Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 891011121314151617
Results 241 to 250 of 250

Thread: Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

  1. #241
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    No but Putin is going to challenge every chance he gets. He challenged us in Syria. We are not going to see WWIII but that does not mean that he will not send forces to stop us if his interests are threatened. And it's not the first time that Moscow did it. The USS ENTERPRISE Incident in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. The Soviets sent a nuclear armed naval task force that surprised the hell out of the USN.

    The Soviets could afford to do so because they knew that Nixon was not about to start WWIII over Pakistan. In effect, the Soviets neutralized Nixon's gunboat diplomacy.

    Putin now holds the same options over wherever American interests lies.

  2. #242
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    No but Putin is going to challenge every chance he gets. He challenged us in Syria. We are not going to see WWIII but that does not mean that he will not send forces to stop us if his interests are threatened. And it's not the first time that Moscow did it. The USS ENTERPRISE Incident in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. The Soviets sent a nuclear armed naval task force that surprised the hell out of the USN.

    The Soviets could afford to do so because they knew that Nixon was not about to start WWIII over Pakistan. In effect, the Soviets neutralized Nixon's gunboat diplomacy.

    Putin now holds the same options over wherever American interests lies.
    Again, your comparing world events now to Cold War events. The Soviet Union is gone. The current Russian military is a fraction of it's size, strength, and capability compared to the Soviet era, especially their current navy. They challenged us in Syria diplomatically not militarily. All they sent was one 1980's era Slava class cruiser a frigate and an auxiliary. A fleet deployment for them these days involves 2-3 ships. They have no ability to project any serious power much beyond their home waters and airspace. They are a very real threat to neighboring countries but not much beyond that(excluding nukes). China on the other hand is threatening everyone in that region of the pacific and are in the midst of a massive ship building program. North Korea is a loose canon that actually fires weapons at South Korea and even sank one of their frigates a few years ago, very serious stuff. I'm more worried about the clown in North Korea setting off a major war than Putin's actions in Ukraine because he isn't going to invade a NATO member country.

  3. #243
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom24 View Post
    Again, your comparing world events now to Cold War events. The Soviet Union is gone. The current Russian military is a fraction of it's size, strength, and capability compared to the Soviet era, especially their current navy. They challenged us in Syria diplomatically not militarily. All they sent was one 1980's era Slava class cruiser a frigate and an auxiliary. A fleet deployment for them these days involves 2-3 ships. They have no ability to project any serious power much beyond their home waters and airspace. They are a very real threat to neighboring countries but not much beyond that(excluding nukes). China on the other hand is threatening everyone in that region of the pacific and are in the midst of a massive ship building program. North Korea is a loose canon that actually fires weapons at South Korea and even sank one of their frigates a few years ago, very serious stuff. I'm more worried about the clown in North Korea setting off a major war than Putin's actions in Ukraine because he isn't going to invade a NATO member country.
    NATO is land. A battleship is at sea. He has over 100 BACKFIRES that he can send in a fraction of the time that we can send a naval task force. Maybe you're comfortable ignoring this threat. I am not.

  4. #244
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    NATO is land. A battleship is at sea. He has over 100 BACKFIRES that he can send in a fraction of the time that we can send a naval task force. Maybe you're comfortable ignoring this threat. I am not.
    Actually it's closer to around 80 backfires and it's very much in question as to how many of those are actually in good enough condition to fly long range real combat sorties, I bet only half that number. The Russian military is slowly coming back but it's still not in great shape, and still only a fraction of what it was in the Soviet era. For much of the last 20 years the Russian Air Force has been in a pretty sad state. Secondly I'm pretty sure a battleship would not be used in Russian coastal seas. Just where exactly would it operate, in the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea? In the event of a major war with Russia it would be the carriers that would engage the Russian fleet and land targets at long range. If a modernized or new build battleship was used against Russian targets it would also stand off at long range and use it's anti ship and cruise missiles not it's guns. And remember we also have a bomber force and air defense that's much more modern and capable than the Russians. This discussion is a merry go round to nowhere, I'll let others continue this if they'd like. The Iowa's are museums and impressive ones at that, and they will never be re-activated.

  5. #245
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    You're not getting it. A single regiment of 12 BACKFIRES to say Iran just complicated the entire battle picture.

  6. #246
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You're not getting it. A single regiment of 12 BACKFIRES to say Iran just complicated the entire battle picture.
    And we always have a carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf flying CAP as well as USAF assets in that region. If a battleship was present in the gulf the CVBG is also there. So the backfires would also threaten the carrier not just a battleship operating with it or in the vicinity. Merry go round. It's been fun, have a nice night.

  7. #247
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    If it comes to that, of course the Tu-22 will threaten the carrier group. What else?

    And which battleship would that be?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  8. #248
    Regular
    Join Date
    10 Apr 14
    Location
    Connecticut.
    Posts
    42
    In 1939 Einstein sent a letter to the President advising him to the importance of his support to the scientific community. This letter had questionable benefit, however, the action taken by Einstein and others made an impression on the administration, however small, that planted a seed that eventually became the Manhattan Project.

    In my opinion, as I have said before, the idea of a new capital ship may be less fanciful than first thought. I can conceive of a letter authored by respected professionals that gets circulated in the proper circles. The letter would be similar to the Einstein letter but drafted more like the Declaration of all things. Again, as I have publicly stated, the Marine Corps is in dire straits and is being written out of doctrine and relegated to a near demobilized status. The support of the Marines must be secured if for nothing but to prevent their continued force degradation and future combat effectiveness. I believe that if an influential Marine were to support the building of a true successor to the Iowa class battleships, that the Navy and Congress could be coerced into the development of a more formidable ship(s) than currently exists.

  9. #249
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by BBSupporter View Post
    Again, as I have publicly stated, the Marine Corps is in dire straits and is being written out of doctrine and relegated to a near demobilized status. The support of the Marines must be secured if for nothing but to prevent their continued force degradation and future combat effectiveness.
    I could be mistaken, but with the strategic pivot to Asia, I would think the role of the Marine Corps would be increasing in emphasis. Considering the number of new toys the Marines are in the process of acquiring, I don’t see the severe force degradation and demobilization you are referring to. The Marines have recently gotten or will soon acquire:
    • New AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters
    • New UH-1Y Venom medium utility helicopters
    • New V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft
    • New CH-53K heavy lift helicopters
    • New F-35 multirole stealth fighters
    • New America class amphibious assault ships
    • New HIMARS rocket artillery
    • New MRAPs
    To me that looks like many billions of dollars invested into the future of the Marine Corps and their ability to influence events in the Pacific.

  10. #250
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    And that's the best way to close out this discussion.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
    By troung in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 01:59
  2. Battleship History Article
    By rickusn in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 16:16
  3. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 16:28
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Nov 06,, 15:42

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •