LOL. I saw Full Metal Jacket. Even Pvt Pyle was selected "O300: infantry" ;DJammer said:Good God man...don't let the USMC find out you are referring to them as mere "infantrymen".
Technoviking said:Yes, strategic command (is that still a beast?)
The F22 program is shut down so there are not enough of them to even matter
Stymiest said:Anything that a navy can do, strategic airpower can do at for a cheaper cost.
So now that one carrier has been replaced with 10, What do you do with them?Petamocto said:When/if one of the current carriers goes under, that is now basically an entire ocean's coast line lost. In your WW2 comparison, the difference is that until the end of the war nobody could do anything quickly. Yes aircraft carriers did a lot of damage before they were sunk, but that would not happen today. If war broke out with a Russia/China-type country, someone is going to press a button somewhere and hundreds of missiles and torpedoes are going to start screaming toward the super-carriers all at once and their future will be decided in a day so they won't have time to have their years worth of usefulness like they did in the past.
Yes this is still theorectically possible with 10 small carriers in place of one large one, but it would be a heck of a lot more unlikely.
rampage800 said:Jammer, not to derail this thread but I'm not sure that statement is completely accurate. I'm sure there are others on here more in the know on the capes of this a/c than I but I've heard of some pretty high ratios of aggressor force vs the F-22 (singleton) with the F-22 coming away untouched. Obviously numbers matter but you can't hit what you can't see.
For the record, I too think aircraft carrier BGs are still relevant and probably will be at least for the rest of my lifetime. :nod:
Jammer said:There are just over one hundred F-22 in service. Most are employed in the defence of US airspace (read: interceptors.)
...
The Pentagon chief has complained in recent weeks that spending on major weapons is often disconnected from real-world threats. He has noted, for example, that United States maintains 11 aircraft-carrier strike groups at a time when no other country has more than one and questioned whether that huge advantage amounts to overkill.
The Pentagon, however, has no plans to scrap a $10 billion to $15 billion aircraft carrier, despite the vessels' increasing vulnerability to precision weapons. "I may want to change things, but I am not crazy," Gates told reporters. "I am not going to cut a carrier. Okay. But people ought to start thinking about how they are going to use carriers in a time when you have highly accurate cruise and ballistic missiles that can take out a carrier."..
...
Mr. Gates also criticized the military services for continuing to buy large quantities of expensive, high-end weapons even though the U.S. already has more of those armaments than the rest of the world's militaries combined.
"Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?" he asked. "Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?"..
FORT WASHINGTON, Md. — Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said May 3 the U.S. has to ask itself whether it can afford the U.S. Navy’s current plan for billion-dollar destroyers, submarines and carriers.
“The Navy and Marine Corps must be willing to re-examine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, new threats and budget realities,” he said. “We simply cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more and more expensive technologies onto fewer and fewer platforms.” He questioned whether a Navy that “relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers” is affordable...
He also took on the Navy’s plan to have 11 carrier strike groups through 2040. “The need to project power across the ocean will never go away,” he acknowledged, “but consider the massive overmatch the U.S. already enjoys. Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”..
the original poster should have stated that only one answer to the question will be acceptable.
.......Roughead insisted that the goal of a 313-ship Navy is not up for debate.
“The floor of 313 is where we remain,” he said. “Right now we’re at 286, the smallest we have been since 1916.” The demands on a smaller fleet are taking a toll, he added. “We’re being pressed quite hard.”.......
Kirkhill said:But solving the conundrum isn't assisted by people taking positions like this:
Currently a Nimitz Class CVN has something like 3200 sailors on board and about 2400 supernumerary supercargo who spend their time punching holes in the sky. The USS Arizona, commissioned in 1916 and sunk in 1941, had a crew of 1385. The Connecticut class that preceeded her had a full complement of 827. (All numbers per Wikipedia).
The Nimitz crew (including aviators) could have manned 7 of the Connecticuts or 3 of the Arizonas instead of 1 Nimitz. Its all about allocation of resources. - Or figuring out how to drive the Nimitz with the crew of the Connecticut and skinnying up the supercargo.
Kirkhill said:Given that the High Seas are traditionally No Man's Land then the Captain's ability to enforce his jurisdiction only extends as far as he can lob a shot.
or the political presence of 75 Ambassador/Captains equipped to enforce jurisdiction over lesser threats scattered over a broader area?