Last edited by Citizen T; 2019-10-18 at 06:21 PM. Reason: Infracted for flaming
Please do not discuss moderation within this sub-forum. There are alternatives to direct your comments that don't derail the thread.
Last edited by Rozz; 2019-10-19 at 01:03 AM.
Moderator of the General Off-Topic, Politics, Lore, and RP Forums
"If you have any concerns, let me know via PM. I'll do my best to assist you."
Ask the Brits about what happens when a carrier without AEW goes up against a land based air force that isn't as good as yours. But that is really meaningless in the case of the Gulf, as land based air craft are far better suited to dealing with Iran.
The Stingray is CATOBAR, not STOVL.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
Yet the Abraham Lincoln is deployed just off the Straight of Hormuz right now. Which is kind of redundant considering there are plenty of air bases in the area covering Iran, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Look, I'm not a military strategist or an expert, but just based on some of the things I've read it seems that even within the Navy there are discussions around the subject of just how many full sized carriers are needed and how they could actually use more LHA's in configurations capable of supporting larger airwings of jets.
Carriers really seem to me to be the white elephant 21st century equivalent of battleships. This big floating dick, meant to show everyone your manhood, but that really isn't really that good at what it's meant to be doing anymore.
I'm not even saying that the US navy should downsize, I'm just not convinced about the utility of large fleet carriers in many areas.
When it comes to putting a massive air wing somewhere you can't get otherwise, nothing else is going to match a Cold War style carrier battle group - but that's not what the US has these days, fleet carriers are semi-useless for the "show the flag" or "wreck the locals who can't shoot back" missions the United States has been running since the end of the Cold War - that the United States also operates them "incorrectly" (fleet carriers are intended for use in groups of 2 or more, which the USN hasn't done much since the end of the Cold War, and they're intended to carry much larger air wings than the US currently has (it also doesn't have enough air wings, which is a different but related problem)) certainly doesn't help their perceived usefulness either; but if it ever comes to a real peer war again, light carriers aren't going to cut it for power projection, because when forward bases are all trashed (because the PLA can actually hit those with ballistic missiles, and the US isn't putting the money into hardening them) fleet carriers are going to be vital, and the various light carrier designs proposed over the years aren't going to have enough large and highly-capable aircraft (something the USN in general is missing at present) . And operating a light carrier costs a good fraction of what operating a super-carrier does (even going non-nuclear doesn't really help that much), so you don't really get that much "savings" out of going light as you might think (and the real cost is that you don't have fleet carriers when you need them; this is the same reason the USAF really doesn't want light attack aircraft - they're great when you're not fighting someone who can shoot back, but once you go up against someone who can, they turn out to be almost worse than nothing).
As the currently-thwarted @Skroe pointed out, the United States needs to figure out what it actually intends to be doing, its "Concept of Operations", and then build (and train) to actually be able to do that; part of the problem is that America has no national clarity on that front - different future scenarios require different approaches now. Is it challenging China and Russia? Acting as global policeman, over the whole planet, or over an economic empire? Is it content to be the 800# silverback that gets left alone? Right now, the US is simultaneously saying it want's to do all of the above, but its not funding (or building, or training) to do any of them particularly well, and that's wrecking what capability it does have. If the US wants to be the champion of democracy and challenge China and Russia, then it needs 15+ super-carriers, and 20+ upgraded air wings (with modern equivalents of the F-14 and A-6, along with a slew of other designs - what's currently available simply doesn't cut it) and a host of dedicated anti-sub and anti-air (and anti-missile) escorts (also currently mostly non-existent) that train as part of battle groups and don't constantly get scattered across the ocean swatting fires (you can do hard exercises about once every two years, and if that coincides with smashing some dictator on the Americans' bad side, that's fine training, but you cannot keep them parked everywhere playing close-air-support and on-demand artillery (don't get me started on the awful state of US artillery...) without degrading their capabilities when you need them); if you also want to play global tough-cop, it's probably possible to build much cheaper "merchant carriers" from converted bulk carriers that are basically drone platforms with minimal crews for fighting brushfire wars, but you have to resist the urge to spend any more than absolutely necessary on them (something the modern US is demonstrably awful at) or they eat your budget alive and you're screwed.
