Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
99.99999% of eveyone is an armchair *whatever*.

This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...

I've got some personal familiarity with carrier aviation.

Oh I got that, and I'm not trying to belittle that, I was primarily referring to the "armchair secdef" comment, and that none of us are likely to be in situations to craft strategic policy. Many of us have some experience with these things (I worked with projects like the UCAS drone and other things in a past life during a stint with a large defense contractor, others in this thread have various military and defense industry experience as well), but none of us are policy crafters or generals/admirals/senators/etc either, and this is just a friendly discussion on a hobby interest board, so we can be free to be as armchair as we wish

Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.

For sure, Bush and his advisors gakked up big time on a lot of key decisions, but the US military top brass in Iraq made their fair share of blunders as well.

But we already knew that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
99.99999% of eveyone is an armchair *whatever*.

This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...

I've got some personal familiarity with carrier aviation.

Oh I got that, and I'm not trying to belittle that, I was primarily referring to the "armchair secdef" comment, and that none of us are likely to be in situations to craft strategic policy. Many of us have some experience with these things (I worked with projects like the UCAS drone and other things in a past life during a stint with a large defense contractor, others in this thread have various military and defense industry experience as well), but none of us are policy crafters or generals/admirals/senators/etc either, and this is just a friendly discussion on a hobby interest board, so we can be free to be as armchair as we wish

Having read a fair bit of military history, I've long came to the conclusion that defence industry experts are not all their cracked up to be. And that's not me trolling.

North Vietnam's defence planning was 4 guys, a table, a map, and Ho Chi Minh sitting in the background reading quotes from Mao's red book!. and that turned out ok for North Vietnam!

During the American Civil War, the Army of the Potomac would plan their campaigns over a few bottles of Whisky, which probably explains a lot of the early defeats!

On a serious note, the point is this: some people are born leaders, born warriors, and they instinctively know what to do. Look at all the planning that the Army of the Potomac had, and compare that to the military intuition of Stonewall Jackson and his vicories over the Union in '62 and 63'

It's not a modern example, and it's slightly OT, but I've always felt that the US miltary's overeliance on too much planning can be a bad thing. Sometimes you need to think on your feet.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.

I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.

This thread reminds me of Eisenhower's now seemingly forgotten speech:




Ohh... small caveat, I just found the video, I do not agree with that user/channel's ideology


I think that, when I look at so many of these big ticket items, the F-35, the "let's replace the M-16/M-4 happy circle-jerk" project, these floating computers people are calling destroyers, etc.... How many of them are actually needed?

I too study history, and what we're seeing today boggles my mind. If you look at WW2, and how things went... we were able to design fighters and bombers almost from scratch, build, test and begin manufacture and fielding in around 6 months. Sure, the F4U Corsair had some redundancy with the the Wildcats and Hellcats, and even the Mustangs and other planes. And I get how redundancy is bad in a "cash strapped" force.

But the way I see it, we're creating our own cash strapping by forcing idiotic programs with ridiculous and possibly untenable requirements.

I get and understand why some want to be rid of the M-4 body, and want to replace the M9 (seriously... why the feth did we buy that hunk of gak?)

But with all these projects, all I'm really seeing is congressmen justifying stupidity for the sake of votes. They get a new contract just because and suddenly, that congressman who promised jobs has brought them. Or, in some cases, a congressman gets a project pushed through, and the contractor decides it doesn't want to leave his/her district afterall. It's ridiculous.

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.

I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.

As do I.

 djones520 wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.

I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.

As do I.

I'll give him LTG Sanchez. He was in WAY over his head and could never admit it.

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.

I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.

As do I.

I'll give him LTG Sanchez. He was in WAY over his head and could never admit it.

Point. You can't look at one guy though over an extensive conflict, and paint the entire thing because of him. Given the total lack of asymetric warfare training that we went in with, and how we acquitted ourselves in the end, I think speaks marvels at how boss we are.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.

I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.

As do I.

I'll give him LTG Sanchez. He was in WAY over his head and could never admit it.

