Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: wmenorr67 on December 30, 2016, 02:51:20 PM
-
Looks like for the first time since WWII that there isn't a carrier at sea.
First of all why would you want to broadcast this, even if those we don't want to know already know.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/30/no-us-carrier-at-sea-leaves-gap-in-middle-east.html
-
First of all why would you want to broadcast this, even if those we don't want to know already know.
I'd reckon with something like an aircraft carrier, it really doesn't matter. All our foes and allies that matter to that degree are already keeping tabs on the assets. At that point, general populations knowing likely doesn't make much difference.
-
First of all why would you want to broadcast this, even if those we don't want to know already know.
According to Wikipedia:
Ohio class (18 in commission) – 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Virginia class (11 in commission, 5 under construction, 2 on order) – fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) – attack submarines
Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) – attack submarines
Numbers may be off, but you get the point.
In other words, no big deal. We don't truly need 10 or 15 carrier groups. It's nice, it gives it operational flexibility, but meh in a real pinch we can put down a couple hundred cruise missiles. Or nukes.
-
In other words, no big deal. We don't truly need 10 or 15 carrier groups. It's nice, it gives it operational flexibility, but meh in a real pinch we can put down a couple hundred cruise missiles. Or nukes.
This; air superiority doesn't mean squat if their fighters end up begging you for permission to land on the only place that isn't glowing.
-
"It is believed to be the first time since World War II that at least one U.S. aircraft carrier has not been deployed."
Another first for Obama . . . it ranks right up there with another Obama "first" which has actually gone on for a couple of years - the first time since John Glenn's Mercury mission that the US has no manned space flight capability.
Thanks, Barack.
-
Probably best to have no carriers out there. Barack's navy would just end up surrendering them to the first Iranian patrol that comes along. ;/
-
According to Wikipedia:
Ohio class (18 in commission) – 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Virginia class (11 in commission, 5 under construction, 2 on order) – fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) – attack submarines
Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) – attack submarines
Numbers may be off, but you get the point.
In other words, no big deal. We don't truly need 10 or 15 carrier groups. It's nice, it gives it operational flexibility, but meh in a real pinch we can put down a couple hundred cruise missiles. Or nukes.
Death from below. =D
-
We don't need aircraft carriers any more. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are ready to take up the slack on the high seas.
-
We don't need aircraft carriers any more. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are ready to take up the slack on the high seas.
Doing the jobs Americans won't?
-
don't you still have ten of the things?
-
don't you still have ten of the things?
Yeah, but they don't do much good sitting in port. "Fleet in Being" just doesn't work when the ports are all the way across an ocean or two.
-
Yeah, but they don't do much good sitting in port. "Fleet in Being" just doesn't work when the ports are all the way across an ocean or two.
Make America There Again.
-
We need battleships.
50 of them, one for each state. The USS Rhode Island can be a pocket battleship. The USS Texas gets extra guns. The USS Florida gets all the craziest sailors and so forth.
-
We need battleships.
50 of them, one for each state. The USS Rhode Island can be a pocket battleship. The USS Texas gets extra guns. The USS Florida gets all the craziest sailors and so forth.
I'd feel sorry for the commanders of the USS New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts, as they would be filled with whiny, liberal Democrat, millennials. The USS California would be part of the Mexican Navy...
(Are you my son?? =D =D About once every six months he gets on this "We should have battleships again" kick. ;/ ;/ )
-
We need battleships.
50 of them, one for each state. The USS Rhode Island can be a pocket battleship. The USS Texas gets extra guns. The USS Florida gets all the craziest sailors and so forth.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
-
I just realized that our amphibious assault ships are basically carriers, larger than our WW2 carriers.
The USS America (LHA-6) displaces 45,000 tons, has a length of 844 feet, a beam of 106 feet, and a draft of 26 feet.
The WW2 carrier Hornet (CV-12) (Essex-class) displaced 36,380 tons, had a length of 872 feet, a beam of 147 feet, and a draft of 34 feet.
The WW2 carrier Wasp (CV-7) (Wasp-class) displaced 19,000 tons, had a length of 741 feet, a beam of 109 feet, and a draft of 20 feet.
Our "amphibious assault ships" are bigger carriers than most other countries first line aircraft carriers.
-
(Are you my son?? =D =D About once every six months he gets on this "We should have battleships again" kick. ;/ ;/ )
I am a proponent of bringing back the BBs. Just need to get extra range out of their guns.
-
I am a proponent of bringing back the BBs. Just need to get extra range out of their guns.
Simple -- load 'em with small-ish ballistic missiles.
