Indeed, also the whole AUKUS thing that’s estimated at a third of a trillion dollars at the start, and reaching the working capacity of “blocking China’s sea with submarines” by 2040, turns out to be stillborn. By 2040, these ancient huge submarines will be easily detectable, and will be destroyed by a swarm of underwater drones.
This is a similar situation to how vulnerable tanks are to FPV drones. US clearly didn’t consider the impact this sort of tech will have on the future of warfare, and doesn’t have any clear response at the moment. Funny part is that US is now starting to fall behind technologically, so they don’t have symmetric capability to detect Chinese or Russian subs.
I very much agree, now that US transitioned to a largely financialized economy, the mechanisms for doing domestic industrial capitalism are no longer present. The whole political and economic system would need serious restructuring to do that.
That’s the beauty of it. The first baby step they would take to undo the past forty-fifty years would reveal the paper beneath the tiger face paint. The joy that I get from watching the west collapse is going to help keep me warm as my life in the west becomes unaffordable lol. Silver linings and all that.
Indeed, also the whole AUKUS thing that’s estimated at a third of a trillion dollars at the start, and reaching the working capacity of “blocking China’s sea with submarines” by 2040, turns out to be stillborn.
Only if the purpose of the fleet is to win wars. That’s 16 years of purchase orders. Look at the F-35.
I don’t actually know anything about AUKUS but I don’t see the problem.
Yes, they can topple small nations (though not really, it never actually happened), that’s what they have been designed to do, to work as the XX-XXI century gunboat diplomacy, not to actually strike alone but to make terror threats of destruction.
But their usefulness is currently around zero in a peer combat against Russia or China, hypersonic missiles are hard counter for them. And note that US is even reluctant to post them nearby Iran because Iran also have some dangerous to them weapons like supercavitating torpedoes.
US Navy surface fleet is therefore pretty vulnerable to PLAN which got close to force parity in defence scenario, but nearly all PLAN ships are more modern and will have advantage in defense because being on the other side of Pacific.
So the only real and big advantage US Navy have is their submarine fleet which is much bigger than Chinese and make exclusively of nuclear submarines which in itself is advantage especially on area as huge as Pacific. No wonder China put some serious money and brainpower to this research.
If he was this angry back then, i wonder what he said when Chinese published their war games results when the results was just 20 hypersonic missiles was needed to nearly entirely obliterate carrier group.
At least a few years later I kept flip flopping for a while between “eh, maybe they have some defense system at this point, I sure wouldn’t give away that knowledge for the tactical advantage” but it’s been like 15 years now and nothing so I’m pretty sure they’re still at “expensive coral reef when facing anything but insurgents”-status
The article is incredibly reductive though, as every jeune ecole type always is. Note that PLAN is the navy who is pioneering the new methods but they still build the surface ships and even carriers. I would probably bet for PLAN staff to know a little bit more than some warnerd random guy.
Also his proof is bad too. One example he have is the very abnormal sinking of Israeli destroyer - the attack was basically surprise attack from minimal range using cutting edge weapon against old WW2 destroyer not having any antimissile system. Second is corvette of Nanuchka-II class not having any antimissile systems either. So he chosen examples of ships not having antimissile systems as examples of antimissile systems not working, how brilliant!
He also fail to mention yet again what all naval jeune ecoles in history did - the sea. Massed missile cutters are good on littoral waters, but completely lose it on a high seas. he’s more correct about submarines, but that is not freeze in time either (i mean we are discussing under precisely such article).
What of course comes into play is the doctrine, note that US Navy needs different doctrine because for over 200 years it is purely offensive navy with power projection abilities in the entire Earth, while both Soviet Navy and PLAN were build clearly for defensive role. US literally cannot resign from the conventional navy, but neither can China since Pacific is so big. Russia due to geography can and as you can see, is doing that, they basically do not even to try to replace the big surface ships (last destroyer was comissioned in 1993), they go for frigates at most and submarines.
EDIT: I just went to check the list of ships sunk by missiles, and with possible exceptions of Russian cruiser Moskva which might or might not be sunk by missiles, none of the ships sunk in combat conditions by missile ever were equipped with antimissile systems.
US Navy surface fleet is therefore pretty vulnerable to PLAN which got close to force parity in defence scenario, but nearly all PLAN ships are more modern and will have advantage in defense because being on the other side of Pacific.
Also consider that in a fight with China over Taiwan or the West Pacific the US surface fleet will have to also deal with shore based aviation and ballistic missiles.
The old adage that a ship should never try to fight a shore battery probably holds true to this day.
If that’s true then the last advantage of US Navy, their huge nuclear submarine fleet, would be in great danger.
