NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep. Seems that there just isn't much use for most of the naval fleet in today's war. This, of course, is a problem that needs rectifying at your expense! And so, despite what you might have heard about drawdowns in Iraq possible this year, well the Navy ain't buying that and are prepping for deployment.

After all, if the war won't come to you - you have to go to the war! (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=102789&ran=88511)


At this time next year, about 200 sailors will fill up small boats, man .50-caliber machine guns and watch for trouble along the waterways of Baghdad.

There’s a catch, though: At the moment, these sailors have no boats, no manuals and no past missions to call their own. Riverine Group 1 of the Navy’s new river combat force based at Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base is starting from scratch.


They still are recruiting men and writing a fresh chapter on how to prepare for river fighting.
“We’ve got sailors lining up at the door,” Capt. Michael L. Jordan, commodore of the riverine force, said during an interview at his half-finished headquarters. “The problem is, we’ve got no experience to draw from.”

...

The riverine force is part of the Navy’s effort to become a bigger player in global efforts against terrorists and insurgents. Policing and protecting the shallow brown and green waters in hot spots now is the responsibility of the Marine Corps and special forces.


Gee, can't they just call on those Swift Boat for Truth guys to help 'em out? After all - those guys know more about what goes on in brown water naval warfare than even the Navy's official records do!

It pays to look after the Navy - you never know when some upstart former colony might invade your frozen rocks.

So you're opposed to the miitary taking steps to keep up w/ current threats?

Yep. Seems that there just isn't much use for most of the naval fleet in today's war. This, of course, is a problem that needs rectifying at your expense! And so, despite what you might have heard about drawdowns in Iraq possible this year, well the Navy ain't buying that and are prepping for deployment.

After all, if the war won't come to you - you have to go to the war! (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=102789&ran=88511)

Gee, can't they just call on those Swift Boat for Truth guys to help 'em out? After all - those guys know more about what goes on in brown water naval warfare than even the Navy's official records do!
God! Let's hope they don't create another "Kerry!" :(

So they're recreating the Vietnam Swiftboats and Monitors again? Well...good luck to 'em. Are the Iraqi waterways a major threat to Coalition forces?

What threats? Aside from the Cole incident, there haven't been any recent attacks that used boats.

The Navy's probably just getting antsy. After all, it won't be long before surface warships are abolished completely.

I hope not. Need to keep them ready....or else suffer later.

So you're opposed to the miitary taking steps to keep up w/ current threats?


Errrrrrrrrrrrrr.... which threat is that exactly? The notorious Zarqawi Viking Longboat brigade?

Sounds like they need Colombian "advisors". :p

What threats? Aside from the Cole incident, there haven't been any recent attacks that used boats.

The Navy's probably just getting antsy. After all, it won't be long before surface warships are abolished completely.

Errrrrrrrrrrr....no.

The ability of the navy to deploy air squadrons, missile cruisers, hospital ships, and deliver heavy equipment to where it is needed is not likely to ever become obsolete, although they certainly become more of a landwar support arm of the forces rather than existing with the expectation of old-style sea warfare.

God! Let's hope they don't create another "Kerry!" :(


What have you got against military heros??
*giggling madly*

What have you got against military heros??
*giggling madly*

He's a goddamned flip-flopping liberal hippy scumbag! He urinates on the fag and hates the military and dared to criticise Der Fuhrer Bush!

What have you got against military heros??
*giggling madly*


Oh dear.


There goes the thread..................


:headbang: :p

Errrrrrrrrrrrrr.... which threat is that exactly? The notorious Zarqawi Viking Longboat brigade?

So you don't see the need for improved littoral capabilities in today's environment?

He's a goddamned flip-flopping liberal hippy scumbag! He urinates on the flag and hates the military and dared to criticise Der Fuhrer Bush!

I thought that was the definition of military hero :confused:

He's a goddamned flip-flopping liberal hippy scumbag! He urinates on the fag and hates the military and dared to criticise Der Fuhrer Bush!
That's "critices den Führer" to you, untermensch!

So you don't see the need for improved littoral capabilities in today's environment?

No, I do not see the need for an exclusively blue-water force to suddenly horn in on a job that is ALREADY tasked to the Marines - who are already far better trained and equiped for the job - for no reason other than to have a specific small inland force in a location where the Navy is not really equiped to support them.

There is a reason why the forces are specialized the way they are, and frankly this should remain a Marine / Special Forces responsibility as they are better designed for it than the Navy monolith. And if the Marine's capabilities needs an upgrade to meet the current challenge, then it would be far more cost effective to do that than to bring an entirely new clean-sheet small force into existance.

Errrrrrrrrrrr....no.

The ability of the navy to deploy air squadrons, missile cruisers, hospital ships, and deliver heavy equipment to where it is needed is not likely to ever become obsolete, although they certainly become more of a landwar support arm of the forces rather than existing with the expectation of old-style sea warfare.

Yes, but the very second anybody deploys a THOR system in orbit every surface warship becomes obsolete. Only submarines can survive in that environment.

Oh dear.


There goes the thread..................


:headbang: :p


;)


regarding this story: I think they just want more toys to play with.

Yes, but the very second anybody deploys a THOR system in orbit every surface warship becomes obsolete. Only submarines can survive in that environment.


Errr. right.

That'll happen, and SOON!


Well, unless those giant spaceships from Independance Day get here first.... I just hope that this happens before Will Smith gets too old to save us from them.

But either way I concede the point, better off just getting rid of the fleet now.....:p

Errr. right.

That'll happen, and SOON!


Well, unless those giant spaceships from Independance Day get here first.... I just hope that this happens before Will Smith gets too old to save us from them.

But either way I concede the point, better off just getting rid of the fleet now.....:p

I'm being serious, actually.

THOR isn't hard to make. You just need a titanium rod, a homing head, and a heat shield.

The rod drops from orbit, homes in on a ship, and hits it. Said ship now has a very large hole from the uppermost deck to the keel.

Thus, you have the capacity to destroy ANY ship for a tiny fraction of the cost of said ship, and with there being exactly nothing the target can do about it.