-
Do we still have CG's (missile cruisers) or has Obama scrapped them all?
I also don't know how those are deployed; do they need destroyer escorts and other support ships? They kinda seem like really fast BB's that could go solo.
-
We need battleships.
50 of them, one for each state. The USS Rhode Island can be a pocket battleship. The USS Texas gets extra guns. The USS Florida gets all the craziest sailors and so forth.
I am a proponent of bringing back the BBs. Just need to get extra range out of their guns.
Simple -- load 'em with small-ish ballistic missiles.
I am of a mind that we don't need BB-ish battleships. And we don't need littoral combat ships. What we need instead--surface-combatant gap-wise--are a new monitor-class like used in WWI and WWII, by the Brits and USA. A combination of one big-gun turret in a littoral/riverine-friendly hull. And the usual complement of contemporary armaments, sensors, and such. The big guns can do shore bombardment and anti-ship duty and maybe CIWS do close-in anti-missile work, engage small boats, and personnel. And do pretty much everything else the LCS claims it can do.
FTR, I think "big gun" is a 16"/50 Mark 7 as seen on USS Iowa or a rail gun with similar punch.
LCS ~3500tons
Perry-Class Frigate 4200tons (now gone, no frigates in the navy. US Navy will re-designate some LCS as frigates with the stroke of a pen)
Monitor 6000-10000tons, lighter/small as possible being better.
FYI:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Monitor_%28warship%29#Twentieth_century
https://infogalactic.com/info/Roberts-class_monitor
https://infogalactic.com/info/Abercrombie-class_monitor
https://infogalactic.com/info/Erebus-class_monitor
16"/50 Mark 7 have a decent range, but a couple options would help:
1. Rocket Assist
Done for most howitzer rounds to increase range.
2. GPS Guided munition
Similar to LCPK strap-on kit for 155mm HE for a cheap solution.
3. Missile Sabot
For launching various long-range guided missiles. Not as quick-firing as VLS, but awfully adaptable.
4. 155mm sabot
A 155mm projectile in a sabot. ZOOM! Wonder what velocities it could achieve?
Do we still have CG's (missile cruisers) or has Obama scrapped them all?
I also don't know how those are deployed; do they need destroyer escorts and other support ships? They kinda seem like really fast BB's that could go solo.
Yes, cruisers could go on solo or small group missions, kinda like frigates back in the age of sail. Many engaged in merchant raiding.
Generally, ship classes grew after WWII. Frigates grew to destroyer size, and destroyers to light cruiser size. In the 1970s or 1980s, the US Navy fixed the cruiser gap by re-designating the Ticonderogas cruisers. But we have no armored/heavy cruiser sized ships like the Russians do.
Carrier groups used to have frigates, destroyers, and cruisers and more of all sorts. Not only are our carrier groups fewer, they have fewer ships in each.
-
We need battleships.
50 of them, one for each state. The USS Rhode Island can be a pocket battleship. The USS Texas gets extra guns. The USS Florida gets all the craziest sailors and so forth.
Ever since I read this, (https://www.amazon.com/Ayes-Texas-Daniel-Cruz/dp/0345332822) the idea of refitting the Texas just sounds better and better.
The Florida would likely misread her orders and spend the entire war trying to get in position to attack Tuva, though.
-
I remember the history of the original Monitor vs. the Merrimac from grammar school, but until this thread I had no idea that the term later applied to an entire type of ship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM
-
So what do we have 11 carriers?
The Brits 2 I think.
Italy 2
France 1
Spain 1
China has one built out of an old Russian scrap yard find. (can they even launch and retrieve fixed wing aircraft?)
And Russia has one that's so unreliable they send a tug boat out with it.
We have more than the rest of the world combined. I'm fine with that.
-
So what do we have 11 carriers?
The Brits 2 I think.
Italy 2
France 1
Spain 1
China has one built out of an old Russian scrap yard find. (can they even launch and retrieve fixed wing aircraft?)
And Russia has one that's so unreliable they send a tug boat out with it.
We have more than the rest of the world combined. I'm fine with that.
How much can we up the count if we include those amphibious assault ships? They have squadrons of Harriers or F-35s on them. Here's a video of the F-35 doing carrier landings and take-offs, and the flight deck is parallel to to the keel, not angled off like on the modern carriers. That suggests to me that the video was shot on an AAS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxT78JsLJBY
-
I just realized that our amphibious assault ships are basically carriers, larger than our WW2 carriers.
