Ron Paul: "We Spent a Billion Dollars Fighting the Houthis…and Lost'
(ronpaulinstitute.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (84)
sorted by:
Any Navy vets care to weigh in on wtf is happening in the Red Sea?
a sm2 (standard missile 2) is I think right around $1mil a shot.
we just can't afford to really do anything about it. we're bleeding into Ukraine and Israel now. we really can't afford either, let alone another in addition.
our navy isn't really all that great. we ordered a bunch of mostly useless and fragile ships in the early 2000s. they were supposed to be modular but none of that actually worked out. it's taken us over 10 years to build and commission our last aircraft carrier. we just sold another USA shipyard to SK just this week. our logistic support ships are like at 55%. that was the result of the last war gaming. supposed to be at 85%+.
everything is fucked. we have faggots, jews, and women running things. nothing works. everything is breaking.
I keep hearing this from various professionals. Perhaps giving up gunnery in favor of high tech ballistics was a mistake?
How dare you question the high priests of the Military-Industrial Complex? Shun the unbeliever, shun. Next you'll be wanting an effective infantry rifle and a tank made this side of the Ford presidency.
Our tank is still the best in the world, it's fine as is. No need to make a new fuck up if the current thing works great.
Always found that odd, shouldn't computers make aiming guns easier than ever?
Pretty sure guided missiles require more expensive (and expendable) resources than most ballistics alternatives.
Not only do you have the fuel and payload, but also the circuitry, computer bits, sensors/guidance systems, communications, etc etc.
Especially when considering the ranges that naval vessels are usually firing from compared to say, tanks or infantry. Likely has to reach a moderately higher quality threshold than your average computer-controlled setup.
A tool is only as good as its operator.
Like the atomic bomb, missiles trump guns when your enemy doesn't have them. You can hit them while they can't hit you.
Our peers have it too, so it's not great.
There's a whole very technical conversation to be had here. The Navy developed and then abandoned a class of "littoral" combat vessels in the mid aughts. These ships would have been designed to handle exactly what is happening in the Red Sea. The problem is that these vessels would have to be "fighting" ships. They would have had to rely on a combination classic naval guns for offence and CIWS guns for defense. Its a workable system but not perfect. They would not have been "superior" and I think thats why they were abandoned in favor of more "modern" fleet solutions.
Actually no. Gunnery shouldn't be eliminated, but the key here is range and stealth. If you can't have stealth, then you need raw numbers.
Our anti-ship missiles are fucking terrifying for their range, for their stealth, and their cost isn't terrible. The Chinese don't have the stealth for their missiles, so they went with raw numbers on the cheap (like most chinese goods). So far, we have the advantage in that fight.
Gunnery, however, just can't get around range. You can't reasonably shoot a gun 200 miles, even a battleship sized rail gun. You can't win a dog-fight with a Gen 5 fighter if you can't get to it, let alone see it. These are insurmountable problems.
Missiles are the current king. There's no way around it. The issue is that some idiots think that means that guns are irrelevant. They're not, they're just not as useful as they once were.