"Carrier Killer"

[joevol320]

MV said, explicitly, that subs "with hundreds of UAVs" will be built to replace carriers.


I consider the subs > carriers conversation at present to be similar to the special forces > grunt infantry.

With our current operations, sure, UAVs/Special Forces are much more viable. My concern (granted by many others in the IC) is that our next major conflict will not be against a secretive foe. UAVs, at their current state, are impractical against a large and conventional military.

our next conflict will not be good, i fear that PC will end up killing a lot of our soldiers and sailors. i just hope hussein commanding that war.

 

[DC Vol]

our next conflict will not be good, i fear that PC will end up killing a lot of our soldiers and sailors. i just hope hussein commanding that war.

You hope Obama is C-I-C of our next war? You're more disconnected than I thought.

 

[MontereyVol]

Carrier - $4 billion
Seawolf - $2 billion


I'll take 1 carrier over 2 Seawolves, thank you. Let's entertain this scenario. We're boots on the ground in North Korea or China. Either scenario would place the initial component of the USMC vastly outnumbered. You wouldn't be able to support them with a sub that has "hundreds of UAVs" for very long. They'd need to come back and re-arm. So their long sustained flight time would be negated as their primary role would be fire support.

Some Marines, I'm sure, wouldn't want to admit to a squid that the Navy is good for anything but hauling them around... but the Navy is absolutely vital to sustained ops. How would you also expect to replace the EW capabilities of the Prowler?


Can you honestly say that if you outfitted (I'm assuming here) a bunch of Ohio Class boomers that you'd viably be able to replace a Nimitz class CG in total firepower and operational capabilities? Not only for the Navy, but the Marines as well?


If you said we should replace some boomers nukes with UAVs... bring those in first for precision elimination of SAM/ASM batteries. I'd agree with that. In a sustained conflict though, at this point in the UAVs development, there is no replacement for the total impact a Nimitz CG can have.

You're missing the point, The UAV's you see today will be drastically improved in the future. There is talk among the Air Force community of walking the stages through of completely eliminating manned aircraft all together.

The method by which we deploy UAV's to garner air superiority for the Navy is still being discussed. The most popular is for ships like cruisers and destroyers to assume the role. Subs will likely tale a back sit but some will have a role since currently they are harder to track.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

You're missing the point, The UAV's you see today will be drastically improved in the future. There is talk among the Air Force community of walking the stages through of completely eliminating manned aircraft all together.

The method by which we deploy UAV's to garner air superiority for the Navy is still being discussed. The most popular is for ships like cruisers and destroyers to assume the role. Subs will likely tale a back sit but some will have a role since currently they are harder to track.

You know, just because I am a jerk and all.

The whole we do not need soldiers talk has been going on for 60 years.

Do you honestly think it will ever get to the point where we do not need pilots and boots on the ground?

 

[MontereyVol]

MV said, explicitly, that subs "with hundreds of UAVs" will be built to replace carriers.


I consider the subs > carriers conversation at present to be similar to the special forces > grunt infantry.

With our current operations, sure, UAVs/Special Forces are much more viable. My concern (granted by many others in the IC) is that our next major conflict will not be against a secretive foe. UAVs, at their current state, are impractical against a large and conventional military.

Conventional warfare that you speak of is becoming extinct for us. You mentioned Korea, our enemy in that fight was China and the options swirling around back then by people like Al Gore's father might surprise you. We as Americans will not be able to wage a war with China in the conventional sense, because they have too many people, air superiority is not going to come from manned airplanes as they can send hundreds of theirs to our single fighter. Then you have a carrier sitting defenseless after losing all its fighters.

 

[MontereyVol]

You know, just because I am a jerk and all.

The whole we do not need soldiers talk has been going on for 60 years.

Do you honestly think it will ever get to the point where we do not need pilots and boots on the ground?

Pilots for the most part yes, I still think they will be needed for SAR.

Boots on the ground, I have seen nothing that would convince me to think they are replaceable and I get to see all the new toys.

Keep in mind all my arguments are for supporting a ground force with better backup. Believe me the Army and Marines aren't crying over having to call up a future UAV vs Manned aircraft. Especially since it looks like they will have (if they wish) control over it once it comes on sight.

 

[DC Vol]

You're missing the point, The UAV's you see today will be drastically improved in the future. There is talk among the Air Force community of walking the stages through of completely eliminating manned aircraft all together.

The method by which we deploy UAV's to garner air superiority for the Navy is still being discussed. The most popular is for ships like cruisers and destroyers to assume the role. Subs will likely tale a back sit but some will have a role since currently they are harder to track.

First of all, I'm not missing the point. I've said probably 3 times now that I'm talking about UAVs as they currently are. Basing our current strategy on something that might be in the future is a sure-fire way to waste billions. And also, I seem to remember a day (when I was enlisting) that the Navy was going to be entirely replaced with stealth ships (like the Sea Sparrow from ) that need a small crew compared to modern-day ships. Don't know what happened to that prediction.

