A Chinese assault on Taiwan would likely start with a siege of the island. How would the US be able to counter that using a force structure of a small number of expensive ships compared to an armada of (comparatively) inexpensive platforms that are distributed and can intermingle with Chinese platforms? The US would be unable to “stand-in” without being at great risk without the large distributed force.

If your enemy is expending their citizens lives and you are not, you are winning. The U S was the innovator of drones and needs to exploit that and not ancient surface combatants. 40 knot targets in a hypersonic world is what they are. They have zero stealth capability (the stupid Zumwalt may be harder to see on radar but cant hide from a satellite or drone camera), any decent naval power will have pictures of them leaving port and track them worldwide.

Unmanned aircraft can exceed frail human physicality. Submarines are still hard to detect. Missiles are still hard to defend against especially in bulk. The world shipping lanes are full of Chinese products we can survive without. Why do we need to defend global shipping with a navy when we can easily design intercontinental cruise missile capabilities?

The question is not do we need a bigger fleet, the question is are,surface combatants the best use of resources. They aren’t and I think most people know it.

Its just hard to sell those fact to the Naval War College I suppose.

Then we can justify adding to the $1 trillion in military spending as our country crumbles.

And as far as the US military defending the interests of multinational corporations that care nothing for the US and have shipped most of their operations overseas, well, where is Smedly Butler when we need him?

I say get rid of the Navy entirely, have the Coast Guard and Army actually patrol the borders, and spend the money we save at home. If Tyrannia invades Fanatistan, or Elon Musk’s investments in China are at risk, it’s not my problem.

So there goes the argument that the US depends on global sea lanes being safe and secure.

So while the US will be hit, it is the rest of the export dependent world that will really go down the tubes, instead. Particularly Europe and Asia.

In this new deglobalized era, the US will be relative King.

What the most sad is the Rep. Republicans refuse to tell the fact in public, and refuse to talk about the problem they see in the history and wargame exercise.

Rep. Republicans talk about the United States’ advantage with USAF and USN submarines, even if victory comes with the missing of U.S. western Pacific surface ships.

So people in America should see the revenue and expenditure of war. While it is immoral to think of people as income and cost, Game Theory’s authors really think so, like pawns. This is the sadness explained by the author of Game Theory, people’s sin makes themselves to be tools and keeps people away from God. So one of Game Theory’s authors is baptized in his end.

However, when people in the Republic of China talk about the war game exercise held by the Rep. Republicans of the United States, they only say it is an advertisement for the promotion of weapons by America. So instead of preventing the Democratic Party from deceiving the people, the U.S. Rep. Republicans are making future war to be the reality and the predicted deaths will be fulfilled. Therefore, South Korea President Yoon Suk-yeol hopes that South Korea will cooperate in the future deployment of nuclear weapons in South Korea with the United States in response to the first strike on South Korea.

In response to the future first strike on South Korea, we understand the South Korea President’s decision, but most people in East Asia do not understand this decision, they only believe that they will prevent war by having strategic weapons, so people will destroy the world by themselves.

God bless America.

The Democratic Party do not agree with the expansion of the Navy, and some Republican Rep. of Republican don’t agree with it in election, so they made a series of Top Gun.

But some Navy and Marine Corps officers know the dangers to CVBG are not just the CBRN, but also missiles, so they want to change the carrier budget to building the dispersed  and UUV fleet. But the Democratic Party threaten and lure the Navy to agree to the Green New Deal by the shipbuilding budget some months ago.

Moreover, the sea control capability is not only the prerogative of CVBG or CSG, but also the duties of Missile Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines. So Captain Mahan’s deep thought is the policy of the Navy, and it is the principle of against the People’s Liberation Army. NGAD and GPS are handy tools, but astronomy, sextant, and flag semaphore are necessary navigational tools and skills.

God bless America.

The Navy’s handful of huge, vulnerable, multi-billion dollar surface warships, that can’t exceed business district speed limits of 35 mph, are the Wrong Weapons.

200 cheap, small (1kton), AIP utility submarines and thousands of cheap, long range, attritable UAV’s are the Right Weapons.

Large numbers means strategic dispersion, better coverage, and reduced risk of loss. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a strategic mistake. Based on the principle that a good offense is the best defense. Using resources on pure offensive weapons, provides much greater combat power than wasting most of your resources defending inherently undefendable surface warships.

The American people understand the Navy is the first and most robust line of defense for the country and provides us with the capability to ensure the safety of our country and our allies.

What somebody is selling is the “oh, they want us to take their tax money and redistribute it to social programs…not build ships”…and it is a lie.

Let’s get these ship builders to make ships not cost billions and come in on time on budget without serious technical issues.

Three hypersonic missiles pinpointed on that beautiful carrier sends it into distress, if not to the bottom.

We’re in a difficult situation in a peer power full confrontation.

What to do?

Submarines…

Denial of passage… that’s what attack submarines do.

We can do a lot with attack submarines… and improve on what they already do. Much thought can be devoted to submarine strategy in peer to peer war.

And building those submarines.

Also, we need to disperse our forces, but be able to act in a coordinated manner… from disbursement to maximum focus of fire power.

There will be loses in war.

The key is to limit loses and the best way to do that is disperse forces, so one big hit doesn’t stop the overall formation of attack.

We need big & smart thoughts in the dawn of hypersonic weapons with ranges of over 2,000 miles.

That’s the facts.

With hypersonic missiles, carries are only safe in a permissive atmosphere.

Sinking of a aircraft carrier brings us to the brink of going bigger.

I respect the power and reach of aircraft carriers.

But we must recognize how much a sitting duck a carrier is in a peer to peer war.

That’s where we are against China.

Don’t kid yourself.

Navy is more than just so many numerous ships (and subs) poking around other people’s backyard from jan to december.

The U.S. Navy also has near countless aircraft, unmanned naval drones and volunteer ‘assistants’ like CG and newsmen flying around in civilian aircraft, also, secret naval special forces and commandos to inflict more poking. Plus vassals like like canadian navy, etc… etc.

U.S. Navy must use its assets sparingly, as sea water is corrosive and maintenance is thus very costly.

Greater use of drones should be encouraged, as it cuts down costs and leans toward less problem with ‘diversity quota’ personnel intake.

Navy assets must not be deployed near the front porch or front gate of other maritime nations, as currently being inadvisably practised in places like black sea and persian gulf.

An isolated or seemingly innocent encounter or incident can always develop into something sinister or foreboding. So bigger navy no.