Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When did they get rid of Signalmen? Spent a lot of time in the signal shack. Away the snoopy team!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Native View Post
      When did they get rid of Signalmen? Spent a lot of time in the signal shack. Away the snoopy team!
      Didn't know they had.

      Comment


      • This question is mostly for desertswo, since he seems to have a lot of experience working with carriers, but anyone else with an opinion is definitely free to respond as well.

        I was surfing the web and came across this blog post by someone who doesn't exactly seem... fond of aircraft carriers. He mentions the Millennium Challenge exercise a few times, and it seems that his general premise is that carriers are "useless," could be destroyed by "fishing boats, private planes, anti ship missiles and a few patrol craft," and "wouldn't survive one day if the Iranians ever got serious about using some power projection." The jist of it seems to be that carriers are just " gaudy toys" only useful for presence missions, and the only really useful weapon systems are submarines and missiles.

        Out of curiosity -- what's your opinion about that? Also, were the Millennium Falcon exercises really the end-all proof that carriers are "useless" that the author suggests they are?

        The War Nerd: Iran is building a “fake” aircraft carrier? How can you tell? | PandoDaily

        I checked the author's credentials to see if he had any relevant experience (military service, an engineering degree, etc), but it seems like he's an English professor. So I'm not exactly convinced by his Fred's, but I figured I'd run this by you guys to see if any of his opinions were correct.

        Comment


        • Sorry if I'm breaking any forum rules by double-posting, but I'd like to clarify that I meant "Millennium Challenge" instead of "Millennium Falcon," and "creds" instead of "Fred's.". My phone seems to be having a field day with autocorrect today...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Exosphere View Post
            I checked the author's credentials to see if he had any relevant experience (military service, an engineering degree, etc), but it seems like he's an English professor. So I'm not exactly convinced by his Fred's, but I figured I'd run this by you guys to see if any of his opinions were correct.
            Why would you assume an English professor know more than Naval Captains and Admirals who were tasked with this job?

            The Iranians? Two words - PRAYING MANTIS!
            Chimo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Why would you assume an English professor know more than Naval Captains and Admirals who were tasked with this job?

              The Iranians? Two words - PRAYING MANTIS
              I'm not assuming that. I said that I checked his credentials, that's what I found, and I wasn't particularly impressed. I was mostly wondering about Millenium Challenge and whether the results were relevant, as well as the argument that the constrained conditions and large number of civilian boats/planes in the region would significantly hinder naval operations, thus making carriers irrelevant.

              Comment


              • Be advised, I am not Navy but I was Army and part of it was getting across the Atlantic against the meanest and deadliest wolf packs the world has ever seen and we're talking about nuclear torpedoes. The Iranians ain't nowhere close. Hell, two destroyers effectively sunk their entire Navy during Operation PRAYING MANTIS. And while they have improved since then, so has the USN and to a greater extent. The gap between the USN and Iran today is greater than what it was during PRAYING MANTIS.

                To answer your question directly, the most obvious answer to the number of civilian ships and planes. STAY OUT! That is what a combat zone is. You venture in. You risk being shot down.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Native View Post
                  When did they get rid of Signalmen? Spent a lot of time in the signal shack. Away the snoopy team!
                  2003, folded into quartermaster, most signal men joined that rate, many crossed over to MAA.

                  http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=10511

                  Comment


                  • Wow, that article- are you sure it isn't a parody or Onion type article? The author sounds like a fool who just hates the military and the US military in particular. I would no more place any credence in that piece than I would a random conversation at an occupy "fill in the place of your choice" event.

                    First off, a carrier is not an easy thing to sink. The aluminum Sprucans took a significant beating in the many sink-ex's they were used in before giving up the ghost and they were paper bags compared to carriers. A handful of US Navy ships clobbered the Iranian Navy in the 80's, but it should be more accurately stated that they did so with the support of carrier based aircraft. An aircraft carrier's airwing would sterilize the ocean of any surface craft within 100 miles of the carrier in any shooting war. So much for the boghammers, boston whalers and dhows. No Iranian aircraft would be able to fly within 100 miles of the coastline let alone attack the carrier. So you are left with missiles. That's what aegis equipped cruisers and destroyers are for, and don't think every know launch site isn't already targeted by tomahawks and F/A -18's. And that's just the carrier's assets.

                    No, I like our chances. A large armed and armored mobile airbase with 80+ first rate combat and support aircraft surrounded by the most advanced AAW warships and submarines in the world? I'll take that ride any day of the week.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
                      Wow, that article- are you sure it isn't a parody or Onion type article? The author sounds like a fool who just hates the military and the US military in particular. I would no more place any credence in that piece than I would a random conversation at an occupy "fill in the place of your choice" event.

