I very rarely comment on US politics because to be perfectly honest, there is enough in the UK to be worried about, but the comments about horses and bayonets was I thought a brilliant put down and worth discussing because it has wider resonance and some relevance for the UK.
Here is what I am talking about;
Mitt Romney was on to something when he talked about the ability to prosecute two simultaneous conflicts because that talks directly to capacity and what we in the UK call Defence Planning Assumptions but his comments about the size of the Navy or the age of the Air Force show what happens when you have a) a lack of understanding of the subject and b) a team of advisors that share that ignorance but then also combine it with the temptation of an easy point to be scored encapsulated in a 30 second soundbite.
I hold no brief, opinion or even great knowledge of the US political scene but as a put down, Obama’s response was perfectly timed and delivered with some panache, but was he correct?
It is far too easy for politicians to distil complex issues into easy soundbites, we have seen it time and time again, and in this case the issues are as equally complex as any other and whether there are any underlying influences from a political or industrial perspective in this case, I don’t know.
That military capabilities have advanced beyond all recognition, even in relatively recent times, is without doubt.
But
And this is an important point, the unit cost escalation that has been the result of these capability improvements has come at a cost.
This obvious penalty is a reduction of equipment numbers, whether it be ships, planes or tanks.
Whilst a Type 42 is nowhere near the capability of a Type 45, we only have 6 of them and unless someone has, Star Trek style, changed the laws of physics, destroyers cannot be in two places at once.
Equipment can be damaged in accidents or as a result of enemy action, it might be on the other side of the world or in a refit so no matter how superior, if it is not available at the point of need, it is absolutely and unavoidably useless.
This is why, despite the Presidents comments about things having changed, the immutable Law of Sod, i.e. shit happens, means that numbers matter and will always matter, no matter how good your kit is.
There are no easy answers to these questions, a bigger Navy is not necessarily better than a smaller one.
Politics should always be a factor in discussions about military issues, politicians, after all, speak to and represent the people that pay for and are served by the military.
This is by no means a rant about politicians, in fact, I rather admire the fact that defence and security are debated in this manner. But, complex issues, such as the balance between capabilities and quantities, need to be considered properly, and hopefully, not subject to lazy thinking and over simplification.
Plus of course, bayonets and horses, get in
Do you think Obama ever read about how US Special Forces were using horses to work with the Northern Alliance in 2001 to rout the Taliban? Luckily, last week they unveiled a statue…
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/special-forces-soldiers-unveil-statue-honoring-their-service/
He can have the pleasure of telling the US Army and Marines to throw away their bayonets. Good luck Barack…
Umm well yes, to a point, they are both right & wrong. It cannot be debated in a 30 second sound bite.
If you have Zumwalt class cruisers & $13 billion aircraft carriers, then the US will have to accept a 200 ship navy. If they adopt the CTOL version of QE & buy/licence build Alvaro de Bazan frigates, then the US can afford more ships & be in more places.
For the UK, cutting T45 from 12 to 6, did not save much as R&D over 6 ships rather than 12, made those 6 look very expensive. For a ship as large as the T45 to not have a second helo, torpedos, anti ship & land attack missiles, makes it a merchant ship in drag , to my eyes.
As opposed to what an Anti Air Warfare destroyer?
Remember Gordon Brown – never trust a fixed grin.
http://rt.com/news/sevastopol-combat-dolphins-revived-350/
@ TD
To say we ended up with just 6 T45 because of cost is very simplistic. We could afford the other 6 now if we chose. The New Labour government had other priorities. Further I am surprised that you are easily swayed by a clever put down from a snake oil salesman like Barry. Especially after that nice Mr Romney said he intends to build more ships.
President Obama was only able to land a good soundbite because, as you state, Romney does not have command of the facts. Sure, the numbers of bayonets and horses available to the US military is not relevent due to advances in technology but the number of and types of ships available to the US navy is a very relevent discussion. If our fleet numbers were right today, President Obama’s foreign policy would not be running the US Navy ragged. Increasing deployment length and decreasing readiness levels are well documented and are a symptom of the President’s desire to have a forceful, power projection foreign policy and also his desire to pay for more social spending by cutting the defense budget. Something has to give but Romney could not articulate the issue clearly and President Obama is certainly not going to admit it.
Both right in a way. The US probably does need more ships, but the additional units could be relatively low tech. And Obama was right in that number of ships is not a meaningful measure of capability.
It still galls me that when we count ships in the US, the number of cutters in the Coast Guard is not included, that is another 38 patrol ships over 1,000 tons full load.
