Post: #126

What German U-Boats were at the battle of Jutland?

Post: #127

Whenever I read all this talk of "Asymmetrical warfare" I always wonder one thing. Why does everyone assume they know USA's battle plan? Who knows what gadgets are included in our 500 billion dollar defense budget that we don't even know about? Just because we don't know 100% of the enemy's battle plan doesn't somehow mean they know everything we have up our sleeves.

We've been waging war for 200 years. I think we probably have this fighting thing figured out.

Post: #128

(06-02-2016 08:17 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  What German U-Boats were at the battle of Jutland?

Good point, I was mistaken using the example of the Battle of Jutland. The point of the submarine transforming naval warfare from WW1 on still stands, however.

Fortis Wrote:Who knows what gadgets are included in our 500 billion dollar defense budget that we don't even know about? Just because we don't know 100% of the enemy's battle plan doesn't somehow mean they know everything we have up our sleeves.

I agree, that's the point I was trying to make when I said: All of us here have no idea who would win a major engagement or what technologies they possess. We're all just armchair experts here. Aside from high level officers, nobody has access to the information required to see the big picture. Even the people who develop the technologies for future wars only see a small slice of the whole pie.

Post: #129

I will say that American technology always seems to be keeping ahead of its competition. I think (not trying to be a total homer here) a gap between what is in use and and is in development.

Just meaning we see ll the current stuff but we have no idea what is being developed. While we may do espionage to see what other countries are up to - I bet when they spy on the US it is to make up the technology gap.

Even though spying can help close the gap - the US seems to always be ahead. But, of course, at a steep cost in military spending. And in a way it has to - because the American appetite for bloodshed is not like that of Russia or China. Americans can't seem to handle loss as well as countries that have a tougher society (meaning they have everyday hardships - they are used to life being a struggle). So much easier to use a drone than sacrifice hundreds of men to take out some leader.

The bombs being dropped in WW2 - part of the calculation was the ridiculous number of American casualties expected to invade Japan. Don't get me wrong - we have some tough MOFOs in the military (this is what I believe - I have never served and respect to those who have). But there are some soft men in our society also - let's be honest.

Post: #130

I don't have a problem with American Exceptionalism - I do have a problem with most people using that term because they themselves are not exceptional. THIS NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE ON THIS THREAD.

The exceptionalism comes from the top 20% of the country in whatever it is doing - meaning engineers, volunteers (and while I have mad respect for them - I am sure there are some sure fire losers in there), software guys etc.

It isn't driven by hipsters, Millenials, etc. Maybe some part of them that operate in something mentioned above, but not the average useless American. It isn't driven my most Trump fans. Yet when it is discussed (AE), most of these people don't know it doesn't apply to them, but they get all excited - that ignorance is annoying. Nothing to lose sleep over but annoying.

But that ignorance makes people do and say stuff they shouldn't. That disconnect between reality and their egos is a danger - ok I am way off on a tangent. But to complete this dumpster fire.

Post: #131

Quote:Doesn't really matter how powerful it is. All this "greatest country in the world" talk is just insecurity, and Americans are some of the most insecure pussies in the world. It's like that guy who won't shut up about his dick size, you wanna be around that kind of person? Then people wonder why the rest of the world considers the US and Israel two biggest threats to world peace....

But if said guy really does have the biggest cock on the block do you blame him for saying so? The best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be.

In all seriousness though, I'm proud as fuck to have wore the uniform and from experience I can tell you working with other countries militaries is a joke with only a few exceptions. Watching them react to contact and try to form anything that even resembles a counter-attack is comical to say the least.

Americans have been fighting wars non-stop for a long time. You can't put a price on experience as many of you know from other areas of life.

Plus we have huge cocks.

