Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[chequita guevara]

I have a fried chicken. . . . well, I'm going to fry a chicken . . . part of a chicken . . . okay, parts of two chickens.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lonestar




Course, a Carrier Strike group will often have a, anyone? anyone? Submarine accompanying it.

I mentioned that in a prior post-- that some of the best sub hunters are other subs


So you are not as defenseless as you make out

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Flubber


I mentioned that in a prior post-- that some of the best sub hunters are other subs


So you are not as defenseless as you make out

Alright, I am now officially confused as to what we're talking about.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lonestar



Alright, I am now officially confused as to what we're talking about.

1. You talked about how a sub could play a marching band beneath you and you wouldn't hear it-- Subsequent posts revealed that there numerous resources to prevent the sub getting in such a position so you were hardly as defenceless as the first post would imply


2. You did an " anyone anyone" as if no one mentioned subs as a possible anti-sub measure with a carrier group-- as if no one had mentioned them-- I already had

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Flubber


1. You talked about how a sub could play a marching band beneath you and you wouldn't hear it-- Subsequent posts revealed that there numerous resources to prevent the sub getting in such a position so you were hardly as defenceless as the first post would imply

I was refering to that specific sub (Gotland)when we're out there more or less on our own during exercises. Deployment is a different story.

2. You did an " anyone anyone" as if no one mentioned subs as a possible anti-sub measure with a carrier group-- as if no one had mentioned them-- I already had

Sorry then.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lonestar



I was refering to that specific sub (Gotland)when we're out there more or less on our own during exercises. Deployment is a different story.

Just curious, does your cruiser itself carry those two anti-sub helos and if so, how do you think you would match up against the sub?



Second you commented earlier that you "are unlikely to play against the varisty however"-- Do you mean that you are at a disadvantage and the sub would handicap itself in some way??

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Flubber


Just curious, does your cruiser itself carry those two anti-sub helos and if so, how do you think you would match up against the sub?

Yes, and I think it depends on the make of the sub and quality of the crew.

Second you commented earlier that you "are unlikely to play against the varisty however"-- Do you mean that you are at a disadvantage and the sub would handicap itself in some way??

No. I mean that, say, The PLAN doesn't have the world's greatest subs(or training) and we would "hear" them before they could close on us. Same with most other likely opponents.

[Joseph]

Can we just discuss the Surface Navy?

[Patroklos]

Discuss

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos, your justifications for safety are based on a similar attitude to what got our military (versus civilian administration) in trouble with Iraq - they did not assume that Saddam was also engaged in planning a defense based on OUR weaknesses.

If you can find us by our selves, and in range of 64 shore based missile batteries, assuming they don't suffer the 50% failure rate most have...

So we are going to assume that the most recent Soviet/Russian missiles have a 50% failure rate? Maybe some old Styx would, but I have serious doubts that their brand new missiles are that unreliable. Any stats specifically mentioning SS-NX-26 Yakhonts or the SS-N-22 Sunburn?

...and don't fall prey to a soft kill by chaff or our SLQ-32 V-3 which is 60% effective...

Again, which missiles are those numbers germane for? The Exocet, against it's contemporary defense systems, did very well. It sank the HMS Sheffield, and damaged the HMS Glamorgan even though it did not detonate. Also remember the USS Stark, and the fact that's it's radar never did pick up the Exocets - they weren't prepared, but if the Iranians launched, would they necessarily warn us, or would they try a surprise attack?

...and then make it through our two CIWS mounts that are 90% effective, then MAYBE you will hit us.

That is the only claim you make I will state is not applicable. Even the US Navy doesn't think the Phalanx is going to be that effective against those newer Soviet Missiles. Read this analysis of all the variables that produce your "90%" number - remember, you are staking your life on them! (warning - hightly technical paper). Also note there is no way that your 90% number would come from this - the variables necessitate a range of high to low. Is your 90% a best case scenario? What is the worst case one?