Obama did miss the opportunity to point out that Quoting “Maritime Memos,” Governor Romney’s assertion that today’s Navy is smaller than at any time since 1916 is incorrect. Today’s Navy is larger, at 285 ships, than it was at any time during the second Bush/Cheney Administration. Over the eight years of Bush/Cheney, in fact, the Navy declined from 318 ships in 2000 to 282 in 2008, with a low point of 278 in 2007. Under Obama, it’s grown, albeit very slowly, from 282 to 285. To see the structure of the U.S. Navy over the years, as documented by the Historian of the Navy, click here: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#2000
In truth,’ the navy at the moment is never the product of the current presidents actions, it is the result of decisions going back 40 years or more.
TD,
I can only assume you’re using this to fuel a similar debate for UK assets?
We suffer the same problem but (I think) more so. If that’s due to seriously increased capability or reduced effective spending (or a combination) I don’t know.
All I know is that numbers matter… to a level. After that you need capability and then spread (i.e. two conflicts, three conflicts, etc).
The “level” I refer to is that needed to “defend”. This is why I keep harping on about the defence/offence budget split. You should NEVER erode capability below the needs of defence… what this actually is, is certainly up for debate since much of our offensive action in recent years is aimed at defending our futures, which is a sneaky use of semantics in my book.
I respectfully disagree with you, Chuck, on the numbers issue. Yes, the ships the navy has today are far more capable but simply looking at the ever longer patrols and issues with readiness levels the navy is having makes it completely obvious that the fleet numbers are not enough to support current foreign policy.
I do not know what the proper number and type of ships should be, but dwell time, training time and maintenance are just as important as deployment time and if a balance is not found by reducing forward presense or increasing the size of the navy, the navy will certainly break.
@Kristian375 – I wonder if the drop off in numbers might reflect the more multi-role nature of your ships; less specialists, more all-rounders? The advent of the maritime helo perhaps facilitated this, as did the adoption of the VLS system.
@Chuck Hill – “the additional units could be relatively low tech” – wasn’t this the original idea behind LCS? I’ve never understood the need for such high speed for these ships.
http://thisiswarblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/of-ships-horses-and-bayonets-media-tests-romney-and-obamas-claims/
Obama’s response was good, the hull counters don’t understand how a real Navy works.
This Mitt fella is becoming more a joke the more a read about him and his antics…but that hasn’t stopped people from being elected into high office.
As we all know, the USN Carriers are a major instrument of US Foreign Policy. The USS John C. Stennis CSG returned from the Gulf at the end of March. Due to the growing unstability, in the region. The entire CSG was ordered to return to the region and left the States at the end of August.
The US Navy is having to deal with trouble in the Eastern Med, the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea. A nightmare scenario if it were all to kick off at the same time!
Mike said “the hull counters don’t understand how a real Navy works”
The hull in the water is still the fundamental of any navy. Irrespective of whatever super duper weapon system the ship carries or in our case is designed to carry.
Float, move, fight.
I am going to vote for Mr Romney, he had me at more ships…….
@Kristian375 says: October 23, 2012 at 19:41
“I respectfully disagree with you, Chuck, on the numbers issue. Yes, the ships the navy has today are far more capable but simply looking at the ever longer patrols and issues with readiness levels the navy is having makes it completely obvious that the fleet numbers are not enough to support current foreign policy.”
I did say I thought the USN probably needed more ships. I’m not sure we need more carrier battle groups or amphibious ready groups. The fact that we cannot satisfy all the COCOMs’ requests should not come as a surprise in that they will all ways ask for more than is available, so that, in and of itself, is not a good measure.
How many ships we keep forward deployed is a decision, there is no single “right answer.” Similarly, there is flexibility in how many ships go with each battle group or ARG. Carriers are pretty well protected, but ARGs are not right now. Even so, apparently the UK expects to have more escorts with each of their carriers than the US provides for each of theirs.
I see some wisdom in Romney’s call for a new frigate class.
If we do encounter a nightmare scenario as Simon 257 suggests (Eastern Med, the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea), we may have to deal with them consecutively instead of simultaneously and our allies may need to step up.
The type of conflict I see as most likely to require a large number of platforms is when we are trying to enforce a blockade or quarantine, looking for a few miscreants among a sea of innocent vessels. That is a scenario where Low tech platforms frigates and smaller would be useful and they could also deal with piracy, drug interdiction, and partnership station releasing the DDGs and amphibs from this sort of thing.