Post: #132

In regards to Symmetric/Asymmetric:

It's a false dichotomy. In reality most dangerous opponents will be using hybrid tactics, and most armies which follow Chinese military doctrine (Aka almost all possible enemies except Russia) operate that way. It's a huge myth that Asian armies rely on a "human wave" attack. When the Vietnamese and Koreans did it the point of that wave is to misdirect and fix opponents so that guerilla fighters would attack weak points, infiltrate defenses, and destroy key targets. So while you're busy trying to make sure you've got enough firepower to cover that assault there's probably a squad of sappers cutting through your fortifications, headed towards your ammo dump. The Koreans used those tactics to force an American withdrawal from North Korea as well.

The US simply doesn't know how to fight against an opponent who is capable of disrupting their comfort zone like that(Special Forces aside). That's why I'm not optimistic about their performance during the initial engagements.


That also plays to the strengths of countries with large populations. You send in the "useless" ones to die as cannon fodder for the main push while your best soldiers operate behind the enemy's front lines using tactics similar to American ranger units or Sapper teams.

Post: #133

The United states hasn't had to use its full military might for quite some time, mainly due to deterrence. There are several factors that make our military quite superior to others. First and foremost, is our Navy. It is far and away the greatest on the planet, we have 10 aircraft carriers while most countries have 1, if any. They are also far and away more advanced, and a new class is already being built to replace them. We also have bases all over the world, so we truly have a global military presence. In general, we have far superior technology across all sections of military from fighter jets to helicopters etc.

Post: #134

(07-15-2016 04:23 PM)Marcus Aurelius Wrote:  The United states hasn't had to use its full military might for quite some time, mainly due to deterrence. There are several factors that make our military quite superior to others. First and foremost, is our Navy. It is far and away the greatest on the planet, we have 10 aircraft carriers while most countries have 1, if any. They are also far and away more advanced, and a new class is already being built to replace them. We also have bases all over the world, so we truly have a global military presence. In general, we have far superior technology across all sections of military from fighter jets to helicopters etc.

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s...rn-weapons

Post: #135

As someone whose spent years working in cutting edge Naval Research and Development, it doesn't surprise me that the most blindly optimistic are those who have no experience in the industry, and the most rationally skeptical are those with extensive experience.

I don't understand the need to get emotionally invested trying to defend a war machine which is so complex that most people can't hope to understand it.

I wouldn't take anything for granted, and I bet there's a number of recent developments that leave many warplanners concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...faced.html
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buz...orld-12765
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine#Homing_mines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_22_missile_boat

Post: #136

Navy’s $12.9 Billion Carrier Isn’t Ready for Warfare, Memo Says

Bloomberg News Wrote:The U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier isn’t ready for warfare.

The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford -- the most expensive warship ever built -- may struggle to launch and recover aircraft, mount a defense and move munitions, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester. On-board systems for those tasks have poor or unknown reliability issues, according to a June 28 memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

“These four systems affect major areas of flight operations,” Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, wrote Pentagon and Navy weapons buyers Frank Kendall and Sean Stackley. “Unless these issues are resolved, which would likely require redesigning” of the aircraft launch and recovery systems “they will significantly limit the CVN-78’s ability to conduct combat operations,” Gilmore wrote, using a technical name for the carrier.

The reliability woes mean that delivery of the Ford -- the first of three carriers ordered up in a $42 billion program -- will probably slip further behind schedule. The Navy announced last week that the ship, originally due by September 2014, wouldn’t be delivered before November this year because of continuing unspecified testing issues.

The service has operated 10 carriers since the retirement of the USS Enterprise in 2012. Extended deployments of the remaining ships have placed stress on crews[my note: and forced them to delay maintenance requirements, forcing them into longer maintenance periods and further snowballing costs and creating a lack of vessels ready for deployment] and meant added strain meeting global commitments from the battle against Islamic State to ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, home to $5 trillion in annual trade.

A prolonged delay could also hamper the military if a new conflict arises.
“Based on current reliability estimates, the CVN-78 is unlikely to conduct high-intensity flight operations” such as a requirement for four days of 24-hour surge operations “at the outset of a war,” Gilmore wrote.