The USS America (LHA-6) displaces 45,000 tons, has a length of 844 feet, a beam of 106 feet, and a draft of 26 feet.
The WW2 carrier Hornet (CV-12) (Essex-class) displaced 36,380 tons, had a length of 872 feet, a beam of 147 feet, and a draft of 34 feet.
The WW2 carrier Wasp (CV-7) (Wasp-class) displaced 19,000 tons, had a length of 741 feet, a beam of 109 feet, and a draft of 20 feet.
Our "amphibious assault ships" are bigger carriers than most other countries first line aircraft carriers.
The new Queen Elizabeth carrier is a lot bigger than our amphibious assault ships, but lets look at some of the other competition:
France: The Charles de Gaulle displaces 42,500 tonnes (46,750 of "our" tons), has a length of 858 feet, a beam of 211 feet (angled flight deck0, and a draft of 31 feet. Pretty much in the same ballpark as our LHAs.
Spain: The Juan Carlos I isn't a full carrier, it's a small amphibious assault ship that can only handle helicopters and STOL aircraft, It displaces 26,000 tonnes (28,600 of our tons), has a length of 757 feet, a beam of 105 feet, and a draft of 23 feet. Smaller than our newest class of amphibious assault ships.
Russia: The Admiral Kuznetsov displaces 55,200 tons, has a length of 1,001 feet, a beam of 236 feet (angled flight deck), and a draft of 33 feet.
Italy has two: The Giuseppe Garibaldi displaces 13,850 tons, has a length of 591 feet, a beam of 110 feet (straight flight deck), and a draft of 27 feet. The Cavour displaces 30,100 tons, has a length of 800 feet, a beam of 128 feet, and a draft of 29 feet.
China: The Liaoning (begun in Ukraine under Soviets) displaces 55,000 tonnes (60,500 of our tons), has a length of 999 feet, a beam of 246 feet, and a draft of 28 feet.
Brazil: The Sao Paulo (former French Foch) displaces 32,800 tonnes (36,080 of our tons), has a length of 869 feet, a beam of 104 feet, and a draft of 28 feet.
So in addition to our carriers, we also have 8 LHAs (5 Tarawa class and 3 America class), and 8 LHDs (Wasp class), all of which could be classified as small carriers. Our smaller, Wasp class LHDs are actually significantly larger than the famous WW2 carrier Wasp.
-
How much can we up the count if we include those amphibious assault ships? They have squadrons of Harriers or F-35s on them. Here's a video of the F-35 doing carrier landings and take-offs, and the flight deck is parallel to to the keel, not angled off like on the modern carriers. That suggests to me that the video was shot on an AAS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxT78JsLJBY
That video is on USS Wasp. So our smallest "carrier"
-
With our sub fleet, I'm not concerned in the least. Ragging on Obama for this is petty.
With 11 full sized carriers (all of which are super carriers) and 16 pocket carriers (all of which are nearly 'full sized' for any other country on the planet), I'm REALLY not overly concerned.
As for battleships, I've changed my mind on that. Sure, we could have kept them around for longer but at the moment I don't think they're really needed. Give it a couple years and I've love to see nuclear battle ship hull with rail guns and good missile batteries. But the tech isn't there yet.
-
I've heard that China is working on having more carriers than us in the not really so distant future, and apparently they recently sailed their current one past Okinawa.
-
I've heard that China is working on having more carriers than us in the not really so distant future, and apparently they recently sailed their current one past Okinawa.
The Chinese have plenty of ship yards and sip building skills.
Why have they been screwing around with that old USSR piece of junk?
-
I've heard that China is working on having more carriers than us in the not really so distant future, and apparently they recently sailed their current one past Okinawa.
Of course, the instructions will make no sense and it'll break in a week, but they can turn them out by the billions.
-
The Chinese have plenty of ship yards and sip building skills.
Why have they been screwing around with that old USSR piece of junk?
It's a test mule. They're still trying to figure out how to land an aircraft on a carrier.
-
The Chinese have plenty of ship yards and sip building skills.
Why have they been screwing around with that old USSR piece of junk?
Test bed to save on R&D costs. Figure out their requirements. It's at least decent 1980's tech, and would probably save couple years and a couple tens of billions. It adds up.
-
I am a proponent of bringing back the BBs. Just need to get extra range out of their guns.
Need 16" versions of the new rocket-boosted rounds.
Or 16" railguns.
Nuclear-powered battleships with railguns and lasers!!
-
It's a test mule. They're still trying to figure out how to land an aircraft on a carrier.
Probably shouldn't have bought all those surplus Ki-115s from Japan to train in.