| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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 |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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 ;-) |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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? |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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 |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, 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 certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems, electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them. A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, 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 certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems, electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them. A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group. I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops but how does it do on one coming straight down from space? An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and hitting a V2. You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage industry. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On 5/5/18 7:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, 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 certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems, electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them. A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group. I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops but how does it do on one coming straight down from space? An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and hitting a V2. You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage industry. What will happen when the first time one of our "capital ships" is hit and sunk by a low tech adversary? The Navy will tell us it has to build a newer, higher tech fleet. Since WWII, the primary objective of the military and its defense contractor subsidiaries has been to keep themselves in uniform and in dollars. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Sat, 5 May 2018 21:34:06 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/5/18 7:02 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, 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 certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems, electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them. A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group. I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops but how does it do on one coming straight down from space? An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and hitting a V2. You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage industry. What will happen when the first time one of our "capital ships" is hit and sunk by a low tech adversary? The Navy will tell us it has to build a newer, higher tech fleet. Since WWII, the primary objective of the military and its defense contractor subsidiaries has been to keep themselves in uniform and in dollars. We tend to agree there. I certainly think we need a credible defense but I don't think it needs to be a $900 BILLION defense. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On 5/5/2018 7:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, 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 certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems, electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them. A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group. I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops but how does it do on one coming straight down from space? An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and hitting a V2. You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage industry. Aegis uses a fixed, phased array radar. It can search, detect and track from any direction, electronically controlled. Far cry from the spinning radar antenna from yesteryear that has a limited angular lobe pattern. I don't know but I suspect it is easier for it to detect a missile coming down from space than one skimming the surface of the water. What multiplies it's effectiveness is that the majority of the ships in a battlegroup have Aegis and each ship can simultaneously track up to 100 incoming missiles. The anti-missile missile launched from a particular DLG could be under control of another DLG's Aegis system that is many miles away. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
John H. Wrote in message:
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. The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to develop thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows what needs to be done and he's working on the problem. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
justan
John H. Wrote in message:Â* - show quoted text - "The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to developÂ* Â*thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows whatÂ* Â*needs to be done and he's working on the problem."Â* Wow, Justine! Maybe we need to keep a dossier on y'all. Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying. Â*Â* |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:21:07 AM UTC-4, True North wrote:
justan John H. Wrote in message:Â* - show quoted text - "The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to developÂ* Â*thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows whatÂ* Â*needs to be done and he's working on the problem."Â* Wow, Justine! Maybe we need to keep a dossier on y'all. Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying. Â*Â* Try again, and this time in English. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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... |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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 |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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". |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Sun, 6 May 2018 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:21:07 AM UTC-4, True North wrote: justan John H. Wrote in message:* - show quoted text - "The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to develop* *thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows what* *needs to be done and he's working on the problem."* Wow, Justine! Maybe we need to keep a dossier on y'all. Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying. ** Try again, and this time in English. LOL! |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
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 think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't help its cause: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70 |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Sun, 6 May 2018 18:58:19 -0000 (UTC), 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. No, not with the boomers, but with the carriers. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. 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 think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't help its cause: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70 That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage. Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to improve it. In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs, it's pretty impressive. http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/ |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:26:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. 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 think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't help its cause: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70 That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage. Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to improve it. In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs, it's pretty impressive. http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/ Wow. Some impressive results. Hadn't seen that record (or its proponent) or even knew of its existence. The THAAD results are extremely impressive. Is that system also ship mounted? |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out. If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may be threatened. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Mon, 07 May 2018 11:23:18 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out. If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may be threatened. I don't think anyone would disagree that an all-out nuclear war would mark the end of most everything - except roaches, of course. |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On 5/7/2018 11:21 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:26:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. 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 think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't help its cause: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70 That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage. Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to improve it. In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs, it's pretty impressive. http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/ Wow. Some impressive results. Hadn't seen that record (or its proponent) or even knew of its existence. The THAAD results are extremely impressive. Is that system also ship mounted? What little I know about the THAAD system is that it's a ground based (truck mounted) kinetic energy missile ... meaning it has no explosives. It just smacks into an incoming short or medium range ballistic missile at high velocity and smashes it to pieces. It's origins are in Ronny Wrinkles "Star Wars" program. I don't think it's on ships but all of these systems use variants of the Aegis type computerized targeting system. Few worked well until it was developed. The system I am really interested in is the ship based laser because it's an offshoot of a program I had some participation in back in the 90's. It was called the Airborne Laser and consisted of a high power chemical laser within a 747. The laser beam exited the aircraft at it's nose and could be aimed at targets. My company built some equipment for putting thin film coatings on some of the laser optics that allowed them to pass the energy of the laser without being destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 The program had some success but funding was cut in 2010. However, some of the design and concepts have been used in the development of a shipboard laser system. It's currently still being tested and will be installed on a second Navy ship this year. It's interesting that the newest ships being built .... the USS Gerald Ford (carrier) and the Zumwalt class destroyers are designed with massive electrical energy generation capability compared to traditional ships' capacities in order to power systems like this and the Ford's electromagnetic launch rail. If ever proven and fully deployed, no more super expensive missiles will be needed. Harry will be happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjXXRfwrHg |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out. If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may be threatened. I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and we're all dead anyway. :-) |
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:30:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 5/7/2018 11:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:26:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 5/7/2018 9:39 AM, John H. 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 think they need to read a bit more about the capabilities of our ships. Of course, I don't know that the Aegis system has been severely tested against a ship. And, test results like this don't help its cause: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.WvBVw9Qvy70 That's a newer version of a land based ballistic missile defense system based in part on the Aegis system. It's specifically designed to hit a missile launched into space and hit it during it's re-entry stage. Like all systems, there are bugs and more tests to be conducted to improve it. In general the shipboard Aegis system has evolved to the point of being very accurate and reliable. Not perfect, but for the task it performs, it's pretty impressive. http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-intercept-test-record/u-s-missile-defense-intercept-test-record/ Wow. Some impressive results. Hadn't seen that record (or its proponent) or even knew of its existence. The THAAD results are extremely impressive. Is that system also ship mounted? What little I know about the THAAD system is that it's a ground based (truck mounted) kinetic energy missile ... meaning it has no explosives. It just smacks into an incoming short or medium range ballistic missile at high velocity and smashes it to pieces. It's origins are in Ronny Wrinkles "Star Wars" program. I don't think it's on ships but all of these systems use variants of the Aegis type computerized targeting system. Few worked well until it was developed. The system I am really interested in is the ship based laser because it's an offshoot of a program I had some participation in back in the 90's. It was called the Airborne Laser and consisted of a high power chemical laser within a 747. The laser beam exited the aircraft at it's nose and could be aimed at targets. My company built some equipment for putting thin film coatings on some of the laser optics that allowed them to pass the energy of the laser without being destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 The program had some success but funding was cut in 2010. However, some of the design and concepts have been used in the development of a shipboard laser system. It's currently still being tested and will be installed on a second Navy ship this year. It's interesting that the newest ships being built .... the USS Gerald Ford (carrier) and the Zumwalt class destroyers are designed with massive electrical energy generation capability compared to traditional ships' capacities in order to power systems like this and the Ford's electromagnetic launch rail. If ever proven and fully deployed, no more super expensive missiles will be needed. Harry will be happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjXXRfwrHg Most interesting. Please keep us posted. I'm so glad the US Navy is doing something to make Harry happy! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com