War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
nsarchive.gwu.edu
War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#2"Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of Blue's six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel.
Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected."
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#3"The simulated U.S. Navy battle group was defeated in ten minutes by an enemy that launched its attacks from commercial ships and using other unconventional means.
The findings of the newly released postmortem from the $250 million Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise foreshadowed “the very challenges the United States would face in... other conflicts since then,” according to Jones, who is FOIA director at the Post."
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#4We reacted to this late. But it isn’t a coïncidence that low-cost munitions are now receiving, in the U.S., other countries’ decadeslong weapons budgets.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#5Cool. Gives hope to Greenland, Canada, and other places threatened by the USA.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#6The US has started investing in low cost cruise missiles and drones https://www.twz.com/sea/10000-low-cost-cruise-missiles-in-th...
For ex $300k antiship missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-mission_Affordable_Capac...
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#7This war game has been discussed many times.
One thing to consider is that Van Riper summoned assets unrealistically he used small boats to avoid detection but then attributed load outs that they couldn't realistically carry.
He also moved information unrealistically assuming that his units could communicate as efficently with paper moved by hand as they could with radios.
There are real, valid criticisms of the lessons we should have learned from the exercise, but it's not as simple as most analyses make it out to be.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#8We reacted to this late. But it isn’t a coïncidence that low-cost munitions are now receiving, in the U.S., other countries’ decadeslong weapons budgets.
Did you have to press a special key to get that diacritical, or are you a writer for the New Yorker?
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#9Feels like the title needs some sort of "2002" notice - the reporting is recent but the actual wargame was done in 2002 and only recently declassified.
So, of course, the US military's vulnerability has only increased in spades since 2002 due to drones. All those bases in the Middle East that were supposed to help protect the countries where they were based were just ripe targets.
I think more critically, most of the US Navy feels like it's now more for show than an actual fighting force. A new aircraft carrier costs about $13 billion unit cost, but $120 billion total program cost. An Iranian Shahed drone costs about $35,000. So at about 2-3% of just the unit cost of an aircraft carrier, I could buy 10,000 Shahed drones. I don't even know how an aircraft carrier would begin to defend itself against an onslaught of thousands of drones.
In the joke of "Would you rather fight one horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses", clearly the 100 duck-sized horses is the winning strategy.
Re: War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare
#10This war game has been discussed many times. One thing to consider is that Van Riper summoned assets unrealistically he used small boats to avoid detection but then attributed load outs that they couldn't realistically carry. He also moved information unrealistically assuming that his units could communicate as efficently with paper moved by hand as they could with radios. There are real, valid criticisms of the less…
IKR? "from a 2002 war game"
Have there really been no other more interesting war games in the last quarter-century, or did all the negative attention this got just result in us never hearing about another one?