Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Saras]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Saras - could you please post a link on that. I had never considered that comparison, and I assume you have done some of the original research.

Well, not really, I sort of relied on "Colossus" by Niall Ferguson. Lots of handy statistics to throw about

[Flubber]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc You make a very good point about the Soviet mach speed guided missles. Very scary, and nobody has ever tested current ship defense systems against them. Add some world class electronics, either via a Western European partner or even the Chinese, and they will end up being DEADLY. The US navy was very concerned in the 1980's, read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy about possible outcomes.

IIRC the Russians used a bunch of drones to mimic a bomber force approching a carrier group in the North Atlantic. The aircover went to take them out when suddenly the real bomber force appeared in a different direction and could close to launch hundreds of missiles.

In the book, I believe AEGIS worked great but just had too many targets to get them all. The result was devastation.

Americans will be happy to know that despite an early setback and some dumbness on the part of the Americans . . .. true grit and smarts saw the Americans reverse things ( where did I see that before-- oh right . . . in every book Clancy wrote )

[Mr. Harley]

Flubber - I'm back, I hate insomnia. Your summary is right reference Red Storm Rising, but what I am talking about is the Mach speed BIG Soviet anti-shipping missles getting a modern upgrade, and worldwide deployment. Probably the only reason the Chinese don't do it is because, like Stingers in Afghanistan, they realize that their ships could end up being targets in 20 years. The Chinese technocrats are not necessarily limited to the profit motivation that blinds American businesses - i.e. Mr. Cheney and Haliburton doing technically legal buiness with Iraq and Iran in the late 1990's.

Also, even though the Soviets did swamp the anti-missle systems, it would be just as feasible to do that in a heavily constricted area like the Red Sea. As we discovered with Iraq SCUD launchers, mobility and concealment can often beat bunkers when it comes to preserving your assets. Would the US Navy deploy ships in the Persian Gulf if it was bristling with a high Mach equivalent of the Silkworm - I doubt it. Imagine if we lost five or six destroyers and cruisers. That's alot of casualties, and a sh*tload of money on top of that.

Remember, and this is like Iran's nukes - as long as the US is perceived as the "tough kid" with the baseball bat - some of the kids might band together and get a knife, or even a gun. If the bully says - I dare you to use it, and they get too scared - then things can get very ugly, very fast. The Bush administrations open contempt for the UN and for Sovereign States has probably done more to guarantee the spread of Nukes than anything else I can think of. Iraq got invaded. North Korea did not. Even if that analysis is wrong - if people believe it, then it will become a self-fullfilling prophecy. Especially, look at my sig. Dictators, theorcrats, and other authoritarian governments will go out of their way to get Nukes, if only for their personal self-preservation. What else does NK have as a viable commercial product? Idiot administration.

[Az]

Americans will be happy to know that despite an early setback and some dumbness on the part of the Americans . . .. true grit and smarts saw the Americans reverse things ( where did I see that before-- oh right . . . in every book Clancy wrote

I love to hate Clancy.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Flubber


IIRC the Russians used a bunch of drones to mimic a bomber force approching a carrier group in the North Atlantic. The aircover went to take them out when suddenly the real bomber force appeared in a different direction and could close to launch hundreds of missiles.

In the book, I believe AEGIS worked great but just had too many targets to get them all. The result was devastation.

Americans will be happy to know that despite an early setback and some dumbness on the part of the Americans . . .. true grit and smarts saw the Americans reverse things ( where did I see that before-- oh right . . . in every book Clancy wrote )

yeah on the website I read it only tracks 100 targets. I'm sure newer computer version can do more. But 100 isn't very many. But I doubt most countries have the capability of launching 100 missiles at one time. At least not most countries the U.S. is going to fight.

We know better than to fight China or Russia. We'd lose. . We simply do not have the military numbers to do it, despite having better technology. It still takes numbers to win a war.

