b> little chance- unless the carrier is armed with very accurate, very fast anti-missile guns of some sort, it has virtually no way to defend itself against missile attacks.

Which of course is the reason why the Navy spends big bucks on systems like AEGIS.

BTW, I find it hard to believe that a large, unwieldy, reconnaissance plane "veered into the path" of a fighter jet. So I'm not buying the Chinese side here. If this were a Clancy book, it'd be part of a conspiracy designed to allow the Chinese to inspect US technology at leisure...

[tw]

Originally posted by adamzion
You'll rarely hear this problem mentioned, because it goes against the whole "Home Improvement" mindset which Tom mentioned, but aircraft carriers have the very real potential to be, in combat, very large, very slow targets. Imagine how much chance there would be for an aircraft carrier to avoid being sunk by a determined attack with cruise missle-type missiles, or even more stanard surface-to-surface missiles. The answer to that is <b>very</b> little chance- unless the carrier is armed with very accurate, very fast anti-missile guns of some sort, it has virtually no way to defend itself against missile attacks.

First, carrier attack was the mission of the Russian submarine Kursk. Carriers are not easily sunk by one missile - which is why the Russians were so fearful of us learning of their new missiles in the Kursk.

Second, as noted by russotto, carrier protection is the mission of Aegis. The protection must be far out from the carrier to be effective. IOW a carrier task force is hardly in sight of each other because the line of defensive must be so far out from the carrier. Aegis is currently and finally being upgraded with theatre missile protection - Patriot type missile protection. Remember the French Exorset missile that hit the American frigate about 1990 - that was a slow missile - and its warhead never exploded. In todays technology, Exorset is long obsolete. Supersonic missiles remain nearly impossible to hit as the many last tests of Star Wars demonstrates.

Therefore a carrier need remain far enough away to let their defensive weapons have enough manuevering room. The problem is that attacking aircraft cannot attack outside that defensive bubble. ie the F-18 does not carry enough fuel.

Aircraft carriers also carry some last ditch protection. But Clancy makes the point repeatedly. The carrier's real mission is simply to show the flag. What he does not say is why it does not have other missions such as offensive. He is dependent on the goodwill of his military sources.

[adamzion]

[b]

Originally posted by adamzion
surface-to-surface missiles. The answer to that is <b>very</b> little chance- unless the carrier is armed with very accurate, very fast anti-missile guns of some sort, it has virtually no way to defend itself against missile attacks.

Originally posted by russotto
Which of course is the reason why the Navy spends big bucks on systems like AEGIS.

Agreed, 100%. But, just the same, the main point- as reinforced by tw- is that a supersonic surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missile remains an all but impossible weapon against which to defend. And, against these types of weapon, the carriers remain rather vulnerable.

Incidentally, I agree 100% about the Chinese fighter probably "clipping" the US spy plane on purpose. The Chinese government seems to be the kind which would gladly sacrifice the life of a pilot to gain the kind of intelligence bonanza to be had from a US spy plane. After all, we know how much the Chinese deeply care for their citizens.

They'll kill them to show how much they care,
Z

[tw]

Originally posted by adamzion
...
the main point- ... - is that a supersonic surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missile remains an all but impossible weapon against which to defend. And, against these types of weapon, the carriers remain rather vulnerable.

No only are sub-orbital supersonic missiles difficult (the recent attempts at theatre missile defense) but low level supersonic missiles also have obsoleted the last ditch defense weapon - the Phalax gun - a high fire rate, high density shell fired madly in the direction of the oncoming missile in hopes of hitting something. Supersonic missiles just come over the horizon too fast for that anti-aircraft type defense.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Griff
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ep-3_aries.htm

that link will show you the Navy plane seized by the Chinese. The GOP seems very interested in starting up a new cold war. We are as George Carlin put it "circling the toilet bowl". I once met a language guy who used to do that crap for a living. I wonder whose airspace they were in? My old English teachers would be proud of my mumblings here but y'all get the point... Griff

How can the GOP be interested in starting a new cold war with China when we just gave them permanent Most Favored Nation status?

[Griff]

I should be using a narrower brush. Folks like Limburger and Helms are talking a lot of smack. Bush seems to be maintaining a concilliatory tone and he is the one who counts. I am a free trader myself, so I appreciate it when folks in the GOP go out on a limb for improved economic relations. There is also an anti-China cliche who exposed themselves when Clinton committed his treason with Loral. Some horrible things go on in China but its getting so we actually hear about some of the abuses and screwups which to me seems for the better. I worry that there are some cold warriors who find relief in having one evil empire to focus on and who get great pleasure ratcheting up the military spending and increasing our committment overseas.

It might be instructive to consider our reaction if we traded places with the Chinese. We know that if China had a bird off our coast and one of our F-18 pilots killed himself trying to keep it away from our latest boat he would be a national hero, no matter whose waters he was over. We know from past experience we wouldn't return the plane but it is fair to say we'd probably have returned the crew by now. China seems to have much to learn about p.r. which is to be expected from a closed society. Having listened to a little too much talk radio last week, I can see how easily our people get worked into a lather, why should the chinese reaction be any different.

Random thought for the day: Maybe the Japanese economy could use a good old fashioned fascist pick me up. They could take their place as regional counter balance to Red China by pumping up their military. I know its constitutionally prohibited but it might give us the space to reconsider what level of military committment is in our best national interest. MacArthur would probably approve. I'm only half kidding.

[jaguar]

China might b ruthless but i doubt they purposely killed their own pilot, particulary one of their best pilots over this. I'm sure they were overjoyed about it but i doubt it was intentional.

Thanks tw for a great article, worthy of publication, real eye opener

[serge]