Aircraft carriers for everyone!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lancer
They both serve the same Kiaser,why not...

Because BeBro is German, and probably doesn't want to be destroyed

[Lancer]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The problem isn't really affording a carrier, even a nuclear powered one. Where it gets expensive is all the escorts you need to keep the carrier afloat against submarine and missile attacks. That trebles the cost, even if you have the anti-missile and ASW technology to start with.

Then you need at least 2 carriers in case you lose one (this is the point the French are stuck at) and the second carrier needs its own escort group and that doubles again the already high cost.

It's also more expensive to learn from scratch and, apart from the Russians and their Yak-36 target drones, since 1945 everybody else has been relying on what the USN and RN have been prepared to sell or explain about operating carriers.

US Dept of Defense Instruction on How To Operate a Carrier

Part 1) Biplane operations

Part 2) There is no part 2

[Patroklos]

No no no.

1.) Buy planes.

3.) PROFIT!!!

[Lancer]

Hey! Those are top secret war plans!

[Patroklos]

Thats why we shredded all references to #2, try and steal it now China

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Indeed, I see a new Cold War, but I actually think Russia and China might team up together against the U.S. It seems these two countries are dead set on ending the long reign of world influence the U.S. has had. Can we perhaps blame the Iraq war? Has it shown that our military is really very weak, so Russia and China hear oppurtunity knocking? I hope I'm wrong.

Our army is designed for toe-to-toe confrontations not chasing guerilla fighters.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Patroklos


What?

I'm refering to the manpower problem. I always thought we had this extremely large and overwhelming military, then here come Afghanistan and Iraq and it seems like our plate is more then full with just these two tiny countries. If we have a manpower problem now, what happens if Russia and China flex their muscles? Do all we have left is our nuclear deterrant?

[Shrapnel12]

BTW, this is one instance where I hope everyone will disagree with me. I'd really like to be wrong on this one.

[Lancer]

Don't worry about it! There's no nation that can oppose us militarily and survive. In the aftermath of getting their asses kicked their citizens can be a pain but that's about it.

What I worry about is training, our guys are likely not getting enough right now. Readyness suffers.

[Patroklos]

I'm refering to the manpower problem.

There is no manpower problem we have upwards of 50 million men of fighting age not serving. The problem is are we willing to tap them. If we were to fight a war with Russia or China our view of certain things will be quite different.

We have an idea of how we want to fight this war, so we are doing it that way regardless. One of the ways we want to fight this war is by giving our troops previously unheard of rotations and comforts.

I always thought we had this extremely large and overwhelming military, then here come Afghanistan and Iraq and it seems like our plate is more then full with just these two tiny countries.

It is a testemant to the overwhelming strentgh of our military that on a peace footing we can fight a 5 year war across the globe before having to think about acting like we really are at war.

When we have to ration rubber and break out the mothballed fleet, then you can talk about our plate being full.

[Chemical Ollie]

Other wannabe worldpowers have a thing called conscription, perhaps something to consider?

[LordShiva]

Civilised countries don't.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


I'm refering to the manpower problem. I always thought we had this extremely large and overwhelming military, then here come Afghanistan and Iraq and it seems like our plate is more then full with just these two tiny countries. If we have a manpower problem now, what happens if Russia and China flex their muscles? Do all we have left is our nuclear deterrant?

When youre fighting an insurgency, it has to be, you know, sustainable. You need to rotate units back home, retrain and reequip, let the guys whove done their time muster out, integrate in the replacements, etc, etc. Right now we are doing the Iraq and Afghan wars on the idea of combat units deployed one-half the time IIUC, which is higher than we were doing back when the Iraq war began in 2003. And we have pulled the NG units back from overseas deployment, cause in the long run it was weakening the guard, and cause you need the NG to deal with things like hurricanes, fires, etc, etc. Oh, and we always keep a division deployed in Korea.

In WW3, we would, IIUC, deploy every unit, and mobilize and deploy every combat capable NG unit, and if WW3 wasnt in Korea, we wouldnt worry about Korea, either.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Civilised countries don't.

Civilized countries uses mercenaries

[lord of the mark]

now somebody tell me, is China really worried about a couple of Russian carriers in the Pacific? They are getting along just dandy, are both in the SCO, etc.