Aircraft carriers for everyone!

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Joker85
You realize you're linking the opinion piece from a guy who advocates using WMDs on the civilian population in Iraq as a "solution" to win the war.

Forgive me if I don't take his doom and gloom "CARRIERS ARE OBSOLETE" babble seriously based off a lopsided war game designed to have happen exactly what did happen.

But hey, if your country wants to base their war doctrine off an obese nerd's internet blog, more power to you.

Maybe i'm missing something but it's just the results of the US war game where US carriers were sunk by some cheap low-tech crap. So, it has nothing to do with the fact who exactly is saying about the results and what are his military views.

And your claim about my country's doctrine is even more stupid. Obviosuly, USSR focused on subs and anti-CBG cruise missiles. However, when a threat of a big conventional war disappered (where carriers will be a toast anyway), my country decided to make them, maybe so to have a force projection in case of a minor conflicts, maybe for prestige - who knows? In any case, these decisions obviosuly weren't based on these particular US war games or that article.

[Lonestar]

War Nerd hasn't even commented on the exchange with the Iranian naval forces in the '80s, where "cheap, low-tech" Iranian watercraft repeatibly got their ass handed to them by the USN. And the USN is much more capable now than it was then.

[Saras]

And war nerd obviously never played Harpoon.

[Patroklos]

What the H does it do?

It is called a "missile barge." The idea was to have a vessel you could park off the cost of a nation with a few hundred TLAMs and take out all the hard targets in a sustained cruise missle barrage.

The idea was abandoned for several reasons to include.

1.) All your eggs in one basket. It basically concentrates all your strike cabability in one large target, that can only be at one place at one time. Spreading the cabability out amongst several cruisers and destroyers adds to flexibility and survivability.

2.) It was virtually helpless, requireing as many escorts as a carrier, so why not distribute the strike packages amongst the escorts and remove the HVU entirely?

3.) Inventory. We have a fininte amount of cruise missiles (very expensive) and few targets require several hundred missles, why tie them all up in one place.

It should be noted that with the conversin of four SSBNs to SSGNs this concept was sort of brought to life again, though an SSGN carries far fewer missiles and is much more survivable.

[Patroklos]

War Nerd hasn't even commented on the exchange with the Iranian naval forces in the '80s, where "cheap, low-tech" Iranian watercraft repeatedly got their ass handed to them by the USN. And the USN is much more capable now than it was then.

I am not sure how many times this has been thrown in the face of Serb whenever he dredges up that single, limited exercise in restricted waters.

I am glad you did it so I don't have too

focused on subs and anti-CBG cruise missiles.

And it has done so to its detriment, though Russia had no choice. You and many Russians seem to think you adopted the sub centric doctrine because you deemed it superior. This is ridiculous. You adopted it because you had no choice. There was no way you could ever reach naval parody so you went with the most cost effective interdiction method (a la Germany WWI/WWII).

Do you think if Russia had the ability to park several battle groups in the Atlantic and completely block aid to Europe in a conventional war scenario they would opt not too? As it is you went with the half ass option and focused on the land side (rightly, as you had no other choice). That’s what continental countries do.

[Patroklos]

And war nerd obviously never played Harpoon.

Those were the days

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Lonestar
War Nerd hasn't even commented on the exchange with the Iranian naval forces in the '80s, where "cheap, low-tech" Iranian watercraft repeatibly got their ass handed to them by the USN. And the USN is much more capable now than it was then.

Well, isn't it obvious? It's because there is too many retards in the world, and too little smart guys like that US General Paul van Ripen. Obviously, US military stuff who lost 100.000 ton supercarriers to a "few small boats and aircraft" are even bigger retards than these Iranian forces, so that proves my point. That's why everyone says that in a complex system the "weakest link" are always humans.

Originally posted by Patroklos
And it has done so to its detriment, though Russia had no choice. You and many Russians seem to think you adopted the sub centric doctrine because you deemed it superior. This is ridiculous. You adopted it because you had no choice. There was no way you could ever reach naval parody so you went with the most cost effective interdiction method (a la Germany WWI/WWII).

Do you think if Russia had the ability to park several battle groups in the Atlantic and completely block aid to Europe in a conventional war scenario they would opt not too? As it is you went with the half ass option and focused on the land side (rightly, as you had no other choice). That’s what continental countries do.

I don't get what exactly do you want to say. If you want to say that USSR made the right decision given the situation, that's true. I'm sorry to mention it on a supposedly a strategy forum there people supposedly should know at least something about a strategy, but generally there is no such thing as a superior doctrine for absolutely everyone in all cases. So, it was superior to USSR (and it was cheaper so it allowed to spend resources elsewhere) but most likely it wasn't superior to USA.

Besides, it' probably USA who didn't have the choice in that case, they needed carriers anyway even despite their price and vulnerability. USSR had a choice to build or not to build them and decided not to build them because other things were more important.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ellestar

Well, isn't it obvious? It's because there is too many retards in the world, and too little smart guys like that US General Paul van Riper. Obviously, US military stuff who lost 100.000 ton supercarriers to a "few small boats and aircraft" are even bigger retards than these Iranian forces, so that proves my point. That's why everyone says that in a complex system the "weakest link" are always humans.

Funny story, he wuz my Scoutmaster, way back when.


Anywho, anyone Admiral worth his salt could have just pulled the carriers farther away from the shore. Out in deeper waters, with less restriction on manuever, the bigger USN ships are gonna kill the lighter ships(assuming a SH-60 doesn't just act as a spotter for a CG or DDG's 5 inch several miles away)

[Patroklos]

Obviously, US military stuff who lost 100.000 ton supercarriers to a "few small boats and aircraft" are even bigger retards than these Iranian forces, so that proves my point.

Except of course the whole point of an exercise is to try new doctrine and see if it works before implementing it for real. For all you know the US fleet was testing some out there idea and it was proven wrong, oh well. Note you never hear about the other side of that exercise, and note nobody ever published the rules both forces had to follow.

I don't get what exactly do you want to say.

That Russia fielded a decidedly inferior force at sea because it opted for a land focused force. That means its fleet was in fact inferior, and the tactics it used were opted for out of neccesity, not because they thought they were better.

Though it turned out your land based forces were a joke anyways, so it was an wash for you in the end on all counts (except strategic missles).

[Lonestar]

It occurs to me you could also throw in the exchanges with the Libyans as well. Or, for that matter, (much) smaller North Korean craft engaging South Korean frigates and destroyers whenever they have a dispute at sea. "low tech small craft" ain't that great.

As for the Russians, well, Russia doesn't exactly have a long proud maritime tradition, does it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lonestar
It occurs to me you could also throw in the exchanges with the Libyans as well. Or, for that matter, (much) smaller North Korean craft engaging South Korean frigates and destroyers whenever they have a dispute at sea. "low tech small craft" ain't that great.

As for the Russians, well, Russia doesn't exactly have a long proud maritime tradition, does it?

IIUC they whupped Ottoman ass in the Black Sea on several occasions.

[Patroklos]

IIUC they whupped Ottoman ass in the Black Sea on several occasions.

Sometimes I beat up grade schoolers for their lunch money, what of it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Sometimes I beat up grade schoolers for their lunch money, what of it?

Nothing, just throwing out a factoid.

Russia didnt exactly rule the waves, but their naval history is a BIT more than Tsushima Straight.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Saras
And war nerd obviously never played Harpoon.

Strike Fleet.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
IIUC they whupped Ottoman ass in the Black Sea on several occasions.

Under the command of John Paul Jones.