Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Army looks to get in on some Pacific action and base attack helicopters on Navy ships. Marine Corps and Navy flipping coin to determine who tells them it's already been done   (wtkr.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, U.S. Marine Corps, navies, helicopter gunships, United States Navy ships, opportunity costs, Apache helicopter, helicopters  
•       •       •

3221 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2014 at 5:02 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-15 01:24:42 PM  
Coin toss? Nope. They'll do what they always do. The Navy will come up with what to do and then send in the Marines
 
2014-04-15 01:41:44 PM  
"Core".

/pet peeve
 
2014-04-15 01:58:43 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Coin toss? Nope. They'll do what they always do. The Navy will come up with what to do and then send in the Marines


This.  There's a hell of a lot more to it than just sticking a few Apaches on an L-deck.  The logistics tail for maritime aviation operations is enormous.
 
2014-04-15 02:14:28 PM  
This, that, and the other thing. I could see a reason to get Army pilots certified to conduct operations, but need more information before I'd say it's a good idea to have permanent Army groups on carriers in the Pacific.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 02:24:46 PM  
It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.
 
2014-04-15 02:36:20 PM  

vpb: It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.


My first thought as well. But there may be a super coastal contingency they want to put in their toolbox. Or even specialization, say each force does what they do best while able to deploy from multiple platforms....
 
2014-04-15 04:10:48 PM  
I thought Key West covered this already?
 
2014-04-15 05:06:46 PM  
Is this another repeat?
 
2014-04-15 05:07:38 PM  

vpb: It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.


Why do we HAVE other branches when the Navy has absorbed all the combat roles anyway?

Or alternatively, why don't we downsize the Navy and give the other branches back their old jobs?
 
2014-04-15 05:07:56 PM  
The navy will respond by wanting to operate M1 tanks on the battle field.
 
2014-04-15 05:08:00 PM  

vpb: It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.


Yeah. We wouldn't want to have to put the Army on traffic detail.

images.thetruthaboutcars.com
 
2014-04-15 05:10:28 PM  

hi13760: The navy will respond by wanting to operate M1 tanks on the battle field.


I will enjoy watching the cats and traps.

/from a distance
//via crash-cam
///missed the three wire!
 
2014-04-15 05:10:31 PM  

TheBigJerk: vpb: It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.

Why do we HAVE other branches when the Navy has absorbed all the combat roles anyway?

Or alternatively, why don't we downsize the Navy and give the other branches back their old jobs?


Inertia. And politics.
 
2014-04-15 05:14:15 PM  
Well, with the DF-21 making aircraft carriers obsolete (or at least helping push them out the door as the DF-21 becomes perfected), then the obvious choice would be to have smaller, faster ships that can share the burden and logistics of air superiority.

At some point I see aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship, probably before my lifetime.
 
2014-04-15 05:14:21 PM  
When I was stationed in Hawaii in the early '80s, we sent four Army CH-47s off into the big wide Pacific Ocean with internal fuel blivets for extended flying, in the general direction of Guam. We took the Navy's word that we would be met midway by an aircraft carrier that carried our preferred flavor of JP-4. Fortunately, they were both honest and prompt, and all went well. It's rather nerve-wracking to take off trusting only your compasses and maps with no land features below to guide you. I'd prefer not to make a habit of it.
 
2014-04-15 05:15:26 PM  

vpb: It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.


Marines already have Whiskey (current) and Zulu (next couple of years) Cobras... They don't need 64's.

Last I heard the 30mm ammunition the Apache uses isn't HERO compliant, nor is a lot of their other gear.  This is going to give you big problems when you try and operate aboard Navy ships.  That's one of the reasons why the Whiskey/Zulu Cobras stick with the 20mm, I believe.

Then you have the whole issue of compatibility with salt water/sea spray where corrosion is a BIG issue.  This is one of the reasons why "navalized" versions of aircraft are different (and generally more expensive) than the standard models.  Modern Cobras/Stallions/Ospreys/etc. are designed with a marine environment in mind.  Can you run a Chinook on a carrier or big deck amphib?  Sure... Would you want to as a matter of routine?  Probably not.
 