Point. You can't look at one guy though over an extensive conflict, and paint the entire thing because of him. Given the total lack of asymetric warfare training that we went in with, and how we acquitted ourselves in the end, I think speaks marvels at how BOSS we are.

Fixed.

US military from the 90's till now is almost two different Animals

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
This thread reminds me of Eisenhower's now seemingly forgotten speech:




Ohh... small caveat, I just found the video, I do not agree with that user/channel's ideology


I think that, when I look at so many of these big ticket items, the F-35, the "let's replace the M-16/M-4 happy circle-jerk" project, these floating computers people are calling destroyers, etc.... How many of them are actually needed?

I too study history, and what we're seeing today boggles my mind. If you look at WW2, and how things went... we were able to design fighters and bombers almost from scratch, build, test and begin manufacture and fielding in around 6 months. Sure, the F4U Corsair had some redundancy with the the Wildcats and Hellcats, and even the Mustangs and other planes. And I get how redundancy is bad in a "cash strapped" force.

But the way I see it, we're creating our own cash strapping by forcing idiotic programs with ridiculous and possibly untenable requirements.

I get and understand why some want to be rid of the M-4 body, and want to replace the M9 (seriously... why the feth did we buy that hunk of gak?)

But with all these projects, all I'm really seeing is congressmen justifying stupidity for the sake of votes. They get a new contract just because and suddenly, that congressman who promised jobs has brought them. Or, in some cases, a congressman gets a project pushed through, and the contractor decides it doesn't want to leave his/her district afterall. It's ridiculous.

I think it's also important to remember that it was Eisenhower that Massive Retaliation doctrine was formed, and that sorely needed investment into conventional forces to stop Soviet forces in the Fulda Gap and the North German Plain were instead put into nuclear arms which jumpstarted the strategic arms race in the first place. And as far as the military-industrial complex goes people underestimate how easy the west had it compared to the Warsaw Pact powers. In fact, the qualitative superiority the west generally had come precisely because of a strong civilian sector economy and that defence spending did not receive top budgetary priority. Readiness rates of NATO aircraft were far higher as a result of the need for engines that were more fuel efficient and less maintenance intensive, the fruits of a strong civil aviation industry for which their profitability was dependent on those factors. The US had a huge lead in solid-fuel rockets for ballistic and low-flying cruise missiles since polymer bonds for plastic toys were also very useful for holding rocket motors together. Then of course the most important development, computer technology (favourite Cold War arms development story: In the 70s, the KGB smuggled out Texas Instruments scientific calculators from the west so that they could be wired into anti-submarine sonobuoys and the RV buses of ICBMs to do guidance calculations).

In contrast look at where the Soviet "Metal Eaters Alliance" got them. The Strategic Rocket Troop wound up deploying as many as seven different types of land based ICBMs in a given period. The likes of Tupolev, Yakovlev, and Ilyushin couldn't survive the competitive heat of the civil aviation industry of the outside world and so Aeroflot cashed them in for Airbuses when the wall fell. Then of course there was the highly elaborate and hugely unnecessary illicit biological weapons program.

I'm thinking these days the US military-industrial complex could use a lot less money. Far too much is focused on what is going on abroad protecting economic interests while our infrastructure and economy goes to carp than I am comfortable with.

Cronie Congress people slaving out to defense contractors. Then military spends tons of money on inferior or overly expensive equipment for reasons only to pad corporate pockets.

I also find it entirely realistic for the US to pull out of a great deal of the world. Like the M.E., most of the blowback coming out of the region have to do with US military presence and intervention being a constant way of life there. Remove that and the region just might balance out with out us bombing the region. The only thing we want is oil from the region and no matter who is in charge they will more than likely still choose to sell to their biggest customer.

Unfortunately real life is oddly like the Game of Thrones lol.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Cronie Congress people slaving out to defense contractors. Then military spends tons of money on inferior or overly expensive equipment for reasons only to pad corporate pockets.

