Valiant Shield '06

June 22, 2006 10:39 AM

The largest gathering of Navy ships in the Pacific since the Vietnam war is happening right now, off the coast of Guam. Valiant Shield 06, the first in a series of proposed biennial joint war-games, is a massive military training exercise involving three Carrier Strike groups, more than 300 air craft, and 22,000 personnel. While primarily an ASW event, all branches of the military are there practicing one thing or another. The Department of Defense has invited a number of other counties to watch the games, including China for the first time ever. Some believe the game was just designed to put a scare into North Korea (Not true, it's been in planning for a year).

But how does one run a massive war simulation? Well, you just find yourself a copy of OneSAF [FAQ] or JSAF (uh, among others [.ppt-to-html]) and you're good to go. (Previously on Metafilter: MC '02 [2])
posted by Fidel Cashflow (25 comments total)

There was also a previous thread about an article in Wired talking about Urban Resolve (which is run using JSAF) but I wasn't able to find that via the search feature. Anyone got a link?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:45 AM on June 22, 2006

As if North Korea wasn't in the cross hairs a year ago.
posted by bra1n at 10:48 AM on June 22, 2006

Great post, Fidel. Although I must disagree with your assertion that it's been in the works for ever a year and thus cannot be intended to give North Korea the heebie jeebies. Wargames are just as useful as a show of force as they are for keeping your swords bright. Particularly when you invite other countries to observe.
posted by CRM114 at 10:49 AM on June 22, 2006

Is there a huge ASW threat? I'm all for military exercises, but I would expect them to be commensurate with the threats being faced. So I'm surprised that the billing is primarily ASW.
Oh, ASW means Anti-Submarine Warfare right?
posted by forforf at 11:18 AM on June 22, 2006

I collected a bunch of MetaFilter posts on war gaming here. They are mostly MC '02 (Iraq, basically) related.

Abbreviated list of links:

August 21, 2002 - A wargame carried out by the US military was rigged
August 20, 2002 - Iraq's Aziz Says U.S. Attack Would Fai
March 30, 2003 - Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, ...
June 28, 2004 - Sovreign Iraq, two days early
January 13, 2005 - The man who thinks about thinking without thinking.
February 10, 2006 - Sorting out the Iran mess
April 8, 2006 - The Iran Plans
March 7, 2005 - Clouds Over Iran: The Past Roots of Unintended Consequences Present
March 27, 2003 - Lessons from Urban Operations Journal
November 29, 2005 - American air superiority? ... Gaming Indian Wars.

posted by Chuckles at 11:23 AM on June 22, 2006

Great post, Fidel. Although I must disagree with your assertion that it's been in the works for ever a year and thus cannot be intended to give North Korea the heebie jeebies.

As an aside, I'm an engineer on one of the SAF projects. We don't do wargames to primarily to scare country X. I think it's more of a beneficial side effect.

Is there a huge ASW threat? I'm all for military exercises, but I would expect them to be commensurate with the threats being faced. So I'm surprised that the billing is primarily ASW.

Rest-of-World Naval Forces. China, Russia and India all have fairly significant submarine forces. I'm pretty sure the Dutch also make a fair amount of submarines which they sell to foreign markets.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:41 AM on June 22, 2006

I live in Jacksonville and watch the P-3C Orion's and S-3 Vikings circle endlessly on their way to land at NAS Jax... anything dealing with subs is just expensive. We keep building subs (the new Virginia-class) 'cause if we stop we loose a workforce who knows how to and we keep flying ASW missions because we'll loose the skills if we stop. so now we just fly these 40 year giants around in loops, all day, hoping to catch some drug runners or waterborne refugees.

i think a threat lurks where the germans are now building diesel-electric subs as lethal as ours and quieter which don't need to snorkel (a loud process). if that tech spreads, we could have quite a threat on our hands in the near future. this is perhaps the only real conventional military threat on the horizen, IMHO.
posted by trinarian at 12:08 PM on June 22, 2006

While this picture linked to in the FPP is rather awesome, it's kind of insane to think about the huge amount of money that is present in that picture.
posted by RockBandit at 12:31 PM on June 22, 2006

ISTR that the Dutch or Germans are now making at least prototype diesel/fuel-cell submarines, which ought to have substantially longer submerged durations.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:35 PM on June 22, 2006

"...we keep flying ASW missions because we'll loose the skills if we stop."