As delivery of the Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. vessel approaches, “my concerns about the reliability of these systems remain and the risk to the ship’s ability to succeed in combat grows as these reliability issues remain unresolved,” Gilmore said.

Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the Navy’s announcement of additional delays last week “unacceptable,” adding that it was a “case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed.”

A Navy spokeswoman, Lieutenant Kara Yingling, said the Navy was aware of the report but referred additional comment to Kendall’s office. Kendall spokesman Mark Wright said in an e-mail "we don’t feel it is appropriate to release our response to this internal memo.”

The Navy has said that Newport News, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls is performing well as the shipbuilder. Many of the technologies installed on the first-of-class carrier are produced by other companies. As of last month, the ship’s construction was 98 percent complete, the Navy said. Huntington Ingalls has turned over 97 percent of the carrier’s compartments and 89 percent of shipboard testing is completed, the Navy said.

The Navy plans to deploy the Ford by 2021 for worldwide operations after a series of maintenance and training exercises and completion of full ship-shock trials by fiscal 2018, so there is time to correct deficiencies before potential combat operations. Yet the problems cited so far are critical for the vessel’s success.
Gilmore said the carrier’s advanced arresting gear for snagging landing aircraft and the launch system, both made by General Atomics of San Diego, are experiencing different but still inadequate levels of reliability. Meghan Ehlke, a General Atomics spokeswoman, didn’t respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

The arresting gear, which was criticized by the Pentagon’s inspector general in a July 6 report, has the most serious reliability limitations and “is unlikely to support high-intensity flight operations,” Gilmore said. Reliability “is well below expectations and well below what is needed to succeed in combat.”

The Navy estimates the arresting gear could be operated for approximately 25 consecutive landings, or cycles, between critical failures. That means it has a “negligible probability of completing” a 4-day surge “without an operational mission failure,” Gilmore wrote.

The electro-magnetic launch system’s reliability is higher but “nonetheless I have concerns,” Gilmore wrote. Recent Navy data indicates the carrier can conduct only 400 launches between critical failures, “well below the requirement” of 4,166 takeoffs, Gilmore wrote.

Gilmore said the system would have to increase its reliability to 1,600 launches between critical failures “to have a 90 percent chance of completing a day of sustained operations.” The Navy program office’s determined that the carrier “has less than a 7 percent chance of completing the four-day combat surge” plan, Gilmore wrote.

The reliability of Raytheon Co.’s dual-band radar used for air-traffic control and self-defense against aircraft and missiles “is unknown.” Land testing of the system is using software still under development and some hardware reliability issues have surfaced, he said. Testing indicates failure rates of power sources and transmit-receive modules have dropped but a production model of the radar “will not be fully tested” until the ship goes to sea, he said.

Nonetheless, the Navy has praised the radar system, saying that in testing all six of the arrays designed to detect and track targets “have been successfully energized at high power” and “targets of opportunity” have been successfully tracked.

Testing also has been limited in the elevators used to move bombs between magazines and flight desk so “their reliability is unknown and is a risk,” Gilmore said. The Ford is designed to have 11 advanced weapons elevators.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...-memo-says

These issues will likely be resolved, but after how long and at what cost? Will the Aircraft carrier continue to dominate the seas in the 21st century, or will new technologies make it obsolete?

For those who say that cost is not a factor when producing an underperforming $13 billion vessel, I'd ask that you consider the recent history of modern naval classes. As part of a modernization program, the Navy wished to produce new classes to replace the DDG-52 and CG-47 classes. They were to be the DDX and CGX classes respectively, but were considered to be too expensive, and only the DDX was kept. Then the DDX program was considered to be too expensive, and only 3 were ordered in the form of the DDG-1000 class. There are many similarities with the Seawolf class (of which only 3 were built here). Also consider the LCS program, which has been a maintenance nightmare from the start, and despite being designed around cost cutting measures, has consistently been over budget, and it's initial production run significantly reduced. I don't expect this trend to reverse any time soon without a major reorganization to the acquisition and planning processes.

