Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Dis]

hmm, this thread has inspired me to change my avatar. It's not my carrier I was on. Sadly, my carrier has seen very limited action in it's history. Not much since Vietnam. Of course this picture was taken in a region west coast carriers normally operate.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
...
It is good to have all those shiny thingies (and I don't believe AEGIS would work in a real battle as it's a CPU after all and one error would most likely mean the death to entire ship) to show others and say - see what I have, but when it comes to some real warring they simply are not cost effective enough.

One CPU error allows the missle to make its own CPU error, assuming that there wasn't a problem with the CPU involved with the targeting data etc. Too many unknowns and unknowables and a severe lack of real data. Which is why we have all of the shiny things. Some of them might be quite valuable indeed when the shi'ite hits the fantail.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dis
hey cool. I found a photo of a navy ship hit by an exocet missile. I forgot we had one hit in the 80's.

It was actually hit by 2 exocets. The ship returned to Bahrain under her own power and the crew put out the fires.

It was only a FFG, caught flat-footed and survived.

[Mr. Harley]

Thank you, Sikander - somebody gets the point to my posts.

Too many unknowns and unknowables and a severe lack of real data.

If you don't believe that, read that link I supplied the first time.

The Architecture of CAPE Models

For those of you who don't believe that, read my
Which is why we have all of the shiny things. Some of them might be quite valuable indeed when the shi'ite hits the fantail.

Again, Sikander is correct. However, so is binTravkin. You do want all those "shiny things", because they can save dozens if not hundreds of lives. If somebody had paid attention to some of those shiny things (that new-fangled radar) both Pearl Harbor and some of the naval engagements in the Solomons would have turned out very differently. The biggest problem is that you can very seldom determine ahead of time which shiny things will provide that critical edge.

binTravkin is correct, though, in that cost effectiveness is a problem, and the US military spending sometimes seems to continue without the constraints imposed on other countries. Without those constraints, we may indeed not be getting the best bang for the buck, literally as well as figuratively. It's always a fine balance.

[Patroklos]

t is good to have all those shiny thingies (and I don't believe AEGIS would work in a real battle as it's a CPU after all and one error would most likely mean the death to entire ship) to show others and say - see what I have, but when it comes to some real warring they simply are not cost effective enough.

What the hell do you think all those new Russian missiles your creaming over are, if not shiny things.

But your right, I can't see for the life of me what the most advanced, reliable, and capable air search radar could possible aid in air/missile defense.

[binTravkin]

What the hell do you think all those new Russian missiles your creaming over are, if not shiny things.

But your right, I can't see for the life of me what the most advanced, reliable, and capable air search radar could possible aid in air/missile defense.

You know, you're now boasting as a little kid.

And the difference between your Carriers and thoe missiles are that noone's using them to show "look what we have!", they're kept in secret and developed in secret.
In real life those things which look nice rarely work as nice as those who don't, but are designed for one single purpose - to work.

Sometimes I wonder how you people don't see that you're going exactly the same path that all big militant empires have gone, but reading such posts as yours I do not wonder anymore.
Your pride and ignorance (or rather unquestioning believing in what you're being feed from above) blind you.


And yes, the most powerful most well kept and the fastest running horse still fails in a combat with bullet.
It can accomplish many other things though, which bullet can't, but to believe that just because he's so nice horse he can withstand a bullet is one of the highest follies.

Rock, paper, scissors buddy.
They always work. You can invent things that make them work less effective, but they can never make this principle obsolete.
There's nothing that's good against everything.

[Dis]

are we going the path of the big militant empires?

Not so far. We can still supply our own army.

Empires such as rome and byzantine had populations that either didn't want to serve in the military or had insufficient population to do so.

Though you could make an argument for the high numbers of mexicans in our armed forces. But the majority are still white trash kids looking for some action. You can't get any more american than that.

When we have to look elsewhere to maintain our army, that's when we are in trouble.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by binTravkin


You know, you're now boasting as a little kid.

And the difference between your Carriers and thoe missiles are that noone's using them to show "look what we have!", they're kept in secret and developed in secret.There's nothing that's good against everything.

Most of Americans here arent running to this thread and shouting look what we have. Even a relative foreign policy hawk, like myself. It struck me as silly, given the absence of a really competive great power navy. And yes some russians go and brag too, or did, when they still showed up here (i do miss Serb, really I do)

As for secret carriers, I dont really know how youd manage that, even if you wanted to. And im not sure youd want to - part of the goal of the Carriers is to show the flag, and deter trouble.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Dis
Empires such as rome and byzantine had populations that either didn't want to serve in the military or had insufficient population to do so.

I heard that it has become harder to recruit nowadays? Not to the Navy I would guess. But less and less want to go as foot soldiers to Iraq.

Not so far. We can still supply our own army.

See picture

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


I heard that it has become harder to recruit nowadays? Not to the Navy I would guess. But less and less want to go as foot soldiers to Iraq.