My guess is that China will deploy such a system some time in the next fifteen years. After all, they've never signed the anti-militarization of space treaty. Suddenly, the US's capacity to project power will be cut in half - or more.

No, I do not see the need for an exclusively blue-water force to suddenly horn in on a job that is ALREADY tasked to the Marines - who are already far better trained and equiped for the job - for no reason other than to have a specific small inland force in a location where the Navy is not really equiped to support them.

There is a reason why the forces are specialized the way they are, and frankly this should remain a Marine / Special Forces responsibility as they are better designed for it than the Navy monolith. And if the Marine's capabilities needs an upgrade to meet the current challenge, then it would be far more cost effective to do that than to bring an entirely new clean-sheet small force into existance.

Now if you look at the facts, the littorals are NOT very well covered by the Marines/Special Forces nor do they have the equipment/manpower to cover the gap.

You would also know that the improvement of littoral warfare (not exclusively riverine but coastal and shallow ocean as well) has been going on for well over a decade.

Historically, the Marines took over the job following the Vietnam war, they haven't "always" had it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MFJ.htm

I'm being serious, actually.

THOR isn't hard to make. You just need a titanium rod, a homing head, and a heat shield.

The rod drops from orbit, homes in on a ship, and hits it. Said ship now has a very large hole from the uppermost deck to the keel.

Thus, you have the capacity to destroy ANY ship for a tiny fraction of the cost of said ship, and with there being exactly nothing the target can do about it.

My guess is that China will deploy such a system some time in the next fifteen years. After all, they've never signed the anti-militarization of space treaty. Suddenly, the US's capacity to project power will be cut in half - or more.


And that whole concept of deterence would keep them from using it. If the Chinese actually did do that, the whole treaty would go out the window.

Do you honestly think that the world would scrap it's fleets because of one power?

I'm being serious, actually.

THOR isn't hard to make. You just need a titanium rod, a homing head, and a heat shield.

The rod drops from orbit, homes in on a ship, and hits it. Said ship now has a very large hole from the uppermost deck to the keel.

Thus, you have the capacity to destroy ANY ship for a tiny fraction of the cost of said ship, and with there being exactly nothing the target can do about it.

My guess is that China will deploy such a system some time in the next fifteen years. After all, they've never signed the anti-militarization of space treaty. Suddenly, the US's capacity to project power will be cut in half - or more.


So, if China builds a THOR system suffiecient to cover the world, the US will toss it's surface fleet under the implicit assumption that China is the only country they will ever go to war with?

And do you think that maybe, just maybe, the various forces have a LOT of weapons and systems in inventory that may be useless against a specific threat, but are retained because they ARE of value against a sufficient number of possible threats?

Or do you think that the US will simply concede th worth of their fleet? Or will they just escalate the weaponization of space and shadow the THOR system with anti anti-satellite system in order to target the threat?




In other news: Most enemies have guns and ammo capable of penetrating a soldier from stem to stern.

Guess we best do away with the infantry too................. :p

And that whole concept of deterence would keep them from using it. If the Chinese actually did do that, the whole treaty would go out the window.

Do you honestly think that the world would scrap it's fleets because of one power?

yes. that's what happened with the advent of Dreadnought-class warships at the beginning of the 20th century. (though not because of ONE power, no)

What "world"? There are three countries in the world that have real fleets - the US, Britain and France (Russia was the fourth, but hardly counts now).

Britain would probably disband their surface fleet with relief at no longer having to fund it. France only has one because the US does. Only the US would really be put out - and my guess is that they'd scrap the navy, and give the cash to the Aerospace Force in order to regain superiority in orbit.

As for deterrence - power projection is all about what you can do, not what you will do. When the US sends a Carrier Group into the Sea of Japan, China doesn't flinch because they WILL blow Beijing off the map, but because they could.

If China has a working THOR, they can reply, "Sure, you can do a bit of damage. But after you do, your fleet is sitting on the bottom of the ocean."

Ergo, no power projection. China wins the game.

Now if you look at the facts, the littorals are NOT very well covered by the Marines/Special Forces nor do they have the equipment/manpower to cover the gap.

You would also know that the improvement of littoral warfare (not exclusively riverine but coastal and shallow ocean as well) has been going on for well over a decade.

Historically, the Marines took over the job following the Vietnam war, they haven't "always" had it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MFJ.htm

A) I never said that they ALWAYS had it. Indeed, one might just assume from my reference to swift boats that I understand quite well that the Navy HAS been involved in this aspect of warfare before. Or, you could just note that the article quoted covers that fact quite nicely.

b) The fact that the Marines are underequiped for this still puts them way ahead of the navy who admit to having to start entirely from scratch. At least the MArines/Special Forces have approved and tested training and policies for this form of combat.

Upgrading and expanding an existing group already trained for this job is far more sensible than creating redundancy with a clean sheet that is going to be learning from it's mistakes the hard way next year.

What "world"? There are three countries in the world that have real fleets - the US, Britain and France (Russia was the fourth, but hardly counts now).

Britain would probably disband their surface fleet with relief at no longer having to fund it. France only has one because the US does. Only the US would really be put out - and my guess is that they'd scrap the navy, and give the cash to the Aerospace Force in order to regain superiority in orbit.

As for deterrence - power projection is all about what you can do, not what you will do. When the US sends a Carrier Group into the Sea of Japan, China doesn't flinch because they WILL blow Beijing off the map, but because they could.

If China has a working THOR, they can reply, "Sure, you can do a bit of damage. But after you do, your fleet is sitting on the bottom of the ocean."

Ergo, no power projection. China wins the game.


So you think the fight would only be between the Navies? You do realize that there are these things calle Ballistic Missile Submarines, right? That there are these things called ICBM's, right?

What do you think the US would do if China started sinking ships left and right?

You also realize that THOR systems can be used against land targets as well, right? You think we wouldn't militarize?

There are also other non-western nations out there that are working on improving thier fleets, including carriers.

What "world"? There are three countries in the world that have real fleets - the US, Britain and France (Russia was the fourth, but hardly counts now).