If we are in a full scale conflict with China, we could have a fleet twice as large, and we would still want more.
I also have a concern that we so seldom have multiple carriers working together. Working multiple carriers together we have an opportunity to create a crushing temporary air-superiority but we don’t exercise that because our carriers are scattered.
@WiseApe says: “@Chuck Hill – “the additional units could be relatively low tech” – wasn’t this the original idea behind LCS? I’ve never understood the need for such high speed for these ships.”
Lots of us question the compromises that went into making this class. Extreme speed, low endurance, minimal accommodations for a reasonable size crew, and most importantly the mismatch between the delivery of the ships and the delivery of the mission modules.
I’m hoping after the 24 that are currently built, contracted, or optioned, that there will be a reevaluation and a different design for the remaining 31.
Right on Mr Obama!
Their is little to be gained from comparing the size of current military forces with that of the past. What’s the point in comparing current military capabilities and strengths to that of 1916 or 1945, it’s says nothing about how effective and relevant forces are today, here and now.
The US is going to/already making some painful cuts, just as everyone else either has or will have to in the future. This doesn’t however mean that their military capabilities will suddenly collapse, to be honest I think that they could lop off tens of billions and still have a power projection capability that’s second to none.
Challenger etc al
I am in the Romney bashing camp on this one, his advisors must be idiots to think he could score points with such idiotic overly simplistic arguments !
Whatever the size of the USN it has more VLS cells than the rest of the worlds navies put together I so yes, quantity has a quality all of its own, but that is somewhat amplified at the size of the RN, the USN is a while away from being operationally bankrupt…….
As for the USAF being at its smallest since WWII – so what ? More to the point it is totally the wrong “shape” for a nation with a grand strategy based on the Pacific !! Cold war tactical fighters designed to be based in Europe don’t cut the mustard in this scenario, and neither do 50 B2′s, and let’s be honest neither do F35C’s ………….
BUT would Romney have been able to keep the audiences attention, or his core supporters votes if he stood up and said “yeah well we don’t really need an Army as big as it is, the Navies kinda OK, and we need to replace thousands of fighters with hundreds of bombers….” ????
But there again if you look at his budget math, the dude is frakkin barking
So, actually Mitt Romney was right.
I think the fundamental argument that you can’t be in two places at once is unquestionable but the issue is also that America has now more commitments around the world than at nearly any other time in it’s history.
With the rise of countries like the BRIC’s over the next 10 years and their neighbours and allies; qualitative differences will not be the great divider it has been since the end of the cold war, quantity is going to be a major factor.
Yes it’s simplified for a wider disinterested audience but it’s not a far out argument and it’s certainly not untrue.
I don’t understand the shilling for Obama in this country. No president has been quite as bad for us as he has. He’s attempted to stab us in the back at nearly every available opportunity and we aren’t alone amongst America’s ‘friends’ in having been subjected to that.
He’s Kow-towed to just about every enemy they and we have and bollocksed up the middle east by mishandling the Arab spring, and they STILL haven’t learnt their lessons as evidenced in Syria.
Quite frankly we should be praying for a Romney presidency.
@STV, have to agree with what you are saying, though having Obama in power has given a good dose of reality to the other western partners – the US will pursue it’s self interest first and foremost. If we choose to listen is another matter…
The very idea that a comparison about sizes then and now might be relevant or even relevant enough for a national TV debate of this calibre is bullocks.
It’s 14 year old’s talk.
I’m trying to understand what role a navy could actually have in a “Island chain conflict” scenario off the coast of China, and that’s about the concept of naval warfare as well as about economic issues (such as the cost inefficiency of naval aviation vs. air forces). The quantities – especially of the early 1980-ish concept ships, are quite uninteresting for this scenario.
I don’t see a good reason for the “sea control = quantity” line of thought either. Sea control requires LR airborne and/or orbital sensor platforms en masse. The qty of ships needed is rather modest, and very much of the work can be done with auxiliary cruisers and imaging SAR radar modes.
Most people don’t understand yet that the identification of ships by silhouette with IR or radar sensor is basically stuff from the late 90′s. Quickly searched examples:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab07.en.html
http://sss.terrasar-x.dlr.de/papers_sci_meet_4/poster/LAN0035_zhanghong_2.pdf
Addendum:
Americans should remember their Mahan and not talk so much about two simultaneous wars. It’s obvious in military theory that you better finish off one, then the other.
