View Full Version : Op-Ed re Navy decline
Roguish Lawyer
03-02-2011, 11:39
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166362512952294.html?m od=e2fb
silentreader
03-02-2011, 12:49
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/03/navy-ships-idUSN0319052120100203
Former chief arms buyer John Young had predicted a year ago
that the cost of each of the destroyers could reach $5.96
billion, nearly double the expected price tag of $3.3 billion.
Think the price tag of a modern warship might have something to do with it?
It's an interesting op-ed, but the issue demands (and I'm sure has received) a much more thorough discussion. I'm certainly not well-informed or qualified enough to lead it, but hopefully this article will get more knowledgeable folks talking; it seems to me like a comprehensive discussion of the role of our Navy in our grand-strategy is called for.
Admiral Mahan would be rolling in his grave...
.......Think the price tag of a modern warship might have something to do with it? ...........
Price? The price must also include what a modern, up to date Navy saves us.
What are the Somali Pirates costing world shipping and countries? There is of course the stated cost of the ransoms but then we have to add in the additional costs not so easy to dig out.
Our Navy is key to our Force Projection.
In the 1980s the Brits were able to sail down to the other side of the world and take the Falklands back. They would be hard pressed to do that again today.
The China vs Tiawan issue is not settled yet and one of our big sticks is our Navy.
A Frigate is not something you can snap your fingers and get one over night. Takes time - lots of time to get one.
Price? The price must also include what a modern, up to date Navy saves us.
What are the Somali Pirates costing world shipping and countries? There is of course the stated cost of the ransoms but then we have to add in the additional costs not so easy to dig out.
Our Navy is key to our Force Projection.
In the 1980s the Brits were able to sail down to the other side of the world and take the Falklands back. They would be hard pressed to do that again today.
The China vs Tiawan issue is not settled yet and one of our big sticks is our Navy.
A Frigate is not something you can snap your fingers and get one over night. Takes time - lots of time to get one.
Yes sir. That is a fact. There is nothing like someone looking from their shoreline and seeing the U.S. Navy out there waiting to let loose. It is definitely key to our force projection.
The Creepy One
03-02-2011, 13:31
It would be nice to see the Navy built back up to something like its 1980's strength.
Yes sir. That is a fact. There is nothing like someone looking from their shoreline and seeing the U.S. Navy out there waiting to let loose. It is definitely key to our force projection.
Maybe they'll bring back the Iowa's. The threat of those big guns waiting to open up would bring a lot of people to the negotiation table I would think.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/03/navy-ships-idUSN0319052120100203
Think the price tag of a modern warship might have something to do with it? https://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/IndexPages/Index-by-Subject.aspx
It's an interesting op-ed, but the issue demands (and I'm sure has received) a much more thorough discussion. I'm certainly not well-informed or qualified enough to lead it, but hopefully this article will get more knowledgeable folks talking; it seems to me like a comprehensive discussion of the role of our Navy in our grand-strategy is called for.SR--
The search button truly is your friend <<LINK (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navy.mil%2Fmaritime%2FMaritim estrategy.pdf&rct=j&q=united%20states%20navy%20strategy&ei=76FuTcOPC5D2swPGl8C7Cw&usg=AFQjCNG8_uRaePx-1yGPdcazyjDKITRjcg&cad=rja)>> <<LINK2 (https://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/IndexPages/Index-by-Subject.aspx)>>!:o
Maybe they'll bring back the Iowa's. The threat of those big guns waiting to open up would bring a lot of people to the negotiation table I would think.Alas, this option is unlikely <<LINK3 (http://www.portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/2010_releases/news_111810_USSIowa.asp)>>.
Think the price tag of a modern warship might have something to do with it?
Now that statement certainly demonstrates a firm grasp of the obvious.
As for the debate - a couple of thoughts.
Does the Navy have to pay MSRP for its ships? And if so, why? It might be interesting to know why.
