somebody wrote:
> It's much more plausible to me that the simulation/model itself that allowed
> the big expensive weaponry to be defeated by motorcycles and fishing boats
> was fundamentally flawed, and one smart cookie exploited the weaknesses/bugs
> of the model before it got patched.

I'm pretty sure this was a live exercise.  As in, you're not talking a 
computer program or board game. You're talking real ships, and they drive up 
next to your battleship and pull back the tarp on several empty drums saying 
"these were actually full of C4. You're sunk."

Sort of like a paintball match.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> I bet they don't stand a fair chance, however, to reduce the cross-section of an
> airplane carrier to anything a missile could not lock on.

I don't know. It might make it easier to jam the missile, or (and from 
simple visual observation of where the magic padding is applied) it makes it 
hard to detect the part sticking up in the middle with all the honchos and 
electronics in it, compared to the rest of the ship. So, in other words, 
maybe the idea is to get you to blow up the flight deck instead of the 
bridge, for the same reason you don't give the general a rifle and put him 
on the front line to help out.

If I knew why they did it, I wouldn't be able to tell you.

> "They also used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's ships
> without being detected"

Sure. They were also simulating guerrillas without a lot of expensive tech, 
in a bay. (I.e., something like Iran "terrorists" fighting in the Persian gulf.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Chris B <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> Let me get this straight! The US government spent $250M to get some of
> their best experts to teach them some hard lessons about how their big
> expensive weaponry could be defeated by smaller cheaper craft. Then they
> chose to ignore those lessons, but published the results for any enemies
> to read?

Looks like they were that stupid, yes.

But even if they hadn't published it, I bet rumors would have spread. And a
desperate enemy would be likely to even resort to rumor as the basis for their
strategy and tactics if it sounds like providing the only fair chance, so I
don't think much harm was done by being comparatively open about it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> I bet they don't stand a fair chance, however, to reduce the 
>> cross-section of an
>> airplane carrier to anything a missile could not lock on.
> 
> I don't know. It might make it easier to jam the missile, or (and from 
> simple visual observation of where the magic padding is applied) it 
> makes it hard to detect the part sticking up in the middle with all the 
> honchos and electronics in it, compared to the rest of the ship. So, in 
> other words, maybe the idea is to get you to blow up the flight deck 
> instead of the bridge, for the same reason you don't give the general a 
> rifle and put him on the front line to help out.
> 

It's about balancing your chances against those of your enemy. One 
important factor is the distance a missile can lock on at. The closer 
the attacker has to get to lock and launch a missile the more likely 
they are to get hit before they hit the launch button. Once launched, if 
a hostile device has to put out a stronger signal to correctly track 
you, it stands more chance of giving away it's own position and trajectory.

Post a reply to this message

Chris B wrote:
> Once launched, if 
> a hostile device has to put out a stronger signal to correctly track 
> you, it stands more chance of giving away it's own position and trajectory.

True. The last defense against a missile is a gattling gun that tracks its 
radar tracker, so maybe giving it more to track is good. I hadn't thought of 
that.  You win if the enemy is visible looking for you farther away than you 
can be seen by the enemy.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Chris B <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> Let me get this straight! The US government spent $250M to get some of
>> their best experts to teach them some hard lessons about how their big
>> expensive weaponry could be defeated by smaller cheaper craft. Then they
>> chose to ignore those lessons, but published the results for any enemies
>> to read?
> 
> Looks like they were that stupid, yes.
> 
> But even if they hadn't published it, I bet rumors would have spread. 
> 

Well yes, but rumours have a habit of diverging from reality quite 
quickly. Getting official military experts to propose ways of defeating 
your own defenses and then distributing that on a range of 
internationally available media channels seems a tad reckless.

Reminds me of the media frenzy following 9/11 where there were military 
and internal security experts clamouring to get on every available TV 
channel, detailing how they would have conducted a far more effective 
attack. The main thought rushing through my mind at the time was "Don't 
tell them that!"

I recall seeing one expert describing how to get liquid explosives past 
security and onto a plane without going over the 100ml limit. The only 
thing he didn't give out was the chemicals required. I flipped channels 
and there was an expert busily describing the chemicals you'd need to 
create a really big bang by combining small quantities of readily 
available household products.

 > And a
 > desperate enemy would be likely to even resort to rumor
 > as the basis for their strategy and tactics if it sounds
 > like providing the only fair chance, so I don't think
 > much harm was done by being comparatively open about it.


Yeh, but as they try and fail, you get a chance to adapt to the threat.
I just think that handing them a carefully thought out plan developed by 
well funded strategists who know the system from the inside, is in a 
different category of risk/stupidity.

Post a reply to this message

Chris B <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> Yeh, but as they try and fail, you get a chance to adapt to the threat.
> I just think that handing them a carefully thought out plan developed by
> well funded strategists who know the system from the inside, is in a
> different category of risk/stupidity.

The most stupid mistake of all involved here, I guess, is refusing to adapt to
the threat.

Instead of re-running the sim with stricter rules for the Red team to "play
fair", they should have re-run it and see if (and how) the Blue team could
manage to counter the strategy.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:28:48 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>for the same reason you don't give the general a rifle and put him 
>on the front line to help out.

Actually that is a good idea IMO. The more generals at the sharp end the less
stupid commands. Again IMO
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Carriers of the Ford class will incorporate many new design features including
> [...] stealthier features to help reduce radar profile"

> Uh-huh... yes, that makes perfect sense of course... hiding an aircraft
> carrier...

> HUH???

> How can you be stealthy about an *Aircraft Carrier*??

  Even stealth planes are not totally "stealthy". They are invisible to
radar only when farther away than a minimum distance from a radar. Of
course for bombers and small fighter planes this minimum distance is
enough for practicaly purposes (they seldom fly at low altitudes right
over an enemy radar).

  I imagine that the idea in making an aircraft carrier stealthier is that
it's more difficult to detect by radar from a long distance, so it can
get closer to the enemy without being detected (and then send the planes).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Another "WTF" from the warfare section:
> 
> "Carriers of the Ford class will incorporate many new design features including
> [...] stealthier features to help reduce radar profile"
> 
> Uh-huh... yes, that makes perfect sense of course... hiding an aircraft
> carrier...
> 
> HUH???
> 
> How can you be stealthy about an *Aircraft Carrier*??

At the distances over which naval warfare is conducted, the advantage 
lies with the guy who can detect the opposing forces from the farthest 
distance.  At these distances, the enemy may be under the horizon.

You might also want to reduce the ability of the other guy's missiles to 
lock onto your own ships.

Consequently, stealth technology is indeed appropriate for naval 
operations, even on ships larger than some cities.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message