Britain would probably disband their surface fleet with relief at no longer having to fund it. France only has one because the US does. Only the US would really be put out - and my guess is that they'd scrap the navy, and give the cash to the Aerospace Force in order to regain superiority in orbit.

As for deterrence - power projection is all about what you can do, not what you will do. When the US sends a Carrier Group into the Sea of Japan, China doesn't flinch because they WILL blow Beijing off the map, but because they could.

If China has a working THOR, they can reply, "Sure, you can do a bit of damage. But after you do, your fleet is sitting on the bottom of the ocean."

Ergo, no power projection. China wins the game.


You still haven't adequately responded to why the entire fleet policy will be predecated on what ONE possible military foe could do....

The US would entirely give up the ability to project power (and not just "deterrence") to the world simply because it is no longer as effective against China?


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttt...... .

A) I never said that they ALWAYS had it. Indeed, one might just assume from my reference to swift boats that I understand quite well that the Navy HAS been involved in this aspect of warfare before. Or, you could just note that the article quoted covers that fact quite nicely.

b) The fact that the Marines are underequiped for this still puts them way ahead of the navy who admit to having to start entirely from scratch. At least the MArines/Special Forces have approved and tested training and policies for this form of combat.

Upgrading and expanding an existing group already trained for this job is far more sensible than creating redundancy with a clean sheet that is going to be learning from it's mistakes the hard way next year.

You are missing the point. The Marines are underequipped and undermanned. They are not capable of large scale operations alone. The Navy, while "starting from scratch", is working w/ the Marines to develop an effective force.

"Marine Lt. Col. Ray McFall, a liaison officer with the Marine Corps Forces Command in Norfolk, has been helping the Navy form its new command.

McFall has arranged special sessions for Group 1 sailors at Camp Lejeune. They will undergo basic infantry training, much like foot soldiers learning the building blocks of combat and weaponry.

“The Navy’s trying to step up,” he said. “The Marine Corps is very supportive of this.”


You also keep interpreting this as riverine operations alone. This package includes quite a bit more which the article you cited doesn't cover and has been going on for almost 15 years.

A force of 900 for Riverine duties is now considered "large scale"?



Interesting.

So you think the fight would only be between the Navies? You do realize that there are these things calle Ballistic Missile Submarines, right? That there are these things called ICBM's, right?

What do you think the US would do if China started sinking ships left and right?

You also realize that THOR systems can be used against land targets as well, right? You think we wouldn't militarize?

There are also other non-western nations out there that are working on improving thier fleets, including carriers.

Of course there are other weapon systems. China has it's own stock of ICBMs, so we can't use those for power projection. And their submarine fleet is under construction.

I suggest you take another look at what I wrote. Power projection is a game of what I can do to you. With a THOR system, China can say, you can't do diddly squat to me without losing your fleet. Suddenly, the US fleet, once the protectors of Taiwan and Japan, is an impotent, overly expensive paperweight. China need never use the system to gain from having it.

Those nations that are building their fleets will probably just stop; use what they've got for a Coast Guard. As for the US and others getting into the space combat race, that's a given. And once they are there, NOBODY will bother fielding a fleet - too expensive and far too vulnerable. Soon enough, EVERYONE will have THOR systems, or worse.

The future of war is space. Should any one nation ever one day rule the High Orbitals, that nation will rule the world.

A force of 900 for Riverine duties is now considered "large scale"?



Interesting.

For exclusive duties, yes.

"Work said riverine work is difficult for the Marine Corps to keep in the long term. Skilled positions, particularly boat drivers, are lost as Marines advance their careers back into the infantry, he said."

Of course there are other weapon systems. China has it's own stock of ICBMs, so we can't use those for power projection. And their submarine fleet is under construction.

I suggest you take another look at what I wrote. Power projection is a game of what I can do to you. With a THOR system, China can say, you can't do diddly squat to me without losing your fleet. Suddenly, the US fleet, once the protectors of Taiwan and Japan, is an impotent, overly expensive paperweight. China need never use the system to gain from having it.

Those nations that are building their fleets will probably just stop; use what they've got for a Coast Guard. As for the US and others getting into the space combat race, that's a given. And once they are there, NOBODY will bother fielding a fleet - too expensive and far too vulnerable. Soon enough, EVERYONE will have THOR systems, or worse.

The future of war is space. Should any one nation ever one day rule the High Orbitals, that nation will rule the world.


You think projection is only nukes? Try again.

It's called deterrence. You "assume" these nations would stop their own increases because of a single system by China. Everyone will have THOR systems and keep their fleets. Subs made surface fleets very vulnerable yet they're still here.

You think projection is only nukes? Try again.

It's called deterrence. You "assume" these nations would stop their own increases because of a single system by China. Everyone will have THOR systems and keep their fleets. Subs made surface fleets very vulnerable yet they're still here.

subs can be sunk. THOR systems can be shot down. i don't see fleets becoming obsolete.

You think projection is only nukes? Try again.

It's called deterrence. You "assume" these nations would stop their own increases because of a single system by China. Everyone will have THOR systems and keep their fleets. Subs made surface fleets very vulnerable yet they're still here.

Actually, since the Soviet Union developed the Bomb and ended the US's monopoly on nuclear weaponry, power projection usually hasn't included nukes. And no, I'm not assuming every country will cease building fleets because China deploys a system. I'm assuming they'll be phased out after five or six nations or alliances put them up.

THOR is useless as a deterrence weapon. By the time a THOR strike is detected it's already hit it's target; time-to-impact under one minute. We can expect all surface miltary facilities to be buried deep underground, or hidden, or both. Surface naval vessels in this environment cannot survive; even if you win the war, you lose your fleet. The only rational reaction is to scrap your surface fleet, go to subs exclusively, and concentrate your war-making capacity on orbital resources - las-sats, kill-sats, manned combat stations and warships, ground-based ASAT weapons (probably suicidal), and others.

Ground combat becomes a sideshow, naval warfare ceases to matter. Orbit is the ultimate high ground. Win that, you win the war.

Actually, since the Soviet Union developed the Bomb and ended the US's monopoly on nuclear weaponry, power projection usually hasn't included nukes. And no, I'm not assuming every country will cease building fleets because China deploys a system. I'm assuming they'll be phased out after five or six nations or alliances put them up.