A missing piece of the argument to me is the question of quantity vs quality vs cost. How many of the latest, greatest, most technologically advanced and >$$$ ships do we 'really' need to support the strategy and how many maybe newer but less advanced (and <$$$) ships could 'really' be used to support our strategic vision? :confused:
Richard :munchin
silentreader
03-02-2011, 14:56
SR--
The search button truly is your friend <<LINK (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navy.mil%2Fmaritime%2FMaritim estrategy.pdf&rct=j&q=united%20states%20navy%20strategy&ei=76FuTcOPC5D2swPGl8C7Cw&usg=AFQjCNG8_uRaePx-1yGPdcazyjDKITRjcg&cad=rja)>> <<LINK2 (https://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/IndexPages/Index-by-Subject.aspx)>>!:o
Sigaba-
Good links, and yes- I'm aware that we haven't been ignoring naval strategy in the past. I actually got to sit in on a very interesting conference in Chicago on the Laws of War that featured three speakers from the Naval War College, and they touched on several issues of maritime strategy (especially the challenges of responding to the situation in Somalia). I was talking more about a discussion at a more public level- I predict that there will be a barrage of op-eds and articles in response to this particular one.
QP Pete-
Excellent points, and there's no doubt in my mind that control of the high seas is a great strategic asset for our country. To that extent, I broadly agree with the op-ed. However, there are a lot of questions that are barely touched upon or not mentioned at all in the op-ed- most of which are, I'm sure, addressed by Sigaba's reading packets :-) that are worth talking about. The bottom line is that in the midst of two wars where naval power is a secondary asset at best and facing down a giant budget deficit, there's not going to be an unlimited pot of money for the Navy to draw out of. What needs to be discussed is how big should that pot be and how should it be allocated (are the new, $5 billion destroyers good investments, for example).
edit- Just read QP Richard's post. That's exactly the type of question I'm trying to get at, but expressed in a much more coherent way.
Sigaba-
Good links, and yes- I'm aware that we haven't been ignoring naval strategy in the past. I actually got to sit in on a very interesting conference in Chicago on the Laws of War that featured three speakers from the Naval War College, and they touched on several issues of maritime strategy (especially the challenges of responding to the situation in Somalia).Was it this conference <<LINK (http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/ilrsymposium/2011_laws_war.html)>>? I was talking more about a discussion at a more public level- I predict that there will be a barrage of op-eds and articles in response to this particular one.IMO, the demarcation points among levels of discourse on American naval affairs are much more blurred. The navy does this blurring intentionally for a number of reasons, although not as effectively as it once did.
silentreader
03-02-2011, 15:38
Was it this conference <<LINK (http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/ilrsymposium/2011_laws_war.html)>>?
It was. The search button is strong in you.
As for the issue of size of the Navy, one of my biggest problems with the Op-ed was that it kept talking about the number of ships as if there was no change in capabilities or mission of those individual ships. This is from a paper written by the Congressional Research Service called "Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding plans: Background Issues for Congress" (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf) and it states these concerns fairly neatly.
Appendix A. Comparing Past Ship Force Levels to Proposed 313-Ship Force Level
One possible method for assessing the Navy’s proposed 313-ship force level is to compare it to historical figures for total Navy fleet size. Historical figures for total fleet size, however, might not be a reliable yardstick for assessing the appropriateness of the Navy’s proposed 313-ship fleet, particularly if the historical figures are more than a few years old, because the missions to be performed by the Navy, the mix of ships that make up the Navy, and the technologies that are available to Navy ships for performing missions all change over time.
The Navy, for example, reached a late-cold war peak of 568 battle force ships at the end of FY1987,20 and as of July 16, 2010, had declined to a total of 289 battle force ships. The FY1987 fleet, however, was intended to meet a set of mission requirements that focused on countering Soviet naval forces at sea during a potential multi-theater NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, while the September 2009 fleet is intended to meet a considerably different set of mission requirements centered on influencing events ashore by countering both land- and sea-based military forces of potential regional threats other than Russia, including non-state terrorist organizations. In addition, the Navy of FY1987 differed substantially from the September 2009 fleet in areas such as profusion of precision-guided air-delivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and sophistication of C4ISR systems.21
In coming years, Navy missions may shift again, to include, as a possible example, a greater emphasis on being able to counter improved Chinese maritime military capabilities.22 In addition, the capabilities of Navy ships will likely have changed further by that time due to developments such as more comprehensive implementation of networking technology and increased use of ship- based unmanned vehicles.
The 568-ship fleet of FY1987 may or may not have been capable of performing its stated missions; the 289-ship fleet of July 2010 may or may not be capable of performing its stated missions; and a fleet years from now with a certain number of ships may or may not be capable of performing its stated missions. Given changes over time in mission requirements, ship mixes, and technologies, however, these three issues are to a substantial degree independent of one another.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions. An increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions is increasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be increasing more rapidly than ship numbers and average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to perform stated missions is decreasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be declining more rapidly than numbers of ships, or because average ship capability and the percentage of time that ships are in deployed locations might be increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in total ship numbers.