2014-04-15 05:22:58 PM  
Everyone knows that helicopters and jet fighters are ineffectual in the Pacific. The only effective and efficient weapons are giant mind-controlled robots.
 
2014-04-15 05:24:02 PM  

Ontos: Can you run a Chinook on a carrier or big deck amphib?


Of all the aircraft in the Army inventory, Chinooks would probably do the best. They're designed for water insertions, but yes, there is one hell of a lot more maintenance involved if your aircraft actually does one.
 
2014-04-15 05:25:20 PM  
I'm Army, and I think this is a stupid idea. Spend the time and money on training soldiers to be better at the jobs that are supposed to be ours. Taking ground, holding ground, maintaining order. The Army is a ground force. While the case can be made that some for of air power is useful, that air power has always been most useful in aiding ground fighting. I think this steps a bit to far. And I don't think it will really work that well.

I've deployed to Afghanistan a few times and in each case I've seen numerous sailors who were attached to various units doing jobs other than their own. They are fish out of water over there in the truest sense. The problem is that they're just not trained to fight a ground battle. We had Navy manning the perimeter towers at a fairly large and well known base in Afghanistan. Insurgents were able to successfully fire rockets at the base under the full view of the tower guards. The guards did not suppress them because they "didn't know the weapons could fire that far". That is a classic lack of training. These are machinists mates, electricians, and ejection seat mechanics being pulled off their real jobs, handed a rifle, a few weeks of training, and sent right into a land locked country to fight a ground war. It's ridiculous. The same shiat happened on my last deployment. Who had the  most accidents? Navy. Who had the most negligent discharges? Navy. Who had the most negative altercations with locals? Navy. Who required the most non-combat oriented medical emergency care? Navy.

Unless they've earned that SEAL trident, the Navy does not belong in Afghanistan. Period. They're not any good at it.
And I think the same would probably end up happening here. The Army should not be based on ships. Lets us get better at fighting ground wars and leave the ships to the guys who signed up to do exactly that kind of thing and have been trained to do those jobs,
 
2014-04-15 05:25:22 PM  
The Army will have fun getting those helicopters and weapons ready for use on ships. The Navy and Marine Corps spend billions making sure that equipment works and is safe in and on a shipboard environment.
Yes, you can fly a army helicopter on and off a ship, but to do it on a consistent basis is another matter.
Think salt spray inside the skin of a aircraft.
Think electronically fuzed weapons that are exposed to the amount of shipboard RF.
The tools and time needed to fold the rotors back between a Army helicopter and a Navy or Marine Corps one is just one example.
 
2014-04-15 05:25:46 PM  

vpb: It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.


This is what I was going to say, but they would need to be rebuilt and rearmed. I think the wieght might be an issue as well along with the blades since 64s have four and cobras have two. Besides the latest and soon to come out cobras still can provide the same or close to it role the 64s preform.

I could see putting 64s on a ship as a means to transport them to the area where they could fly off and be ready to use right away at some forward landing zone.
 
2014-04-15 05:25:52 PM  

Weatherkiss: Well, with the DF-21 making aircraft carriers obsolete (or at least helping push them out the door as the DF-21 becomes perfected), then the obvious choice would be to have smaller, faster ships that can share the burden and logistics of air superiority.

At some point I see aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship, probably before my lifetime.


Not likely. Too much power projection. SPY/RAM/CIWS can handle anti-shipping missiles just fine.
 
2014-04-15 05:28:17 PM  
Navy plays pretty well with the Army, already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar 

And I am pretty sure the Army is already eyeing the Navy's new railgun, as well.
 
2014-04-15 05:35:09 PM  

the_innkeeper: Navy plays pretty well with the Army, already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar 

And I am pretty sure the Army is already eyeing the Navy's new railgun, as well.


When I was at Battle Skills NCO course, they taught us how to call in artillery as forward spotters. When they got to the part about calling in Naval artillery, they told us that although the Navy uses different maps (charts?) and different numbering schemes for grid coordinates, just tell them in Army lingo and let them convert it. Our own Army guys told us that the Navy is the best in the world at artillery, so take care that what information we gave them was correct, because whatever grid coordinates we gave them was where the dust, fire and noise was going to end up.
 
2014-04-15 05:36:07 PM  

the_innkeeper: Navy plays pretty well with the Army, already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar 

And I am pretty sure the Army is already eyeing the Navy's new railgun, as well.


what utility would a railgun provide the army? The power required would render it immobile.  The navy has a natural advantage with o ersized weapons because ships are bigger.  I dontbthink the army would buy in to a large, fixed gun emplacement since they have been obselete since WWI
 
2014-04-15 05:37:14 PM  

OregonVet: My first thought as well. But there may be a super coastal contingency they want to put in their toolbox. Or even specialization, say each force does what they do best while able to deploy from multiple platforms....


I don't know why this is even a story.  It's been done many times over in the past.  As others have said, long term ops at sea would be devastating to a platform not designed for the environment but practicing for any possibility and short term use isn't a big deal

Army attack helos flew combat ops from barges in operation Preying Mantis.

Here's a US carrier loaded with army helos on the way to Haiti.

s3.amazonaws.com

We aren't the only ones to do it.

Here's a RAF Harrier GR.3 (land based aircraft) launching from HMS Hermes in the Falklands war
www.aerospaceweb.org

and RAF Apaches operating from HMS Ocean in the Libyan operation

www.armyrecognition.com
 
2014-04-15 05:38:14 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: the_innkeeper: Navy plays pretty well with the Army, already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar 

And I am pretty sure the Army is already eyeing the Navy's new railgun, as well.

When I was at Battle Skills NCO course, they taught us how to call in artillery as forward spotters. When they got to the part about calling in Naval artillery, they told us that although the Navy uses different maps (charts?) and different numbering schemes for grid coordinates, just tell them in Army lingo and let them convert it. Our own Army guys told us that the Navy is the best in the world at artillery, so take care that what information we gave them was correct, because whatever grid coordinates we gave them was where the dust, fire and noise was going to end up.


Of course they were. Those rounds are heavy, and no one likes to UNREP 5" rounds by the dozens. Gotta be practical about this.
 
2014-04-15 05:38:18 PM  

taurusowner: I'm Army, and I think this is a stupid idea. Spend the time and money on training soldiers to be better at the jobs that are supposed to be ours. Taking ground, holding ground, maintaining order. The Army is a ground force. While the case can be made that some for of air power is useful, that air power has always been most useful in aiding ground fighting. I think this steps a bit to far. And I don't think it will really work that well.

I've deployed to Afghanistan a few times and in each case I've seen numerous sailors who were attached to various units doing jobs other than their own. They are fish out of water over there in the truest sense. The problem is that they're just not trained to fight a ground battle. We had Navy manning the perimeter towers at a fairly large and well known base in Afghanistan. Insurgents were able to successfully fire rockets at the base under the full view of the tower guards. The guards did not suppress them because they "didn't know the weapons could fire that far". That is a classic lack of training. These are machinists mates, electricians, and ejection seat mechanics being pulled off their real jobs, handed a rifle, a few weeks of training, and sent right into a land locked country to fight a ground war. It's ridiculous. The same shiat happened on my last deployment. Who had the  most accidents? Navy. Who had the most negligent discharges? Navy. Who had the most negative altercations with locals? Navy. Who required the most non-combat oriented medical emergency care? Navy.

Unless they've earned that SEAL trident, the Navy does not belong in Afghanistan. Period. They're not any good at it.
And I think the same would probably end up happening here. The Army should not be based on ships. Lets us get better at fighting ground wars and leave the ships to the guys who signed up to do exactly that kind of thing and have been trained to do those jobs,


And why were sailors sent there? Because the Army & Air Force complained that were undermanned and needed help
 
2014-04-15 05:39:12 PM  
I seem to recall back in the '90s the army wanted to take over all marine helicopters. It wasn't long after that an army chopper somehow wound up in best korea. I think the army dropped the request after that.
 
2014-04-15 05:40:57 PM  
B-25s worked once.
Once.
 
2014-04-15 05:42:12 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: the_innkeeper: Navy plays pretty well with the Army, already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar 

And I am pretty sure the Army is already eyeing the Navy's new railgun, as well.

what utility would a railgun provide the army? The power required would render it immobile.  The navy has a natural advantage with o ersized weapons because ships are bigger.  I dontbthink the army would buy in to a large, fixed gun emplacement since they have been obselete since WWI


M1s use gas turbines to drive the tanks, the same thing that drives the generators on conventional ships. Power is not a limiting factor for much longer. Something about a round that can punch through any armor, at a deeply extended range, that is lighter and less hazardous to the crew might be of interest to the Army.
 
2014-04-15 05:43:21 PM  

vpb: It sounds like posturing for budget battles.  If the Army has more apaches than it needs and we need to operate them from ships then it would make more sense to transfer the AH-64s to the Marines.


Assuming it can be transferred without major design updates - sea-salt and complex machinery do not go well together, much worse than desert silt or humid jungle air; the Apache was designed for the latter, not the former.  Even though the Super Cobra is a weaker aircraft, it is already well adapted to sea life, with established logistics, and is still pretty damn lethal.

Also, I'm not sure the Army has more Apaches than they need, based on how much need there is for them in Afghanistan with too few birds to do all the jobs we'd like them to do (yes, this is related more to deployed numbers vs total inventory, but since it's been going on for years I'm imagining that's because inventory can't comply with the demand).  This likely is motivated only over concerns of service branch influence and operational reach, e.g. not wanting to have to build FARPs for an operation that could be over in a few days or weeks and for which the Navy and Marines would get all the glory.

Personally, I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but it's not without its challenges for certain.  It's way easier to let the Marines do the job the Army's trying to say is necessary here, and not just for the supply chain woes.   If the Apache can be adapted to sea operations, it would might be pretty sweet to see them in ghost/gull gray.

/what's that, the Army won't repaint them for sea duty?  Sorry, our ships are only compatible with gray aircraft.
 
2014-04-15 05:43:53 PM  
In honor of General Doolittle, we've attached JATO bottles to this loaded B-52 bomber and put it on this CVN. Let's see how well it flies.
 
2014-04-15 05:47:11 PM  

taurusowner: I'm Army, and I think this is a stupid idea. Spend the time and money on training soldiers to be better at the jobs that are supposed to be ours. Taking ground, holding ground, maintaining order. The Army is a ground force. While the case can be made that some for of air power is useful, that air power has always been most useful in aiding ground fighting. I think this steps a bit to far. And I don't think it will really work that well.

I've deployed to Afghanistan a few times and in each case I've seen numerous sailors who were attached to various units doing jobs other than their own. They are fish out of water over there in the truest sense. The problem is that they're just not trained to fight a ground battle. We had Navy manning the perimeter towers at a fairly large and well known base in Afghanistan. Insurgents were able to successfully fire rockets at the base under the full view of the tower guards. The guards did not suppress them because they "didn't know the weapons could fire that far". That is a classic lack of training. These are machinists mates, electricians, and ejection seat mechanics being pulled off their real jobs, handed a rifle, a few weeks of training, and sent right into a land locked country to fight a ground war. It's ridiculous. The same shiat happened on my last deployment. Who had the  most accidents? Navy. Who had the most negligent discharges? Navy. Who had the most negative altercations with locals? Navy. Who required the most non-combat oriented medical emergency care? Navy.

Unless they've earned that SEAL trident, the Navy does not belong in Afghanistan. Period. They're not any good at it.
And I think the same would probably end up happening here. The Army should not be based on ships. Lets us get better at fighting ground wars and leave the ships to the guys who signed up to do exactly that kind of thing and have been trained to do those jobs,


Ahem. Who trained us? The Army.

I spent 9 months in Bucca playing detention cop (I was a SONAR tech when I was in, and left a nice cushy R&D job in SD to go support the Iraqi campaign). I received 12 days of detention ops training in beautiful Ft. Bliss/Camp Mcgregor,TX before the Army deemed us adequate to head out. Please do not blame us for your own insufficient training.
 
2014-04-15 05:47:15 PM  

jigger: Everyone knows that helicopters and jet fighters are ineffectual in the Pacific. The only effective and efficient weapons are giant mind-controlled robots.


LOL. I'm watching Pacific Rim right now while Farking. I'm halfway through. Perfect timing, jigger.
 
2014-04-15 05:48:43 PM  
As far as I know, the Apache does not have folding rotor blades.   That should make it a non-starter.
 
2014-04-15 05:49:49 PM  
chriskresser.com
 
2014-04-15 05:50:01 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: As far as I know, the Apache does not have folding rotor blades.   That should make it a non-starter.


It starts just fine. Parking out of the weather is going to be an issue, though.
 
2014-04-15 05:54:14 PM  
Hey Core! You're part of the Navy. Just sayin
 
2014-04-15 05:56:45 PM  

taurusowner: I've deployed to Afghanistan a few times and in each case I've seen numerous sailors who were attached to various units doing jobs other than their own. They are fish out of water over there in the truest sense. The problem is that they're just not trained to fight a ground battle. We had Navy manning the perimeter towers at a fairly large and well known base in Afghanistan. Insurgents were able to successfully fire rockets at the base under the full view of the tower guards. The guards did not suppress them because they "didn't know the weapons could fire that far". That is a classic lack of training. These are machinists mates, electricians, and ejection seat mechanics being pulled off their real jobs, handed a rifle, a few weeks of training, and sent right into a land locked country to fight a ground war. It's ridiculous. The same shiat happened on my last deployment. Who had the  most accidents? Navy. Who had the most negligent discharges? Navy. Who had the most negative altercations with locals? Navy. Who required the most non-combat oriented medical emergency care? Navy.


Which is why you shouldn't get involved in a land war in Asia.

Duh.
 
2014-04-15 05:58:06 PM  

the_innkeeper: Wicked Chinchilla: the_innkeeper: Navy plays pretty well with the Army, already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar 

And I am pretty sure the Army is already eyeing the Navy's new railgun, as well.

what utility would a railgun provide the army? The power required would render it immobile.  The navy has a natural advantage with o ersized weapons because ships are bigger.  I dontbthink the army would buy in to a large, fixed gun emplacement since they have been obselete since WWI

M1s use gas turbines to drive the tanks, the same thing that drives the generators on conventional ships. Power is not a limiting factor for much longer. Something about a round that can punch through any armor, at a deeply extended range, that is lighter and less hazardous to the crew might be of interest to the Army.


Does an m1 turbine really put out that much energy? I mean, a turbine is a turbine no matter what platform its on, its just that marine turbines are huge. If energy doesn't represent a major obstacle then I get the appeal.  Mobility is important for a weapon system like that though
 
2014-04-15 05:58:08 PM  
Well, with the DF-21 making aircraft carriers obsolete (or at least helping push them out the door as the DF-21 becomes perfected), then the obvious choice would be to have smaller, faster ships that can share the burden and logistics of air superiority.

At some point I see aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship, probably before my lifetime.


Ummm, No. The Navy came up with the SM-3 anti-missile to deal with the DF-21. Since SM-3 is already deployed, they're ready. Plus, you need to know approximately where the carrier is before you can launch a DF-21 at it. To do that, you need surveilence satellites, the same kind of satillites the SM-3 can take down.

So we're good.
 
2014-04-15 06:00:02 PM  

taurusowner: I'm Army, and I think this is a stupid idea. Spend the time and money on training soldiers to be better at the jobs that are supposed to be ours. Taking ground, holding ground, maintaining order. The Army is a ground force. While the case can be made that some for of air power is useful, that air power has always been most useful in aiding ground fighting. I think this steps a bit to far. And I don't think it will really work that well.

I've deployed to Afghanistan a few times and in each case I've seen numerous sailors who were attached to various units doing jobs other than their own. They are fish out of water over there in the truest sense. The problem is that they're just not trained to fight a ground battle. We had Navy manning the perimeter towers at a fairly large and well known base in Afghanistan. Insurgents were able to successfully fire rockets at the base under the full view of the tower guards. The guards did not suppress them because they "didn't know the weapons could fire that far". That is a classic lack of training. These are machinists mates, electricians, and ejection seat mechanics being pulled off their real jobs, handed a rifle, a few weeks of training, and sent right into a land locked country to fight a ground war. It's ridiculous. The same shiat happened on my last deployment. Who had the  most accidents? Navy. Who had the most negligent discharges? Navy. Who had the most negative altercations with locals? Navy. Who required the most non-combat oriented medical emergency care? Navy.

Unless they've earned that SEAL trident, the Navy does not belong in Afghanistan. Period. They're not any good at it.
And I think the same would probably end up happening here. The Army should not be based on ships. Lets us get better at fighting ground wars and leave the ships to the guys who signed up to do exactly that kind of thing and have been trained to do those jobs,


Cool story, bro. I liked the 'not knowing how far a weapon could fire' thing.
 
2014-04-15 06:05:19 PM  

Weatherkiss: Well, with the DF-21 making aircraft carriers obsolete (or at least helping push them out the door as the DF-21 becomes perfected), then the obvious choice would be to have smaller, faster ships that can share the burden and logistics of air superiority.

At some point I see aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship, probably before my lifetime.


It's not going to be weaponry that makes carriers outdated, it's going to be drones and automated flight systems.  Carriers have to feed and house a whole bunch of people in order to keep pilots fed and happy.  Smaller aircraft that can be flown remotely don't have a need for all that infrastructure.

Nixie was invented when the Soviets came up with their massive awesome super duper "carrier killer" torpedo system.  The Dong will be no different.
 
2014-04-15 06:06:25 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: the_innkeeper: Wicked Chinchilla: the_innkeeper: Navy plays pretty well with the Army, already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar 

And I am pretty sure the Army is already eyeing the Navy's new railgun, as well.

what utility would a railgun provide the army? The power required would render it immobile.  The navy has a natural advantage with o ersized weapons because ships are bigger.  I dontbthink the army would buy in to a large, fixed gun emplacement since they have been obselete since WWI

M1s use gas turbines to drive the tanks, the same thing that drives the generators on conventional ships. Power is not a limiting factor for much longer. Something about a round that can punch through any armor, at a deeply extended range, that is lighter and less hazardous to the crew might be of interest to the Army.

Does an m1 turbine really put out that much energy? I mean, a turbine is a turbine no matter what platform its on, its just that marine turbines are huge. If energy doesn't represent a major obstacle then I get the appeal.  Mobility is important for a weapon system like that though


Let's see... quick Google-fu says the Navy's Allison's put out 3000kW each (x3 on a DDG) and the M1's Honeywell puts out ~900 kW. Naval range is 160km/100NM. I don't see a need to put a tank round QUITE that far down-range, yet. Cut the tank range by 2/3 and its doable. A factor of 3 is workable. Its not an "orders of magnitude" issue.
 
2014-04-15 06:08:52 PM  

the_innkeeper: Weatherkiss: Well, with the DF-21 making aircraft carriers obsolete (or at least helping push them out the door as the DF-21 becomes perfected), then the obvious choice would be to have smaller, faster ships that can share the burden and logistics of air superiority.

At some point I see aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship, probably before my lifetime.

Not likely. Too much power projection. SPY/RAM/CIWS can handle anti-shipping missiles just fine.


For now, sure. The jury is still out on whether or not the DF-21 can even hit a moving target (they've only tested on stationary targets in the sea), but the fact the U.S. has publically admitted that China is deploying/refining anti-carrier missiles is the writing on the wall that carriers are going to be pushed farther out to sea to project that power, and it'll be up to numerous smaller ships (we've already seen this in the form of the Littoral combat ships like the Freedom-class) to bring operations closer to shore, particularly with air support.

And as they get pushed out farther to sea, their mission profiles are going to change to serve as mobile bases as other ships fill the roles aircraft carriers used to. They'll still project power, but at some point they simply won't be worth the money to build or maintain as anti-ship missiles become more advanced, have farther striking distances, have more comprehensive electronic counter-measures, or can literally sink or destroy a carrier in 1 hit instead of the currrent (presumably) multiple.

If we need choppers in the Pacific, we're going to have to rely on multi-mission frigates and cruisers to get them closer to shore, so it only makes sense that the army and marines are looking at ways to adapt to that strategy.
 
2014-04-15 06:10:41 PM  

Rent Party: Weatherkiss: Well, with the DF-21 making aircraft carriers obsolete (or at least helping push them out the door as the DF-21 becomes perfected), then the obvious choice would be to have smaller, faster ships that can share the burden and logistics of air superiority.

At some point I see aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship, probably before my lifetime.

It's not going to be weaponry that makes carriers outdated, it's going to be drones and automated flight systems.  Carriers have to feed and house a whole bunch of people in order to keep pilots fed and happy.  Smaller aircraft that can be flown remotely don't have a need for all that infrastructure.

.

Still have to put the planes in range and do maintenance. Carriers aren't going anywhere for a while. Maybe when we can get ODST or CAP troopers and send some hardware with them.
 
2014-04-15 06:14:52 PM  

Weatherkiss: the_innkeeper: Weatherkiss: Well, with the DF-21 making aircraft carriers obsolete (or at least helping push them out the door as the DF-21 becomes perfected), then the obvious choice would be to have smaller, faster ships that can share the burden and logistics of air superiority.

At some point I see aircraft carriers going the way of the battleship, probably before my lifetime.

Not likely. Too much power projection. SPY/RAM/CIWS can handle anti-shipping missiles just fine.

For now, sure. The jury is still out on whether or not the DF-21 can even hit a moving target (they've only tested on stationary targets in the sea), but the fact the U.S. has publically admitted that China is deploying/refining anti-carrier missiles is the writing on the wall that carriers are going to be pushed farther out to sea to project that power, and it'll be up to numerous smaller ships (we've already seen this in the form of the Littoral combat ships like the Freedom-class) to bring operations closer to shore, particularly with air support.

And as they get pushed out farther to sea, their mission profiles are going to change to serve as mobile bases as other ships fill the roles aircraft carriers used to. They'll still project power, but at some point they simply won't be worth the money to build or maintain as anti-ship missiles become more advanced, have farther striking distances, have more comprehensive electronic counter-measures, or can literally sink or destroy a carrier in 1 hit instead of the currrent (presumably) multiple.

If we need choppers in the Pacific, we're going to have to rely on multi-mission frigates and cruisers to get them closer to shore, so it only makes sense that the army and marines are looking at ways to adapt to that strategy.


Frigates are retiring. Those missile-catching mine-magnets won't be around for long, which is why we have LCS. 

Cruisers are NOT littoral ships. They are AD, and will be the missile killer floating next to the carrier. The layered defense that modern battlegroups can put up is staggering. Once the CSG clears the road, the ASG moves in. A new toy on the Chinese or Russian end of things isn't going to adjust Fleet Doctrine much, and certainly not to the point were aircraft are pushed out of effective range.
 
2014-04-15 06:14:54 PM  

hardinparamedic: In honor of General Doolittle, we've attached JATO bottles to this loaded B-52 bomber and put it on this CVN. Let's see how well it flies.


I was on board for this.

i302.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-15 06:14:56 PM  

taurusowner: Unless they've earned that SEAL trident, the Navy does not belong in Afghanistan. Period. They're not any good at it.


Tell that to a Combat Duty Corpsman or a Seabee to their face. I dare you.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report