It’s good to see that our renewed investment in and all-hands focus on anti-submarine warfare is finally paying off.
Meh.
|
|||||
Maritime Dominance1 comment to Maritime Dominance |
 Military members find information on homes for military by visiting Military Homes.com  |
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Heh,
Notice how they went for the oiler first, and that with multiple escorts about her?
Now, I’ve sounded like a broken record for several years about this subject, but we are deluding ourselves if we believe we can maintain a suitable supply line to an extended fleet if/when war with China comes.
Our ASW & damage-control training is seconded to “diversity” and other PC needs. We have fewer escorts tasked with multiple missions and smaller crews. Crews that will be hard-pressed to control any incurred damage due to reduced manning levels.
We do NOT have the logistical support we would require to effectively maintain our fleet against an enemy during an elevated conflict. Foward staging of supplies? That only works if the enemy doesn’t have missiles with enough range to hit them. You needn’t have nuclear warheads to disrupt supply depots. Just massive HE or even chemical warheads would render such forward bases untenable as a reliable source.
We are right and proper to engage the forces of radical Islam wherever we may find them. They are, in fact, a clear & present danger to our nation, as well as western civilization generally. However, we MUST not let our guard down vis-a-vis China and that nation’s expansionist aims.
China currently has (or soon will have) a 60-boat fleet of diesal-electric boats capable of blue-water ops. She has boomers, and is looking at nuclear fast attack boats. She is developing carrier avaiation. Those are the in-your-face signs of a nation who plans to extend it’s sphere of influence to the borders of other nations.
We relive the 1930’s at our own peril, and this time with much higher stakes for everyone involved.