Also, the day that the USAF and USN forget they're there to support the boots on the ground is the day the US looses a lot of troops. It shouldn't be only about air superiority, you know.

If you have cruisers and destroyers carrying munitions not only for themselves, but also for the UAVs... how are you going to reliably carry out sustained operations if we do get drawn into a major conventional war with destroyer/cruiser launched UAVs? It just doesn't fit unless we develop inexaustable, small-payload direct-energy weapons.

The tech behind the UAVs is there, absolutely. The weapons they're delivering are not and probably won't be for some time.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Pilots for the most part yes, I still think they will be needed for SAR.

Boots on the ground, I have seen nothing that would convince me to think they are replaceable and I get to see all the new toys.

Keep in mind all my arguments are for supporting a ground force with better backup. Believe me the Army and Marines aren't crying over having to call up a future UAV vs Manned aircraft. Especially since it looks like they will have (if they wish) control over it once it comes on sight.

So you are saying when we go to war with China in 20 years.... we will be ready?

 

[DC Vol]

Conventional warfare that you speak of is becoming extinct for us. You mentioned Korea, our enemy in that fight was China and the options swirling around back then by people like Al Gore's father might surprise you. We as Americans will not be able to wage a war with China in the conventional sense, because they have too many people, air superiority is not going to come from manned airplanes as they can send hundreds of theirs to our single fighter. Then you have a carrier sitting defenseless after losing all its fighters.

You reference the Korean War and then say that we couldn't beat China in a conventional war in the next sentence because we're outnumbered by them.

So, China with it's ~2,500 fighters is going to outnumber us "hundreds to one"... when? That's not even counting in the quality of the Chinese jets and pilots.

Do you even know what an OoB is?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

You reference the Korean War and then say that we couldn't beat China in a conventional war in the next sentence because we're outnumbered by them.

So, China with it's ~2,500 fighters is going to outnumber us "hundreds to one"... when? That's not even counting in the quality of the Chinese jets and pilots.

Do you even know what an OoB is?

I smell a Marine...

 

[DC Vol]

I smell a Marine...

I don't want to know about your private life.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I don't want to know about your private life.

Sure you do!

You can deliver my paper any time!

 

[DC Vol]

Sure you do!

You can deliver my paper any time!

Shut up, Lt. Dangle

 

[MontereyVol]

First of all, I'm not missing the point. I've said probably 3 times now that I'm talking about UAVs as they currently are. Basing our current strategy on something that might be in the future is a sure-fire way to waste billions. And also, I seem to remember a day (when I was enlisting) that the Navy was going to be entirely replaced with stealth ships (like the Sea Sparrow from ) that need a small crew compared to modern-day ships. Don't know what happened to that prediction.

Current strategy is where it needs to be, we have carriers aplenty. If I do not look for future combat roles then I guess we can stick with what we got, meanwhile China, Russia.... whoever will develop strategies to defeat that.

The DD-21 is currently in its test phase it is no longer a prediction. I have friends on the updated version that is undergoing sea trials as of last year.

Also, the day that the USAF and USN forget they're there to support the boots on the ground is the day the US looses a lot of troops. It shouldn't be only about air superiority, you know.

see my above post where I said this already.

If you have cruisers and destroyers carrying munitions not only for themselves, but also for the UAVs... how are you going to reliably carry out sustained operations if we do get drawn into a major conventional war with destroyer/cruiser launched UAVs? It just doesn't fit unless we develop inexaustable, small-payload direct-energy weapons.

Once again, we are trying to move away from conventional war. If you want to put 10 of your small boys up against my UAV assisted small boys your team would be destroyed before ever knowing where in gods name I was.

The tech behind the UAVs is there, absolutely. The weapons they're delivering are not and probably won't be for some time.

Wrong.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Shut up, Lt. Dangle

Why you lookin down thereaaaaa........

Hmmm........

 

[MontereyVol]

You reference the Korean War and then say that we couldn't beat China in a conventional war in the next sentence because we're outnumbered by them.

So, China with it's ~2,500 fighters is going to outnumber us "hundreds to one"... when? That's not even counting in the quality of the Chinese jets and pilots.

Do you even know what an OoB is?

Thats exactly what I am saying. Do you know anything about the Korean War?

And who do you think currently has the ability to produce more Aircraft if production needed to go full scale, the US or China?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Thats exactly what I am saying. Do you know anything about the Korean War?

And who do you think currently has the ability to produce more Aircraft if production needed to go full scale, the US or China?

We got raped and moved down the peninsula.

We raped them by landing in behind them.

We had two pincers move up the peninsula and we got raped yet again.

We raped them again and nothing changed since the first day of the war.

 

[Plano Vol]

Thats exactly what I am saying. Do you know anything about the Korean War?

And who do you think currently has the ability to produce more Aircraft if production needed to go full scale, the US or China?

That's the real scary thought in all of this....twenty years from now our fighter pilots will be contractors from India.

 

[rockydoc]

I have an ideal how the Pentagon can get funding for the needed new weapons technology, like the F-22. They can call them "walking trails" or "beach mice".