Doubtful. Force projection from the sea will still be necessary, as will dozens of other objectives that cannot be done by small craft or subs.

Nuclear capabilities ARE considered a part of force projection.

There will still be fleets.

THOR is useless as a deterrence weapon. By the time a THOR strike is detected it's already hit it's target; time-to-impact under one minute. We can expect all surface miltary facilities to be buried deep underground, or hidden, or both. Surface naval vessels in this environment cannot survive; even if you win the war, you lose your fleet. The only rational reaction is to scrap your surface fleet, go to subs exclusively, and concentrate your war-making capacity on orbital resources - las-sats, kill-sats, manned combat stations and warships, ground-based ASAT weapons (probably suicidal), and others.

All the same arguements were made about nukes. There are still fleets, conventional combatives, and surface installations.

How would it not be a deterrence weapon? You hit me, I hit you w/ my own or launch nukes.

You're not looking at the big picture here.

Ground combat becomes a sideshow, naval warfare ceases to matter. Orbit is the ultimate high ground. Win that, you win the war.

Once again, the same arguements have been made before. They didn't happen. You'ld need enough systems to take out every installation and ship as well as being able to counteract anti-THOR systems while at the same time everyone else is trying to knock you and your systems out.

How would it not be a deterrence weapon? You hit me, I hit you w/ my own or launch nukes.

You're not looking at the big picture here.


I think I am. The reason MAD worked is deterrence - both sides knew that the other could get a second strike off when they discovered the first strike incoming. THOR works too fast for that - your enemy can destroy your ground forces with these non-nuclear weapons before you can react.

As for nukes - there's your deterrence. If you go nuclear, everybody goes nuclear and we all die. THOR is a precision instrument - not a city-killing device. If you go to nukes when I used conventionals, then by current standards YOU are the bad guy. Politicians will think twice about that.

Meanwhile, wait a few years. The US is already developing a defence against ICBMs - with space militarization, that will be easier. Cruise missiles are actually fairly vulnerable to being shot down. So, pretty soon it won't even be possible to hit your enemy with a nuke until you've neutralized his space-based systems, or gotten a sub off his coast.

I think I am. The reason MAD worked is deterrence - both sides knew that the other could get a second strike off when they discovered the first strike incoming. THOR works too fast for that - your enemy can destroy your ground forces with these non-nuclear weapons before you can react.

You're saying that there would be enough systems in space to eliminate hundreds of thousands of men and materials BEFORE a counterstrike could be enacted?

As for nukes - there's your deterrence. If you go nuclear, everybody goes nuclear and we all die. THOR is a precision instrument - not a city-killing device. If you go to nukes when I used conventionals, then by current standards YOU are the bad guy. Politicians will think twice about that.

Now you're saying it's a limited precision instrument when just above you said it could destroy the entire military in seconds. Which is it? You apparently also haven't heard of tactical nukes.

As for the "bad guy" nonsense, if a country is wiping out an entire military that is armed w/ NBC weapons, it would be expected that they would be used.

Meanwhile, wait a few years. The US is already developing a defence against ICBMs - with space militarization, that will be easier. Cruise missiles are actually fairly vulnerable to being shot down. So, pretty soon it won't even be possible to hit your enemy with a nuke until you've neutralized his space-based systems, or gotten a sub off his coast.

And a defense against THOR systems would be developed as well. Along w/ establishing systems of our own.

Once again, stalemate, and conventional forces, including fleets, would still be present.

The problem is, there are relatively simple theoretical methods to destroy nukes- being a very delicate and complex machine - but there are almost none against a THOR javelin. The only one I can see would be to use a nuke to destroy the javelin - probably not politically acceptable. Nor economically sustainable - you could deploy ten javelins for the cost of a single nuke

And yes, I would expect a large THOR system to be capable of wiping out thousands of men and ships in minutes. THOR is cheap. The control systems are not; that is why you would have wars in space, trying to knock out the enemy's control systems. Once those are destroyed, you can move your infantry out of their hardened revetments (you see? there is a defence. It just isn't any use for ships) and start invading him.

Yes, equilibrium will be acheived. But big, indefensible surface warships will not be part of it.

Gee, can't they just call on those Swift Boat for Truth guys to help 'em out? After all - those guys know more about what goes on in brown water naval warfare than even the Navy's official records do!
that's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading the article. John Kerry would show em!!

The problem is, there are relatively simple theoretical methods to destroy nukes- being a very delicate and complex machine - but there are almost none against a THOR javelin. The only one I can see would be to use a nuke to destroy the javelin - probably not politically acceptable. Nor economically sustainable - you could deploy ten javelins for the cost of a single nuke

And yes, I would expect a large THOR system to be capable of wiping out thousands of men and ships in minutes. THOR is cheap. The control systems are not; that is why you would have wars in space, trying to knock out the enemy's control systems. Once those are destroyed, you can move your infantry out of their hardened revetments (you see? there is a defence. It just isn't any use for ships) and start invading him.

Yes, equilibrium will be acheived. But big, indefensible surface warships will not be part of it.


You also have to think about the cost of putting all those thousands of pieces of into orbit along w/ the systems to defend them and to knock out the opponents which would start a war on its own.

You also still assume that the majority of them would still be effective and that a first strike wouldn't be countered by a NBC counter-strike.

Unless thier hardened, the electronics would be wiped out by a single EMP.

There is an equilibrium now. Introducing THOR would just joggle it a bit. The fleets and land forces would still be there.

How would you invade w/o ships or planes?

Who said anything about no planes? Aircraft would be very difficult targets for a THOR shot - near impossible at transsonic speeds. Runways could be destroyed fairly easily, but the obvious response is to make VTOL planes - well within current capability. Planes, even large ones, could operate out of hardened facilities.

EMP shielding is now standard for all military electronics. Come to that, it's standard for anything we send above the atmosphere - Sol generates a lot more EMP effect than any of our puny nukes.

A nuclear counterstrike is a possibility, of course, but delivery, in a militarized space environment, becomes a problem.

