That's a habit of ours. But you're in good company. Chiang Kai-shek, MacArthur, Truman, to name just a few.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
For those of you who like Big Picture/Strategic subjects
- Thread starter Fog
- Start date
That's a habit of ours. But you're in good company. Chiang Kai-shek, MacArthur, Truman, to name just a few.
Samus64
New Member
Can't remember where I found this one but sounds very similar to what's addressed in the original post.
Why AirSea Battle?
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...irSea_Battle/R.20100219.Why_AirSea_Battle.pdf
Why AirSea Battle?
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...irSea_Battle/R.20100219.Why_AirSea_Battle.pdf
Will_T
Will_T
That linked provided by Samus64 seems to confirm the fears that a carrier is now a liability, a huge target incapable of doing its assigned task when confronted by a modern enemy. Could the end of naval aviation be on the horizon?
Could there be a return to a battleship-dominated Surface Navy?
Am I speaking out of my @ss in the opinion of many right now?
The answer to all three is definitely maybe, but I hope to God not. This is certainly a very important topic for the future of the Navy and the USA.
Will.
Could there be a return to a battleship-dominated Surface Navy?
Am I speaking out of my @ss in the opinion of many right now?
The answer to all three is definitely maybe, but I hope to God not. This is certainly a very important topic for the future of the Navy and the USA.
Will.
If a carrier, with all its escorts, won't survive, what makes you think a battleship would? A "battleship" today would be nothing more than a souped up CG. If anything, if the anti ship threat grows too much, I'd expect the sub force to take the lead.
Airedales can run away from the threat and bubbleheads hide from the threat.
SWOs just hold up a big "Shoot me" sign.
Oh, I don't know ... mebbe 12"-17" of class 'A' or STS armor on an IOWA class BB ... ??? 15,000 miles cruising range ... 33 KTS in most/any sea state (can leave her escorts in the dust) ... BIG GUNS ... lots of missiles ... room for HELOs & a BLT (hold the mayo) if they really 'worked it' ... ??
A carrier (as much as I love 'em) becomes a big piece of floating metal target if you damage the flight deck to the point of ending flight ops ... you don't even have to sink her. But w/ only a handful of carriers (11 active?) ... you don't have to sink/damage very many to put a BIG dent in the USN. Unless, of course, you choose to go nuclear when we get short of carriers ... ???
But yeah ... I know ... BB's ... they will never happen again. I still long for ''Ronnies'' 600-ship Navy. Just cause it 'won't happen' doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Why do we keep building more, overpriced, tin... and I mean 'tin' cans and unarmored 'cruisers' (to provide congressional district jobs) that can be electronically neutered (and therefore rendered tactically useless) w/ an airburst, or perhaps, a made-in-China electric razor ... ???
I know ... my view is somewhat simplistic -- but if you'd ever 'worked' a 5"/38 cal mount (I have) -- you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it ... and we won't even consider the 'big stuff'.
Will_T
Will_T
A battleship these days would be very different from those of the past, but man, those Iowas are a thing of beauty (The Wisconsin was fun). They'd probably be nuclear powered, covered in missiles and (*maybe*) a couple of electro-magnetic railguns. Now, it can operate further from shore then a carrier, possibly take and dish our more punishment. With today's technology and money, they'd be pretty tough. And yea, try shooting through 12" of hardened steel with any missile and you'll have a rough day trying. I just think survivability and firepower would be increased with a new age battleship. Just the opinion of a a soon to be MIDN "swo"peful.
Will.
Will.
Oh, I don't know ... mebbe 12"-17" of class 'A' or STS armor on an IOWA class BB ... ??? 15,000 miles cruising range ... 33 KTS in most/any sea state (can leave her escorts in the dust) ... BIG GUNS ... lots of missiles ... room for HELOs & a BLT (hold the mayo) if they really 'worked it' ... ??
A carrier (as much as I love 'em) becomes a big piece of floating metal target if you damage the flight deck to the point of ending flight ops ... you don't even have to sink her. But w/ only a handful of carriers (11 active?) ... you don't have to sink/damage very many to put a BIG dent in the USN. Unless, of course, you choose to go nuclear when we get short of carriers ... ???
But yeah ... I know ... BB's ... they will never happen again. I still long for ''Ronnies'' 600-ship Navy. Just cause it 'won't happen' doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Why do we keep building more, overpriced, tin... and I mean 'tin' cans and unarmored 'cruisers' (to provide congressional district jobs) that can be electronically neutered (and therefore rendered tactically useless) w/ an airburst, or perhaps, a made-in-China electric razor ... ???
I know ... my view is somewhat simplistic -- but if you'd ever 'worked' a 5"/38 cal mount (I have) -- you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it ... and we won't even consider the 'big stuff'.
My point was really that anything that makes it through a CSF escort screen to cause enough damage to a CVN to take it off the line is also going to achieve a mission kill on even what I would see as the "modern" BB.
The Iowas, while classics, are helpless against air/subsurface attack. While I could see them possibly remaining "mission capable" after eating a anti ship torpedo or missile, what would that mission be? Put 16" rounds on target? Deliver TLAMs? Neither mission requires an onboard sensor providing targeting information to a weapon system.
If you're talking a modern BB, one that can detect/track/engage aircraft, missiles, subs, and ballistic missiles, why, in terms of capabilities, that sounds a LOT like the modernized Ticonderoga class cruiser.
Going back to the "mission kill" point, even if you were to uparmor and stretch out a CG to a modern day battleship, there's not much you can do about the fragile radars that do all the detection and targeting. Without guidance systems, all the high tech precision weaponry onboard is useless.
And you CAN'T armor radar arrays. Or maybe you can, I'm no engineer, but today's radar aren't even built to survive being painted over by misguided deck seamen.
Not to mention I don't think it's possible to armor ships enough to survive ballistic missile attacks anyway.
And weaponized lasers and railguns are not operational reality yet, and neither solves the torpedo problem.
I don't disagree with what a BB brings to the fight since there is not substitute for leaving giant swimming pools where the enemy used to be, but one thing the aircraft carrier brings is inherent flexibility. Multirole aircraft are better able to contribute to multiple missions and the size of the ship and flight deck lends itself to more non-traditional missions better than a BB/CG/DD(G) do; specifically HADR.
My concern is the Navy's fascination with high-tech multi-mission ships at the expense of quantity of vessels to perform all the tasks assigned to the Navy today. I feel the Navy needs a mixed arsenal of both high-end and low-end capabilities,
The vast majority of the operations we are conducting today are in the lower end of the spectrum of conflict (MIO, Counter Piracy, Presence, HADR) and require multiple vessels capable of one or two mission areas. When you look at the Navy's shipbuilding plan we desire multi-mission vessels with all the top-end bells and whistles on every hull.
We need fully capable vessels to BPT engage with a near-peer competitor and maintain sea control/maritime superiority, but not every vessel purchased needs to be a Corvette ZR-1. We need some F-150's in the line-up as well. The LCS when it was originally planned was more towards the lower-end of the capability mix (when it was called 'Streetfighter' ) but then the Navy decided to put all the options on it, and now it costs the same as a DDG. (LCS-4 was killed at $500 M, USS SPRUANCE DDG-111 to be delivered next month at $489M)
Having a more diverse line-up of vessels will allow us to have more ships in the inventory which has lots of benefits. More hulls = reduced OPTEMPO on those hulls/crews = Better QOL.
More hulls also means more command opportunity so the Navy will have a larger pool of qualified officers for O-6 and Flag selection.
Finally we'll be able to have more presence and interaction with countries that are not in the CENTCOM AOR since what limited assets we have are mostly dedicated to that 'neck of the woods'.
Maybe something along the lines of the old Cyclone class PC's could be very useful in the littoral regions and will do very well with most of the lower end of the conflict scale. Make them an O-4 command so now the SWO's don't go 5-6 years between their Dept head tour and the current CO/XO tour without running a ship.
My concern is the Navy's fascination with high-tech multi-mission ships at the expense of quantity of vessels to perform all the tasks assigned to the Navy today. I feel the Navy needs a mixed arsenal of both high-end and low-end capabilities,
The vast majority of the operations we are conducting today are in the lower end of the spectrum of conflict (MIO, Counter Piracy, Presence, HADR) and require multiple vessels capable of one or two mission areas. When you look at the Navy's shipbuilding plan we desire multi-mission vessels with all the top-end bells and whistles on every hull.
We need fully capable vessels to BPT engage with a near-peer competitor and maintain sea control/maritime superiority, but not every vessel purchased needs to be a Corvette ZR-1. We need some F-150's in the line-up as well. The LCS when it was originally planned was more towards the lower-end of the capability mix (when it was called 'Streetfighter' ) but then the Navy decided to put all the options on it, and now it costs the same as a DDG. (LCS-4 was killed at $500 M, USS SPRUANCE DDG-111 to be delivered next month at $489M)
Having a more diverse line-up of vessels will allow us to have more ships in the inventory which has lots of benefits. More hulls = reduced OPTEMPO on those hulls/crews = Better QOL.
More hulls also means more command opportunity so the Navy will have a larger pool of qualified officers for O-6 and Flag selection.