1. The army if short of enlistment GOALS. Which goals have increased, as a result of a decision to expand the army.
2. the worst problems have been in areas other than general infantry, IIUC.
3. Worst month, in terms of goals, was May, IIUC. Its gotten better the last couple of months, though theyre still below goal.

[Patroklos]

I thought you were DISBO/SALES....

I am, when I say SUPPO I mean it like whan a SWO says SWO.

Point is, After six months of Pepsi/Coke/Hajij Dew (Dr. Pepper isn't sold outside of North America, apperently) I wanted some sunkist or something like that. The shole ship did. When we took on several pallets of snapple during a RAS they were gone within two days.

Mountain Dew is the money maker. In the Gulf I can push a pallet (10 24can cases) a week easy. After that it is Diet Coke. Reasoning is simple, young kids like the Dew, old officers and cheifs like Diet Coke.

If I had to rank after than it would be Coca-cola, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Root Beer, Iced Tea.

Interestingly enough, I never had a problem getting Dr. Peper in the Gulf or HOA, but there was a point where there were no Marlboro cigarettes for 2000nm in any direction. You want to see a mob out for blood, try 300 Marboro fans stuck smoking Newports (which are Menthols).

In the middle east they used actual tin cans like the old days, instead of aluminum.

Our Haji cans were Aluminum, but they had the old peel tab instead of our pop tabs.

[Patroklos]

Patroklos - thanks for the response

No problem, this is my type of thead

To assume that the Iranians are not aware of our survelliance and are not actively attempting to circumvent it, very possibly successfully, is the height of folly. I sincerely hope our naval planners are not doing that.

Obviously these are posibilities, but it is impossible to be prepared for everything. I am sure, just like Iraq, our enemies will find loopholes in our force doctrine AFTER we completely whale on them conventionally, including the missiles they do have (C-802) and the ones the probobly don't (Sunburns). I see these blows being small and as far as force or mission threatening, ineffective just like Iraq.

Remember that we have lost a battalion after three years in Iraq, which in Navy equivalents is a frigate. But that took three years.

If the Iranians launch a mixed force of C-802's AND a mix of Sunburns and Yakhonts, that could get really ugly. The problem is we are dealing with "gap" scenarios here, as in who has which defensive/offensive hole in their technology/deployment. Making a mistake in that kind of area can cause you to have substantial losses - like your assumption that the Iranians did not learn from Desert Storm and are now deploying their land-based anti-ship missiles from portable launchers.

The mix you decribe is what we are prepared for. Like I said, the Iranians not having a single successful anti-ship missile test in ten years is telling. And Sunburns, by their nature, are not highly portable. And that isn't even their problem. Their problem is they have no efective infrastructure to get from point A (missile site) to point B (target). Without us going out of our way to make ourselves targets, the only place they are a threat are the Straights of Hormuz. I sincerely belive it would take a day at most to reduce this threat to zero from the air.

The point about the British, and US losses, to anti-ship missiles was to make the point that, given the technology of the time, the anti-ship missiles have the upper hand. That has largely been the case over the last 40 years, I can pull you out analysis if you want. I will grant your point, and in fact I already did with my comments about the Silkworm/Styx, that our defenses will work well against the previous generation missiles.

I beg to disagree. The Brits were fighting with 12 year old ships in 1982. Their air defence was so bad that there are pictures of Skyhawks dropping BOMBS, not exocets, on the ships from 1000 ft! The Argentines did most of their damage with conventional iron bombs, the exocet/anti-ship missile revolution of that war is a farce.

Two things were learned during that war. One was that all the bombs and missiles got to the british warships because they did not have an effective naval air arm (extremely relevant to the thread). Two, that their shipborn air defenses were pathetic.

the USS Ticonderoga commissioned on Jan. 22, 1983. A ship 20 years ahead of the next British design, let alone our enemies.

The Sunburn, Exocet, Stx, and Silkworm are the previous generation of missiles. The SM-2ER, SM-3, ESSM, and RAM are the state of the art.

But the current generation missiles will almost always have an advantage, due to the nature of missiles versus countermeasures, cost issues, etc.

This is patently wrong. Jamming technology has increased at a far greater rate than missile technology. And once again all the missile development in the US for the past 15 years has been on anti-missile missiles. Why would anti-ship missiles automatically have an edge, what evidence do you have of this.

Lastly, I didn't talk about the newest Chinese destroyers, I specifically am talking about their aquisition of Russian Sovremenny class ships, and the new advanced versions. The Chinese are probably reverse engineering the first ones right now.

Exactly, if these weapons are so effective, why does the cream of the crop when if comes to Chinese warships not use them.