That's how it seems to work, isn't it? And it's not just defense contracts - every Senator etc tries to get government money for his state no matter if the project is useful or not so he can point at how many jobs he secured when re-election day comes up. You pay sick premiums for buying domestic products protected by government restrictions, laws and trade protectionism. Take for example the new heavy icebreaker ship president Obama proposed you need before 2020. Domestic corporations are expected to get the order at a cost of up to a billion dollars. Funny enough companies in Europe, Russia or Asia could build one for a fifth or at most a fourth of the cost.

 djones520 wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Seaward, the point I'm making is the military were just as incompetent as the politicians when it came to Iraq.

I'd disagree pretty strongly with that.

As do I.

Me too. The invasion went like a dream, the Iraqi armed forces were busted up in a couple of weeks, with low casualties on our side. It was the occupation afterwards that went wrong, and that was the fault of the politicians who didn't seem to have any plan for what to do after a successful invasion.

Ok, it's high time I backed up my earlier criticism of US military leadership during the Iraq war with some quotes and/or links:

Fiasco: The American Military adventure in Iraq by Thomas E Ricks.

Here's what Ricks had to say about the following military commanders:

On General Tommy Franks USMC:

"At the top of the chain of command for operations in Iraq, Franks seemed quickly to have detached from Iraq issues. some of those who worked with him found him remote and even out of touch in the weeks after the fall of Baghdad. Franks was getting ready to retire, while Abizaid was not yet confirmed by Congress to succeed him as the top US military commander for Iraq and the ME. A Pentagon official said that top officials got wind at one point that Franks planned to fly from the ME to Tampa, pick up his wife, and take a long weekend in the Bahamas...

Franks ultimately was ordered not to..."

Ricks is particularly scathing of Franks' leadership and tactics in Iraq, and the above is one of many examples in the book, but I think that example speaks volumes. Iraq is falling into ruin, and the Commander decides to take a holiday...

Ricks on General Ricardo Sanchez:

"Even so, the methodical Sanchez often appeared overwhelmed by the situation, with little grasp of the strategic problems he faced. The opinion of many of his peers was that he was a fine battalion commander, who should never have commanded a division, let alone a corps or a nationwide occupation mission. "He was in over his head," said Col. Holshek, who served in Iraq in 2003. " he was a fulfilment of the Peter Principle," which holds that people working in hierarchies such as the US military are promoted until they reach their level of incompetence. at which point they tend to fail spectacularly."

Ricks on General Raymond Odierno, Commander 4th Infantry Division:

"His 4th infantry division operating in the heart of the Sunni triangle, was criticised for its harsh tactics and detainee abuse..."

As always, the man or the woman at the top, sets the tone for everybody beneath them...

Ricks on Air Force General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs:

""The chairman of the joint chiefs who always seemed to make his top priority staying in step with Rumsfeld, also insisted that the situation was better than it looked..."there's been a lot of work done," Myers said in June. "A lot of the country is relatively stable."
Over the next year, Myers would make similar comments, repeatedly insisting that the situation was better than it looked, even as Iraq descended into guerrilla war, and hundreds of American troops died..."

I could go on an on, and I could provide quotes from The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq by George Packer, which is another book I would recommend to people.

So, In returning to my earlier point, sure, there were some good commanders in Iraq, but there were a lot of bad ones as well. The civilian leadership deserves to be blamed, no question, but lets not let the US military off the hook.

Books are one thing. Being on the field is another.

I think our society is trying to cut too many costs nowadays. There are things that must NOT be cut, no matter what. Looking at the matter only from an economic point of view is the true mistake.

 Sarouan wrote:
Books are one thing. Being on the field is another.

I'm not sure what this even means. Do you think there are German WW2 vets who felt like they won because they were there, and this is a valid POV? That despite what the books say, we won the war in Vietnam?

 djones520 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.

You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?

I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.

 Easy E wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.

You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?

I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. It is a test that everyone who wishes to join the military takes. It measures your aptitude in various skills, such as electronics, for example. Everyone who wishes to join has to meet a minimum score, and can only qualify for various jobs based on your scores. It's really a series of 10 tests, done at once. 4 of those tests are used to determine your AFQT, which is measured on a scale of 1-99 (I got a 96, toot toot). Minimum AFQT to join the service is in the low-mid 30's, based on the branch. The other scores are then used to help determine which jobs you can qualify for.

