Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 22:20:27 GMT
To what degree is an aircraft carrier a fossil, totally obsolete. Sinking a carrier is a national disaster, not only do we lose that battle, we lose whatever war we are in the moment one goes down. What possible good does any combat action taken by a carrier mean relevant to its loss.
And whatever air power a carrier offers in a given situation, why not use cruise missiles for lesser targets, or airplanes flying from Nevada.
The carrier mafia today is the same as the battleship mafia of 1939. The USA is overcommitted to its least effective naval platform. Arrogance in peacetime carries no cost. War provides judgement
In case you don't know, the main fleet exercise for Iran every year is sinking a US carrier. These exercises involve stealth, surprise and special operations. Many of them involve surprise attacks on a carrier in a port call. We can laugh off Iran ability, but they have been working on this for 25 years. How many years did Japan use to plan Pearl Harbor?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 7, 2017 23:12:00 GMT
To what degree is an aircraft carrier a fossil, totally obsolete. Sinking a carrier is a national disaster, not only do we lose that battle, we lose whatever war we are in the moment one goes down. What possible good does any combat action taken by a carrier mean relevant to its loss. And whatever air power a carrier offers in a given situation, why not use cruise missiles for lesser targets, or airplanes flying from Nevada. The carrier mafia today is the same as the battleship mafia of 1939. The USA is overcommitted to its least effective naval platform. Arrogance in peacetime carries no cost. War provides judgement In case you don't know, the main fleet exercise for Iran every year is sinking a US carrier. These exercises involve stealth, surprise and special operations. Many of them involve surprise attacks on a carrier in a port call. We can laugh off Iran ability, but they have been working on this for 25 years. How many years did Japan use to plan Pearl Harbor? Thank you Will, the question actually involved spec. ops. . Maybe someday we will discuss,
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 7, 2017 23:40:21 GMT
montrose Just an idle question but where do the birds come from in Iraq and Afghanistan when called for by both SFs and other troops? Could the airbases in Saudi Arabia, Italy and Qatar handle all the missions required? I am curious as I have been raised in the Carrier is the answer to every problem to a problem or as the oft mentioned question by all US Presidents "where is the nearest carrier?" I look forward to your response. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 8, 2017 0:09:48 GMT
I disagree with Montrose completely and without any reservation whatsoever/
To control the sea one must control the subsurface of the sea, the surface itself, and the air over the sea.
How long does it take to get aircraft support over a surface vessel in the central Pacific if the aircraft is being launched from Nevada.
The problem, and there is a problem with the carrier, is that carrier admirals are still looking for the Midway battle, That is dangerous.
Tom: I have not ha the opportunity to research you question completely. I will tell you though that the LHA and LHD are similar big deck platforms, and the difference revolved around the size and capacity of the internal dock, or in the case of America, and the upcoming Tripoli whether it has a dock at all.
Based upon your question though as you partially explained it on the phone, the best platforms for clandestine insertions are in order the SSGN the SSN, and either version of the LCS. The LCS also has a fairly large deck for its size, which can easily take a Seahawk or two, plus a small docking facility meant to launch an RHIB.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 8, 2017 0:20:52 GMT
Thank you both, if Sf was dispatched would not have this platform been a good support system. If so does the Army have a hard on for it. For what ever reason. It is a great support system.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 8, 2017 0:46:55 GMT
Would the Wasp or America class amphibious assault ships be able to carry a squadron of F 18's or F35's? Or just 5 or 6 planes? We have 10 carriers in service with the Ford soon to be commissioned so do we need smaller carriers instead of the massive nuclear ships we have now? If montrose is correct regarding the Iranians, I don't doubt him, we have a serious problem regarding protection for our carriers in the Persian Gulf, especially the Strait of Hormuz, or the Suez Canal do we not? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 8, 2017 1:20:57 GMT
Will, is it not true that the Belleau Wood provided true tactical integrity. Rather than waiting for various air force and army units to come together to form an integrated fighting force, the Belleau Wood could have delivered a complete self-contained fighting unit to the hot spot with air power, muscle, and logistical support all at the same time. She may have been the culmination of everything the marines and navy had learned as they clawed their way across the Pacific during World War II. Just asking, this was not your basic big carrier requiring a fleet, it was a multi-dimensional platform that the army did not have. Could they not have helped pull off a S.O operation in the Philippians or middle east?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 8, 2017 3:42:25 GMT
Dave: A Wasp or America could carry perhaps two squadrons of F35's or AV8 Harriers. The F18 requires a big deck like the Nimitz or Ford class.
