American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super

New York Times ^ | April 27, 2003 | GREGG EASTERBROOK

[Filibuster_60]

At this point the Space Based Laser is clearly still in the research stage. I don't think it'll be ready before the Airborne Laser, and the ABL itself might have to wait until 2010. Granted, it's the best defense against emerging ballistic missile threats, but supposing it enters service in the 2020-2025 timeframe, the bigger powers will have had plenty of time to work on countermeasures. I don't expect today's ICBM technology to be militarily useful in 2020.

Control of space will be key to control of the ground in 21st-century warfare, and all the major powers are aware of it, but how soon, if ever, space weapons render all land-based missiles obsolete is anyone's guess. Major technical hurdles must be overcome. The biggest issue at present is how to generate sufficient energy to ensure a kill. It might have to be done with nuclear power.

As it is I don't expect the US to have a total monopoly in space. Unfortunately we've already wasted plenty of time and money so that the gap between us and the other big powers isn't as big as it could have been.

[dvwjr]

For the extent of American military superiority has become almost impossible to overstate. The United States sent five of its nine supercarrier battle groups to the region for the Iraq assault. A tenth Nimitz-class supercarrier is under construction. No other nation possesses so much as one supercarrier, let alone nine battle groups ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines.

I hate it when so-called newspapers of record cannot get their facts straight. The US now has TWELVE "supercarrier" battlegroups in its Fleet, not NINE. They forget the three conventionally powered oil-burners the Kitty Hawk, the Constellation, and the Kennedy. The Nimitz class nuclear powered carriers are not the only carrier battle groups in the US Navy.

Carrier                 Commissioning Date
------------------------------------------
Oil-Burners
CV   63  Kitty Hawk            1961
CV   64  Constellation         1961
CV   67  John F. Kennedy       1968

Nukes
CVN  65  Enterprise            1961
CVN  68  Nimitz                1975
CVN  69  Dwight D. Eisenhower  1977
CVN  70  Carl Vinson           1982
CVN  71  Theodore Roosevelt    1986
CVN  72  Abraham Lincoln       1989
CVN  73  George Washington     1992
CVN  74  John C. Stennis       1995
CVN  75  Harry S Truman        1998

Future Nukes
CVN  76  Ronald Reagan         2003
CVN  77  George H. W. Bush     2008

Point being, the US Navy sent five of its twelve carrier battle groups to the Gulf War II. THe Constellation (CV-64) retires after its last war cruise...

dvwjr

[Skywalk]

I've often said that, assuming there were bases to harbor, fuel, arm and maintain them, one could have RULED THE ENTIRE WORLD(at least through proxy governments) with ONE Apache, ONE Aircraft carrier(complete with craft), one battleship and ONE B-52 if they were teleported back to 1400.

Not only would fear of a seemingly supernatural foe cow most nations and their armies, but being completely and utterly annihilated within a few hours would end all submission.

Of course, the same concept applies to an Independence Day invasion by aliens. With even a 100 year gap in technology, there would be little way to defeat them despite the movie's ending.

[Humidston]

Amen! They'll never be foolish enough to face us with honor. Rather, they'll crawl under the tent like cockroaches and scorpions.

[rmlew]

I'll be the first to say that we have an awe inspiring military. We spend .8% of Gross World Product on our miltary. That is greater than the GDP of many countries.

However, the author makes some mistakes and questionable assumptions.

As far as the ability to project force over long distances, no country can match us. The entire EU could not match us. However, the ability traverse the oceans is not absolute. Even if there will never be another carrier on carrier battle like Midway, there are other threats.
The English have some very nice SSN (the Trafalgars and new Astute class). The Russian Akula-IIs and Oscar-II are a threat (at least utill the Soviet era low-orbit satelite network burns up). Many countries have purchased good conventional submarines from the Germans, Dutch, Swedes, English,French, and Russians. The Russian Kilos purchased by Iran and China aren't going away any time soon. These are a threat to us in the shallow areas near these coasts. Uneven sea beds, shifting currents, and multiple thermal layers create bad accoustics for hunting submarines. As long as the Kilos are on battery power, they are hard to detect. While the Kilos might be constrained in that they too are in a fog of poor accoustics and are limited by battery power, they have some advantages. An america task group operating near Iran or China would be continuosly tracked by enemy recon and radar. The sub commanders could place their subs in front of a US carrier group and wait a few hours to strike.