Post: #137

Carriers are obsolete. Terminally guided munitions on ballistic missiles will punch a hole right through that flight deck to the keel.

The whole Navy shipbuilding program is larded with political pork and crony corruption.

Post: #138

(07-30-2016 01:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Carriers are obsolete. Terminally guided munitions on ballistic missiles will punch a hole right through that flight deck to the keel.

The whole Navy shipbuilding program is larded with political pork and crony corruption.

The impression i've always had is that the modern carrier is a platform for enforcing foreign policy compliance on non nuclear nations only.

It's never really been battle tested in an all out conventional war with a nuclear power. If it doesn't threaten countries with nukes at all then it doesn't really seem to be an effective defense or policy tool.

Aside from the development of anti-missile tech I don't see how a ship's anti-missile defense system would stop multiple nuclear airbusts from a mirv tip to begin with. You don't exactly need pinpoint accuracy with today's hydrogen bombs.

The carrier may be designed to stay intact but everyone inside would be fried to a crisp.

Post: #139

Again notice the common trend: the contracts are all massively underperforming,because The contractors profit is not dependent upon performance. It's dependent on buying out legislators and our military readiness suffers as a result.

Post: #140

(07-30-2016 05:13 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  Again notice the common trend: the contracts are all massively underperforming,because The contractors profit is not dependent upon performance. It's dependent on buying out legislators and our military readiness suffers as a result.

A huge problem is the failure of the program office to reign in contractors and ensure that their promises are realistic. It also has to do with the planning and acquisition process.

Generally, a department will set a performance and cost requirement for a new technology, which all qualified contractors are allowed to make a bid on. Whichever contractor can promise to deliver the highest performance at the lowest cost generally wins that contract.

However, given the stakes, contractors will often over promise and under deliver in order to win a contract. Subject matter experts are supposed to be involved within the bidding process to call out overly lofty performance evaluations. Increasingly, I've noticed a trend of SMEs being brushed off as pessimistic, only to be proven right later.

It's not always simply down to hubris. Often the warnings and solutions that SMEs demand will put the project over their cost projections, which is a political non-starter. They'd rather kick it down the road until it becomes impossible to ignore, and deal with it later at greater cost and operational impact. It's what happens when a service prioritizes political maneuvering over operational capability, and I don't see the trend reversing any time soon.

Post: #141

(07-30-2016 04:47 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 01:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Carriers are obsolete. Terminally guided munitions on ballistic missiles will punch a hole right through that flight deck to the keel.

The whole Navy shipbuilding program is larded with political pork and crony corruption.

The impression i've always had is that the modern carrier is a platform for enforcing foreign policy compliance on non nuclear nations only.

It's never really been battle tested in an all out conventional war with a nuclear power. If it doesn't threaten countries with nukes at all then it doesn't really seem to be an effective defense or policy tool.

Aside from the development of anti-missile tech I don't see how a ship's anti-missile defense system would stop multiple nuclear airbusts from a mirv tip to begin with. You don't exactly need pinpoint accuracy with today's hydrogen bombs.

The carrier may be designed to stay intact but everyone inside would be fried to a crisp.

Ballistic doesn't necessarily mean nuclear, it's more accurately a description of the trajectory of the munitions. I think Sp5 is referring to the DF-21, which is planned to be a conventional ballistic anti ship missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

That being said

The use of conventional ballistic missiles is a major provocation in any conflict. Ballistic trajectories will be picked up, and it would be difficult to determine whether the warhead was conventional or nuclear. In a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario, it's possible that the worst would be assumed, and a retaliatory strike may be launched. I hope to god that's never the case, but it goes to show that a major future conflict will require extreme caution on all sides to avoid an apocalyptic scenario.