Rods from gods(thor) is an option played up much more than it is practical.

It costs a good amount of money to send these things into space, and to maintain them. Even harder to update them against the latest ground based threats.

If/when an enemy starts using these(and only the larger countries will even be able to think about using them, really), they will be shot out of the sky, by either nuclear or conventional weaponry.

Even if you can invest enough cash to send up enough THOR systems, keep them adequetly defended, etc, you are only good up till the point of launch. Anti-javelin missiles could knock off/out the guidance. ECM could knock out the guidance. Smart manuvering could evade the javelin(though less common). When you realize that you have just spent hundreds of millions of dollars launching and maintaining satelite systems, for the chance to try to pre-emptively destroy the enemy fleet, you might figure that it wasn't worth it. If you can spend enough cash to deploy the system, maintain it, launch systems to defend, maintain the defense, etc, you are probably top dog as it is. I would much rather just purchase a multi-stage ICBM, that can be retrofitted on the ground, which can bring a small nuke into space, launch it at the THOR at multiple times the speed of sound(as in 10-20), and wipe it out. You realize that its much easier to keep track of one space weapon, than hundreds of enemy ships?

You realize that its much easier to keep track of one space weapon, than hundreds of enemy ships?
Not to mention how hard it will be to HIT something from space?

And just how are you going to hit it if your THOR system happens to be on the otherside of the planet when it is needed?

So they're recreating the Vietnam Swiftboats and Monitors again? Well...good luck to 'em. Are the Iraqi waterways a major threat to Coalition forces?

There will be threats as soon as the Americans put floating targets to shoot RPG’s at. They might start referring to the Tigris as the Arcade River if they start sending them up there.

Rods from gods(thor) is an option played up much more than it is practical.

It costs a good amount of money to send these things into space, and to maintain them. Even harder to update them against the latest ground based threats.

Except that the basic THOR system is quite cheap. Yes, you have the cost of launching them, but a single shuttle launch could carry ten or so, significantly amortizing the cost.
Even cheaper would be to manufacture and launch systems from the moon, but I doubt China is looking to do that anytime soon. As for protection against threats, why bother? A single ground-based attack could only take out ONE javelin - at which point you use the remainder.


If/when an enemy starts using these(and only the larger countries will even be able to think about using them, really), they will be shot out of the sky, by either nuclear or conventional weaponry.


By what? An incoming javelin is surrounded by a plasma sheath, making conventional munitions useless - even if they had the speed and accuracy to intercept one, and we aren't even close to having that capability. A nuke could take out an incoming javelin, but then you're setting off nuclear warheads above your own assets - which means you're probably doing more damage than the javelin would. After all, with a less than one minute flight time, the javelin would probably be pretty close before your nuke intercepted it.


Even if you can invest enough cash to send up enough THOR systems, keep them adequetly defended, etc, you are only good up till the point of launch. Anti-javelin missiles could knock off/out the guidance.

Couldn't intercept. Couldn't penetrate the plasma sheath even if it did.


ECM could knock out the guidance.

Unlikely, but possible. ECMing modern missiles works about 5% of the time, so you could consider that the likely success rate for ECMing a javelin.


Smart manuvering could evade the javelin(though less common).


Yes, possible but unlikely. The speed differential between a surface ship and an incoming javelin is too high to make it likely; add in the fact that a near miss would probably be lethal to a ship and it ceases to be a real option.


When you realize that you have just spent hundreds of millions of dollars launching and maintaining satelite systems, for the chance to try to pre-emptively destroy the enemy fleet, you might figure that it wasn't worth it.[QUOTE]

It works because you're still ahead on the economic curve. You've spent hundreds of millions; your target has spent billions on tht shipping. I figure you could orbit 1000 javelins for the cost of one President- class carrier.

[QUOTE]I would much rather just purchase a multi-stage ICBM, that can be retrofitted on the ground, which can bring a small nuke into space, launch it at the THOR at multiple times the speed of sound(as in 10-20), and wipe it out.

The only problem is, your nuke would take out precisely one javelin. Nukes are no better than a big conventional warhead in space; there's no shockwave, and the temperature and radiation waves are less than what you're regularly exposed to by the sun anyway.

You realize that its much easier to keep track of one space weapon, than hundreds of enemy ships?

Only partially true. THOR javelins are dispersed for use; getting a solid his one one is easy, finding them all is hard, especially since they aren't very big. Tracking a ship from space, on the other hand, is ludicrously easy for a modern spy satellite.

Meanwhile, Nervun:

Not to mention how hard it will be to HIT something from space?

And just how are you going to hit it if your THOR system happens to be on the otherside of the planet when it is needed?

Hitting something from space isn't hard; just use a pattern-seeking visual system for final acquisition, after being vectored down by RADAR guidance from the command unit (the THOR javelin itself cannot use RADAR because of the plasma sheath that will enclose it during it's transit of the atmosphere, but visual systems will still work).

As to which side of the planet, THOR systems would need to be decentralized for protection anyway. You would have javelins over all sides of the planet all the time.

Isn't that a job for the Coast Guard...?

I mean, at least the Coast Guard should have expirience in using boats on rivers. (And their expirience in dealing with criminals would make them invaluable for counter-insurgency in Iraq.)

THOR is a program that should not be developed. It directly threatens global peace and security by making a first strike more likely.

If a nation deploys any such system, they will be asking for war, given the speed with which the system can be employed once it is deployed. Any nation looking at a possible war will decide to face a probable war where the enemy 'Thor' system has been neutralized.

That is to say, if China develops a 'Thor' system and it looks like shots are going to be traded over Taiwan with the US, the US will strike first. The US will use whatever A-sat device(s) are deemed nessesary to destroy a hole in the 'Thor' coverage large enough for its fleet and ground forces to operate in. Once it does that, it will scramble to destroy the launch and C3 facilities for the 'Thor' system before more of the satteilites can be brought to bear. Furthermore, the US and her allies would engage in a blitzkrieg against the Chinese in the hopes of forcing them to capitulate before this system can be brought to bear (again).