Indeed, also the whole AUKUS thing that’s estimated at a third of a trillion dollars at the start, and reaching the working capacity of “blocking China’s sea with submarines” by 2040, turns out to be stillborn. By 2040, these ancient huge submarines will be easily detectable, and will be destroyed by a swarm of underwater drones.
This is a similar situation to how vulnerable tanks are to FPV drones. US clearly didn’t consider the impact this sort of tech will have on the future of warfare, and doesn’t have any clear response at the moment. Funny part is that US is now starting to fall behind technologically, so they don’t have symmetric capability to detect Chinese or Russian subs.
deleted by creator
I very much agree, now that US transitioned to a largely financialized economy, the mechanisms for doing domestic industrial capitalism are no longer present. The whole political and economic system would need serious restructuring to do that.
That’s the beauty of it. The first baby step they would take to undo the past forty-fifty years would reveal the paper beneath the tiger face paint. The joy that I get from watching the west collapse is going to help keep me warm as my life in the west becomes unaffordable lol. Silver linings and all that.
This is one of those cases where you have a clear and obvious problem, but no clear solution within the system.
Only if the purpose of the fleet is to win wars. That’s 16 years of purchase orders. Look at the F-35.
I don’t actually know anything about AUKUS but I don’t see the problem.
Oh yeah, US will fleece the shit out of Australia with this project.
The real military capabilities were the profits we made along the way.
Now that’s a thought that really warms my heart.
Aren’t there 11 US aircraft carriers each of which can topple a small nation? IDK if id say nuclear subs are the last advantage lol
Yes, they can topple small nations (though not really, it never actually happened), that’s what they have been designed to do, to work as the XX-XXI century gunboat diplomacy, not to actually strike alone but to make terror threats of destruction.
But their usefulness is currently around zero in a peer combat against Russia or China, hypersonic missiles are hard counter for them. And note that US is even reluctant to post them nearby Iran because Iran also have some dangerous to them weapons like supercavitating torpedoes.
US Navy surface fleet is therefore pretty vulnerable to PLAN which got close to force parity in defence scenario, but nearly all PLAN ships are more modern and will have advantage in defense because being on the other side of Pacific.
So the only real and big advantage US Navy have is their submarine fleet which is much bigger than Chinese and make exclusively of nuclear submarines which in itself is advantage especially on area as huge as Pacific. No wonder China put some serious money and brainpower to this research.
or Iran now they have hypersonic missiles
Or Yemen, apparently.
This War Nerd Article from 2009 keeps popping up in my head
If he was this angry back then, i wonder what he said when Chinese published their war games results when the results was just 20 hypersonic missiles was needed to nearly entirely obliterate carrier group.
Minus for obnoxious jeune ecole vibes though.
At least a few years later I kept flip flopping for a while between “eh, maybe they have some defense system at this point, I sure wouldn’t give away that knowledge for the tactical advantage” but it’s been like 15 years now and nothing so I’m pretty sure they’re still at “expensive coral reef when facing anything but insurgents”-status
The article is incredibly reductive though, as every jeune ecole type always is. Note that PLAN is the navy who is pioneering the new methods but they still build the surface ships and even carriers. I would probably bet for PLAN staff to know a little bit more than some warnerd random guy.
Also his proof is bad too. One example he have is the very abnormal sinking of Israeli destroyer - the attack was basically surprise attack from minimal range using cutting edge weapon against old WW2 destroyer not having any antimissile system. Second is corvette of Nanuchka-II class not having any antimissile systems either. So he chosen examples of ships not having antimissile systems as examples of antimissile systems not working, how brilliant!
He also fail to mention yet again what all naval jeune ecoles in history did - the sea. Massed missile cutters are good on littoral waters, but completely lose it on a high seas. he’s more correct about submarines, but that is not freeze in time either (i mean we are discussing under precisely such article).
What of course comes into play is the doctrine, note that US Navy needs different doctrine because for over 200 years it is purely offensive navy with power projection abilities in the entire Earth, while both Soviet Navy and PLAN were build clearly for defensive role. US literally cannot resign from the conventional navy, but neither can China since Pacific is so big. Russia due to geography can and as you can see, is doing that, they basically do not even to try to replace the big surface ships (last destroyer was comissioned in 1993), they go for frigates at most and submarines.
EDIT: I just went to check the list of ships sunk by missiles, and with possible exceptions of Russian cruiser Moskva which might or might not be sunk by missiles, none of the ships sunk in combat conditions by missile ever were equipped with antimissile systems.
Also consider that in a fight with China over Taiwan or the West Pacific the US surface fleet will have to also deal with shore based aviation and ballistic missiles.
The old adage that a ship should never try to fight a shore battery probably holds true to this day.