Previous Navy force structure plans, such as those shown in Table 1, might provide some insight into the potential adequacy of a proposed new force-structure plan, but changes over time in mission requirements, technologies available to ships for performing missions, and other force- planning factors suggest that some caution should be applied in using past force structure plans for this purpose, particularly if those past force structure plans are more than a few years old. The Reagan-era plan for a 600-ship Navy, for example, was designed for a cold war set of missions focusing on countering Soviet naval forces at sea, which is not an appropriate basis for planning the Navy today.
300 ships sounds like a lot of ships. Some portion of that number would be down for overhaul, others in port and others on the way out or in.
But you'll notice how long it's taking to get a good size number of ships off Libya. Takes time to move ships a great distance.
But as Richard said - just how expensive a ship do we need for tracking down Pirates off Somalia? Just how High Tech?
The big costs appear to be around the carriers. The escort ships need to be capable of anti air and anti sub defense.
But the Coast Guard seems to have the "law enforcement" class of ships in the larger cutters. Maybe time for the return of a few "Tin Can" squadrens without all the bells and wistles of the carrier escorts?
A missing piece of the argument to me is the question of quantity vs quality vs cost. How many of the latest, greatest, most technologically advanced and >$$$ ships do we 'really' need to support the strategy and how many maybe newer but less advanced (and <$$$) ships could 'really' be used to support our strategic vision? :confused:
Richard[/COLOR] :munchin
Exactly Richard,,
I think that the nature of Naval engagements are not what they were even 20 years ago.
They evolve and are evolving, much like the Air Force has.
Where the N & AF were once one of our primary in your face fighting outfits, they are not now. They are becoming the heavy transport systems for weapons such as the fighters. But even the fighters are becoming transport systems for sophisticated stand off weapons.
And as the UAV's march forward, these Heavy Transport systems will by necessity,, shrink.
Let me be frank,, There is a great need for in theater direct support. The A-10's, HELO's, Arty will not stop.
But the days of multi flights of Naval & Air Force support are numbered. Why have Tom Cruise in the air for two(2) hours,, waiting... When you can have a UAV for thirty(30) hours, carrying twice the load, with more accurate delivery, while the "handlers" are in air conditioned bunkers in Vegas.
I envision the next great naval vessels as ones that can deliver a gazillion self targeting surface to air weapons guarding other vessels that have a gazillion surface to surface weapons in support of ground operations, while they guard a bus load of Marines, waiting to unload at the port of choice to establish a BEACH HEAD around the BX.
Along these lines, I think the Marines should be moved to the Army as the Wet Ranger Brigades. They are not getting the respect they deserve as the Navy's Boat Boarding Boys in waiting. They deserve more..
What to do with the direct air support?? The Army has most of it already. A few more pilots and planes is not going to make that much difference.
My $00.0002 :munchin
Dozer523
03-02-2011, 16:18
A missing piece of the argument . . . to support the strategy and how many maybe newer but less advanced (and <$$$) ships could 'really' be used to support our strategic vision?
Richard :munchin
And who is the threat? China? Russia? Pirates? Land-based terroists?
What do they threaten? The wide blue sea? the various ponds? the narrow spots? the parts with resources?
Where is the threat? Our shores? our shipping? our friends?
And who is our ally? Can our friends be counted on to police some or must we be the world's "scrubbing bubble"?
And as the UAV's march forward, these Heavy Transport systems will by necessity,, shrink.My $00.0002 :munchin
Remember the Exocet missles during the Faulklands? That was unanticipated.
The big costs appear to be around the carriers. The escort ships need to be capable of anti air and anti sub defense. A pilot off the JFK explained that fully 1/2 of the ac were dedicated to Carrier defense.
The Creepy One
03-02-2011, 16:46
Alas, this option is unlikely <<LINK3 (http://www.portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/2010_releases/news_111810_USSIowa.asp)>>.
Aren't Wisconsin and Iowa required by Congress to kept maintained in case they're needed again? I think there's supposed to be a supply of spare 16Inch Rifles and Shells for them as well. I think that one of those might do very well for hunting down Pirates.
Aren't Wisconsin and Iowa required by Congress to kept maintained in case they're needed again? I think there's supposed to be a supply of spare 16Inch Rifles and Shells for them as well. I think that one of those might do very well for hunting down Pirates.
I think you may do well to look up 16inch guns.