Finally we'll be able to have more presence and interaction with countries that are not in the CENTCOM AOR since what limited assets we have are mostly dedicated to that 'neck of the woods'.
Maybe something along the lines of the old Cyclone class PC's could be very useful in the littoral regions and will do very well with most of the lower end of the conflict scale. Make them an O-4 command so now the SWO's don't go 5-6 years between their Dept head tour and the current CO/XO tour without running a ship.
$489M for DDG-111? Where the hell did you get that number? I've always heard ~$2B for new build DDGs. DDG-51 went for ~$1.25B back in the day.
And do you mean make PC replacement CO tour a shore tour between DH and XO/CO tour? B/c PC CO today is 2nd DH tour, which is an O-4 job.
Will_T
Will_T
I agree lumpy, not every ship does have to be the best, but it better be damned good and well supported.
BigRed, you right the only problem with the modern surface combatants is that theyre so fragile:
We went from 5 inch belt armor in world war 2 (still at ~33 kts) to just enough to hold the sea water out. I don't trust in fragile electronics as much a I do in pure steel, you can turn off an electronic device, you cant turn off armor.
And even though lasers and railguns are operation yet, one can only imagine who much better a surface combatant would be with them. And I wont pretend to have any real knowledge on the torpedo problem besides the hope that our own sub force is strong enough to remove most of the problem.
"If you're talking a modern BB, one that can detect/track/engage aircraft, missiles, subs, and ballistic missiles, why, in terms of capabilities, that sounds a LOT like the modernized Ticonderoga class cruiser.
Going back to the "mission kill" point, even if you were to uparmor and stretch out a CG to a modern day battleship, there's not much you can do about the fragile radars that do all the detection and targeting. Without guidance systems, all the high tech precision weaponry onboard is useless."
I'm not talking about a Ticon., I'm talking about a bigger/hardier/stronger version of it. And yes, radar is fragile, but maybe that is another design feature to look at?
Will.
BigRed, you right the only problem with the modern surface combatants is that theyre so fragile:
We went from 5 inch belt armor in world war 2 (still at ~33 kts) to just enough to hold the sea water out. I don't trust in fragile electronics as much a I do in pure steel, you can turn off an electronic device, you cant turn off armor.
And even though lasers and railguns are operation yet, one can only imagine who much better a surface combatant would be with them. And I wont pretend to have any real knowledge on the torpedo problem besides the hope that our own sub force is strong enough to remove most of the problem.
"If you're talking a modern BB, one that can detect/track/engage aircraft, missiles, subs, and ballistic missiles, why, in terms of capabilities, that sounds a LOT like the modernized Ticonderoga class cruiser.
Going back to the "mission kill" point, even if you were to uparmor and stretch out a CG to a modern day battleship, there's not much you can do about the fragile radars that do all the detection and targeting. Without guidance systems, all the high tech precision weaponry onboard is useless."
I'm not talking about a Ticon., I'm talking about a bigger/hardier/stronger version of it. And yes, radar is fragile, but maybe that is another design feature to look at?
Will.
My cost data comes from: http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/statistics/costofddgs.htm (If it's way off, sorry, afterall, it's gotta be true, I found it on the internet!) Just speculating but possibly the shipbuilders costs does not include some high-ticket items such as crews, weapons and helos. The Navy needs to spend that money to deploy the ship, so that may be the difference in price.
My thought was if the Navy decided to make a significant investment in a large number of smaller Coastal vessels (whether it's the Cyclone class design or something different like an Israeli Corvette or OSA II, etc) and make those smaller-than-FFG ships O-4 commands, then the Navy will have a significantly larger pool of officers with command experience competing for O-6 and Flag. Since you have less than a 2% chance of making O-6 without a command tour, having more personnel complete a command tour gives you a larger elligble pool for O-6.
The only reason I picked O-4 was in line with history since LCDR's had command of many smaller combatants (like Fletcher Class Destroyers) doing WWII and with the new Fleet-Up plan, there is a lot of O-4's available. Plus as an O-4 command you won't need to make extra O-5's so the personnel cost will be less for the Navy in the long run.
Of course the Navy would probably make them all O-5 commands, but either way, by going with lower capability (therefore reduced cost) vessels, you can have more of them
You don't get it, so I'll try to break it down to basics.
A modern battleship, built with existing technology TODAY, would have essentially the same combat capabilities as a Ticonderoga. You can put more missiles on it, bigger guns, more radars, make it faster/nuclear powered, and put 3 ft of armor around the whole damn thing, but ultimately, in terms of the systems it would bring to bear against today's modern naval threats, it would offer nothing new without revolutionary technologies. There is a finite number to the threats AEGIS (or any combat suite) can handle, which means you need to count on getting hit.
