It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

playing chicken with $1Bn warships - nessecary or numpty ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
the USN warships - churchill and mcfaul collided causing over 1.25 million dollars damage , while on exercise - read the link :

news_link

the issues raised echo sentiments addressed in other threads here abouts

in no particular order :

risk free military training is worthless in many instances

the cost of such mishaps are negligable compared to the potential losses in combat - if a manouver fals because it wasnt drilled for

lastly a bugbear of mine - armchair admirals are first to wade in condemind actions and calling for " something to be done "




posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
With respect,
A) Sounds like an "ok" , frankly would you rather lose a frigate or a carrier?
B) Do you see have 4.5 inch shells flying at you or several thousand small lead bullets flying to you more acceptable than running at full speed to a ship?



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I think this excecise demonstrated the realities of a situation like this. An enemy warship is not likely to move just because you are 1000 yards away, so "shouldering" seems like a good tactic. Whislt it may be outdate and be a Cold War relic, it is still worth practicing. You might be fighting "terr'ists" now, but in the future, you may be up against another Blue water Navy and not be prepared.

This is the problem with the MOD here in the UK now. They are focusing on lightweight anti-terrorist platforms and cheaper alternatives to, say, the Challenger 2 MBT, but what happens when they have been phased out, and you find yourself against a modern conventional force again, instead of a bunch of Koran Thumpers with RPG's? You wont be prepared at all.

[edit on 6/11/05 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
stumason I couldn't agree with you more, near sighted vision is what led to WWII. The good ol’ thinking of “oh, we don't need to update our forces and research new technologies, everyone is doing the same as us and not building up their military” You never want to be caught un-prepared.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
stumason I couldn't agree with you more, near sighted vision is what led to WWII. The good ol’ thinking of “oh, we don't need to update our forces and research new technologies, everyone is doing the same as us and not building up their military” You never want to be caught un-prepared.


Jeez, Westy, doesn't happen too often! Quick, get a screenshot.....

In that vain, what you don't want is overkill either. You just want to make sure you keep that edge without compromising the economy of the nation nor its security. Its a fine balance..

I think the UK does have that, just about. And the US also, even if their military is rather overbloated. There can be a streamlined military that can still fight a war, but there is danger of going to far and compromising security and defence in favour of short term financial goals or only looking at the current "threat" rather than still maintaining the ability to fight the "future" threat.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Jeez, Westy, doesn't happen too often! Quick, get a screenshot.....


I know, it sounded weird when I typed it.


In that vain, what you don't want is overkill either. You just want to make sure you keep that edge without compromising the economy of the nation nor its security. Its a fine balance..


Yes it is, however politicians sometimes forget that the world does not stay static for too long.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Uh, why do we have a Navy? I mean, besides Air Craft Carriers what else do you need? A battleship? A plane a 1000/th of it's size can wipe it off the ocean surface.

Also, I didn't know Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, or any other country Bush is going to invade for oil haad a Navy...



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Uh, why do we have a Navy? I mean, besides Air Craft Carriers what else do you need? A battleship? A plane a 1000/th of it's size can wipe it off the ocean surface.

A) One submarine can eliminate a carrier, your little planes run outa fuel and down into the drink.
B) Ships have some of the best anti air gear ever made.


Also, I didn't know Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, or any other country Bush is going to invade for oil haad a Navy...

Iran and Iraq have navy's , you might notice that they did lay mines and they do take some of our lads hostage.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Ok, mines... That can't sink a ship unless we run into it. But no need for ship to be there since there is no Enemy Navy there...

Also, ok a sub sinks a carrier, we know all those advanced Syria Subs, and Jordan Subs, and those high tech Iran Subs... Wait, they don't have any.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Ok, mines... That can't sink a ship unless we run into it. But no need for ship to be there since there is no Enemy Navy there...

Nope, mines can activate and float to the surface.
There is a navy in iraq and iran. (Iraq's was destroyed)


Also, ok a sub sinks a carrier, we know all those advanced Syria Subs, and Jordan Subs, and those high tech Iran Subs... Wait, they don't have any.

Iran has kilos's , a deadly diesel electric sub. Believe me its enough to get worried about.
Dont be ignorant to them, you realise that british mine sweepers had to clear the water between iraq and iran for the US navy to go down it DUE to mines?