Post: #142

Good generals think of strategy, Great generals think of logistics

While people like to talk about training, weapons, and strategy, logistics is pretty key in winning wars. The main reason the allies beat the axis in WW II was because they were simply able to overwhelm them by moving more men and equipment greater distances and faster.

For all of the US Military's flaws, the one thing it does better than anyone else is logistics. It can move forces to anywhere on the globe in an astonishing short period of time.

One could argue that the most important pieces of equipment in the US military are not a gun, tank, warship, or fighter jet, but these:

Post: #143

^
^ If Hillary steals the election, start buying potassium iodide tablets.

Carriers as mentioned above are a tool for regional governance. They may be expensive to build, run and crew, but that's measured against the blood money you can squeeze from oil nations living under the constant shadow of fighter bombers and cruise missiles.

Post: #144

One thing to note about carriers is that one gets the impression over the last 40 years or so, the US Navy has quietly been moving to a submarine force. Maybe the carriers are just there, like as suggested above, to deal with less advanced countries.

The US Navy may have 10 carriers, but it has 54 attack submarines and 4 "Guided Missile" submarines (Ohio class ballistic missile subs that were converted to launch cruise missiles from their launch tubes).

That's 58 ships filled to brim with guided weapons to create havok on an enemy while being very difficult to detect and destroy.

Post: #145

Carriers are there as Battleships were - power projection.

Actually, a modernized and well-armed Battleship does things a carrier cannot - project power and be used as a stable platform for medium- to long-range artillery and missle bombardment.

Post: #146

(07-30-2016 10:49 PM)beta_plus Wrote:  One thing to note about carriers is that one gets the impression over the last 40 years or so, the US Navy has quietly been moving to a submarine force. Maybe the carriers are just there, like as suggested above, to deal with less advanced countries.

The US Navy may have 10 carriers, but it has 54 attack submarines and 4 "Guided Missile" submarines (Ohio class ballistic missile subs that were converted to launch cruise missiles from their launch tubes).

That's 58 ships filled to brim with guided weapons to create havok on an enemy while being very difficult to detect and destroy.

The Block III and below VA class attack subs only have 2 missile tubes in the bow, making them extremely limited guided missile platforms.

Only when the VPM is put in place with Block IV and V VA class subs will they be an effective missile platform.

Post: #147

(07-31-2016 05:45 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 10:49 PM)beta_plus Wrote:  One thing to note about carriers is that one gets the impression over the last 40 years or so, the US Navy has quietly been moving to a submarine force. Maybe the carriers are just there, like as suggested above, to deal with less advanced countries.

The US Navy may have 10 carriers, but it has 54 attack submarines and 4 "Guided Missile" submarines (Ohio class ballistic missile subs that were converted to launch cruise missiles from their launch tubes).

That's 58 ships filled to brim with guided weapons to create havok on an enemy while being very difficult to detect and destroy.

The Block III and below VA class attack subs only have 2 missile tubes in the bow, making them extremely limited guided missile platforms.

Only when the VPM is put in place with Block IV and V VA class subs will they be an effective missile platform.

I don't doubt what you're saying, but I did say "quietly". Maybe I should have added "slowly" with the "40 years" part.

Post: #148

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/ite...arvey-milk

They want to name a navy ship after gay rights Activist Harvey Milk. First article is biased against. Second is CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics/u...rvey-milk/

Post: #149

Yah I see the DF-21 with conventional explosives or kinetic penetrators being used in a South China Sea or Taiwan scenario. The trajectories would be short, a matter of a few minutes, and nowhere near the USA, so no chance of preemptive nuclear retaliation.

It would be a big shock to the US public to see a caŕrier being sunk.

Post: #150

So, essentially, Russia or China would fuck us up?

What I'm not really grasping here is why they let us lord over them in most scenarios if they'd wreck us in a straight up fight. Why don't either of these countries throw their weight around with the USA if they'd fuck us in any naval scenario?