We keep posting because we'll "loose" our spelling skills if we stop.

Sorry.

Couldn't help it.
posted by MikeMc at 12:45 PM on June 22, 2006

This show of muscle - is it any different from the Great White Fleet that Teddy Roosevelt sent around the world in 1907 to impress the other nations, especially Japan, that the United states was not to be messed with?
posted by Cranberry at 12:50 PM on June 22, 2006

It's haze grey, not white. And it has different kinds of ships. And the crews are probably getting more useful practice at fighting war than they did on what amounted to a big "goodwill" cruise.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:16 PM on June 22, 2006

it's kind of insane to think about the huge amount of money that is present in that picture.

Well, one step at a time.. Think about the huge amount of money spent to get that picture!
posted by Chuckles at 3:25 PM on June 22, 2006

So, how's that Military Industrial Complex thing working out for you? It sickens me to think of what good could be done with the wealth squandered on the obscene stockpile of armaments America seems so ready to show off. One would think being up to the ears in debt would perhaps make a nation scale back the acquisition of ever more elaborate and expensive instruments of death.

Where is it said that the only security worth having is from foreign enemies? Is security from ecological and financial ruin simply not worth pursuing? This ridiculous accumulation of assets and influence in the military will ruin the US. I seriously think a point of no return was passed some time ago. The American public as a whole is simply too enamored with the patriotic military edifice for the necessary political will to deal with the problem. By the time the threat to the health of the republic is too strong to ignore, it will already be too late to do anything about it.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid. I'd like to think so.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:46 PM on June 22, 2006

"See? Told ya! We're big, we're bad, we've got a lot of war...stuff, and we know how to use it! C'mon over, and we'll flex for ya!"

Training exercises are always useful, but this...
posted by FormlessOne at 3:52 PM on June 22, 2006

China, Russia and India all have fairly significant submarine forces.

According to your link the Chinese submarine fleet is shrinking, and nearly 60% of it is made up of these pathetic creatures.

built using Soviet designs that were based on the German Type-21 U- boat of 1944. Construction of their replacements -- the "Ming-class" (which is actually a remodeled R-model) and Song-class submarines -- is proceeding at the rate of about one a year.

Ya, sounds like a threat to me..

How about Indian Submarines..

The Indian Navy currently maintains a fleet of 16 diesel powered submarines. These are primarily of Russian and German origin.

• Foxtrot class (2 in service)
• Shishumar (Type 209) Class (4 in service)
• Sindhughosh (Kilo) Class (10 in service)

India has signed a deal for 6 Scorpene submarines with MESMA. These submarines would begin to join the Indian Navy from 2010-11 onwards.

If, instead, we look at your link, we find this:

the Indian Navy faces major challenges as many of its major vessels near the end of their service lives. Indigenous shipbuilding efforts are struggling to achieve acceptable levels of productivity and efficiency.

So that leaves the Russians, who do have some sort of Navy worth mentioning, at least. They have commissioned two corvettes and a destroyer since 1991, and those based on old designs, with no new ships coming anytime soon.
posted by Chuckles at 3:55 PM on June 22, 2006

Okay, my statements about the Russian navy seem a little harsh, on further research. They have a couple of new Lada class submarines - no, not a joke - that are on the verge of commissioning. There may also be 2 Borei class ballistic missile submarines on the verge of commissioning.
posted by Chuckles at 4:07 PM on June 22, 2006

So, how's that Military Industrial Complex thing working out for you?

Pretty good actually, thanks for asking.

One would think being up to the ears in debt would perhaps make a nation scale back the acquisition of ever more elaborate and expensive instruments of death.

Well, we've had most of those toys for a while. The Kitty Hawk was built in 1960, so you can blame Eisenhower for that one. Blame Reagan for the Lincoln, which was built in 1982. And when we built the Reagan in 1994, Clinton was president and everything was just breezy with our debt.

Honestly, the reason we do this type of training is specifically to save money. We use fewer troops, fewer ships, less gas, less ammunition than traditional training. In smaller exercises the boats sometimes don't even leave the port, and everything is simulated to the extent that it seems to them as if they are in an entirely other place.

Where is it said that the only security worth having is from foreign enemies?

Who said it is? Who said that it isn't worth having security against foreign enemies, if that's where you're going?