Similarly, operating near enemy coasts puts our CNBG's at risk to enemy attack. As i noted before, our carriers would be painted by radar, unless we took these out. Iran and China have strike fighters and bomber carrying anti-shipping missles. The Chinese Silkworm may not be a real threat, but the Russian K-35 or Sunburns are.

[rmlew]

Contrary to the author's assertion, the US is not the only power with stealthy jets. The Saab Grippen, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Chinese J/F-10 both have some stealthy characteristics. The Russian Sukhoi bureau is working on a stealthy fighter. The US plans to sell the F-35 to a number of countries.

While no other country has the J-STARS, a lot countries have AWACS or similar airborne C4I or AEW planes. The US has sold the E-2 and/or E-3 to every member of NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. The Russians developed their own systems based on the IL-76 and their indiginous radars. These have been sold to China and North Korea.

No other nation has air-to-air missiles or air-to-ground smart munitions of the accuracy, or numbers, of the United States.
Many of our allies produce these weaposn for us and themselves.
Based on unclassified paper specs, I would take the Russian A-11 Archer over our AIM-9. the AA-12 looks like an AMRAAM, so I wouldn't discount it.

the Russian Klub cruise missle is supposed to use GPS. They have Laser guided munitions. They are a few years behind us, not decades.

The Abrams cannon and fire-control system is so extraordinarily accurate that in combat gunners rarely require more than one shot to destroy an enemy tank. No other nation is currently building or planning a comparable tank force. Other governments know this would be pointless, since even if they had advanced tanks, the United States would destroy them from the air.

The British Challanger, German Leopard II, Israeli Merkava, and Russian T-90 are all nice tanks. Iraq had the cheap export T-72's. These lacked the good Russian optical and targeting systems, as well as the Tank lanched anti-missle systems liket he Koronet, which outrange us.

Our forces are advanced, but a smart enemy could cause real problems for us. For starters, they could hit us, isntead of allowing hte US to have operational control.

[DoctorMichael]

Anybody out there play too much RISK as a kid?

The current situation IMHO is like the last move of the game when the victor marches around the entire globe in an unstoppable wave taking out each weakened opponent as he goes until der Welt is finally his.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha!

[rmlew]

Patriots are no good for Boost Phase intercepts.
The Thaad system married to the Aegis system on our ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burkes are great at this. Of course, a lone destroyer, 40km off the Korean coast is also a target.
The US has also tested a 747 with a Laser ABL for boost-phase intercepts.

Personally, I would love to have a multi-layered system, including spce-based weapons. A depleted uranium dart lanuched from a satellite could do wonders.

[rmlew]

Bingo.
Hence we needed a workable multi-layers SDI system last year.

[steve-b]

I, too, was looking for the hook, whatever it was that the Times was setting us up for.

By depicting the North Korean nuclear program as a reasonable defensive response against American hegemony (instead of what it really is, which is a prerequisite for continuing to threaten South Korea), the NYT is attempting to spin away one of XXX42's most obvious derelictions of duty.

[Agent Smith]

They must be smoking crack again at the NY Times. I am glad to hear from the esteemed Mr. Easterbrook that the dynamic upon which life on earth as operated since the dawn of time has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Where the heck is the Nobel Prize Committee when they are needed? I wonder how he plans to spend the prize money?

There is nothing more dangerous than believing your own BS. Life is conflict and nobody has conceded anything, nor will they EVER. What a crock!

There is more than one way to skin a cat and you can bet that the best minds in China, Russia, India, and everywhere else are working on the problem of skinning the US. I can think of some pretty good avenues of attack just sitting here right now. Initiative and timing belong to our opponents. It may be 5, 25, or 75 years before we can effectively be challenged, but make no mistake, we will be challenged.

Their future methods will be very unconventional and subtle, electronic, financial, religious or biological weapons are the most likely. If they can maintain operational security and and not present traditional targets all our hardware is just rust waiting to happen.

I hope that I am wrong, but I know that I am NOT.