• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
I'd think the USN's role in a Taiwan scenario would work similar to the Royal Navy's role would have been in if sealion progressed to later stages: Trade the fleet to sink the amphib force. It should be noted that a Taiwan invasion scenario would only proceed only when local superiority is ensured on the Chinese side.

In this case the USN would have to fight "soviet" thinking: with the focus on offensive power as opposed to survivability. Carrier long range low volume standoff attack might not defeat the Chinese, and the "correct" course of action may be to use air power to protect the fleet to enable it to close to shipboard ASM range at which point the mother of all saturation attack gets launched with the war decided on whether the salvo worked.
---------------------
That is a very expensive way of doing though. Prepositioned land launchers, float upward missile containers, a working air power strategy (massed hardened bases + dispersed assets in japan and more) and potentially space/starship based attack could render the Chinese fleet indefensible and thus deterred from warring.

The "dull" job for the navy would be a distant blockade which it can do fairly comfortably unless space warfare escalation constraints makes countering space sensors impractical.
believe DE/KE from space onto the earth surface is prohibited by treayt/agreement and for good readon. If there are unconventional trans atmospheric vehicles, using them for combat can well mean losing them.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
218
Reaction score
73
Nuclear weapons from space are restricted, KE, DE, or conventional weapons are not.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
for a country to claim that KE and DE from space would not be a WMD is not realistic and would appear to be splitting hairs.

given the energy necessary for a DE to effect the ground it would become a WMD likewise any KE delivered from space would need to survive reentry (Rods from God) would also be a WMD.

from wiki
Outer Space Treaty
Main article: Outer Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee[clarify] in 1966. Later that year, agreement was reached in the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty included the following principles:

  • the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
  • outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
  • outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
  • States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
  • the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
  • Astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
  • States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
  • States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
  • States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
In summary, the treaty initiated the banning of signatories' placing of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the treaty and it entered into effect on October 10, 1967. As of January 1, 2005, 98 States have ratified, and an additional 27 have signed the Outer Space Treaty.
 

drejr

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
49
Reaction score
24
There is no clear definition of WMD either in the treaty or current international law.

It would be entirely realistic for a country to claim non-nuclear space weapons were allowed under the treaty even if you weren't overestimating their destructive potential.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
There is no clear definition of WMD either in the treaty or current international law.

It would be entirely realistic for a country to claim non-nuclear space weapons were allowed under the treaty even if you weren't overestimating their destructive potential.
space weapons are not necessarily always space to ground..Space to ground requires the very high energy so...

It is well known what the Nazi sun gun would have done and building it small has all kinds of impracticality issues rendering such implausible.. Rods from God were described as Nuclear like effects. An ability to precisily target something smaller is itself so potentially so destructive so as to easily be described as a WMD.. Global sniper etc.. ie is by anyone's defin...a WMD.
 

drejr

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
49
Reaction score
24
No it's not. If "anyone" all had the same idea of WMD meant it would have a clear definition in international law. Instead definitions range from exclusively nuclear weapons at one extreme to handguns at the other. There's certainly no definition that involves "high energy," and most involve the opposite of precise targeting.

It's pretty clear that the Outer Space Treaty is an inadequate legal framework for the future and that the laws of warfare in space are in the early stages of their evolution, Nazi sun guns notwithstanding.

What constitutes a "WMD in space" will eventually be governed by future treaties and the customary laws of war. As always, nations will attempt to define and shape international law in their best interest.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
A legal framework inadequate yes, but a quiet consensous likely keeps 'atk the earth' at bay as stated from the beginning they do know any iteration is a WMD. No major power wants this an escalation path especially if rogue countries attempted R from G for instance, it appears to not be that expensive. Major powers also dont want a real law either.

No such thing as low energy KE able survive re-entry. No such thing as low energy DE able to penetrate from space to the ground.
 

drejr

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
49
Reaction score
24
And yet the only confirmed injury caused by a meteorite was a bad bruise, not vaporization.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
1,235
And yet the only confirmed injury caused by a meteorite was a bad bruise, not vaporization.
Actually there have been a few confirmed fatalities over the centuries, including one case in the late 16th Century IIRC where a meteorite ignited a gunpowder magazine and blew up a castle! Though a precise death toll was never established in that case I believe. Came across that little tidbit in a book on Special Forces of all things, many moons ago.
 

shin_getter

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
45
Reaction score
23
Unrestricted submarine warfare didn't happen until it did happen. Aerial Bombardment of cities was claimed to be limited by existing treaty which was broken soon after leaders figured that it is possible to angle for an advantage.

A Chinese-America war involves power blocks too significant to be punished much by treaty. The likely cause for restraint is the perception the escalation is worst than tactical advantages: which may very not hold as the space domain is not necessary to human life (no humanitarian concerns) and tactical advantage can be very significant with American edge in space technology or just plain necessary to win the war. Once significant capability has been built up, a change in policy can have shocking effects on a ill prepared opponent that figures treaty would protect them.

-----
If I'm the Chinese, the question I'd be asking is how to survive day 1 massed satellite targeted mass strike on my amphib forces before it even leaves port in 2035. The counter to anti-access is to be in range before the shooting starts. If the assets gets blown up after emptying, it doesn't change the outcome of the war.

The question shifts to the old nuclear problem of how to conduct a first strike and wipe out enough of opposition. Surprise attack is hard with dense satellite observation unmatched in history and attempts to defeat observation can trigger launch.

I'd think the USN trying to fight into the field of battle (after taking weeks to mass from other oceans) with pitiful throw-weight to cost is one of those problems that can be dealt with by spending less money than the USN.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
thinkin we are way off subject... current nuclear weapons developments or a theory thread maybe..
 
Top