MEPS is the Military Entrance Processing Station. Anyone who joins the military will do so at a MEPS location. They run a battery of physical tests, background checks, etc, to further determine your eligibility. Very first thing we did was take the drug test. We continue to get random tests throughout are career. I've not kept specific count, but I'd wager it's averaged out to about once a year for me.

 Sarouan wrote:
Books are one thing. Being on the field is another.

I think our society is trying to cut too many costs nowadays. There are things that must NOT be cut, no matter what. Looking at the matter only from an economic point of view is the true mistake.

What? Looking at it from an economic point of view is a rational way of evaluating costs and benefits. Emotionally driven appeals cloaked in nationalism or knee jerk antiwar sentiments are probably some of the worst ways to evaluate military spending!

Of course there are things that should not be cut. And there are certainly things that do. The debate is over what those are- what is essential and what is wasteful/inefficient/etc. That is why analysis and debate over the role of the military, nature of threats, current capabilities is vital.

On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?

 djones520 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.

You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?

I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. It is a test that everyone who wishes to join the military takes. It measures your aptitude in various skills, such as electronics, for example. Everyone who wishes to join has to meet a minimum score, and can only qualify for various jobs based on your scores. It's really a series of 10 tests, done at once. 4 of those tests are used to determine your AFQT, which is measured on a scale of 1-99 (I got a 96, toot toot). Minimum AFQT to join the service is in the low-mid 30's, based on the branch. The other scores are then used to help determine which jobs you can qualify for.

MEPS is the Military Entrance Processing Station. Anyone who joins the military will do so at a MEPS location. They run a battery of physical tests, background checks, etc, to further determine your eligibility. Very first thing we did was take the drug test. We continue to get random tests throughout are career. I've not kept specific count, but I'd wager it's averaged out to about once a year for me.

Thanks. So basically it is the tests you take to get a Military occupational Specialty?

Not the same as means testing as that is all financial, and I was referring more to the organization being means-tested.

However, I will gladly concede that you all take Drug-tests before getting any money!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?

I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?

I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.

Or maybe a swing back to battleships. Fight railguns with railguns!

 Easy E wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
First we have to make sure each branch possibly down to the soldier level is means tested. Then, they should all pass a drug test before we give them any hand-outs.

You mean like the ASVAB, and then the drug test we do first thing at MEPs?

I honestly have no idea what ASVAB is because i am not a soldier. However, i would love to learn more.

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. It is a test that everyone who wishes to join the military takes. It measures your aptitude in various skills, such as electronics, for example. Everyone who wishes to join has to meet a minimum score, and can only qualify for various jobs based on your scores. It's really a series of 10 tests, done at once. 4 of those tests are used to determine your AFQT, which is measured on a scale of 1-99 (I got a 96, toot toot). Minimum AFQT to join the service is in the low-mid 30's, based on the branch. The other scores are then used to help determine which jobs you can qualify for.

MEPS is the Military Entrance Processing Station. Anyone who joins the military will do so at a MEPS location. They run a battery of physical tests, background checks, etc, to further determine your eligibility. Very first thing we did was take the drug test. We continue to get random tests throughout are career. I've not kept specific count, but I'd wager it's averaged out to about once a year for me.

Thanks. So basically it is the tests you take to get a Military occupational Specialty?

Not the same as means testing as that is all financial, and I was referring more to the organization being means-tested.

However, I will gladly concede that you all take Drug-tests before getting any money!

Well that really isn't true either, you can totally fail a drug test and collect a paycheck if you know how to play the game. I've seen a solider do it for several months. He would just AWOL between paychecks and take all the drugs possible. Because he wasn't physically present to sign paperwork to kick him out they couldn't kick him out so he still collected his automatic payments.
Then you can fail a drug test but if you are seeking help before you fail (or quickly enough after) you will still be collecting a paycheck. You might only be collecting one long enough to get booted out. If your a good "Joe" you might just get addiction help and stay in or you might get medically discharged. Then you could fail a drug test but be a high enough rank to have to retire and just collect retirement pay.