They are an Area Denial Weapon.
About as precise as a rock thrown by your 1st sweet hart.....
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
This was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service. Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0 kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down. This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much.
As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made.
For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.
They are big but are not your JAG Espousing Politically Correct Civilian Safe, choice of BANG..
"A powerful Navy we have always regarded as our proper and natural means of defense; and it has always been of defense that we have thought, never of aggression or of conquest. But who shall tell us now what sort of Navy to build? We shall take leave to be strong upon the seas, in the future as in the past; and there will be no thought of offense or provocation in that. Our ships are our natural bulwarks."
President Woodrow Wilson, 8 December 1914, An Annual Message to Congress.
:munchin
The Creepy One
03-02-2011, 18:08
I think you may do well to look up 16inch guns.
They are an Area Denial Weapon.
About as precise as a rock thrown by your 1st sweet hart.....
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
This was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service. Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0 kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down. This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much.
As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made.
For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.
They are big but are not your JAG Espousing Politically Correct Civilian Safe, choice of BANG..
:munchin
Wow, that's an impressive weapon. Thanks, I didn't know that. (You learn something new every time you come here.)
Out of curiosity how would you QP's feel about having that kind of Naval Fire to call on?
The Reaper
03-02-2011, 19:03
Wow, that's an impressive weapon. Thanks, I didn't know that. (You learn something new every time you come here.)
Out of curiosity how would you QP's feel about having that kind of Naval Fire to call on?
Are you offering it?
TR
The Creepy One
03-02-2011, 19:19
No Sir. :)
If I crossed a line it was unintentional and you have my apologies.
Luckily for us they are a peaceful Democracy now...
With Russia's $650 billion rearmament plan, the bear sharpens its teeth
By Fred Weir – Mon Feb 28, 4:22 pm ET
Moscow – The graying bear is getting a make-over. Russia's military is launching its biggest rearmament effort since Soviet times, including a $650 billion program to procure 1,000 new helicopters, 600 combat planes, 100 warships, and 8 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.
Analysts say Russia, while already the world's fifth-largest military spender, needs strong conventional forces to reduce its overreliance on its aging Soviet-era nuclear missile deterrent. Valentin Rudenko, director of the independent Interfax-Military News Agency, says it could create "a whole new ballgame."
"For about two decades we've had no real modernization, at least not like what's being proposed now," he says. "Russia will finally have a modern, top-level armed forces that are capable of protecting the country."
Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin last week announced the unprecedented new outlays, which will see a massive re-equipping of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent as well as its conventional forces. The Defense Ministry today said the "modernization drive" will begin this year with the deployment of new generations of air defense and antimissile weapons by Russian ground forces.
The impressive shopping spree comes on the heels of a painful military reform that severely downsized Russia's conscript Army, eliminating 9 out of 10 Soviet-era units and cutting 200,000 officers. The goal now, experts say, is to equip Russia's new lean-and-mean, largely professional armed forces to face 21st-century threats.
These are mainly considered to be regional conflicts such as the brief 2008 Russo-Georgian war, which highlighted military shortcomings.
Much of the new spending will go toward revamping Russia's naval forces, which are slated to receive new submarines, 35 naval corvettes, 15 frigates, and 4 Mistral-type helicopter-transporting amphibious assault ships. Two of the $750 million Mistrals will be purchased from France, and two are to be constructed in Russian shipyards.
Some experts are deeply skeptical of the expenditures – especially the expensive purchase of Mistral helicopter carriers, which are designed to project power around the globe rather than fight the defensive and local wars that Russian military doctrine declares as the country's main priority.
"It's hard to see what our Navy needs these Mistral money pits for," says Viktor Baranets, a former defense ministry spokesman who's now military correspondent for the Moscow daily Komsomolskaya Pravda. He says they may be prestigious, "but they require a huge amount of protection. At any time, half the Russian Navy may be employed just escorting these ships around the world."
The new submarines will be designed to deploy a brand-new long-range nuclear missile, the Bulava, which has failed half of its flight tests so far. "Defense ministers can make promises, but no designer or engineer can promise that the Bulava will be operational in time," says Mr. Baranets.
Experts point out that most of the new weaponry to be procured is actually based on old, Soviet-era designs, including the Mi-28 helicopter gunship, the Mi-26 transport helicopter, and the Sukhoi Su-35 multirole fighter plane.
"These are all designs from the late Soviet period, and not really new at all," says Alexander Golts, military expert with the online newsmagazine Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "The lack of fresh designs shows the underlying weakness of our military-industrial complex."
