Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Patroklos]

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.

No, I am basing them off the most effective weapon Iran has to offer, and the only one they have a chance of employing against us in a suprise/overwhelming scenario; the C-802.

And Iran is the most potent threat, because it is the only potential enemy state where we have to operate within the range of their shore based batteries.

The first nation that tries to deliver its ordinance on a US carrier fleet via aircraft over open water will learn the hard way what being 20 years more advanced than the next challenger actually means.

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?

If we are going off of Russian equipment, then I would raise that number far higher than 50%. Just because it is designed well does not mean it is built or maintained well. And of course the most important component of any weapon system is the people. You don't sell expertise with the system, and Russian can barely train its own people (and that is a generous assesment).

Sunburns are amazing weapons, but in all reality an impractical one for most nations to use. The only method of delivery that would not be a write off as soon as it is deployed is shore based batteries which are.

a). large and immobile.

b). ergo survive a few hours to a day after hostilities begin before falling victims to cruise missle/air strikes.

SS-NX-26 Yakhonts are also decent weapons, but again there is no effective delivery system. You are basically relying on us to simply wander into range for no good reason, while leaving all the infrustructure required to fire them intact. I can think of very few things our Navy would have to get within 20nm of shore to do in the first stages of a real war.

Of note, the most advance new Chinese warships, which amount to a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate with a radar upgrade, do not even use these missiles you guys are drooling over.

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?

All of them, and even more so against active homing missiles that include almost all the ones that are a threat to us (eg Sunburn).

I don't see how you can use the HMS Shefield and Glamorgan as a counter to the SLQ-32s effectivness, as they didn't have it. If anything it just shows why you need it.

And both those ships are 70's vintage. I am not suprised that an exocet defeated a vessel without effective point defense, no AEGIS, no SLQ-32, no radar absorbing design features, no VLS, etc.

I would imagine that the Sheffield, launched in 1970, is a little different than the USS McFAUL, launched in 1996.

And of course the only reason the Argentines even got a missile off is because the British did not have adequate air coverage, a consequense of decommisioning their full size air craft carriers, to get back on topic.

Does anyone here honestly think that Iran would get more than a handful of planes off the ground, let alone defeating the prolific naval and airforce presence to mount an attack on ships?

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.

There is indeed risk. However, the Iranian missile theat is similar to the Iraqi artillery threat in GWI. As soon as they turn on their radars that will be almost instantaneously jamed, followed by an airstrike a few minutes later.

Even the US Navy doesn't think the Phalanx is going to be that effective against those newer Soviet Missiles.

You are right, CIWS is useless agains the Sunburn, as are SM-2s (jamming is not). However, those are not a realistic threat as of right now, the C-802 is. The SM-3 will be out soon enough to deal with the next genreation of Russian/Chinese crap.

[Az]

If we are going off of Russian equipment, then I would raise that number far higher than 50%. Just because it is designed well does not mean it is built or maintained well. And of course the most important component of any weapon system is the people. You don't sell expertise with the system, and Russian can barely train its own people (and that is a generous assesment).

You're the american version of Serb.

[DinoDoc]

those newer Soviet Missiles.

[Patroklos]

You're the american version of Serb.

You know, that is the most scathing and hurtful thing anyone has ever said to me on this forum

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lonestar

No doubt. The RAN is very profiecent(sic).

Incidently, we had a Chilean sub sink us when we were doing exercises right before deployment. Actually, it snuck up, raised it's periscope, took a picture of the fantail (it was so close you could read the name of the sailor smoking in the pic), went away for 30 min, then the Chilean sub skipper emailed the pic to our skipper.

aren't you guys supposed to be better at detecting subs than a carrier? What kind of ship were you on again? I can't remember.

[Dis]

Originally posted by 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.

around 100 million a year operating cost for a carrier. Not including special deployments such as wars in Iraq.

[Seeker]

http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

here's an article referring to what I mentioned earlier, the pentagon war game "Operation Millenium Challenge" (note to wargamers, this was an actual live military maneuver, not just comp sim).

The important point is that the "Red Force" was able to effectively neutralize the "Blue Force" carriers using small boats and small aircraft carriers obsolete ASMs to 'point-blank' range (in modern naval terms).

This surprised the navy a lot since they believed like Patroklus, that any force would be chewed up at long range.

My only criticism of the Red Force strategy is that in the real world a relatively undisciplined country with lots of troops with poor morale (i.e. just guys there because they'll be shot/paycheque) would be unlikely to be able to coordinate such a 'crackerjack timing' operation. (such as Iran, Zimbabwe, Somalian warlords etc).

However, it is a possible strategy the North Koreans might use very effectively.

I suggest anyone interested in the 'carrier vs sub' debate check out Operation Millenium Challenge, and the pentagon reaction / 'cover-up/head in sand.

[Patroklos]

I have heard of this excersise, and the opinion of all is that if you impose retarded ROE on any force, no matter how advanced, to support even more retarded diplomatic ends then any force becomes impotent.

[Patroklos]

Proof of this was all the scenarios about the US ground forces getting mauled in urban combat.

The Marines proved the assumption wrong in Falluja.

[Seeker]

"...retarded roe...in support of even more retarded diplomatic"

well....for the first part does this mean the US is withdrawing from the UN?

and for the second part, the Bush Admin is still in power.

So hope for the best, but transfer off the carrier before Operation Kill Kim, or Operation Mullah Bullah....(if one can honourably).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Seeker
"...retarded roe...in support of even more retarded diplomatic"

well....for the first part does this mean the US is withdrawing from the UN?

and for the second part, the Bush Admin is still in power.

So hope for the best, but transfer off the carrier before Operation Kill Kim, or Operation Mullah Bullah....(if one can honourably).

ISTR, there were complaints at the time that there were particular rules, cause this particular exercise wasnt designed to test defenses against the kinds of attacks this general jack the ripper used. In other words, it was what we gamers would call "an exploit".

[Kuciwalker]

ISTR?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by 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.

What do you think gives us more influence on the International stage, Carrier groups of Fighters that "cost" over $200 Million a pop? (F-22)

Obviously, the Carrier groups. The USAF has much, much worse cost-controls than the Navy does (and that's saying something). Let THEM take the cuts.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Az


You're the american version of Serb.

Hey now, Patroklos is just getting his SWO on. He's knowledgable...and stuff.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
ISTR?

i seem to recall