And that's to say nothing of the ease with which some hacker would find it to make one of those things fall on an American vessel and precipitate a war between the US and China. Or any two other nations, for that matter.

True as far as it goes, Jerusalas. But the best ASAT weaponry is space-based itself; you're talking about a battle for supremacy in orbit. Exactly what I said would happen.

The problem is, with both sides ready for a possible confrontation, win or lose America loses it's fleet. China orders a full strike on US military assets the minute one of their units comes under attack.

Should the US then win the orbit war, they could rebuild. But having seen the effectiveness of THOR, other countries would start constructing their own versions. Unless the US were willing to deny other contries access to space, they have every right to.

Not to mention that the US itself would see a THOR system as vital to it's own national interests.

THOR can't do a lot of things. It can't for instance, do much more than dent a well dispersed infantry force (there are orbital weapon systems that can do things about infantry, but they're much higher tech and beyond the scope of this discussion). It cant really damage a hardened defense bunker fifty meters below ground.

What it CAN do is sink every ship on the planet in a matter of minutes. A slightly more sensitive version could do the same for tanks.

SHOULD it be built? "Should" doesn't come into it. The capacity to do something means that sooner or later someone will see a reason to create one. Currently, China has a good reason - the US 7th Fleet. And I read China as cold-blooded enough to do it.

True as far as it goes, Jerusalas. But the best ASAT weaponry is space-based itself; you're talking about a battle for supremacy in orbit. Exactly what I said would happen.

The problem is, with both sides ready for a possible confrontation, win or lose America loses it's fleet. China orders a full strike on US military assets the minute one of their units comes under attack.

Should the US then win the orbit war, they could rebuild. But having seen the effectiveness of THOR, other countries would start constructing their own versions. Unless the US were willing to deny other contries access to space, they have every right to.

Not to mention that the US itself would see a THOR system as vital to it's own national interests.

THOR can't do a lot of things. It can't for instance, do much more than dent a well dispersed infantry force (there are orbital weapon systems that can do things about infantry, but they're much higher tech and beyond the scope of this discussion). It cant really damage a hardened defense bunker fifty meters below ground.

What it CAN do is sink every ship on the planet in a matter of minutes. A slightly more sensitive version could do the same for tanks.

SHOULD it be built? "Should" doesn't come into it. The capacity to do something means that sooner or later someone will see a reason to create one. Currently, China has a good reason - the US 7th Fleet. And I read China as cold-blooded enough to do it.


And once again, you're missing the big picture.



You assume that an intense militarization of space wouldn't instigate a conflict in the first place. You would have to have thousands of them in orbit to be strategically effective. That's hundreds, if not thousands of orbital launches.

You would also have to assume that the exact location of every ship is known at all times and that counter measures wouldn't be developed.

You stated that it would precede an invasion. W/ what? If you say there would be no ships left, then that would leave planes which CANNOT move enough troops to be effective in one shot.

If one nation attempted to wipe out the entire fleet of another, an all out strike would be declared including nukes.

Either way, it in no way creates an atmosphere where capitol surface ships would be "obsolete" and that nations wouldn't continue to build them.


BTW. The majority of electronics are NOT hardened against massive EMP like that created by a nuclear burst. The only way to effectively do that is to encase them in lead.

And once again, you're missing the big picture.



You assume that an intense militarization of space wouldn't instigate a conflict in the first place. You would have to have thousands of them in orbit to be strategically effective. That's hundreds, if not thousands of orbital launches.

You would also have to assume that the exact location of every ship is known at all times and that counter measures wouldn't be developed.

You stated that it would precede an invasion. W/ what? If you say there would be no ships left, then that would leave planes which CANNOT move enough troops to be effective in one shot.

If one nation attempted to wipe out the entire fleet of another, an all out strike would be declared including nukes.

Either way, it in no way creates an atmosphere where capitol surface ships would be "obsolete" and that nations wouldn't continue to build them.


BTW. The majority of electronics are NOT hardened against massive EMP like that created by a nuclear burst. The only way to effectively do that is to encase them in lead.


Sorry, but, bollocks Kecibukia. Practically all military electronics these days are TEMPEST shielded - quite immune to the effect of a nuke's EMP, which is actually quite weak.

As for miltarization causing a conflict in the first place - possible, but highly unlikely. Two nuclear powers cannot attack each other like that - it's suicide. Instead, the US would try to match capabilities and reduce vulnerability - which would include the drawdown and elimination of the surface fleet, since they couldn't protect them.

THOR doesn't have to be used to eliminate the surface fleets. It just has to be there. No one will continue to build manifestly useless and expensive weapons systems. Surface ships will go the way of Dreadnaughts, and for the same reason - uselessness.

Sorry, but, bollocks Kecibukia. Practically all military electronics these days are TEMPEST shielded - quite immune to the effect of a nuke's EMP, which is actually quite weak.

"TEMPEST" sheilding is designed to prevent emissions and are NOT designed to protect against nuclear EMP, which is huge. Where do you get this nonsense from? Do some reading.

As for miltarization causing a conflict in the first place - possible, but highly unlikely. Two nuclear powers cannot attack each other like that - it's suicide. Instead, the US would try to match capabilities and reduce vulnerability - which would include the drawdown and elimination of the surface fleet, since they couldn't protect them.

To "match" capabilites would include counter-measures. The surface fleet provides more force projection than any other service. It would not be eliminated. You also keep assuming that whatever force would be able to field enought that could eliminate the entire surface fleet w/o a reaction from the other side. Apparently you've never heard of the Cuban Missile crisis.

THOR doesn't have to be used to eliminate the surface fleets. It just has to be there. No one will continue to build manifestly useless and expensive weapons systems. Surface ships will go the way of Dreadnaughts, and for the same reason - uselessness.

And this statement clearly shows you know very little about the capabilities and missions of the Navy.

That would mean no more:

Mine hunting
Mine Laying
rescue operations
maritime patrols
aircraft force projection
artillery support
etc. the list goes on.

What threats? Aside from the Cole incident, there haven't been any recent attacks that used boats.

The Navy's probably just getting antsy. After all, it won't be long before surface warships are abolished completely.