To fight two wars in parallel – even be prepared for it for decades with no end in sight – is a particularly wasteful form of arrogance, especially now as it’s no more about Iraq+North Korea, but about China&North Korea + some other. Dunno who’s left as the “other” power, though for Romney it’s probably the Russia.
So even from the “two parallel naval conflicts” point of view, complaints about fewer ships not being at multiple places at one time make no sense once you stop focusing on hardware and behgin focusing on the “how to” of warfare.
Trouble is they have done that very thing and engaged in two simultaneous wars with two peer enemies across what amounted to 4 fronts, five if you include the bombing campaign which I argue you should since it absorbed an enormous chunk of resources.
@ STV
“With the rise of countries like the BRIC’s over the next 10 years and their neighbours and allies; qualitative differences will not be the great divider it has been since the end of the cold war, quantity is going to be a major factor.”
Think we can start worrying about the brick nation’s once they actually manage to put a domestically built carrier in the water with some working aircraft.
The fact is that the USA, NATO and other Western Allies are so over whelming dominant at sea it’s hard to justify fears on a smaller US Navy. While one ship can’t be in two places at once 285 ships can be in a lot of places at the same time.
@ SO
“To fight two wars in parallel – even be prepared for it for decades with no end in sight – is a particularly wasteful form of arrogance”.
Given the fact that the USA along with its NATO allies struggled to tie down two relatively small deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq I think the two simultaneous war claims has always been a fallacy. Could the USA have single handily fought Russia and China with its current or previous force structure? I think not. Even in WWII with 14 million men at arms they required the combined might of the USSR and the British Empire to wage two simultaneous wars.
@ Simon 257
“The US Navy is having to deal with trouble in the Eastern Med, the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea. A nightmare scenario if it were all to kick off at the same time!”
That’s true but these issues are hardly a threat to the USA nor are the challenges they will have to face alone.
If the gulf is closed its likely only to affect Iran, China, India, South Korea and Japan as they are the major players moving oil threw there.
@ Martin
We discussed the relationship between the US Navy, the Persian Gulf Oil and China, a couple of months ago. I think we came to the conclusion that China needs the US Navy to keep the Oil flowing!
If Syria implodes dragging the entire region into War. What happens if China or North Korea take advantage of the situation. China’s Economy is slowing down rapidly. Who knows what the North Koreans are thinking on any given day?
If these countries are threatened, they will take measures to safeguard themselves. Unfortunately, I think we will see a domino effect all over the world if the Middle East collapses.
Unfortunately we live in Interesting Times. I on the other hand would like to live in Uninteresting Times.
We need a Strong and Decisive Person in the White House and frankly, neither Candidate is up to it!
@ Simon – I think most of the domino’s that could fall have fallen in the Middle East have already fallen. Many of the regimes that have fallen are not exactly friendly to western interest’s anyway.
Even if extremists do come to power history has shown us that they just as the current rulers have a vested interest in keeping the oil flowing which is really our only concern.
I can see concerns around the world for the USA at present but then it’s not that different to other times. North Korea is always threatening to kick off, Japan and China have been arguing over islands for decades and the middle east has always been an unstable s**t hole that threatens to erupt.
If all of these things happen at the same time I think a lack of naval assets would be the least of the president’s worries.
On another note I did like Romney’s idea of a fleet frigate to beef up US Navy number’s and replace many function’s ear marked for the LCS. Imagine the navy the US could have with its $15 billion per year budget if it bought platforms like T26.
Yes they required allies but they provided the lions share of the war materiel and it really was only the manner in which they chose to build their army that dictated not having a force structure akin to the Soviet model.
I always find it astonishing that they smashed Japan to bits with just 15% of their overall war effort. It was a walk in the park effectively in the grand scheme of things.
I have no doubt the US possess the latent capacity to fight a similar double conflict.
I don’t however think it makes sense to try and keep that a peacetime objective accept in a deep planning sense because despite the rhetoric it’s not been funded properly since May 1945.
@ Phil
“I don’t however think it makes sense to try and keep that a peacetime objective accept in a deep planning sense because despite the rhetoric it’s not been funded properly since May 1945.”
I have no doubt they posses the latent capability much as in 1941. It is the peace time rule I was referring too. The capability to defeat any two simultaneous enemies would imply the ability of the peace time US armed forces to invade China and Russia simultaneously which is just silly.
Well it depends on where you’re fighting and how quickly you want it done. The Cold War force structure was impressive but you’d have needed at least 6-12 months to get the reserve units combat ready.
But I agree. It’s more sensible to plan to fight one, hold and swing.
