Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Kellhound]

You're neglecting the operational range of the squadrons then and now - the Tomcats had a decent shot at killing the Backfires before they could launch. The F/A-18s, unless they get very lucky, don't - they're stuck either trying to kill all the recon and hope that's good enough, or trying to nail inbound hypersonic missiles. And you're playing semantic games with the "4 squadrons" line for a modern strike group - sure, they can do that, if they do nothing but sit and wait for a big maritime airstrike (which mission-kills the carrier just as effectively as putting a couple of holes in it does). In practice, a good fraction of those aircraft are going to carrying out strike, recon, air support, etc.

Where are you getting those 100 nm ranges from? To the best of my knowledge, the F/A-18 doesn't pack anything with more than a fraction of that range.

My point about the Harpoon was that its range is low compared to its competitors fielded by other likely opponents.

The Navy may not trust the F-35, but it looks like they're still going to get it rammed down their throats. Probably the best thing for the carriers now would be if the whole program crashed and burned, but its likely too late for that.

You're right about the F-14's MTTR, MTBF, and the subsequent effects on availability, and being able to launch the SM2's (now SM3s, I think) from VLS is a very nice upgrade, which I wasn't thinking of - that will help the modern strike group massively... depending on whether the CVS has the short or long range SM3. And I'll be damned if I can find out relative deployment numbers of those. (Obviously the long range variant will let the CVS have a good shot at killing the strike aircraft, which does change the whole equation in favor of the CVS. If not, then they're back to square one (at best), because the Backfires and company can rearm and come back, when the CVS has to try to head back to base to reload them. (Unless the Navy has actually started reloading them at sea, which I highly doubt.))

On both air defense and ASW, things still end up very few hulls to do a lot of work, which makes the CVS brittle (prone to single-point failures). Plus, imho, the USN has gotten quite rusty at ASW work. And the shorter legs and reach of the CAP hurt too - it massively reduces the chances for a decisive victory (killing the strike aircraft), without which the carrier's only real outcomes are loss (mission kill) or draw (survival), and even the latter is a crappy outcome, because most of the missiles for the AEGIS will be spent.

It all comes back to fewer hulls and shorter ranges (on aircraft and missiles) - the higher-tech is nice, but ultimately, I don't think it makes up for the reduction in other capabilities. (At least not in a WWIII-flavored scenario.) Some of this is subjective, and of course, YMMV.

So much ends up riding on AEGIS performance in wartime...

You are thinging F/A-18Cs, not F/A-18E or F. The E and F are the replacements for the 14s and have similar legs. I upped it to 4 squadrons because the BVR capability of the F/A-18C has improved. The max range of the AIM-120D is 100nmi for a closing target. The average number of fighters available for fleet defense today is at worse the same as in 1988.

I worked on a Grumman in the fleet, they were great planes when they worked, but it to A LOT of work to make them work.

SM3 is an ABM only, it has little to no AAW capability, SM-6 is the longest ranged SAM.

There are more hulls doing AAW now per group than in 1988. ASW is the one weak spot relatively, though we train against AIP equipped SSs from Europe. VL-ASROC is better than ASROC, the Mk-54s are better than the Mk-46s, the new H-60s are better than the old H-60s, and computing power is way up from the 80s and that is a major factor in ASW. The Burkes are also as good at ASW as the Sprue-Cans were.

In a WWIII scenario nothing matters, it all ends in nuclear exchange. War with China would be of limited scope. That is were the power of the carrier shines, and that is why China is working so hard to counter them.

[Belize]

INB4: Tu QUoque,

About half of team Russia's defense is "But America"

It's ok though, we're all just big dumb fat lazy americans (well and Canadians in my case). We don't know anything, we can't ever be right.

[May90]

And we start the whole conversation again with people posting "... but Russia" all the time and linking to articles a half year old which have been discussed endlessly. Did Iron Fist manage to get a whole new breed of friends to post the same bullshit he did?

"But Russia" argument kind of makes sense in a thread about Russia, while "but the US" doesn't.