The USN operates more combat aircraft than the whole USAF. Their ability to deploy combat capabilties globably within hours is a tribute to modern mobile warfare. Read the Influence of Seapower Upon History by AT Mahan before saying complete fallacies.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13529

Errrrrrrrrrrrrr.... which threat is that exactly? The notorious Zarqawi Viking Longboat brigade?

it's pretty dangerous to assume that we have knowledge of all possible threats...

it's pretty dangerous to assume that we have knowledge of all possible threats...

True, the Suicide Triremes are undergoing a refit, I believe. I think they're getting sails or something.

Hitting something from space isn't hard; just use a pattern-seeking visual system for final acquisition, after being vectored down by RADAR guidance from the command unit (the THOR javelin itself cannot use RADAR because of the plasma sheath that will enclose it during it's transit of the atmosphere, but visual systems will still work).
I admit that my grasp of the math needed for orbital mechanics is weak, but I know enough to have some problems with your statement. Hitting the PLANET is easy, hitting an exact point that is MOVING (and a very small point at that) is not. Especially when you consider that your sat is moving very, very fast and the planet is also moving very, very fast.

Or to put it another way, when Mir was brought down, the target area in the Pacific was what, a hundred or so sq kilometers wide?

As to which side of the planet, THOR systems would need to be decentralized for protection anyway. You would have javelins over all sides of the planet all the time.
Earth = Very big. THOR rod = very small. To enable coverage that would actually mean anything to target moving objects, you'd have to put more sats up than the GPS system into geo orbit. Now I seriously doubt that the US would let China start launching that many sats up into space without a responce before they got all of them up.

The Navy is meant to control the waterways and project massive destructive power inland, not to control said inland.

To "match" capabilites would include counter-measures.

Which would be what? You can't intercept it, you can't stop it.

The surface fleet provides more force projection than any other service. It would not be eliminated.

It can only provide force projection if it is a credible threat. THOR stops it from being a credible threat. It simply becomes a financial failure with no upside.
Everything the fleet can do can be done by air power, save perhaps minehunting. Take the money for the one, place it in the other, you still have the capability, but no fleet.

You also keep assuming that whatever force would be able to field enought that could eliminate the entire surface fleet w/o a reaction from the other side.

No, I'm making no such assumption. THOR's mere existence is sufficient. A dreadnought can be protected from aircraft by other aircraft - but it is still without worth in a modern war. THOR means, inevitably, the end of surface fleets, by it's mere existence.

Apparently you've never heard of the Cuban Missile crisis.


Which was about missile capabilities and ranges, and had nothing to do with fleet capabilities. What are you failing to imply?

That would mean no more:

Mine hunting
Mine Laying
rescue operations
maritime patrols
aircraft force projection
artillery support
etc. the list goes on.

Almost all of which can be done, and in many cases better, by aircraft. And which warships would be unable to do if sunk.
As for aircraft force projection, hypersonic atmosphere skipping aircraft will be with us soon enough.

from NERVUN:
I admit that my grasp of the math needed for orbital mechanics is weak, but I know enough to have some problems with your statement. Hitting the PLANET is easy, hitting an exact point that is MOVING (and a very small point at that) is not. Especially when you consider that your sat is moving very, very fast and the planet is also moving very, very fast.

Or to put it another way, when Mir was brought down, the target area in the Pacific was what, a hundred or so sq kilometers wide?


A fair point, but do remember thay Mir was neither designed for reentry, had a heat shield, or came in powered. Mir tumbled and broke up, scattering itself across a wide area.
THOR javelins are designed to reenter and home on their targets.

Earth = Very big. THOR rod = very small. To enable coverage that would actually mean anything to target moving objects, you'd have to put more sats up than the GPS system into geo orbit. Now I seriously doubt that the US would let China start launching that many sats up into space without a responce before they got all of them up.

Also true. But what could the US do? Commit planetary suicide by going to war?

Which would be what? You can't intercept it, you can't stop it.

It can be prevented from firing or aquiring a target.



It can only provide force projection if it is a credible threat. THOR stops it from being a credible threat. It simply becomes a financial failure with no upside.

No it doesn't . You would have to assume that everyone has it or that they would use it against every type of force projection in every location.

Everything the fleet can do can be done by air power, save perhaps minehunting. Take the money for the one, place it in the other, you still have the capability, but no fleet.

And a huge part of the Navy is air power. Where do you think planes land? Do you think we have bases in every country in the entire world? You also have to provide some evidence as to the effectiveness of airpower exclusively.



No, I'm making no such assumption. THOR's mere existence is sufficient. A dreadnought can be protected from aircraft by other aircraft - but it is still without worth in a modern war. THOR means, inevitably, the end of surface fleets, by it's mere existence.

Only if you ignore every other aspect of warfare that there is which you seem to be doing.



Which was about missile capabilities and ranges, and had nothing to do with fleet capabilities. What are you failing to imply?

Which was about a hostile reaction to a developing threat.




Almost all of which can be done, and in many cases better, by aircraft. And which warships would be unable to do if sunk.
As for aircraft force projection, hypersonic atmosphere skipping aircraft will be with us soon enough.

And these aircraft would land where? They would be able to stay on station for months?



A fair point, but do remember thay Mir was neither designed for reentry, had a heat shield, or came in powered. Mir tumbled and broke up, scattering itself across a wide area.
THOR javelins are designed to reenter and home on their targets.

Using sensetive electronics that can be disabled or jammed.




Also true. But what could the US do? Commit planetary suicide by going to war?

Once again, read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis. They US threatened all out war if the Soviets put missiles , which threatened the US, on Cuban soil.

You don't think it would happen again if a nation tried to establish a method to wipe out the entire US military and its infrastructure?

You can keep this up all you want. All you keep doing is showing you know very little about politics, electronics, physics, force projection, deterrence, history, or military capabilities.

It can be prevented from firing or aquiring a target.

Ah, this would be the same way we prevent missiles from doing the same thing? Or, more accurately, FIND IT PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO? Electronic countermeasures may have some effect, but nowhere near enough. If they can't jam an incoming sea-skimmer in a period of minutes, how are they supposed to do the same thing to an incoming javelin in a matter of seconds?