Defeating China again depends on how you want it done. Fighting China implies a naval campaign and I’d quite confidently predict the US Navy could win that one relatively easily.
@ Phil – I dare say the USN could take out every other navy simultaneously without breaking much of a sweat.
As you say it all depends on how you define fighting someone.
If the US went to war with China today China would loose and it is going to be like that for the next decade at least. US military isn’t standing still and is a generation ahead at least. If this natural gas revolution comes off for the US and they start bringing jobs back on shore there will be less pressure on the US defence budget. China in some ways militarily is like Nazi Germany. Lots of flashy projects that mask a lot of weakness coupled with resource problems. China expends a lot of effort keeping China together. China has to face the US, Europe (to a much lesser extent), India (probably not a greater power as some think for the moment), and some pretty sophisticated militaries right on her own doorstep. If the world were a factory China is the workshop, but it is along way off becoming the R&D department.
I don’t think China makes any efforts to deny its forces are well behind, much further behind than many think. They’re a patient bunch all told.
The acute lack of sovereign resources (I believe mainly food and oil) and reliance on international trade are the main reasons why I don’t perceive China to be a serious threat for quite a few years to come.
I’ll accept their is a danger of sabre rattling, of flashpoints and perhaps conflict by proxy as we saw when the Cold War went ‘hot’ in various peripheral regions. However this is very different from the kind of coordinated and ambitious aggression that many fear and predict China will embark on.
Maybe in 20 or 30 years things will be different, the west should certainly be on it’s guard and be pre-emptive, but I don’t think we need to worry about Armageddon just yet.
But China won’t want to fight the US, in a full blown conflict. But it would do its level best to keep the USN out of the South China Sea, long enough for it to seize control of the Spratly Islands and all the other disputed Islands.
If the supply of Middle East Oil is cut off, and the Chinese people start getting restless. The Party may very well be forced to take drastic action to save itself. Now where have I heard of that one, before!!!
China is a big question mark. I don’t particularly believe they are an inevitable bogeyman but resource considerations means we may well rub against each other in the future.
As for the Spratleys. I think they are an issue drummed up more by the west fantasising about a naval campaign. Does anyone honestly believe they’d risk all their enormous gains for some shitty islands? It won’t even touch Taiwan.
They will get one over on us though if we constantly fret about their military power and miss the soft initiatives they are actually employing at the moment.
Is buying African leaders with cash really soft power if it keeps the likes of Mugabe in power and millions in fear? Not very soft if you are on the ground and Matabele and not Shona.
Further the way the Asians of the Far East see capitalism and nationalism is different from the way we do in the West. It is not now we have to worry about 20 or 30 years hence.
True that we perhaps shouldn’t see China in a Cold War context. But as they are going to be the next big kid on the block we have to plan to challenge them. Or else why bother with a military at all? I am always surprised by how some here considering the subject nature of the blog so quickly reason war away.
Anyway I have written to that nice Mr Romney concerning his naval build up and suggested he calls some of the ships Jessica….
I’ve never advocated anything but prudence. But some of the stuff about China has more than a whiff of Internet fantasists, senior officer lobbying, defence industrial complex shrieking and hysteria. More than I’m comfortable with.
“I’ve never advocated anything but prudence”
I know you haven’t.
It is just easier for most to hang defence priorities off opposing a potential peer enemy than something more abstract.
@ Simon 257
“But it would do its level best to keep the USN out of the South China Sea”
I can’t imagine the US intervening over the Spartly Islands. They are uninhabited and 6 different countries claim them definitely not worth world war three.
Just a bit of fantasy fleet here but what do you think the UK’s chances would be against China in say 2020 tomorrow never dies style. Maybe looking at an environment where the UK has two QE’s with F35 and China has 2/3 carrier’s operating J15. Assuming no allied involvement would the UK be able to hold a blockade in the Indian Ocean using Diego Garcia. Obviously China would have a lot more in the way of frigates and destroyer’s than us however having a platform like Astute to chase down would really screw up their day. Any thoughts?
@Martin
I love imagining the scenario in tomorrow never dies, it’s so ridiculous!
A purely British fleet, apparently only comprised of frigates and destroyers without any visible air cover attempts to go up against the entire Chinese air-force.
Hmm, I wonder what would have happened!
P.S
I think in the fantasy scenario you describe Martin that at best the UK forces would inflict a bit of delay and damage on the Chinese, that’s is before they were pretty much annihilated!