[Jaxi]

Are you even able to read: let me link to the post I made before: the third round they did NOT pushed harder than the US as you claimed, the opposite even (as showed in the paragraph Criticism).

Okay. Let's do a little research time:
This is a list of sanctioned individuals. You will see the EU outnumbers the US in this list. In fact, it's 151 individuals, and 37 entities. America is only targeting 24 Russian entities.

That's right. Now, you wanted to talk about falsehoods?

- - - Updated - - -

You're so strange. I am talking about how EU was fucked up against US because they played to their tune and you keep blabbering "b-b-b-but Russia!"

You were talking about how it backfired. I even provided you with the definition of backfire to show you that you were wrong.

So you've confused the reason with an effect. No wonder you've failed.

See above.

[TooMuch]

Okay. Let's do a little research time:
This is a list of sanctioned individuals. You will see the EU outnumbers the US in this list. In fact, it's 151 individuals, and 37 entities. America is only targeting 24 Russian entities.

That's right. Now, you wanted to talk about falsehoods?

Weren't we talking about the THIRD round, and you claiming "as numerous EU states pushed for harder sanctions on Russia than what America had, especially during the third round." (and maybe stop counting Ukraine as part of Russia...)

[Jaxi]

Weren't we talking about the THIRD round, and you claiming "as numerous EU states pushed for harder sanctions on Russia than what America had, especially during the third round." (and maybe stop counting Ukraine as part of Russia...)

Yup, and that's now backed with evidence. EU has imposed tougher sanctions than America.

Considering who they are, I'm just lumping them all together so I don't have to continue typing it out.
Ex:
-Defected commander of the Ukrainian Navy
-Ousted-President of Ukraine
-Former Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine
But you're right, they are Sanctions against Russians and Ukrainians

[Megraam]

You were talking about how it backfired. I even provided you with the definition of backfire to show you that you were wrong.




See above.

Indeed, you've confused the result with a reason, and this is why you have failed and were wrong. So?

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, and that's now backed with evidence. EU has imposed tougher sanctions than America.

Which backfired to EU much harder than to US. Thanks for proving my point.

[TooMuch]

Yup, and that's now backed with evidence. EU has imposed tougher sanctions than America.

The usual Team US post, leaving out half of their own posts or the posts of other people to make their point. Even when talking about the Third Round, you still keep talking about the total and including sanctions on non Russians...

[Jaxi]

Which backfired to EU much harder than to US. Thanks for proving my point.

I provided you with the definition of backfire. There is no excuse to continue misusing it.

- - - Updated - - -

The usual Team US post, leaving out half of their own posts or the posts of other people to make their point. Even when talking about the Third Round, you still keep talking about the total and including sanctions on non Russians...

as numerous EU states pushed for harder sanctions on Russia than what America had, especially during the third round.

Especially is not only. However, if you read through the sanctions list, you'll notice that most of those came during the third round. Insult us all you want, what I said was correct, and there is evidence to show it.

[Ulmita]

Which backfired to EU much harder than to US. Thanks for proving my point.

My country i know for a fact is talking with Russia to try to lift their sanctions.

[TooMuch]

I provided you with the definition of backfire. There is no excuse to continue misusing it.

He's not misusing it: the sanctions indeed backfired. For example The Netherlands having 860 millions of less trade income with Russia last year only, because of the reverse sanctions Russia put on the EU. And that's just one very small country in the EU.

[Jaxi]

He's not misusing it: the sanctions indeed backfired. For example The Netherlands having 860 millions of less trade income with Russia last year only, because of the reverse sanctions Russia put on the EU. And that's just one very small country in the EU.

Yes he is.

(of a plan or action) rebound adversely on the originator; have the opposite effect to what was intended.

There is no reason for me to have to give an English lesson. The opposite effect of what was intended did not take place, as Russia suffered from the sanctions. At worst, the sanctions are a double-edged blade.

[Megraam]

My country i know for a fact is talking with Russia to try to lift their sanctions.

Yeah, there is a lot of discussion between my country president and Putin about it as well.