                      First off, a carrier is not an easy thing to sink. The aluminum Sprucans took a significant beating in the many sink-ex's they were used in before giving up the ghost and they were paper bags compared to carriers. A handful of US Navy ships clobbered the Iranian Navy in the 80's, but it should be more accurately stated that they did so with the support of carrier based aircraft. An aircraft carrier's airwing would sterilize the ocean of any surface craft within 100 miles of the carrier in any shooting war. So much for the boghammers, boston whalers and dhows. No Iranian aircraft would be able to fly within 100 miles of the coastline let alone attack the carrier. So you are left with missiles. That's what aegis equipped cruisers and destroyers are for, and don't think every know launch site isn't already targeted by tomahawks and F/A -18's. And that's just the carrier's assets.

                      No, I like our chances. A large armed and armored mobile airbase with 80+ first rate combat and support aircraft surrounded by the most advanced AAW warships and submarines in the world? I'll take that ride any day of the week.
                      Yeah, I sort of thought the article was a spoof at first, but the author is apparently serious. I had my suspicions about the accuracy of his claims before posting it, and so far the responses I've been getting seem to be confirming them.

                      One thing I was wondering, though -- are anti-swarm tactics planned? It would seem like aircraft would be great in that role -- an F/A-18 or F-35 with a big load of SDB IIs would ruin a boghammar's day -- but the whole Millennium Challenge thing was a bit unsettling. I know that most exercises are scripted, as their goal is to teach sailors skills instead of comparing the efficacy of the hardware itself, and it is thus incorrect to use the results of an exercise to "prove" anything, but I've heard it mentioned several times, and the results were rather significant. If for no other reason than to have a response to anyone claiming that Millennium Challenge "proves" anything, I wanted to ask how such a situation could be avoided, and what happened in the exercise to get the blue force sunk.

                      Also, I think the point the blogger was trying to make was that all the civilian air/water traffic would render beyond visual range weapons (like the SM-6, LRASM, etc) useless, as the task force wouldn't know what they were shooting at. I know radar based noncooperative target identification is a thing, but would it be capable of working in such a cluttered environment?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Exosphere View Post
                        Also, I think the point the blogger was trying to make was that all the civilian air/water traffic would render beyond visual range weapons (like the SM-6, LRASM, etc) useless, as the task force wouldn't know what they were shooting at. I know radar based noncooperative target identification is a thing, but would it be capable of working in such a cluttered environment?
                        Three words. Maritime Exclusion Zone.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          Three words. Maritime Exclusion Zone.
                          So is it SOP to sink/shoot down anything violating the Maritime Exclusion Zone, even if they haven't been positively ID'd? I'm not sympathizing with the hypothetical civilian aircraft/vessel violating the exclusion zone -- like you said, anything entering a combat zone should know full well it could be shot at -- but would the CO decide to do that? I guess it depends on how stringent the ROE are. If it were up to me, I'd say that the most important thing is keeping the sailors and their ships safe, but I'm not the one writing the ROE.

                          Comment


                          • Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Once the shooting starts or the first small civilian boat tries to ram a US Navy vessel, all bets are off. In other words, any hesitation or consideration given to whether that small boat or aircraft was a threat would be gone. You'll get one shot if that and that would be all.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Exosphere View Post
                                This question is mostly for desertswo, since he seems to have a lot of experience working with carriers, but anyone else with an opinion is definitely free to respond as well.

                                I was surfing the web and came across this blog post by someone who doesn't exactly seem... fond of aircraft carriers. He mentions the Millennium Challenge exercise a few times, and it seems that his general premise is that carriers are "useless," could be destroyed by "fishing boats, private planes, anti ship missiles and a few patrol craft," and "wouldn't survive one day if the Iranians ever got serious about using some power projection." The jist of it seems to be that carriers are just " gaudy toys" only useful for presence missions, and the only really useful weapon systems are submarines and missiles.

                                Out of curiosity -- what's your opinion about that? Also, were the Millennium Falcon exercises really the end-all proof that carriers are "useless" that the author suggests they are?

                                The War Nerd: Iran is building a “fake” aircraft carrier? How can you tell? | PandoDaily

                                I checked the author's credentials to see if he had any relevant experience (military service, an engineering degree, etc), but it seems like he's an English professor. So I'm not exactly convinced by his Fred's, but I figured I'd run this by you guys to see if any of his opinions were correct.
                                Let me just cut to the chase; this idiot mentions a carrier fighting in the Persian Gulf because since Desert Shield/Desert Storm, carriers have operated in the Gulf. However, that was all part of "showing the flag/psychological operations" protocol. Carriers NEVER transited Hormuz until then, simply because they didn't need to, and still don't in order to be effective. All of those USN aircraft that wrecked havoc on the Iranian Navy during Praying Mantis flew from Enterprise who was operating in the Northern Arabian Sea. If things are really looking like all hell is going to break loose, whatever carrier might be in the Gulf won't be for long, and will turn the Iranian pier side support facilities for their navy, never mind their ships caught out in the open on the waters of the Gulf into smoking rubble within the first few hours of the "conflict." That's just the way we roll.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X