The only truly new weapons being rolled out, says Mr. Golts, are the trouble-plagued Bulava missile and the much-hyped "fifth-generation" fighter plane that Russia is reportedly developing with India.
"We don't know enough about this Russian fifth-generation fighter to tell whether it is the real thing" – a futuristic stealth fighter comparable to the US Air Force's F-22 and F-35 warplanes – "or if it's just a jumped-up version of something old," says Golts.
Critics say that despite the huge sums of money slated to be injected into the rearmament program, it is far short of the amounts needed to revive Russia's moribund military-industrial complex, which has lost the vast network of subcontractors that existed in Soviet times.
"This is not the first time the Kremlin has talked about military modernization," says Golts. "But all previous programs have failed."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110228/wl_csm/366331
Dozer523
03-06-2011, 23:02
For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.
:munchin
Out of curiosity how would you QP's feel about having that kind of Naval Fire to call on? If a little is good a lot must be great.:D
Maybe time for the return of a few "Tin Can" squadrons without all the bells and whistles of the carrier escorts?FWIW, I agree.
I'd like to see squadrons comprised of
five or six frigates (two of which would specialize in ASW),
four destroyers,
a cruiser (which would provide air defense),
and some sort of amphibious assault ship that could launch and recover a rebooted/maritime version of the A-10.
ETA-- In order to revitalize American navalism and demonstrate America's commitment to GWOT and to freedom of the seas, the navy would use radically different naming conventions for vessels built for these squadrons.
Of course, Jimmy Carter and his defenders will point out that these squadrons were anticipated by Carter's preferred fleet force structure when he was president. In reply, someone would point out, "Maybe, but the difference between now and then is the Soviet navy."
In any case, the U.S. would be exquisitely ambiguous about the presence of nuclear weapons aboard the ships. Verily, the DoD would deny their presence so vehemently that the bad guys would have no doubts whatsoever. ;)
It would be nice to see the navy built back up to something like its 1980's strength.300 ships sounds like a lot of ships. Some portion of that number would be down for overhaul, others in port and others on the way out or in.
But you'll notice how long it's taking to get a good size number of ships off Libya. Takes time to move ships a great distance.AFIAK, the Reagan administration, the navy, and other proponents of the 600 ship fleet did not publicly discuss the fact that the 600 ship fleet was really a 200 ship fleet due to the way vessels were rotated. IMO, a big question is why?
ddoering
03-07-2011, 13:19
Now that statement certainly demonstrates a firm grasp of the obvious.
As for the debate - a couple of thoughts.
Does the Navy have to pay MSRP for its ships? And if so, why? It might be interesting to know why.
A missing piece of the argument to me is the question of quantity vs quality vs cost. How many of the latest, greatest, most technologically advanced and >$$$ ships do we 'really' need to support the strategy and how many maybe newer but less advanced (and <$$$) ships could 'really' be used to support our strategic vision? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Richard, are you trying to say we don't need multi-billion dollar ships to run down skinnies in rust buckets?
Of course that depends upon what our startegy is. Do we even have one at the moment. Considering the western world is at a loss on how to deal with things like pirates one can only wonder.....
Richard, are you trying to say we don't need multi-billion dollar ships to run down skinnies in rust buckets?
Of course that depends upon what our startegy is. Do we even have one at the moment. Considering the western world is at a loss on how to deal with things like pirates one can only wonder.....
Governments may be at a loss.
But run a number of Q Boat type ships through the area sinking anything that shoots at it. Have armed parties on random ships transiting the area - again sinking anything that shoots at it. Sink the mother ships and let the crew swim home.
Right now for the most part its fun and games Win-win for the Pirates. Make the return rate from pirate outings around 20% and see things drop off.
Sounds like another Xe contract coming down the beltway.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
mark46th
03-07-2011, 17:21
Re Naval Gunfire. A friend who was in SOG in SE Asia loved the New Jersey. He said it was extremely accurate. The only problem was the target had to be fairly close to the beach...
ddoering
03-08-2011, 05:56
Governments may be at a loss.
But run a number of Q Boat type ships through the area sinking anything that shoots at it. Have armed parties on random ships transiting the area - again sinking anything that shoots at it. Sink the mother ships and let the crew swim home.
Right now for the most part its fun and games Win-win for the Pirates. Make the return rate from pirate outings around 20% and see things drop off.
Exactly!