I can’t remember who it was a while back but someone suggested an enlarged ’7 powers’ alliance with Indian involved to block any Chinese moves westwards past Malaysia/Indonesia and into the Indian Ocean.
I thought that was a pretty sensible and promising suggestion, which coupled with an American/Australian and New Zealand blockade in the south and east could effectively hem in any power projection the Chinese air-force and navy are capable of.
“his advisors must be idiots to think he could score points with such idiotic overly simplistic arguments” – depends on who they think they’re talking to! Never underestimate the power of stupidity to rationalise itself into certainty. This from The National Centre for Science Education:
“Some years ago, NASA released the first deep-space photographs of the beautiful cloud-swirled blue-green agate we call earth. A reporter showed one of them to the late Samuel Shenton, then president of International Flat Earth Research Society. Shenton studied it for a moment and said, “It’s easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye.”
It is not in Chinas financial interest to plan a war with the US/UK/the West, but rising Chinese nationalism could build a head of steam that leads to war by accident.
There is always tension between liberalism and realism. But as I said above you mustn’t think that the Chinese and other Far Eastern Asia peoples see the world as we do.
China is culturally quite diverse. You might as well talk of European nationalism or speaking European.
X
If half of China gets worked up & goes to war, while the other half sits it out in silence, that is still half a billion angry Chinese heading our (or the Americans) way.
@Challenger
“I can’t remember who it was a while back but someone suggested an enlarged ’7 powers’ alliance with Indian involved to block any Chinese moves westwards past Malaysia/Indonesia and into the Indian Ocean.”
I once proposed 5-Powers + Indonesia + Sri Lanka (and Myanmar, once the por-democratic swing has substantialized, maybe Oman, Mauritius or Brunei). A sweetener should be concentrating DfID-money on those countries.
India is already an adversary of China over water-rights issues and territorial claims, but they are calm at antagonizing China at the moment. Indian politics are multiple-times worse than UK-politics, corruption everywhere, I wouldn’t even wonder if the Rafale-contract gets cancelled. Once incorporated into a defence-block, India would soon dominate that alliance.
@x
“China in some ways militarily is like Nazi Germany. Lots of flashy projects that mask a lot of weakness coupled with resource problems.”
And, not to forget, the same poor geographical distribution, with pro-west barriers off the seaboard.
The point of chinese nationalism is clearly visible today. Look at the protests unleashed by the CP because of some scarce rocks in the middle of nowhere. There are constant ramblings over the Amur border. There are ‘large ancestrial lands of outer Mongolia’. Or the Korean peninsula. Or the northern parts of Myanmar and Vietnam. For the moment, the Chinese prefer to buy deep into the elites of these territories. The next step will be bringing in chinese workers, then
police to protect them, finally a warship off the shore and marines. We have co-invented this scheme, it’s called imperialism.
“China is culturally quite diverse.”
Over 80% of Chinese are Han. This is a less diverse mix culturally than the UK population.
@SO
“I don’t see a good reason for the “sea control = quantity” line of thought either. Sea control requires LR airborne and/or orbital sensor platforms en masse. The qty of ships needed is rather modest, and very much of the work can be done with auxiliary cruisers and imaging SAR radar modes.”
This is sea surveillance. Sea control means to be in almost physical possession of a certain square of water. It’s the ability to command, where and who trades over this piece of oceanm by being able to STOP the enemies commerce. Hardly something to be done from space or air.
I also wonder, where to take those auxiliary cruisers from. The US merchant navy does not possess enough depth to be able to accomplish this. Those auxiliaries will have to stop rapid-moving container-vessels, additionally to around 300,000 vessels in the South China sea. We cannot handle a couple of pirate vessels off Somalia, how do we expect to handle so many vessels by a ‘modest’ number of auxiliaries?
The ultimate auxiliary cruiser, the LCS, should suffice to do this. But is is also under heavy criticism in the US. I’m not in their opinion. I’m also quite calm about those missile-boats. 4 LCS with 8 Seahawks carriing 128 Hellfires per mission is enough fire power and range to handle this threath. Thinking about it, a Lynx with FASGW-H or SPIKE Cap 3 would be even more efficient.
The cost-efficiency-question of naval-air vs. landbased-air is not that simple. If Okinawa and Guam become target to ballistic missiles, there is zero effectiveness, because the planes have to be withdrawn. Means, you pay less for equal numbers, but you don’t get the job done.
In a Taiwan-scenario, I guess the USMC with Harriers/F-35B will play a crucial role. But again, this is naval-air.