All that presumes that carrier battle groups still work (as Mihalik alluded to in the post I'm replying to) - I suspect they do (many of the common criticisms such as the DF-21, stealthy diesel or electric subs, drones, or carrier fragility aren't anywhere near as bad as commonly presented) but it is certainly worth gaming out in exhaustive detail before spending tens of trillions over decades (RAND used to be able to do this sort of thing damned well); the Chinese (and Russians), who are faced with a very different national threat surface, seem to think they have at least some utility - the PLAN is going for what looks like one strong carrier strike group, probably capable of being split into 2-3 forces if necessary (which pretty much all the IJN really had) and the Russians would at least like to have an operational carrier (to keep them on even naval footing with the French ); certainly a lot of 21st century navies seem to think that missle-armed small combatants are going to be the core of surface combat for the medium-term future.
tldr; if the US thinks its credibly be able to contemplate a non-nuclear war with Russia, China or someone of that size in the next half-century, it needs fully functional carrier battle groups (which it currently doesn't really have); if it isn't, it can make do with a lot less than its spending now, but either way, continuing on the current path is a kind of foolishness.
"In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)
60,000 tons is about as small as you can go and still use all of the current airwing aircraft, unless you are ok with a VERY slow launch rate.
- - - Updated - - -
Fleet carriers are good for shows of force and placing a significant modern air force in areas you do not have ready access to. The fact that countries like CHina have placed a large premium on developing ways to counter them shows they are still viable. They are important for SLOC protection and amphibious assault support. They are much more useful in the Pacific than the Atlantic unless escorting convoys to Europe.
- - - Updated - - -
The number of airwings is appropriate for the number of carriers, because one carrier is always undergoing refueling. The size of the airwings is too small as the A-6/KA-6 and S-3/ES-3s were not replaced. The F/A-18F with CFTs is able to replace the F-14, as the latest AMRAAMs are far more reliable than the AIM-54 and almost match it for range. The payload capacity of the A-6 can be matched by the Super Hornet, but not its range. On the other hand, the Super Hornet can self-escort where the A-6 was a sitting duck if not escorted, so its extended range was of limited value. Plus the F-14 and A-6 were maintenance HOGS even under good conditions, and you would be lucky to have 50% fully combat capable underway.
Really, the US needs to reduce the carrier fleet to 8: one being refueled, 6 on the West Coast, and one forward deployed to Europe that shares deployments with the French and UK carriers. Cut the airwings to 7, but beef up each wing to have 5 Super Hornet squadrons, 1-2 F-35 squadrons, a 10 plane EA-18G squadron, and split the helicpoter and AEW assets of the 2 disestablished wings to the remaining ones.
Well, current array can't be shorten all that much, because the main limiting factor isn't the power of the launch system, but the rate of acceleration endured during launch. In other words, the G-Force endured to accelerate the aircraft from zero to comfortably above the minimum stall speed in the length of the deck. To make a shorter carrier, you need to either accelerate faster, which stresses airframes and pilots more, or lower the minimum stall speed of the aircraft, which limits a lot of other performance characteristics of the aircraft.
The reason you see many nations using Sky-Jump carriers is because you can actually make those a fair bit shorter then true CATOBAR carriers, and still operate modern aircraft at high payloads. Now a potential option for the future is a CATOBAR drone carrier operating drones that can endure a lot more Gs at launch then aircraft filled with squishy human meat. EMALS type systems can be perfect for this, as the faster reset times can enable good launch rates on a much shorter deck. The Carrier itself could easily be in the 40-50,000 ton range and operate respectable air wings. Manned Carriers lose a ton of effectiveness the smaller they get because limitations on human G-force limits mean you have to drop a lot of weight from the aircraft to get them airborne.
