On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I agree we have some very robust systems and we can smash any 3d world
country into dust but to think it really makes that much difference in
open war with the russians is naive. As soon as either side believed
they were in serious danger of losing, the nukes would come out.

On 5/6/18 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I agree we have some very robust systems and we can smash any 3d world
country into dust but to think it really makes that much difference in
open war with the russians is naive. As soon as either side believed
they were in serious danger of losing, the nukes would come out.


It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...

On Sun, 6 May 2018 12:02:35 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 5/6/18 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I agree we have some very robust systems and we can smash any 3d world
country into dust but to think it really makes that much difference in
open war with the russians is naive. As soon as either side believed
they were in serious danger of losing, the nukes would come out.


It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...

About the same as if they bombed DC

On 5/6/2018 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I agree we have some very robust systems and we can smash any 3d world
country into dust but to think it really makes that much difference in
open war with the russians is naive. As soon as either side believed
they were in serious danger of losing, the nukes would come out.



Right now nukes are the only neutralizer the Russians have. They
can build ships, subs, airplanes, etc. but they lack in the
technology our stuff has. It's important to keep it that way.

Even the recent reports of the Russians jamming some of our
AC-130's is misleading. The AC-130's don't have the electronic
countermeasures that most of our attack jets have. Jamming
them isn't an issue.

On 5/6/2018 12:02 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/6/18 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.

wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully
the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ


... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering
their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the
russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a
couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders thoÂ* ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and
then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities.Â* That said though, the Russians have
demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are
easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they
can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the
subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world
tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The
attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already
happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed
that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it
won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades.Â* I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities.Â* Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group.Â* So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems.Â* It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's.Â* DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently.Â* Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept.Â* today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System.Â* We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built.Â* The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack),Â* amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose.Â* Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore.Â* I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test.Â* Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I agree we have some very robust systems and we can smash any 3d world
country into dust but to think it really makes that much difference in
open war with the russians is naive. As soon as either side believed
they were in serious danger of losing, the nukes would come out.


It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...



That's why we have eleven of them. :-)

You overestimate the ability of any of our adversaries to sink or
seriously disable one of our carriers but you'll never be
convinced of that so it's not worth trying. It's not that the
carriers are invincible or unsinkable. It's the systems carried
on other, accompanying ships like the DLGs that provide the protection.

In an all out non-nuke war it's very possible that we'd lose some
ships, even a carrier or two. But it won't be easy, nor will it
go without major losses to the other side.

They are far less vulnerable today than those used during WWII and
during the Cold War.

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 12:02:35 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 5/6/18 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.


I agree we have some very robust systems and we can smash any 3d world
country into dust but to think it really makes that much difference in
open war with the russians is naive. As soon as either side believed
they were in serious danger of losing, the nukes would come out.


It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 20:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the
Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack
guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already
happened. We do have subs also,
you know.


But if it takes 10 minutes to sink the sub, all their missiles will already
be on the way.

We will have blown them out of the water before they got their hatches open.


You seem to think every boomer has an attack sub attached to it. Like a
Remora.

On 5/6/2018 2:58 PM, Bill wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 20:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the
Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack
guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already
happened. We do have subs also,
you know.


But if it takes 10 minutes to sink the sub, all their missiles will already
be on the way.

We will have blown them out of the water before they got their hatches open.


You seem to think every boomer has an attack sub attached to it. Like a
Remora.



The attack subs operate with the battle groups. The boomers operate
independently with pre-programed targets.

On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.