tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post5684702687133212879..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: European naval power requirements (for defence)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-31582611547810381842017-12-13T00:25:21.528+01:002017-12-13T00:25:21.528+01:00I find myself trying to understand why the U.S. Na...I find myself trying to understand why the U.S. Navy needs 355 ships and so far a good answer eludes me. I frequent a naval centric website where I've asked this question, but I receive the usual responses: maritime trade, invasion, power projection, President wants it, sea control, show the flag, etc.<br /><br />We have a 365 billion trade deficit with the Chinese yet we still spend billions on defense directed the Chinese. Land air power, missiles, mines could prevent an invasion of the U.S. and if that doesn't stop em a nuke will. Subs can control areas of the sea. More State department and less muscle flexing. If the President wants one he can buy a ship. <br /><br />But this is where I get stymied - global trade and protection of merchant shipping. You briefly address it in this post, but I wonder in today's world if a Navy is worth the money and makes a difference in ensuring free trade? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-36998623559733395902011-12-21T19:43:08.749+01:002011-12-21T19:43:08.749+01:00You consider EU defense a defense against territor...You consider EU defense a defense against territorial invasions, a rather unlikely threat.<br />The more likely threat in my opinion is freedom of movement at sea and the protection/occupation of important far away places. Naval warfare is about sea lines of communication and naval invasions are just what happens when such a control utterly fails. The approach of most European navies is sensibly centered on the sea lines of communication approach they have done for centuries while Germany is still a littoral upstart that failed several times to go blue water.<br /><br />KurtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-27688378420331312312009-03-12T22:25:00.000+01:002009-03-12T22:25:00.000+01:00Simple: This is about "Defence and Freedom", not a...Simple: This is about "Defence and Freedom", not about "Defence, Offence and Freedom".<BR/><BR/>Amphibious invasions and land attack in general is offensive in nature (at the very least counter-offensive).<BR/><BR/>We can use bases on<BR/>Canary Islands, Madeira, Southern Spain, Baleares, Sardinia, Sicily, Southeast Italy, Western Greece, Crete, Cyprus, Eastern Romania, Northern Poland, North-East Germany, Bornholm, Northern Norway, Iceland and Azores.<BR/><BR/>That was only a list of obvious peripheral bases, long-range support aircraft could be based in more central regions and still support maritime warfare.<BR/><BR/>Aircraft carriers: Less useful for EU DEFENCE than a battalion of air force engineers.<BR/><BR/>They are simply not necessary to reach the coasts of possible opponents. The Russians cannot wage much war against the EU based on their Pacific Coast bases. Sure, SSNs could, but they couldn't do much. A couple of CV(N)s wouldn't help in that case anyway.<BR/><BR/>WW2 submarine warfare in the Atlantic was only possible due to the inability of the British RAF which failed to bomb the submarine bases in Western France and Norway properly.<BR/><BR/>The geographic access of the Arabs to the Atlantic is very limited and easily covered from Spanish territories' airbases. <BR/>It's similar with the Russians; their navy was credible in the Cold War because it was already in large part on the sea and was able to inflict massive damage with nukes without ever returning to the harbours.<BR/><BR/>A conventional anti-shipping sub war would require on average multiple patrols per sub (simply because we could simply stop sea trade for a few months without losing), and we could bomb bases on the Moroccan and Kola peninsula coasts to dust.<BR/>That's much more affordable than hundreds of escort ships of questionable effectiveness, especially in a time when the potential adversaries don't prepare for such a war.<BR/><BR/>By the way; Germany wasn't even close to winning against the UK with its sub wars - just like strategic bombing failed. Subs don't equate boots on the ground.<BR/>It was a pointless test of resolve that diverted Allied resources and wasted huge amounts of German diesel fuel. It was also counter-productive in WW1 in regard to the USA.<BR/><BR/>The British hype the Battle of the Atlantic up in order to emphasize their relevance in the war (and TV shows, book authors are thankful for a dramatic topic, of course).S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-19340227505999643772009-03-12T21:49:00.000+01:002009-03-12T21:49:00.000+01:00SvenOkey, I understand some of your points and eve...Sven<BR/><BR/>Okey, I understand some of your points and even agree with them; but you cross carriers + amphibious ships (with surface escorts) off the list so quickly you ignore their very useful capability; and whilst Germany does like to point out how close it came both times to winning the world wars with diesel electric subs...however they did not win, in the end the surface escorts + ASW aircraft were effective enough to maintain the supply routes. <BR/><BR/>Added to this you talk about offensive capabilities but why then cross out the most powerful offensive weapons ever developed for naval purposes...i.e. carriers and amphibious ships. I agree with the multi-role fighters but I think having them launch from a mobile base rather than one which never moves, and is always in the same place which will be marked on maps for years before hand, would be of greater advantage. <BR/><BR/>yours sincerly<BR/><BR/>AlexAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.com