Rumsfeld kills "Crusader"

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I support this, for no other reason than it might make us less likely to commit ground troops to a war.

Om the other hand, I *DO* support modernization of the military, as long as it goes hand-in-hand with massive military cutbacks. Rumsfeld's plan to cut a carrier would certainly be a good start.

Aaaagh!!!

Carriers are the premier means of sea control and of expeditionary warfare (especialy time-sensitive) in remote hot spots. They abviate the need for basing rights, too. Which you should appreciate.

Besides, you don't really like our country anyway. Why don't you go float around on the libertarian ship?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by DanS
Btw, what's the range on the Crusader?

45 km, IIRC.

David, you do know that without Carriers, we probaly could not have prosecuted the conflict in Afghanistan, right? I mean, we were stretching ourselves with just two CBGs and one "Half" group.

[joseph1944]

I think it was a big mistake also.

[David Floyd]

Carriers are the premier means of sea control and of expeditionary warfare (especialy time-sensitive) in remote hot spots. They abviate the need for basing rights, too. Which you should appreciate.

You should know that I don't want us to have expeditionary capabilities, GP

David, you do know that without Carriers, we probaly could not have prosecuted the conflict in Afghanistan, right? I mean, we were stretching ourselves with just two CBGs and one "Half" group.

Then again, without a bloated military and the do what we want foreign policy that comes with it, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened

[TCO]

DF,

Well, let's live in the world we're in. We gtot attacked. And we're fighting back. This is even acceptable to hard core libertarians.

FYI: I said the expeditionary thing to grate on you. but even if you are more isolationist, you should see the benefit for naval assets since they don't need basing...and can be used to protect trade.

[David Floyd]

Well, let's live in the world we're in. We gtot attacked. And we're fighting back. This is even acceptable to hard core libertarians.

I agree. My point is that without US imperialism we probably wouldn't have been attacked.

FYI: I said the expeditionary thing to grate on you. but even if you are more isolationist, you should see the benefit for naval assets since they don't need basing...and can be used to protect trade.

I agree - I'm in favor of moderate naval cutbacks, but retaining a strong carrier force, just not as strong as the current USN. Really, my biggest cuts would be Marines, Army, and offensive air power, in that order.

[Urban Ranger]

Does the US need a number of carrier battle groups to support two simultaneous regional conflict? This seems like a highly unlikely scenario.

[David Floyd]

Should the US ever fight two wars at once is a better question, IMO.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Does the US need a number of carrier battle groups to support two simultaneous regional conflict? This seems like a highly unlikely scenario.

WE actually don't have enough to meet the deamand of this contingency. (15 carriers). We have enough for ~1.5 regional confilcts now. Which seems reasonable to me. (Defense is an insurance policy. You don't want to be too light on insureance.) Current carrier levels are driven more by precense requirements for peacetime than by wartime requirements. We have one in the Med. One in the IO. One in the Lant and one in the Pac. Rest are training, shore time (sailors need some.), carrier overhaul, etc.

Many people don't realize that carriers can't conduct 24 flight ops. (There is only 1 deck crew.)

[David Floyd]

I've heard the rule of thumb is three carriers per deployment - 1 in theater, 1 working up to relieve it, and 1 in overhaul.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I agree. My point is that without US imperialism we probably wouldn't have been attacked.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they would attack us as the symbol of the decadent West. Regardless, you don't justify them, do you?

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I've heard the rule of thumb is three carriers per deployment - 1 in theater, 1 working up to relieve it, and 1 in overhaul.

yeah.

Also understanding the inability to do 24 hour ops explains a lot.

[David Floyd]

Also understanding the inability to do 24 hour ops explains a lot.

What do you mean?

And yeah, I'm decently knowledgeable about US military stuff

[TCO]

The carrier is incapable of doing continuous flight ops because for the deck crew it is basically battle stations situation (they are all up and working). To get continous ops, you need to have a second carrier.

[Sikander]

Rumsfeld was caught flat-footed by 9/11, in the midst of his plans to more selectively upgrade U.S. defense capabilities rather than buying the current versions of each weapons system. I support the idea here, of skipping a generation with weapons systems that are capable of carrying on for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for everyone we were thrown into a widespread war which will continue to strain our capabilities for the foreseeable future.

The Crusader seems like a good weapon btw. It fire 10 rounds per minute, and each gun can fire up to 8 rounds which can be timed to arrive simultaneously on the target. This gives each gun the capability to fire a single barrage by itself (though sustained fire will still be a good deal less than a current battery), and a battery the capability of firing a time on target with the firepower equivalent of almost an entire division's artillery component. This means that either we could significantly upgrade our firepower, or conversely drop the number of tubes allotted to each battery. I am a firm believer in delivering ordinance by guns, as it is both the cheapest and fastest means of doing so in most cases. There are however many cases where artillery is either not capable or not the preferred method of bombardment. Artillery requires either a presence on the ground, or access to the target by sea for one of the few weapons capable of bombardment. These factors for instance limit the effectiveness of artillery in the present campaign in Afghanistan, where our forces are vulnerable to attack from infiltrators and the front lines are very far from base areas, with most operations being airmobile. Moving artillery around and protecting it in this environment would be difficult and probably not cost-effective.

All that being said, it's not as if we are going to scrap our current artillery pieces, so we don't have to worry that we won't have artillery if we need it. Our current systems are still very good.

I do agree with Rumsfeld about the aircraft carriers. They really only have one thing going for them, though it is an important factor, which is that they obviate the need for local bases in many situations. Unfortunately their firepower is really limited, they require a host of vessels to protect and supply them, and they are very expensive. We need to build a new ship which can take over the carrier's role in bombardment. A few big guns built on a ship designed for the purpose could reach very far inland. With control surfaces (fins) the shells could even steer themselves toward the target to assure accuracy at great distances. Ships like these could either supplant carriers in some situations, or greatly enhance the carrier's own anemic firepower. I'm not saying that we have to scuttle our carrier fleet, but the whole arm needs looking into. In cases where we need only to strike, a bombardment ship could do the job at a fraction of the cost.

As for the Osprey, it is having troubles, and the marines desperately need new aircraft now. I would be tempted to buy a few new helicopters in order to retain the marine's capabilities for the near future. Gambling on one airframe which is still having trouble seems like a bad idea during wartime.

My final point is that introducing new weapon systems creates a strain on your forces. Some of your best officers and enlisted men are shunted into the final stages of the development program in order to give the new weapons a shakedown and to develop a training program for those who will use the new weapons. Crews have to be removed from current sytems in order to undergo training on the new one, while formations have to make logistical and basing adjustments in order to provide a home, ammunition, parts etc. for the new systems. This is especially difficult during wartime, especially a limited war where there aren't millions of new people in uniform to help pick up the slack. Once the new weapons are staffed with new crews they have to be integrated into their formations in an operational sense, which can be simple at first (just a quick course), but requires some time in order for the new capabilites and limitations to sink into the minds of the staff. So there is a cost to these weapons in valuable military labor which is not fitted into the calculations of how much the system will cost the taxpayers. This cost should be particularly mentioned whenever someone points out the advantages to having more than one weapon design in production, ie flexibility.