These two classes of ships differ only in that one has an internal dock and the other does not. From a distance that appear identical. They are various mission capable. You could fit a strike wing of F35's (perhaps 24 aircraft give or take) if you needed to, You could also outfit them with a sub hunting air group of Seahawks. The most common configuration for these ships though is as part of a three or four ship amphibious group, and while the troops of the Marine Amphibious Unit (MEU) are spread over the three or four ships the big deck carries the air component of the MEU which is a task organized composite squadron of fighters, MV22 Ospreys and some attack birds, and perhaps a few odds and sods like a Fire Scout.
The MEU is a reinforced Marine Infantry Battalion, with the composite air squadron, and a task organized logistics group. Probably somewhere near 15-1800 personnel depending upon area of deployment and mission. Usually there are some special operators hanging about as well.
Dave:
John Paul Jones remarked "Give me a fast ship for I intend to go in harms way" That is what navies get paid to do Dave, go in harms way. That is why we build them, that is why we an them. In war you lose men and ships including carriers
Take no council in your fears.
My personal view is that it would be more beneficial to stop production of all Ford class carriers, substituting instead something about the size of America, Tripoli, and Bougainville.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 8, 2017 10:07:39 GMT
Aircraft carriers have their uses, but they come at a cost, they need protection from a host of smaller ships like Frigates and Destroyers to provide a screen from incoming missiles, torpedoes and aircraft. During the Falklands war the Royal Navy had to picket the Hermes to provide protection from Exocet missiles which could be fired from around 100 miles out. The problem was that we didn’t have a platform to launch our own aircraft so we needed to take our own, but they do need a lot of looking after.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 9, 2017 14:51:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Jun 9, 2017 15:23:41 GMT
Heck, let's just add in a couple of captured Type XXI subs and a Curtis Jenny or 2 for close quarter air reconnaissance! 😌
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2017 15:27:45 GMT
Well in the movie "Battleship" they commandeered the USS Missouri to combat the alien threat and eventually save the world.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2017 15:49:00 GMT
I read the same article Dave an commented on it on a naval website in the UK.
It is an old game. a desperation act to "strengthen" the fleet blah, blah, blah. The Navy wants no part of those clunkers. They want something and this is a covert means of getting what they really want. Old Washington game. Been a small part of playing it myself.
What they need to do is scrap all the Tico's, and plow the money saved into upgrading the Flight I Burkes. My twenty one year old granddaughter was not even a gleam in her daddy's eye when the first of them were commissioned. Then they should go forward with the design of the new frigate and the follow on DDG. Then scrap the new JFK, and cancel Enterprise, replacing them with smaller and less expensive decks (about six or seven) the size of the Wasp/America as fossil fueled ships.
Montrose in his anti-carrier diatribe of the other day was partially correct. If you put one of those big deck CVN's close to shore, and leave it there, it's going to get whacked. You still need control over the air above the sea though, for deep water operations. A vessel the size of a Wasp/America can do that nicely and with much less cost over it's service lifetime.
Keep I mind in all this discussion that the BIGGEST cost for all the services is personnel. If I live to be eighty I will make more money for doing nothing than I ever did on active duty. The trend is then to do what has been done with the LCS, make the crew SMALL, and you cannot do that by recommissioning the Golden Oldies.
Would you consider getting grandma out of her rocking chair, and handing her a rifle, so the President could say look how strong we are? Probably not . You are a frigging taxpayer. Do you think this is the best way to spend your money? If the answer is yes, you had better give grandma a warning order.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2017 15:53:39 GMT
Does the US need to have carriers in the seas around the middle east? They do have bases in the area in Turkey and Kuwait and probably more, we have bases on Cyprus which we can use as a base for our fighters to operate.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2017 16:06:25 GMT
Pull up film of Franklin, Bunker Hill, and others operating off of Japan in 1945 and answer your own question Ian.
And Dave you go back to Hornblower and Bolitho and see where they ever successfully attacked land fortifications with a naval squadron in the age of fighting sail. The principle is exactly the same.
|
|