Article

2014-12-07 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2014-12-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 The problem with this analysis is that the coastal defense system of 1812 was not only cheap, it was useless. The gunboats were ineffective, and the shore batteries had insufficient range.
For instance, examine current Chinese strategy, or look at Japanese strategy during WW2. Concentric layers of defense, designed to keep the enemy away from the final target. (The problem the Japanese had was too many gaps in the system, due to their navy being eradicated.)
Any defensive line will eventually fall to an attacker with enough firepower and patience.

Posted by ed in texas 2014-12-07 09:43|| 2014-12-07 09:43|| Front Page Top

#2 The problem with this analysis is that the coastal defense system of 1812 was not only cheap, it was useless. The gunboats were ineffective, and the shore batteries had insufficient range.

That's seems to be covered in the article, ed.

Posted by Pappy 2014-12-07 09:48|| 2014-12-07 09:48|| Front Page Top

#3 Mobile tube launched missile system is about the only equivalent possibility. The demonstrated ability of Saddam to move his missiles in face of Allied air supremacy indicates some viability. Accuracy and sufficient payload (see-Falklands), given that ships today are not commissioned with armor belts, also makes it viable. The real issue is that you don't want the enemy to get that close to begin with. That's why you fight 'over there', not 'here'.

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-12-07 09:50|| 2014-12-07 09:50|| Front Page Top

#4 Space based kinetic weapons would be a better choice of weapon.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2014-12-07 10:22|| 2014-12-07 10:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Or something like the Pershing with a homing warhead, like the Chinese have built, but the US Navy apparently can't or won't.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-12-07 10:53|| 2014-12-07 10:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Its a legit function - the Army has land based missiles in its bailiwick. And such things could be used as gap fillers for sea denial assets given the shrinking size of the USN. Imagine a battery or two temporarily stationed near, say... the Spratleys, with theater-ranged SAMs. Give the Chinese conniptions without putting a single naval asset at risk (leaving them to work offensively)

Posted by OldSpook 2014-12-07 14:21|| 2014-12-07 14:21|| Front Page Top

#7 We should put the first battery in Hyannis Port right in front of the Kennedy compound.

And then put the next one in front of the nifty multi-million dollar pad whatshisname bought as a retirement home for him and whatshername and the kids.

There is a dog in there somewhere but I don't want to defame the innocent.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2014-12-07 14:44|| 2014-12-07 14:44|| Front Page Top

#8 I'd like a pair at the fish camp in case I need to extend the scallop season.

Posted by Shipman 2014-12-07 18:02|| 2014-12-07 18:02|| Front Page Top

#9 Imagine a battery or two temporarily stationed near, say... the Spratleys

Given that we'll probably see less and less USN carrier presence in the Western Pacific,it makes sense. It'd work for islands like Taiwan or the Spratleys, or as part of area-denial or choke-point defense like the Malaccan straits. The concept has already been to proven to be effective, at least one time (think "Israeli Sa'ar class corvette.")

That said, "coastal defense" is a non-starter. Too many rice bowls threatened, with some validity. Even if the concept were implemented, it'd either be done half-assed, or sloughed off to Reserve or National Guard units.

Posted by Pappy 2014-12-07 18:15|| 2014-12-07 18:15|| Front Page Top

#10 This is not a silly idea!
think of the existing, historic coastal defense fortifications in the US, with specific designs to control the access points to key navigable ports, rivers, harbors and industrial areas. Perfectly positioned for shoretosea guns of missle defences. Currently, there is nothing in these locations except tourists. Now think of a cargo ship, capable of more than 15 knots, of modest size, and imagine it captained by a jihadist crew bringing a nasty cargo of aerosol containers, or some of the 40kg of radioactive material captured in Iraq by ISIS, or a hold full of vertical launched HE rounds with sarin or engineered smallpox. Now imagine them refusing to stop for customs and LE inspection as they approach the port. What above.50cal is positioned to stop them? and above 15 knots, how capable is a airborne SWAT insertion against small arms? Can the USCG board at that speed effectively? This is not a silly idea!
Beuhler......Beuhler?

Posted by NoMoreBS 2014-12-07 19:26|| 2014-12-07 19:26|| Front Page Top

#11 You mean like a Terrorist Q-Ship?

Drinks are on me in the O-Club.

Coasties cutters have a main deck gun on some of them. I know the new Fast Patrol "Sentinal" Cutters have a Mk 242 Bushmaster as their main gun, which would certainly punch holes in a cargo ship. Pappy may know more about the Puddle Pirate Navy (said with love and respect - Coasties save lives every day) .

Posted by OldSpook 2014-12-07 20:45|| 2014-12-07 20:45|| Front Page Top

23:26 Hupoluck Phising1425
23:24 newc
23:22 CrazyFool
23:20 newc
23:09 Barbara
23:06 Barbara
22:42 newc
22:11 OldSpook
21:48 USN, Ret.
21:09 junkiron
21:02 Frank G
20:48 OldSpook
20:45 OldSpook
20:31 OldSpook
20:30 OldSpook
20:18 Airandee
20:09 rjschwarz
19:54 texhooey
19:48 lord garth
19:44 JohnQC
19:42 JohnQC
19:35 Shinenter Thrasing1575
19:30 Shinenter Thrasing1575
19:26 NoMoreBS