Is security from ecological and financial ruin simply not worth pursuing? This ridiculous accumulation of assets and influence in the military will ruin the US

Psssst.... This is the "small, mobile military". Clinton cut the armed forces back tremendously during his term. We've got a lot more invested in military hardware than what's show off at Valiant Shield, but it's a lot less than we used to have.

The American public as a whole is simply too enamored with the patriotic military edifice for the necessary political will to deal with the problem. By the time the threat to the health of the republic is too strong to ignore, it will already be too late to do anything about it.

You're being a bit paranoid, but then again, you already know that.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 4:12 PM on June 22, 2006

According to your link the Chinese submarine fleet is shrinking, and nearly 60% of it is made up of these pathetic creatures.

Take it from me, that's not true. It's growing a lot, as you'll see in the links below. China is notorious for buying foreign technology, reverse engineering it and then making it very well. I like FAS, but those numbers are a little off here and there. Janes is a better source, but it's subscription only. A good unclassified, non-subscription source for the PRC is sinodefence.com

Anyway, Chinese Subs: Song Class, Xia Class, Han Class, Yuan Class, Type 094 Class.

Indian Submarines: They're not quite there yet, but they're buying more to compete with Pakistan. When I mentioned India, I didn't mean to imply there we're a current submarine power. Rather, they're building up their military quickly, and submarines are included in this build up. Five to ten years from now, they'll be pretty powerful.

the Indian Navy faces major challenges as many of its major vessels near the end of their service lives. Indigenous shipbuilding efforts are struggling to achieve acceptable levels of productivity and efficiency.

Yep, that's why they're trying to buy new ones from the US. What did you think that Mango thing was all about?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 4:35 PM on June 22, 2006

Fidel Cashflow: Where did you come from? Nice post AND some pretty convincing, non-inflammatory supporting commentary. Nice.
posted by snsranch at 4:43 PM on June 22, 2006

Fidel, you're quite right that I'm being a bit paranoid, and a bit hyperbolic as well. That's not to say that I still don't find the state of the US military disgusting. My post was mostly a reaction to the picture posted earlier in the thread. Seeing that small fraction of the US military makes me think of the vast resources necessary to raise and maintain such a force.

I'm not suggesting that the US shouldn't have a military, or even a large one, but that the current size of the American armed forces vastly exceeds what is necessary for defence, and instead represents the runnaway cycle of military spending Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech. What if military spending was slashed by two thirds, and what was saved was split between balancing the budget and helping US economic growth remain sustainable? The benefits would certainly not be immediate, but I think the value such a policy would have for future generations would be nearly incalculable.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:10 PM on June 22, 2006

I think it was a great post too!

I just think, you know, backing up the "threat talk" with some numbers is a worthwhile exercise.

Anyway, Chinese Subs: Song Class, Xia Class, Han Class, Yuan Class, Type 094 Class.

Reading the links, we find that there are 4-6, 1 (20 years old), 5 (20++ years old), and 1 (built, but not yet commissioned?), respectively.
posted by Chuckles at 6:04 PM on June 22, 2006

RockBandit:it's kind of insane to think about the huge amount of money that is present in that picture.

No, what would be "insane" would be to dramatically scale back (or eliminate?) the US military, as it is the single largest entity that protects the largest number of peaceful, freedom-loving people on earth. And I'm not just talking about the U.S. -- the US military stands guard on behalf of many nations and people. Without it, the world would be a very much scarier place.
posted by davidmsc at 6:33 PM on June 22, 2006

Well, there is a fair enough point buried in your statement davidmsc.. I mean, I've heard and I believe that the US Navy does a lot to stabilize international shipping lanes, and there are surely other examples.

The problem is, the US Navy doesn't need an ASW capability that could stand toe-to-toe with the US submarine fleet. All the rest of the world's submarines put together aren't half as capable. The US Navy's ASW capability could reflect the real submarine threat, without effecting any of what you said.
posted by Chuckles at 7:37 PM on June 22, 2006

I read a great book a couple of years ago:

Submarine Technology for the 21st Century.

Extremely informative. It goes into detail about the new generation of air-independent diesel-style submarine technology, which evens the field and allows developing nations to build effective submarine fleets on relatively little money.

Very worthwhile reading.
posted by jason's_planet at 5:31 PM on June 23, 2006