I provided you with the definition of backfire. There is no excuse to continue misusing it.

And the reason for the sanctions was to make Russia change its external politics route and to make them give Crimea back to ukraine. So, sanctions backfired indeed, Crimea is still Russian. There is no excuse for you to continue confusing reason and result.

[TooMuch]

Yes he is.

There is no reason for me to have to give an English lesson. The opposite effect of what was intended did not take place, as Russia suffered from the sanctions. At worst, the sanctions are a double-edge blade.

Here, another definition of backfire:
1. To explode in the manner of or make the sound of a backfire.
2. To start or use a backfire in extinguishing or controlling a forest fire.
3. To produce an unexpected, undesired result.

So it backfired, they didn't expect to get sanctions imposed too.

Get your tuition money back, unless you are fine with that they taught you to always take a definition that is supporting your case when there are plenty about.

[Jaxi]

And the reason for the sanctions was to make Russia change its external politics route and to make them give Crimea back to ukraine. So, sanctions backfired indeed, Crimea is still Russian. There is no excuse for you to continue confusing reason and result.

They're trying to impose a cost on Russia.

On March 6, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13660 that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, or for stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people. These sanctions put in place restrictions on the travel of certain individuals and officials and showed our continued efforts to impose a cost on Russia and those responsible for the situation in Crimea.

These actions, in close coordination with our EU and international partners, send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The United States, together with international partners, will continue to stand by the Ukrainian government until Russia abides by its international obligations.

It's economic repercussions that have succeeded. Not backfire.

The EU said

The EU also remains ready to reverse its decisions and reengage with Russia when it starts contributing actively and without ambiguities to finding a solution to the Ukrainian crisis.

[Haven]

It's ok though, we're all just big dumb fat lazy americans (well and Canadians in my case). We don't know anything, we can't ever be right.

Technically it's right, you don't know what war is and you were never under attack.

[Jaxi]

So it backfired, they didn't expect to get sanctions imposed too.

Wait, are you really trying to suggest they didn't know there would be counter sanctions...?

[Megraam]

They never said for them to give Crimea back. They're trying to impose a cost on Russia.





It's economic repercussions that have succeeded. Not backfire.

Didn't they teach you in school if you are warned you are going to be harmed if you do something, they warn you (and harm you) not because they want to harm you but because they don't want you to do they think you do or going to do? Actually I think it's even kindergarten material. Was it a special marcellus1986-tier kindergarten then?

Anyway, what's about an unexpected and undesired result? Prove EU really desired to have our currency devalue 20% against USD, otherwise it's backfire by definition.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, are you really trying to suggest they didn't know there would be counter sanctions...?

This is because of their own sanctions, not only countersanctions by Russia.

[Haven]

They never said for them to give Crimea back. They're trying to impose a cost on Russia.

It's economic repercussions that have succeeded. Not backfire.

Now, what have these sanctions actually achieved other than giving Russian government all-time-high approval ratings and a perfect excuse for any fault in Russian economy? Whatever is wrong for the average citizen, he knows that it's not Putin that has placed sanctions on Russian people. Funny fallacies like an economical blockade of Crimea ("victims of Russian invasion" have to receive EXTRA punishment!) only prove the hypocrisy and aggression of West to average Ivan.

[TooMuch]

Wait, are you really trying to suggest they didn't know there would be counter sanctions...?

Ah, proven wrong about a definition, he moves the goalposts like a real Rukentuts clone. And yes, maybe the sanctions didn't come as a total surprise for the EU, the amount of money lost (especially for specific countries) did.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, what have these sanctions actually achieved other than giving Russian government all-time-high approval ratings and a perfect excuse for any fault in Russian economy? Whatever is wrong for the average citizen, he knows that it's not Putin that has placed sanctions on Russian people. Funny fallacies like an economical blockade of Crimea ("victims of Russian invasion" have to receive EXTRA punishment!) only prove the hypocrisy and aggression of West to average Ivan.

And this so much: with the sanctions they tried to set the population of Russia against their leaders and reached the opposite result.