Exactly. Have a gander at this article:
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd...ill-die/all/1/
Key part here:
The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.”
You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.”
See also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
Yeah I know, it was "just" a war game, but this sort of thing isn't uncommon. A Swedish sub "sank" a carrier in another war game in 2005, as did a French sub more recently, etc etc etc. Point is, when people can now track submarines by the waves they make on the surface of the sea, and can build comparatively cheap missiles that can sink multi-billion-dollar warships... yeah navies are in deep trouble. A land-based defender will always have more "deck space" for missile launchers than any conceivable mobile fleet, so unless and until we get something like useful point-defence lasers (ie, the kind that work in rain, rather than on clear, perfect days)... yeah, expect trouble.
Of course, anti-missile weapons designed to take out the Dong Feng 21 and such will also mean even better anti-aircraft weaponry, so even if the much-hoped-for lasers do materialise, all that means is that the world's airforces are defunct, because nothing short of UAV spam or terrain-hugging helicopters, really rugged aircraft like the Warthog, or perhaps SR-71s and other very high altitude aircraft will be safe to fly in.
Still not tired of winning.
To attack a carrier, the entire kill chain has to function, not just the anti-ship weapon. The SM-3 can actually engage the DF-21 in its boost phase, so it is not a silver bullet.
You left out a significant factor of the Red team's victory:
"Since the wargame allowed for a ship-to-shore landing of ground troops at some (unknown) point during the 14 day exercise, and because the naval force was substantial, the force was positioned on the shore-side of the region's active shipping lanes to keep them from impacting commerce during the exercise. This placed them in close proximity to the Red shore rather than at a "standoff" distance. Conducting the wargames during peacetime also meant that there were a large number of friendly/unaligned ships and aircraft in the zone, restricting the use of automated defense systems and more cautious Rules of Engagement. Red's tactics took full advantage of these factors, and to great effect."
That is the thing about war games, you have to know the rules of engagement to understand the outcome.
How in the fuck is this post considered flaming? What the hell is wrong with the mods here?
- - - Updated - - -
Then do your fucking jobs. Thwart is bad enough but you are quickly catching up to him with bad faith moderation.
Infracted for Moderation Discussion.
Last edited by xskarma; 2019-10-20 at 11:22 PM.
People think it can engage it, that is. Still, granting you that, here's what Wiki has to say on ballistic missile boost phases:
Boost-phase intercepts are also generally the most difficult to arrange, as they require the interceptor to be within attack range within the few minutes while the missile engines are firing. Given some sort of positive control over the launch, this means there is only a short time for the weapons to reach their targets after the launch command is given. This requires very high-speed weapons located close to the enemy launchers
Now, bear in mind also that the DF-21 has about 150% the range of the SM-3... intercepting these things is going to be a hell of a job, and that's assuming the Chinese don't just launch more DF-21s than you have SM-3s. A Ticonderoga can have up to 122 vertical-launch missiles aboard, and in practice not all will be SM-3s, but even so... guess who comes out ahead - the Chinese, who launch (Ticonderogas x 123) DF-21s, or the US Navy, which loses a carrier group and with it, all hope of conventional force projection into the entire western Pacific?
Ah, so it'll be fine so long as the other side plays fair? Yeah right .
On the other hand, the fact that Blue team still had more cautious RoEs after sending a 24hr surrender document to the Reds is a huge problem:
1. Let's demand the other side surrender within 24 hours.
2. What, use a more warlike RoE after #1? Don't be stupid, we're still at peace.
If you're going to go to war with Iran (as this exercise was basically all about), and you let a whole bunch of random ships and planes fly about near your USN carrier group, you should never have been promoted past ensign. "Oops, we sank a few foreign fishing trawlers" vs "oops we lost a carrier & 20,000 sailors"... just goes to show how far the rot has spread amongst the top brass if they're making rookie mistakes like that.
Still not tired of winning.