Editor's
Mail
On naval
power
----- Original Message -----
From: "physics engineering" <physics@tasmail.com>
To: <editor@petroleumworld.com>
Cc: <physics@tasmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:54 AM
Subject: naval power article
Dear Sir/Madam,
I read with interest the recent article by George Freidman on
U.S naval power and its limits .
I thank you for airing this article as it demonstrated much of
the U.S rationale (as they see it) for force it exerts globally
as well as the short sighted hubris they fail to see in the real
vulnerability to their naval capabilities.
Sceptics argue that contrary to U.S claims of peaceful international
enforcement by use of its naval power, it is in reality an obtrusive
implicit threat designed to protect U.S interests globally and
maintain its primacy which by virtue of isolation, luck and cravenness
in World War II, it happened to emerge unscathed compared to
other nations and took advantage of that convienient alteration
in the world.
Friedman fails to explore specific weaknesses in U.S naval forces
which nonetheless exist and have been quietly analysed including
this writer.
Rather than portraying U.S naval forces are very powerful, a
more accurate and dispassionate description sees these forces
as hollow threats and indeed highly vulnerable targets which
will inevitably fail if pitted against methodologies designed
to bypass and exploit their weaknesses.
Passive opposition can come from allies and opponents opposing
access to national ports, visits etc and taking popular protests
to the streets, government representations and anti U.S actions
if U.S ships do visit a port.
Governments too can passively deny and stonewall U.S plans from
bans out of protest to stymie U.S intent by being a part of a
coalition but deliberately getting inside to disrupt the whole
scheme (the Trojan horse effect).
Overt counters can come from new Air Independent Propulsion submarines
which can defeat U.S detection and with this invulnerability
gain 'anti access' to whole ocean regions where these submarines
can operate with impunity and 'bottle up' U.S naval forces, for
fear of losing a few aircraft carriers.
European AIP technology already grants a few navies this ability
and already imposes limits on where U.S ships can go now and
in future if these submarines proliferate.
In effect they are "stealth bombers" for the under
seas, acting with impunity and the U.S has no counter.
Finally a new option devised by this writer and designed to negate
U.S naval power or any other aggressor concerns the so called
'sharkpack' system.
A modular saturation missile strike/surveillance system.
Using low cost modern or commercial platforms with modern electronics,
an aft door and wired external pylons and sensors, palletised
modules can be rolled in /out in hours to reconfigure aircraft,
fast multi hull ships, helicopters or trucks into distributed cruise missile
launchers.
Even small nations can convert to this system and low cost and
have the ability to detect approaching U.S naval forces (configured
in patrol mode) and then convert the same platforms into saturation
attack anti ship platforms (which friedman touches on but fails
to address new low cost platformry).
Modern cargo planes can carry up to 20 + missiles internally,
with self defence long range air to air missiles they become
flying battle stations (plus with local figher escort) akin to
U.S practice where bombers are escorted by fighters etc).
Only a small number of platforms in a conflict would be needed
to
dispatch a few carrier battle groups with 50 platforms capable
of
firing salvo's of over 1000 anti ship missiles of varying types
to overwhelm U.S naval forces.
Multi vector, multi type missiles launched outside U.S fighters
and other defences shift the advantage back to the defender and
grant anti access capability to any nation with this modular
system.
Distributed, low cost, simple and with autonomous operation doctrine
would only need a few platforms to pose such a threat to U.S
naval targets that the U.s would dare not venture for fear of
losing entire battle groups.
Those of us who have been doing these studies have now seen through
the bluster of U.s hubris and now see the U.S naval and indeed
military capability for what it truely is, slow hulking targets
easily dispatched by low cost saturation attack launched from
long range out of todays platforms.
If U.S world aggression is to be halted, its probably inevitable
that nations will adopt the sharkpack methodology to even the
odds and give even small nations the ability to sink entire careir
battle groups if threatened .
Its egalitarian and the future now we can see the US for the
hollowness and vulnerability it really is .
Oddly the Soviet attack system probably would have worked in
a cold war turned hot, as the key is to not match ship for ship
prowess, but to find the most efficient force to break the weakest
link in the chain that is the steel hulk of the U.S navy.
In this case saturation attack, overwhelming the defence and
now of low lost to enable nearly anyone to stop the U.S naval
force with this new system.
Anti ship missiles are widely available, it just needs the right
packaging.......
Thanks for airing Mr Friedmans illuminating but error filled
paper.
All the best,
Phil
--
www.tasmail.com
We
invite all our readers to share with us
their views and comments about this article.
Your feedback is important to us!
Send
this story to a friend
Write
to: editor@ petroleumworld.com