The Architecture of CAPE Models

Look at my earlier statement, "violent end stage maneuvers". Plus at mach 2-3 the Phalanx will only have seconds, and if there is bad weather, multiple targets, or prolonged periods of combat readiness...

My point is that our Navy is going to operating in an increasingly hazardous environment, and now that the Soviets are selling those damn missiles (and the Chinese may well improve them, and/or mass produce them), we may get a Stinger-Afghanistan scenario thrown right back in our laps. Neither Putin nor the Chinese will cry over US Naval losses, and those might well be as devastating as binTravkin posits.

[Ted Striker]

The estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to run $700 billion. (Good lawd). A Nimitz class carrier costs $5 billion to construct. I can only imagine what the operating costs for that thing must be.

All these carriers, and this reckless war are putting a huge financial strain on the American taxpayer. Something has to give. Cutting carriers only makes sense.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I have a rubber chicken.

I fried the chicken. It was delicious. Best I've ever done.

[binTravkin]

Look at my earlier statement, "violent end stage maneuvers".

Actually if one compares the speed of those Mach 2-3 (they might as well be higher mach after going through Chinese labs) missiles and the ones who are meant to intercept them it's clear the "end-stage" maneuvers might even not be as violent and still the missile would hit the ship.

Also large missiles might as well carry multiple anti missile-abilities like magnetic and thermal screens, tiny decoy missiles attached around their outerior and anti-radar (radar ray absorbing/reflecting at some different angle) measures.


And there are two formulas for calculating the succes rate - the public one and the real one.
The public one sums it up so it looks pretty positive, the real one multiplies it that it looks more negative with each iteration:

Say you have 2 percentages for 2 systems: 80% and 85%

The public one = min(80%, 85%) = 80%

The real one = 0.8 * 0.85 = 0.68 = 68%

As you see the difference is slight and it increases with each iteration (additional subvalue).

I've often seen officials using the above formula to show just how "good" their things are, don't be fooled by brainwashers.


Note also that noone can ever conduct wartime tests as there are no wars between opponents who could actually posess the needed technology to kick the other's butt. Modern wars are mostly agression by a technologically superior country against the inferior one and they tend to end exactly at the same moment the inferior country achieves some tech parity - look at NKorea for a good reference, they're puny but safe because they've got nukes.
My point is that all these "lab" tests cannot ever show any real values about all those nice shiny systems.
Plus the fact officials push the success percentages and other values up so that they look even more shiny and what you got is simply a childish boasting about "how good my new gun is but I'll never shoot with it because it could get scratched or something".

Most of you guys are gamers after all, you know that it's not so excruciangly hard to kill a powerful enemy if you have a cunning plan and execute it right.

The flip side of any brag about being #1 in a military category is the fact that I believe it was Poland that was number one in numbers of horse mounted troops in mid 1939.

Yes, I remeber reading that the decision behind having so much horse squads was that they're "cheap and mobile" (they were actually compared to tanks).

[Mr. Harley]

Just for jollies, what did the Chinese do to the SS-N-2b Styx? Note, it is still an older, subsonic cruise missle so Patrolos comments about missile defense are more than likely accurate for that.

China fields a number of variants of these missiles. The HY-1A replaces the HY-1’s conical scanning terminal guidance radar with an advanced monopulse
system that is resistant to interference from ocean waves and various forms of jamming. It also incorporates an advanced radio altimeter and new auto pilot that allows the missile to fly at an altitude of 50 m. The HY-2 features a longer fuselage to carry a larger volume of propellant. The HY-2A features an infrared terminal guidance seeker.

Now the Styx SS-N-2c has an 85km range, and a 513kg warhead. The Silkworm HY-2 has a 95km range and a 513kg warhead. The modified version via North Korea that Iran currently is developing (of the Silkworm) has a 450nm range and a 500kg warhead. My point is that when other people get done with the newer Russian missiles, expect them to end up even deadlier.

[Ted Striker]

It goes without saying, the Russians still have alot of super high tech weaponry, that matches our own, and what makes it worse is that they are broke, so the incentive to sell this stuff to anyone with money is there.