LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
True, new technologies like E-bombs etc. could give today's Navies a big surprise.
Iowa Class Battleships
Virginia Class Nuclear Attack Submarines
Amphibious Assault Ships
Aerligh Burk Class Destroyers
Nimitz Class Carriers
Littoral Combat Ships
I think that there is a real threat to the USN of emergent "left field" concept technologies over the next decade, esp. when China has finished (to its satisfaction) playing catch up.
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.
True, new technologies like E-bombs etc. could give today's Navies a big surprise.
The PLAN has a lot of catching up to do. Their Han, Song, Xia, and Ming class boats are a joke by western standards. I'm not even going to mention the Romeos. Even the Kilos have a lousy acoustic footprint (no matter what you read on the Internet). The 093 and Yuan haven't left Chinese territorial waters yet, and when they do, you can be sure they will be shadowed by at least 2 or 3 SSN's typing their footrint and learning everything about them possible. The same goes for the 094.
They have yet to have a successful launch of a SLBM, so the 094 is just a dock queen. They have no Carriers. Their new Frigates and Destroyers don't look too bad, but a couple DDG's and a FFG does not a blue water navy make.
I'm not discounting them as a threat, we have yet to see what the 093 and Yuan are capable of, and they are not going to stop building them. But they are probably the only serious challenge to a CVN that the PLAN can put forth.
Last edited by highsea; 15 Dec 04, at 05:56.
Agreed.
You've got a point there.
But don't they have to use them, practice with them, and learn their capabilities and limitations first, before they are really capable weapons? Kind of like fighter pilots and their flight time practicing per year????Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
I know for a fact the Nimitz class has been proven over the last 32 years, given the several wars, and hundreds of tours in high tempo ops during that time.
In a word, Yes.
IMO, what the Navy really needs is a deep strike, penetration bomber to replace the capabilities lost when the A-6 was retired. The F/A-18 does not have the legs and requires a lot of tanker support to reach as far as the A-6. The Intruder was a true 'bomb truck' and a replacement along those lines would greatly enhance Navy strike.
Used in the buddy refuel mode, they provided a Carrier wing with an integrated refuel capability. I believe the F/A-18 can be fitted with buddy stores, but do not carry the same amount of gas as an A-6 could.
The Superhornet carries 250lbs less than the Intruder when the wings were in good shape.
Used in the buddy refuel mode, they provided a Carrier wing with an integrated refuel capability. I believe the F/A-18 can be fitted with buddy stores, but do not carry the same amount of gas as an A-6 could.
No, the SuperHornet carries more
I voted for Iowa. If they could be modernized and tricked out for sub hunting as well.
LOL Will you BB reactivation proponents ever give it up. LOL
Uh yeah...Dread, tell me you're kidding about that sub-hunting remark...please?
Why?
Yeah, I'd like to know that as well (not that I have any special preference either way,since I won't have either at my disposal in the near future).
Can you elucidate Colonel?
What is the difference between USMC Force Recon and the Navy's SEAL Teams?
The primary difference is that the bread-and-butter mission of Force Recon is deep reconnaissance (usually farther inland than the SEALs). Their mission is to get 'eyes-on' a given target, transmit photos and/or video of the target to command, then get out undetected. If they end up shooting their way out, something has gone wrong. FR is certainly capable of slugging it out, but like any small recon team, they are not equipped for a prolonged stand up fight (neither is a SEAL recon team).
The SEALs, on the other hand, are more direct action-oriented. Their mission is to get to a target and destroy it, or to an individual and snatch him. If they are able to set their delayed explosives and make it back to the water before anyone is the wiser, then they have done their job. If the shooting starts, again, something has likely gone wrong. In the latter case of 'snatching' an individual, the effort is always made to make sure their hostage (or rescued fellow sailor/Marine/solider/airman) gets back to the water with them, without a shot being fired.
Now, it should be noted that both units are trained in many of the same skills and missions. They can do hostage rescue, assaults on oil platforms, and more. Both are also highly trained in amphibious reconnaissance, and this is where they find mission overlap to be the greatest problem. So how do they settle it? Well, usually whoever is closest gets the mission. Another factor is the commanding officer - if he is Navy, he may request the SEALs. If he is the CO of a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), then he will almost certainly ask his Force Recon Marines to perform the mission. This is where politics can enter into the decision making process. As both units are superb at such a mission, however, the end result is that the job gets done regardless - and gets done in a professional manner.
One retired SEAL officer had this to say:
"Personally, I like the FR folks. They go into the Force Recon game with a great attitude, 'every Marine is a rifleman'. Very basic... and very essential. All are cut from that very same cloth. Their standards are high. And what I like most about them is that they keep their mouths quiet. Notice how much the Agency uses them over SOF. Cause the boys believe they can count on 'em for,... more than just the ops. They're part of the team. They train as hard and school as much as we do. Man-for-man, pound-for-pound they're good troops and I wouldn't mind at all them backing' me up. I'd give our guys the overall edge physical fitness-wise, however. Where we have another edge, what I consider,... the real edge,... is how we SEAL people fight. "Unrelenting, violent aggression in the face of adversity." It's how you get through it, to live live through it. And each time something like that happens, your own life undergoes another quickening of sorts. Once it's over, one thinks, 'Great the breathing bags still work and the pulse is a-racin'. If one fights with his spirit, the sword inevitably follows. The spirit of a man can well be either white or black, for both are strong, and always competing. Shows self control. FR guys are right up there. On a parallel track,...We have the phrase in SOF, "Shoot-Move-Think-Communicate & Survive. " Well, it's one thing to know the phrase, another to believe, that practiced diligently, does really work. One of my own axioms, (something I used to say to myself before battle) "Only the most committed wins. Winning in this business... means living.""
Another senior retired SEAL officer:
Tom: I wouldn't begin to say that either unit is "better" than the other. FR is better at what they do than we are, and the SEALs are better at what they do. Missions are comparable, except FR go farther inland than SEALs and don't use the airborne entry method as much as SEALs do (or plan to do). SEALs are better in the water (naturally), and FR are probably better at conducting ops over long distances over the ground. Also, SEALs have a significantly better waterborne capability for the simple reason that they
have more and bigger boats.
I know a lot of Recon guys, and I'll hoist a beer with them any day!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: