F-14 Tomcat not retired- likewise for F117, B2
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
I doubt it. If your sonar is so poor that you can't pick up a British or French SSBN at zero range, you can't pick up a Russian SSN at torpedo range.If your refering to the mid ocean collison of two SSBNs (and yes that does sound horrific), I think it actually proves how quite the submarines are, im quite sure are sonars are more advanced than the russians.
I have no interest in further conversation with someone who makes racial attacks.
*plonk*
That does not logically follow.
Please explain how not acquiring a fast(er) moving SSN is equivalent to two very silent, very slow moving vessels on patrol routine bumping into one another.
As opposed to: the incident demonstrating quite how quiet modern Western SSBNs are, that they can outstrip sonar capability.
If I actually had a clue to what 'racial' element you're referring to, I'd feel offended by your bizarre response. Since I don't, I don't.
Not really. Akula IIs are decent subs, but cannot match western subs in terms of stealth. And an SSBN is by nature more quiet than an SSN, since it has more room for stealthing measures and is designed to hide in the deep, unseen until launch. The collision was basically a fluke; if anything, it was proof of the effectiveness of Western stealthing.
this is exatcly what i was trying to say they were so quite they could not hear each other
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
you know I could go right ahead and use the spending fans own arguments against them, many of you folks say that the US having only a few F-22's while so many other nations are feilding many more inferior aircraft which can overcome the US technological advantage by sheer numbers, then the same applies to submarines, the Russians may have the akula submarine, but don't they only have like a handful of them while the USN has like 30 or 40 Los Angeles and Seawolf class submarines? Meanwhile the Russians posess tons of desiel electric subs, but for an example of how posessing tons of DE submarines while being outclassed on the surface means didly see: Kreigsmarine in WWII.
Excellent example.
With about 200 (between 1937 and January of 1942 the Germans built roughly 270 U-Boats, with 68 being confirmed by post war records as being lost in the same time frame) fairly primitive boats the Reich came to within a reasonable distance of defeating the Royal Navy on the high seas. The Kriegsmarine followed that accomplishment up by sinking ships in sight of beachcombers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Had the folks at Bletchley Park (and some very brave Poles) not broken into Enigma it would have been mid-1944 before the Americans & British would have been able to secure the Atlantic sea lanes to the point that the American Army could have begun its build-up, putting D-Day somewhere in late 1945.
That was how long it would have taken to build up a sufficiently powerful surface force to defeat the U-boat threat the hard way. Had the U.S. not been sitting on its hands until December 7th 1941, that force could (and SHOULD by any sane measure) have been in place the day the war began. Two plus years to build up a force sufficient to do the job, this in an era where the U.S. was capable of putting a destroyer into commission every three or four DAYS and building B-24 bombers at a pace of a 20 or more per DAY.
The U.S won't have the time to build up the forces necessary if there is another war. The U.S. also dislikes casualties, what do you think will happen if the potential opponents of the U.S. (and the West) gain parity? The short answer is WAY more coffins coming through Dover AFB.
Some folks like to point out that there isn't any opponent for the U.S. to fight, that today the U.S. military is, by any measure that matters, dominant to a point that is almost laughable. These people are right, for now. That will not continue to be the case. The USN is ALREADY too small to live up to tasking under the "two war" requirement, with virtually no hope of EVER altering that fact short of ASB intervention or the election of a reincarnated Teddy Roosevelt to the White House. There is a simple reason that the U.S. military is unchallenged, it is made to be that way. The day it isn't unchallengeable, someone WILL take advantage of that fact.
MacCaulay
Banned
I want to start out by saying that I don't disagree with you completely. And I want to give a big thumbs up to whoever pointed out my gaffe about the active/passive sonar.
I just got done watching this C-Span show entitled "The Defense Meltdown," and it talked alot about what you're actually mentioning, but it wasn't until I read your post that I started thinking about the whole "two front war" requirement. That was designed, if I'm not mistaken, to fight something akin to World War II, but now reinforcing Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion while being capable of defending against subs and surface action groups in the Pacific (or at worst, simultaneously reinforcing South Korea).
But since the fall of the USSR, it seems like the definition of "war" in that "two front war" strategy has changed. At the moment, the United States military is fighting two insurgency campaigns which I'm fairly sure weren't what the Pentagon thought of in the 60's or 70's when they designed this "two front war" force structure.
We've built ourselves to the point where we can place a strike anywhere on the planet in a few hours, and there are people on this board, I think, who seem to think that any country with a carrier wants our job.
I don't have any doubt that the United States could fight and win a mechanized war on the Korean peninsula, or in any one of half a dozen other places.
I'm going to get lambasted for this, I think, but I don't think we'll have to fight any mechanized wars anytime soon, with the outside exception of Korea (and I'm REALLY sure that won't happen).
It's those smaller, messier wars I'm less sure about. And those are the two-front wars we seem to get into.
These are the kinds of wars that can't be solved by RO-RO ships and surface action groups.
And as an American who's grew up in the late-Reagan/early-Clinton administrations (yeah, Bush was there but we mostly forget him, Gulf War or not. He was just Reagan Years 8-12), it's hard to change my mindset.
We like having this huge, monolithic enemy. I miss the Evil Empire. They threw good parades!
But Al-Qaeda doesn't have that. Some times it feels a bit stupid trying to fight a war against guys dirty Santa Claus beards hiding in caves. We're America! We need something bigger!
So what do we do? We make one. North Korea. Iraq. Iran. Hell, it's getting desperate, now. I've even heard Cuba and Venezuela batted around.
But that's just why I think there's some of that "there coming!" tone. I suppose I just couldn't keep going in some clinical tone like we weren't all talking about multli-billion dollar systems designed to tear apart young people.
wormyguy
Banned
@MacCaulay
That's all very well and nice, but if push comes to shove and we do end up fighting a major war, which is basically the whole point of having a military, it would be nice to be able to effectively counter it instead of saying "Holy f*ck, we've got our entire army in Whateverstan!" Now, whether this be via aircraft like the F-22, or aircraft carriers, or paratroopers, or army bases, or whatever it might be, it's nice that we could have some sort of conventional deterrent without having to immediately resort to nuclear weapons in such a situation. America is in the unique situation of having potential enemies to the East, West, South, and especially Middle East. It is therefore necessary to have a military capable of mounting offensive operations against far-flung global threats, something no other military would have a reasonable reason to do (Falklands stuff aside). That is the reason why so much must be spent on the US military, the kind of force projection, especially simultaneous force projection of the kind the US military must follow is expensive.
That's all very well and nice, but if push comes to shove and we do end up fighting a major war, which is basically the whole point of having a military, it would be nice to be able to effectively counter it instead of saying "Holy f*ck, we've got our entire army in Whateverstan!" Now, whether this be via aircraft like the F-22, or aircraft carriers, or paratroopers, or army bases, or whatever it might be, it's nice that we could have some sort of conventional deterrent without having to immediately resort to nuclear weapons in such a situation. America is in the unique situation of having potential enemies to the East, West, South, and especially Middle East. It is therefore necessary to have a military capable of mounting offensive operations against far-flung global threats, something no other military would have a reasonable reason to do (Falklands stuff aside). That is the reason why so much must be spent on the US military, the kind of force projection, especially simultaneous force projection of the kind the US military must follow is expensive.
Nikephoros
Banned
I am a surface ship SONAR operator. I am pretty much obligated. That much isn't actually secret, it just make sense.
In fact I found the same thing in the SONAR article for Wiki:
"Passive sonar is stealthy and very useful. However, it requires high-tech components (band-pass filters, receivers) and is costly. It is generally deployed on expensive ships in the form of arrays to enhance the detection. Surface ships use it to good effect; it is even better used by submarines, and it is also used by airplanes and helicopters, mostly to a "surprise effect", since submarines can hide under thermal layers. If a submarine captain believes he is alone, he may bring his boat closer to the surface and be easier to detect, or go deeper and faster, and thus make more sound."
Emphasis mine.
MacCaulay
Banned
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself. I'm not saying that we trade in all of our carrier groups. And as a Libertarian, I've gotten crap for advocating forward deployment.
I don't see a problem with maintaining carrier groups in hot zones and air bases in areas we deem strategically important. God help us if we didn't have Diego Garcia.
I also don't have a problem planning for war against enemies we may fight in the future. But I just can't find any reason that the Chinese or Russians or Indians (who seem to be the villains du jour on this thread) would want to attack us.
So who does that leave? There's hardly ANY evil moustache twirlers left.
I've got a buddy who's a SERE trainer in the Air Force. He talks alot about how they still train to fight the Soviets at Red Flag because there's no one else better.
There's no doubt there's always going to be another scrap out there. And we're always going to be keeping the 82nd Airborne in case we need to jump in and the 24th Mech in case we need to roll in and the Big Red One in case we need to march in.
Lord knows if the USA was going to try shrinking it's military, then maybe it wouldn't have given it's Navy it's own army.
wormyguy
Banned
@MacCaulay
Lets consider a hypothetical.
You're a psychotic Chinese general who has just launched a successful coup, let's say the year is 2015. You have destroyed the forces of the pseudo-Capitalist slaves of the decadent West. You have seen that the West maintains an illusion of weakness. Failure to act in Georgia. Failure to act in Kazakhstan. "Negotiated settlement" to the Crimea conflict. And, most laughably, "no first use." With the empires of the imperialists crumbling under their own weight, why must Russia take all the spoils? Isn't China entitled to finally reverse the inequities of the unequal treaties? Therefore, with these great truths in mind, you will embark on a national endeavor for the reunification of Formosa and the mainland. The landing craft are ready. Four aircraft carriers are in position. Thousands of bombers are fueling up, and tens of thousands of missiles are ready to level the island (conventionally) back to the stone age. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are drilled and ready to proceed with Operation Raging Dragon. Now, will you still go through with your operation if there are still significant, modern US land, air, and naval forces in the area? Maybe. What if the US forces are barely more modern, have only naval and air parity, and negligible ground forces, will you go through? Yes.
That's why its necessary. I don't like any government spending, but this case is the lesser of two evils.
Lets consider a hypothetical.
You're a psychotic Chinese general who has just launched a successful coup, let's say the year is 2015. You have destroyed the forces of the pseudo-Capitalist slaves of the decadent West. You have seen that the West maintains an illusion of weakness. Failure to act in Georgia. Failure to act in Kazakhstan. "Negotiated settlement" to the Crimea conflict. And, most laughably, "no first use." With the empires of the imperialists crumbling under their own weight, why must Russia take all the spoils? Isn't China entitled to finally reverse the inequities of the unequal treaties? Therefore, with these great truths in mind, you will embark on a national endeavor for the reunification of Formosa and the mainland. The landing craft are ready. Four aircraft carriers are in position. Thousands of bombers are fueling up, and tens of thousands of missiles are ready to level the island (conventionally) back to the stone age. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are drilled and ready to proceed with Operation Raging Dragon. Now, will you still go through with your operation if there are still significant, modern US land, air, and naval forces in the area? Maybe. What if the US forces are barely more modern, have only naval and air parity, and negligible ground forces, will you go through? Yes.
That's why its necessary. I don't like any government spending, but this case is the lesser of two evils.
Nikephoros
Banned
While China is still a threat, they have way more to lose with war than they do to gain, so I doubt that would ever happen.
wormyguy
Banned
Hence, the psychotic general. Which has happened in history more than one would think. And rarely at opportune times.
Deleted member 1487
And tomorrow a flying spaghetti monster could attack new york. So therefore we must spend hundreds of billions in case that eventuality comes to pass
wormyguy
Banned
Certain things are unlikely to happen. However, considering Murphy's Law, they will happen when we aren't prepared, and won't when we are. I'd say there's a 1% chance of something like that happening with China, and you can add to that another 2% for Russia, and 5% for India, given its relative instability. Spending hundreds of billions to protect us from a 7% chance of a conflict that could possibly end civilization itself? Sounds a bit more efficient than a lot of the things the government does.And tomorrow a flying spaghetti monster could attack new york. So therefore we must spend hundreds of billions in case that eventuality comes to pass
Actually the "two war" requirement I'm discussion has nothing to do with the USSR. It is a two "Regional Wars" scenario (frex: Middle East intervention and Korea), one that is much more likely than a replay of WW II. If that scenario was to occur today, the USN simply couldn't meet up to its responsibilities. The U.S. currently has 10 decks (the Bush will bring it back to 11 once she completes acceptance trails and works up). One ship is always in Service Life Extension Program/reactor recore & rebuild (right now its the Vinson), one is working back up from SLEP and one is prepping for SLEP. That leave seven (soon to be eight) total decks available, the "two war' tasking calls for a minimum of 10 carriers, with 12 being the "optimal" figure (the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars occuppied six carrier groups, and that was with Saudi Arabian air fields available for USAF tactical aircraft). The U.S. needs a minimum of 15 CBG, just to meet minimal requirements, right now we have 9.
Something bad happens and the U.S. IS going to come up short, with no chance of getting more decks into operation in anything short of 48 months, if not much longer. That is a fairly scary thought.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
This hypothetical is absurd from the very get-go, sorry. It's about as plausible as a "psychotic general" launching a successful coup in the U.S.
If the US wishes to have a global presence it requires expensive carrier fleets and overseas bases; it also needs to be able to project sufficient force to overcome, or deter, pretty much any adversary it's likely to face. Which is why it requires a lot of expenditure: it must have very good stuff in significant numbers and the ability to support them.
So cut backs would be unlikely unless the USA decides to become less omnipresent (although I could see cuts being made to the air defence of N America- do they really need all those part-timers flying fixed wing combat aircraft?)
So cut backs would be unlikely unless the USA decides to become less omnipresent (although I could see cuts being made to the air defence of N America- do they really need all those part-timers flying fixed wing combat aircraft?)
Deleted member 1487
While I do have problems with our omnipresence, it can be maintained while significantly cutting the budget. A large portion, and I believe a majority actually, of the budget goes towards research for equipment that is unnecessary and usually runs ridiculously over budget, which costs the tax payer far too much with little gain for the country other than weapons contractor welfare. I just don't see the percentage in spending vast sums of money for researching weapons systems that really would never be used when that money could go instead for education, healthcare reform, and social security reform, just to name a few of the worth projects out there.