When did they get rid of Signalmen? Spent a lot of time in the signal shack. Away the snoopy team!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ask An Expert- Naval Forces
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
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 PostI 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.
The Iranians? Two words - PRAYING MANTIS!Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostWhy 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
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 PostWhen did they get rid of Signalmen? Spent a lot of time in the signal shack. Away the snoopy team!
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 PostWow, 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.
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 PostAlso, 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?Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThree words. Maritime Exclusion Zone.
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 PostThis 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
Comment