[Seeker]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/csg.htm

current deployments if you want to know what bars someone is likely to be calling at...

http://www.afa.org/magazine/March1999/0399carrier.asp

...and here's what the air force association has to say about carriers...(and you'd think they'd know better than anyone)

[Dis]

Originally posted by Seeker

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/csg.htm

current deployments if you want to know what bars someone is likely to be calling at...

http://www.afa.org/magazine/March1999/0399carrier.asp

...and here's what the air force association has to say about carriers...(and you'd think they'd know better than anyone)

interesting read. and it has a picture of my old ship. Carriers will never match the USAF capabilities. They simply have more planes and more room of which to operate. We do have 4 catapults, but they take time to "recharge"- or repressurize would be more accurate. Although it doesn't take that long, it takes more time to get the aircraft hooked up to the catapult and ready to fly. One big time taker is organizing the ordinance. It has to be separated down below (at the bottom of the ship) put into elevators, brought up to the hanger bay. Then prepped and moved onto the aircraft elevators. then brought up the elevators to the flight deck. Then organized to go on each plane. Then loaded on each plane. etc.

[Dis]

and carriers only carry a few million gallons of jet fuel. When they refuel (by running side by side with a refueling ship and using cables to haul fuel lines accross the 2 ships), you can't do air operations. A major drawback, and another reason the USAF can run more sorties.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun


Wasn't most of the bombing done with those B2's, from... Diego Carcia or something?

Or...

No. In fact, in addition to the American CVNs (and the French Charles de Gaulle) the HQ for our Special Forces was the Kitty Hawk.

[Dis]

and finally the article doesn't state that navy aircraft cannot carry as much payload as bombers. How can you compare an F-18 to a B-2?.

Those catapults can only shoot off like 80,000 pounds. No more.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by binTravkin


QFT

And when someone built the first reliable (to exclude V-1) and guided winged missile it made carriers and other over (as opposed to sub) sea faring vessels obsolete.

No carrier can withstand a high speed guided missile.

*cough* SLQ-32 *cough*

The best, unstoppable countermeasure system on the plant.

Now, the "Sunburn" missile can successfully ignore the SLQ-32, but the ship carrying it is gonna have to get much, much closer to the CVN than the CVN's air wing.

[Dis]

And yes the air force did use long range bombers in the afghanistan war. They were pretty much limited to long range bombers from Diego Garcia.

In fact, that marked the first time their 3 premeir bombers were used at the same time. The B-52, The B-1, and the B-2.

The long flight time hampered their effectiveness even despite the higher payloads compared to small navy aircraft.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by binTravkin



There was a saying that if a person holds a baseball bat, he looks more dangerous than while yielding a gun..

What can Subs do to project power? How effective would Subs be against, say, Iraq?

Incidently, the US Navy is very worried about the proliferation of diesel subs in the worlds' navies. So worried that We're paying the Swedes to keep a Sub in San Diego so we can train against it. .


The answer to the "OMFG iTS Teh SUBS !!!11!!!!!!111!!!1" is TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN.

[Lonestar]

You know Dis, for a nuke you sure are d-u-m. A carrier can "only" carry a few million gallons of Jet fuel. Well, so? It's planes can loiter over a battle field more. It's airwing is more expendable (expecially when it costs $1bil a pop for a B-2), and they can land, reload and refuel, and go. All without taking 20 hrs to fly from The States or 10hrs from Diego Garcia.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lonestar


What can Subs do to project power? How effective would Subs be against, say, Iraq?

Incidently, the US Navy is very worried about the proliferation of diesel subs in the worlds' navies. So worried that We're paying the Swedes to keep a Sub in San Diego so we can train against it. .


The answer to the "OMFG iTS Teh SUBS !!!11!!!!!!111!!!1" is TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN.

Even if they weren't particularly worried, wouldn't you still train train train. Perhaps this sub is good enough that it will be a real challenge . . . and if its not, the Americans could always challenge their sonar officers by eliminating some of their equipment and data