The military drug test is really just an inconvenience. If you test a 100% of a company only maybe 10% randomly selected will actually be test and the rest thrown out. Each drug test only tests certain drugs too so steroid abuse usually flys under the radar (when it isn't actively ecouraged by leadership). You can abuse any pain meds so long as you get a perscription for phantom injures too. Then there is deployments were people smoke all the hash they can get their hands on.

Military drug testing is a joke. Soldiers can skirt the line for months or even years without ever getting caught.

Every time the service branches have to go to Congress to get their budgets approved they paint the most negative picture possible in order to justify getting a bigger budget this year than last year. If things weren't bad and in need of fixing/overhauling then why would Congress give a budget increase? Nobody is going to testify before Congress that everything is going fine but they need X% increase in their annual budget just because it would be nice.

At the same time Congress is notorious for interfering with military procurement and budgets. Which bases are kept open, what equipment the military buys and in what amount all have much more to do with keeping people in congressional districts employed and businesses in congressional districts making money than with what the service branches actually need to mission capable and ready. We need civilian oversight of the military but the politicizing of military spending is always going to create waste and abuse in the budgets.

One guy in our unit was having drugs mailed to him while we were in Japan. Then he was selling it to the locals. I don't know how he accomplished it as I didn't care to ask. Point is they caught him and he was still walking free and getting paid.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Every time the service branches have to go to Congress to get their budgets approved they paint the most negative picture possible in order to justify getting a bigger budget this year than last year. If things weren't bad and in need of fixing/overhauling then why would Congress give a budget increase? Nobody is going to testify before Congress that everything is going fine but they need X% increase in their annual budget just because it would be nice.

There's also the old story of how the Marine Corps made the mistake one year of saying that things weren't that bad or in need of fixing... They were basically asking for a hold in their budgetary funding, instead they got a significant cut which hurt them for probably well over 20 years.

Now, I think most branches, while no one serving was alive at that time, or if they were, were barely toddlers, have still "remembered" that lesson.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Every time the service branches have to go to Congress to get their budgets approved they paint the most negative picture possible in order to justify getting a bigger budget this year than last year. If things weren't bad and in need of fixing/overhauling then why would Congress give a budget increase? Nobody is going to testify before Congress that everything is going fine but they need X% increase in their annual budget just because it would be nice.

There's also the old story of how the Marine Corps made the mistake one year of saying that things weren't that bad or in need of fixing... They were basically asking for a hold in their budgetary funding, instead they got a significant cut which hurt them for probably well over 20 years.

Now, I think most branches, while no one serving was alive at that time, or if they were, were barely toddlers, have still "remembered" that lesson.

Eh... when you budget, you always ask for more. That way, if the bean-counters says, no that's too much, here's your budget. You hope that the new figures lands to your approximate needs.

That's true in every sector.

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?

I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.

While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?

I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?

I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.

While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?

I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?

The countermeasures for a railgun slug are likely to center around spoofing sensors/fire control and other ISR assets so that the slug is never fired or at least never fired at the correct target.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of Carrier vulnerability, isn't the US currently developing railguns as an alternative to cruise missiles? What happens when/if someone, let's take China as an example, gets similar technology? I imagine that shooting down an ASM is a lot easier than defending from tungsten chunks at Mach 10, no?

I'd imagine we're talking decades down the road at that point, and a smart man would put money on us already developing counter measures, whatever they may be.

While I agree that we're talking decades down the road, I honestly can't fathom what a countermeasure for a railgun slug would be. I mean, is it even possible to stop something with that much energy?

I imagine another railgun slug would but detecting, tracking, and targeting a projectile like that seems very difficult - the round can travel 10 miles in 7 seconds. What range do ship-to-ship naval engagements happen at?

We might not be able to, but the guys who developed the science to build these things probably can. And honestly, ship to ship naval engagements right now, probably happen from hundreds of miles away, given missile technology.