Those combat systems, by design, rely on sensors and targeting computers to feed them targeting data. When those sensors (radar arrays) get fragged by a burst of something as small as a 50 cal round, all those expensive systems become very expensive ballast.
Pre-WW2, BB's made sense. You NEEDED a ship that big to mount the longest range naval weapon of the day (large caliber naval guns). Large caliber guns were game changers, hence you needed battleships.
As everyone here knows by now, aircraft, followed by anti ship missiles were the next game changers.
Some facts to spoil fantasies that WW2 armor will defeat modern weaponry:
The Mk5 armor piercing shell fired out of the Iowa's Mk7 gun was expected to reliably penetrate BB armor: 2700lbs shell weight
Wonder what a 2000lb LGB would do? And without air defense, you could drop it safely from high altitude out of range of AAA fire. And battleship armor belts were designed to defeat side impacting rounds, not 2000lb bombs dropping right on the turret. Or a bunker buster.
Missiles?
C-802: 1500lbs
How about a Klub (carried by PRC SSKs): 900 lb WARHEAD alone, missile is supersonic at terminal stage.
WW2 Long Lance torpedo which was capable of sinking WW2 capital ships: 490kg warhead
Russian Type 65 torpedo: 450kg warhead, AND the wake homing variant will detonate right next to your screws. Easy mobility kill.
And that is why battleships are obsolete.
Yeah, I know original unit was ~$1.25B, and I figured even spreading out R&D costs, etc. through all the units, $400M seemed way too low. Then there's 20 yrs worth of inflation to consider too.
And another fact to back up your smaller ship argument, we're at 60 DDGs. More than 5 per carrier.
Will_T
Will_T
BigRed, youre correct, but then again so am I. I am saying that we need to build more strength into the ships, more survivablilty, and if that needs new technology, then so be it, but thats what I'm saying too.
"it would offer nothing new without revolutionary technologies"
That's exactly what I mean, a turret mounted laser system (sat our CIWS but with a laser and optical/radar guidance) might be able to defeat many missiles and dumb-weapons. A radar system that isn't so fragile and isn't concentrated in one area would be more survivable. I'm not talking about bringing the Iowa's back, I know why they went the way of the dinosaurs, but I'm talking about future surface combatants, not right now, and maybe I didn't say that, but it's what I mean.
Torpedoes and missiles are a big problem, but then again, that's why we have anti-sub and anti-air escorts (frigates/destroyers/cruisers).
It just occurred to me that were arguing the same point: That modern surface combatants are not strong enough to survive serious missile/torpedo attack and fill the land-attack mission as well. And while I'm saying that a new age of Battleships may be the right thing, you say I'm wrong, and I respect that. What would you suggest we do?
Will.
"it would offer nothing new without revolutionary technologies"
That's exactly what I mean, a turret mounted laser system (sat our CIWS but with a laser and optical/radar guidance) might be able to defeat many missiles and dumb-weapons. A radar system that isn't so fragile and isn't concentrated in one area would be more survivable. I'm not talking about bringing the Iowa's back, I know why they went the way of the dinosaurs, but I'm talking about future surface combatants, not right now, and maybe I didn't say that, but it's what I mean.
Torpedoes and missiles are a big problem, but then again, that's why we have anti-sub and anti-air escorts (frigates/destroyers/cruisers).
It just occurred to me that were arguing the same point: That modern surface combatants are not strong enough to survive serious missile/torpedo attack and fill the land-attack mission as well. And while I'm saying that a new age of Battleships may be the right thing, you say I'm wrong, and I respect that. What would you suggest we do?
Will.
This is your original post. You speculated that the carrier is now "incapable of doing its assigned task when confronted by a modern enemy." I pointed out that in any environment where the carrier is a liability, so is a battleship, even a modern one.
You're trying to salvage your argument by getting off topic and speculating on future technology. If you can develop point defense systems and a screen strong enough to protect the battleship, you can make it just as effective for the carrier. And then you need to justify how a battleship provides more effective fire support than a carrier, and at longer ranges than just over the horizon of the beach.
Science fiction fantasizing is well and good, but doesn't solve today's problems.
I'm not challenging the status quo, you are. The current system is the best compromise available with existing technology and industry.
Research is already being done on DEWs, railguns, and advanced shipboard power systems. There are also already solutions to damaged radars, allowing ships to fire. But putting all your weapons on a single platform is the proverbial putting all your eggs in one basket.
Don't worry. People who know what they're doing are already working on this stuff.