maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:05 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:49 pm
Posts: 8914
Reputation points: 13207


Tracktion and horsepower.

_________________
"Stay deplorable my friends"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:58 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 8760
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 9540
The Marines are getting buggies !!!

Image

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 6:59 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 8760
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 9540
USS Ford begins acceptance trials ... Ford's successor, jimmie cahtah wanted to get rid of CVs ... apparently the Navy still wants them ...

Image

Quote:
The first-in-class aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) will head to sea by the end of the month for its last set of trials before the Navy accepts delivery of the ship and commissions it into the fleet, the acting Navy secretary said today.

Sean Stackley told reporters after delivering a speech at the U.S. Naval Institute’s annual meeting that the carrier would head to sea before Memorial Day for its acceptance trials.

Ford completed its builders trials on April 14, marking the last time shipbuilder Newport News Shipbuilding would oversee a test event with the ship.

Acceptance trials will look similar to builders trials but will be run by the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). The trials will ensure the ship’s systems all work – from power generation to navigation to communications – and that the crew is ready to operate the carrier at sea, but it will not include launching and recovering airplanes. That testing will take place after the Navy accepts delivery of the ship, service leaders have said previously.

“Delivery, pending the results of acceptance trials, we expect to turn delivery around quickly after that,” Stackley said.
“The crew is already onboard, operating and running the systems; she’s at the naval station; she’s loaded out; so the steps to go from acceptance trials to delivery, it’s going to be contingent on, what are the critical starred card type of deficiencies – if any – that are identified during acceptance trials,” he said, referring to the Navy test community’s way of denoting the most serious issues they find during sea trials.

“We came out of builders trials strong, we’re correcting those deficiencies” now before the ship heads back out to sea, Stackley continued.
“I’m pretty confident right now in a good [acceptance trials] and a quick turn around to deliver the ship.”


https://news.usni.org/2017/05/11/carrier-ford-to-begin-acceptance-trials-this-month-navy-expects-quick-delivery-afterwards

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 7:37 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 19180
Reputation points: 11032
Quote:
Tracktion and horsepower.


Memo: build bigger ditches.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 3:00 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 6707
Reputation points: 13223
I don't see why you guys wouldn't build CVs.

China and Russia are all "we have a hundred supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles! this negates whole CSG doctrine!"

Few problems - can't see shit even with satellites, stealth strike fighters on those carriers, wide CAP and AWACS coverage and anti-radiation missiles, how the hell are you ever going to find out where those ships are with the precision that allows you to hit them?

Also, supersonic missiles are dirty expensive in themselves, need to know where the enemy is and they have surprisingly short range whereas the carrier's stealth strike wing can reach really far and there's literally no rule against pooling multiple CSGs to form a godsplitting hammer. Also, where are you going to place those missiles and how many will there be where the CSGs make their appearance? If you've only got a couple of batteries and even if you somehow manage to lure the CVs themselves into engagement range before being blown up you're still going to need to both hit something and avoid PD systems in addition to longer range systems.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 3:01 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 6707
Reputation points: 13223
mdiehl wrote:
Quote:
Tracktion and horsepower.


Memo: build bigger ditches.


Imho, put an anti-tank mine in the ditch. It's one thing to fix a tank that got only partially hit by the mine and it's one thing to fix it when it's in a ditch.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 7:22 am 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 8760
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 9540
<<I don't see why you guys wouldn't build CVs.>>

The main downside of building CVs is that they are not free. So, the question is, is there some other combination of widgets that can get the job done at a lower cost. Or perhaps and alternate question is, are their other jobs that can be done at a lower cost that need doing even more than the jobs a CV can do?

The idea of the "Sea Control Ship" was that it would be a convoy escort in the event of war with the Russians. This was an idea promulgated in the 70s by CNO Zumwalt and, IIRC taken up by cahtah during his time in the residency. The SCS would carry a handful of helicopters and a quarter of a handfull of harriers. The harriers would tackle the bears who would be scouting for the convoys and sending reports to the rooskie submarines and the helicopters would battle the submarines directly. The idea was to build 8 of the SCS for the cost of one CV.