No it doesn't . You would have to assume that everyone has it or that they would use it against every type of force projection in every location.


Okay, I can see that. It would still be useful against countries without orbital systems. I just can't see us spending the money on smething that will be gone in minutes when we need it most. Much more effective to spend the cash on hardened facilities and untargettable aircraft.


And a huge part of the Navy is air power. Where do you think planes land? Do you think we have bases in every country in the entire world? You also have to provide some evidence as to the effectiveness of airpower exclusively.


We don't need bases in every country, just a reasonable network, which we have. With current technology, we have B2 bombers lifting off from the US, flying to the mid-east, making an attack, and flying home. We can actually do the same with fighters. Having Carriers on sation is nice, but we don't actually need them, as long as we can mid-air refuel.
As for damage levels - naval bombardment today is exclusively the province of missiles anyway. These can be launched from aircraft, ground stations, or submerged submarines - any of which would be immune to THOR strikes if properly deployed.


And these aircraft would land where? They would be able to stay on station for months?


As i've said before, operation out of hardened facilities would not be interdictable by a THOR system. And aircraft don't need to stay on station for months.


Using sensetive electronics that can be disabled or jammed.


Ah, by the non-existent magical jamming technology you alluded to before, I suppose?


Once again, read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis. They US threatened all out war if the Soviets put missiles , which threatened the US, on Cuban soil.

You don't think it would happen again if a nation tried to establish a method to wipe out the entire US military and its infrastructure?


If THOR were capable of doing that - sure. If they started orbiting nukes - probably. Neither of those things are in this conjecture.

The only real response that would be valid would be for the US to set up it's own systems in space. Equal capabilities means stability.

You can keep this up all you want. All you keep doing is showing you know very little about politics, electronics, physics, force projection, deterrence, history, or military capabilities.

And you clearly haven't given this matter any real thought. Is it any wonder your arguments hold no weight?

Ah, this would be the same way we prevent missiles from doing the same thing? Or, more accurately, FIND IT PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO? Electronic countermeasures may have some effect, but nowhere near enough. If they can't jam an incoming sea-skimmer in a period of minutes, how are they supposed to do the same thing to an incoming javelin in a matter of seconds?

They can jam them and also misdirect them. They would also have to have the exact location of each target at all times. Hard to do w/ a mobile force.




Okay, I can see that. It would still be useful against countries without orbital systems. I just can't see us spending the money on smething that will be gone in minutes when we need it most. Much more effective to spend the cash on hardened facilities and untargettable aircraft.

Hardened facilities would still be a target. Aircraft CANNOT do all the jobs of an onstation ship.



We don't need bases in every country, just a reasonable network, which we have. With current technology, we have B2 bombers lifting off from the US, flying to the mid-east, making an attack, and flying home. We can actually do the same with fighters. Having Carriers on sation is nice, but we don't actually need them, as long as we can mid-air refuel.
As for damage levels - naval bombardment today is exclusively the province of missiles anyway. These can be launched from aircraft, ground stations, or submerged submarines - any of which would be immune to THOR strikes if properly deployed.

For an effective military action. Onstation carriers are a necessity. Especially multi-task ones like the US deploys. Look at the situation in the Falklands. The UK forces got hurt because they didn't have enough aircraft in the area. You CANNOT keep fighters in the air in enough numbers to be effective over long distances.

Now look at all the other tasks I've mentioned.



As i've said before, operation out of hardened facilities would not be interdictable by a THOR system. And aircraft don't need to stay on station for months.[/qoute]

And hardened stations would become prime targets. Aircraft don't "need" to now because we have fleets available.



[QUOTE=Dododecapod]Ah, by the non-existent magical jamming technology you alluded to before, I suppose?

Just like TEMPTEST protects against EMP? Seems we have quite a bit of that technology already. Ever heard of an EA-6B?



If THOR were capable of doing that - sure. If they started orbiting nukes - probably. Neither of those things are in this conjecture.

The only real response that would be valid would be for the US to set up it's own systems in space. Equal capabilities means stability.

Wait, you've already said that the THOR system could take out the entire US fleet and most of the military. You don't think that's a direct threat? Which is it?

What you just said means "deterrance" You sink ours, we'll sink yours. Hence,fleets would still be there to carry out all the other jobs.



And you clearly haven't given this matter any real thought. Is it any wonder your arguments hold no weight?

So far you've presented no actual evidence, have been incorrect on numerous details (EMP, TEMPEST, deterrence, projection, history, ECM, etc.), and have no concept of military capabilities. Seems the only person who supports your hypothesis is you.

The fleet just sends in the Sea Air and Land Teams.

A fair point, but do remember thay Mir was neither designed for reentry, had a heat shield, or came in powered. Mir tumbled and broke up, scattering itself across a wide area.
THOR javelins are designed to reenter and home on their targets.
You're talking about a rod the size of a telephone pole, it will lock onto targets from orbit, yes, but this assumes that with the release SOMETHING doesn't happen. Also, the bloody things can't manuver once released, they just drop.

Finally, when re-entering, they WILL be blind. We don't have anything that can actually see when coming back through the atmosphere at those speeds and heat.

Also true. But what could the US do? Commit planetary suicide by going to war?
I wouldn't be surprised. Like I said, you're talking a lot of launches, no one, not even the US, is capable of launching, say 50 sats, at once without a massive drain on resources or letting the whole world know. It would be detcted and the US would respond to that.

Not to mention rockets make nice targets going up.

Shit give the Bitches Garrison duty and or dock work.

Your country has a navy ? well it projects force and it defends your trade routes . it also is supposed to defend your coast and provide security against invasion ...so whats your point ?

As I recall, the only way to harden a building against EMP is to essentially wrap chicken wire cage around it. But even that is unlikely to work.

Building something that's proof against EMP is, in short, about as useful as building something that's proof against a direct hit from a nuclear weapon. Neither is likely to succeed.

The Navy ill's me so the sooner they are diverted from harrasing my harrasing the better!
Damnit me and the boys need some Plunder!