Global Security

At the end of 1997 the only large surface combatants active in significant numbers were the newer units of the dozen remaining Sovremennyy-class guided-missile destroyers and a few of the half-dozen remaining operational Udaloy-class destroyers. At that time the two remaining unfinished Sovremennyys, Vazhniy and Aleksandr Nevskiy (ex-Vdumchivyy), were lying 65% and 35% complete, respectively, at St. Petersburg, with only the first in the water. The first was delivered to China in early 2000, with the second following in January 2001.

There are maybe, and that is a big maybe, 8 Sovremennyys operational in the whole world, and 6 of those are Russias. The design is for 1985, and there is no doubt in anyones mind that they are far inferrior to the DDG. Let the Chinese upgrade it, maybe they will come of with something as potent as a Sprunce in the end. Meanwhile, we begin building DD(X) next year. Currently, we have over 50 operational DDGs alone, let alone cruisers. China/Iran/ Russia could build nonestop for 20 years before having a surface fleet they could put to sea that would last more than a few days against what we have now, let alone what we will have in 20 years.

My entire point is that there are now enough variables to make operating in the Red Sea one of the riskiest naval environments in the world, if not THE riskiest. Do I believe, IMHO, that we have the edge? Absolutely. Do I believe that we could operate loss free against the Iranians - as in no hulls being destroyed? That is very much open to doubt. Do I believe that we would take horrendous losses, and it would be a bloodbath? Unlikely. But my point is unlikely does not equal it will not happen - and I don't want other people burying their family members unless it is conclusively warranted, as in Afghanistan harboring Osama bin Laden after it became obvious he had masterminded 9/11.

I am going to assume you mean the Gulf.

I appreciate the caution of your arguement, but go back and count the maybes, proboblys, and likelys in the post I am quoting from. You cannot run a military like that, or you will never depoly a weapon system. If the chinese were so content that their 20 year behind military could clean the floor with us, why are they rabidly trying to reach our level?

[Patroklos]

It was only a FFG, caught flat-footed and survived.

One that was also suffered from "freindly" fire. We don't stand up point defenses when the Australians come within range either, and neither do they.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dis
hey cool. I found a photo of a navy ship hit by an exocet missile. I forgot we had one hit in the 80's.

It was actually hit by 2 exocets. The ship returned to Bahrain under her own power and the crew put out the fires.

If only they'd do that to this thread

[Patroklos]

You know, you're now boasting as a little kid.

I hardly see how providing easily verifiable technical facts translates to boasting.

I am submitting this post from compartment "1-254-0-Q" of an Arleigh Burke Guided Missile Destroyer. You are posting from compartment Half eaten Doritos Bag-Used Spooge Rag-Spilled Mountain Dew over Keyboard of a borrowed room at your parent’s house. When I want data to debate with on this topic I go down the P-way to the CIC Annex and breeze the pubs and tech manuals of the weapon system themselves, or ask a Chief. You do a Google search. Perhaps you should listen what Lonestar, Dis, and myself have to say and learn as this what we do (or did, Dis ) everyday, for years now. If you want to contend that your video game understanding of warfare is comparable to that, realize that your opinion is caste in the light of the above.

Which would not be a problem if you had a least a Harpoon video gaming understanding of naval warfare, but you seem to be operating off Command and Conquer plateau.

And the difference between your Carriers and thoe missiles are that noone's using them to show "look what we have!", they're kept in secret and developed in secret.
In real life those things which look nice rarely work as nice as those who don't, but are designed for one single purpose - to work.

You mean the weapons that are developed in secret but whose details are apparently known to an adolescent internet browser and posted all over a public forum???

There are few things shiny on our warships, most things are a dull haze grey. But I think I know what you are struggling with. We Americans have a nasty habit of not only designing our weapons well, we also build them to standards and then (cover your ears Serb if your listening), maintaining them in pique condition. Call in an obsession.

But I am curious how you derive from a rusted, dirt encrusted, sitting peirside for 10 years, never used successfully weapon that it was designed well?

Sometimes I wonder how you people don't see that you're going exactly the same path that all big militant empires have gone, but reading such posts as yours I do not wonder anymore.
Your pride and ignorance (or rather unquestioning believing in what you're being feed from above) blind you.

Yeah, what do the likes of engineers, physicists, technicians, tech reps and seasoned officers know about the capabilities of the weapons they designed, built, tested and used successfully...

I also totally see how your countless days of playing BF2 instead of doing your homework makes you less ignorant than me on these things. I mean, it’s not like I have actually fired a Harpoon and SM-2 myself or anything.

And yes, the most powerful most well kept and the fastest running horse still fails in a combat with bullet.

That comparison fails when you understand that the person firing the bullet is in this case blindfolded, spun around a few times, is a few miles away from the target and of course has never fired said gun before (actually doesn't even have a gun, just the bullet).

Rock, paper, scissors buddy.

You keep playing rock paper scissors, while I play Tomahawk, Harpoon, SM-2.

There's nothing that's good against everything.

I totally agree with you, the best example being anti-ship missiles