The other "charge" that has been made against the CV is that they are too large a target, too vulnerable, to valuable, etc. to go in harms way. Hence more smaller vessels might be indicated. The problem with that idea is, that you give up the ability to do power projection with the carrier air wing. The counter to that is that CG/DDG/SSN/SSGN missiles can get the job done with lower risk. And the attack in Syria recently is an example of that idea. Right now, the Navy (and their customers the Congress) seem to be following the path of "both" ... the CSGs provide the heavier more sustained power projection, with the SAGs providing a backup, less sustainable capability. As, more and more unmanned capability is developed, the concept of the CV will become obsolete and eventually all or most surface ships will be able to carry and launch smaller unmanned flying objects. Submarines could do so as well. But, the powers that be apparently do not think we are all the way their yet. Ability to strike a target is one capability. Air defense of ships at sea is another. ASW defense yet another.

Change will happen, but it is not happening as quickly as Zumwalt or cahtah envisioned 40+ years ago ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 19180
Reputation points: 11032
A CV is a huge, not stealthy target. It's undergunned as designed, with respect to defense against a swarm missile attack. Maybe the idea is that in an actual war the number of point defense guns goes up? The av wing is impressive, but the range on those things is actually shorter by a lot than many SSMs. I think the "theory" is that with refueling, range is now obsolete.

IMO the CVs are amusing but in the end why do we have them? To project power over turdhole third world countries and bomb mud huts? OK. They can do that. But why do we take on that job? Because our military policy has nothing to do with defending the lands and waters of the US. It's about subsidizing global elites and nothing more.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 5:52 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 6707
Reputation points: 13223
mdiehl wrote:
A CV is a huge, not stealthy target. It's undergunned as designed, with respect to defense against a swarm missile attack. Maybe the idea is that in an actual war the number of point defense guns goes up? The av wing is impressive, but the range on those things is actually shorter by a lot than many SSMs. I think the "theory" is that with refueling, range is now obsolete.

IMO the CVs are amusing but in the end why do we have them? To project power over turdhole third world countries and bomb mud huts? OK. They can do that. But why do we take on that job? Because our military policy has nothing to do with defending the lands and waters of the US. It's about subsidizing global elites and nothing more.


The underlying implication is of course that if Russia launched it's entire arsenal of anti-ship missiles against a single carrier the two countries would already essentially be at both war and likely already thrown a nuke or two at each other.

A carrier can do a ton of shit in a region, it is a massive strategic force projection asset.

Can it take Moscow? No one can *take* Moscow and if you want to hit Russians you're not going to be parking fucking carriers by their shoreline anyway.


So, the hypothetical situation where for some reason someone drives a CV up to port at Kaliningrad and Russians anticipated this by placing their entire arsenal of anti-ship missiles there?

Yes.. Sounds like a plausible scenario, right?

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8512
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9548
In the 1930s CVs were speculated to become the dominant naval asset. In the 1940s that was confirmed. They were absolutely essential in the Pac War (though ultimately subs were probably the MORE important asset). Also useful in the Atlantic to a limited extent, primarily in ASW role and air cover role I believe and that was pretty minimal. They were useful in the Korean and Vietnam wars, though perhaps not "show stopping" had they been absent. For the duration of the Cold War, no one knew if the Commies and the Free World would eventually get into an actual war, and so the ability to "control" both oceans on either side of Commie land remained strategically prudent.

That brings us to 1991 when "the Cold War Ended," which I put in quotes because, arguably it didn't really end, it just transformed.

Russia and China are still adversarial police states, though they have changed a lot. India has become a little bit of a regional air/sea power though they are arguably NOT adversarial.

Agree that the seriousness and extent of the risks posed by the "former Communist" (Russia) and ongoing Communist (China) powers which have been the two most significant enemies of freedom for the past ~60+ years has changed. But those nations are not yet fully "reformed."

Obviously, it would be absolutely INSANE to continue to decide national military policy as if Germany, Japan or Italy (or any of their minor power allies) could somehow transform back into their bad old selves. They were utterly crushed, societies brought as close to complete destruction as was possible and kept there until they cried uncle. And then they were nursed back to health and "instructed" on how NOT to be fascist, militarist, shitheads. Complete and total success stories as far as I can tell: none of them pose any credible threat to their own people (well, leaving aside the "cultural suicide" derangement syndrome of the Merkelites) or to any of their neighbors or any of humanity.

But the same cannot be said for the USSR/Russia nor China. They have never been defeated, forced to accept unconditional surrender, forced to fully demilitarize, forced to relinquish control of their entire society to the Free World Powers and until the changes they have undergone are on par with that degree of reform, they represent a potential short-term threat and a long-term threat of greater variability (possible much greater, possibly shrinking all the way down to zero).

10 Super carriers does seem excessive on first glance. But this allows more or less complete global coverage (or well . . . coverage of multiple world regions simultaneously) in crisis situations as well as regular rotation of crews and ships for refitting.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group