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
IA,

As an element of anti-PCI/FIAC drill, every ship should trail twin cables with explosive or gas-generation facilities sufficient to swamp or overturn any vessel up to 100 tons. If a threat vessel persists in 'close formation' work, he will get his bottom scraped and his props fouled and that will get the message across.

OTOH, there should never be a vessel of equivalent (OHP or better) class that close to /any/ fleet because the launch window for even subsonic AShM goes to zero and there is no way to order a mid/inner zone overlap.

You chase them off with the equivalent of 'this is a warning, next time will be lethal' COEA exclusioning.

>>
The USN warships - churchill and mcfaul collided causing over 1.25 million dollars damage , while on exercise - read the link :
>>

Most people /dream/ about 1.25 million dollars. To make light of it in this manner-

>>
No one among the 325 crew members on each ship was injured in the Aug. 22 collision and relatively light $1.3 million in damage was sustained to the Norfolk-based Arleigh Burke-class ships.
>>

Is an insult to every taxpayer out there.

Especially when you see, in a further statement-

>>
“Shouldering is a relic of the Cold War era,” Spicer said in his own endorsement of the investigation’s findings and recommendations. “In the new millennium, we do not want to shoulder a boat that could be manned with suicide bombers and loaded with high explosives.”

Even the United States and the Soviets, after a series of dangerous incidents between ships and planes, formally agreed in 1972 to stop the practice.
>>

The USN now has specific FIAC (Fast Inshore Attack Craft) class vessels for defending ports where busy traffic, low turns and tight channel boundaries make this likely. Out to sea, the use of operational exclusion zones is the ONLY viable solution and is something best not done with hulls but with bullets.

>>
risk free military training is worthless in many instances
>>

Nonsense. We have full up bridge simulators which show exactly what happens when you lose positive seaway thanks to an unwanted collision.

If the MAGTF are spread out to cover the horizon against /real/ threats (1,000-2,000fps inbounds), every time you lose a ship, you open up a quadrant to the battlegroup center and risk both the capital and it's goalkeeper (who is 'next up').

Furthermore, if you lose way and the nearest ocean going tug is out with the fleet train or even further, you are INSTANTLY looking at a scenario like unto both the Liberty and Pueblo.

Because now you cannot stay with the fleet, you may well have a signature problem (something which will only become worse in the next generation of LCS and DDX vessels with low, wet, decks and specific materials and shaping compromises to general seakeeping) that cues any subsequent attack from 'real' threats' and 'oh yes', whatever mission they are on, if it is littoral, they now have pinned themselves to PROTECT YOU.

>>
the cost of such mishaps are negligable compared to the potential losses in combat - if a manouver fails because it wasnt drilled for
>>

On December 7, 1941, standing orders prevented the dispersion of aircraft from central base ramps because the General In Charge was afraid of Japanese American insurgents and an inability to protect all assets with a central control system.

This did not prevent him from a typical peacetime 'Sunday light duty' dismissal of all non essential security personnel. Personnel who never succeeded in dispersing the aircraft even as they were attacked by IJN carrier aircraft on Ford Island and Hickam Field.

A situation which remained 'clustered aimpoint' RIDICULOUS even as much as 3 days later on /Clarke Field/ 6,000 miles away.

And you want to know the true idiocy? On September 11, 2001, at Buckley ANG field, I could drive down Alameda where it curves and STILL see neatly clustered aircraft, easily within range of sniper or mortar fire.

Doctrine doesn't need a lack of training to be stupid. It only needs to insist that the old way doesn't need to be replaced because nothing better or cheaper remains to 'guard what is'.

>>
lastly a bugbear of mine - armchair admirals are first to wade in condemind actions and calling for " something to be done "
>>

War works on a psychologic basis. Always has, always 'will'. The purpose of air in a naval interdiction/blockade mission for which 'shouldering' is most likely, is to provide a second axis of potential threat from which the enemy cannot damn the torpedoes press on.

Because he cannot just bludgeon his way like a bull in a china shop against it. And if he doesn't deal with it, it can attack him from behind or the quarters, effectively opening 'a second front'. If he DOES go to hard AAW tactics to eliminate it, he preempts the escalation variable and thus gives those he is trying to bum rush justification to switch to their own hardkill options. On Him.

The questions then must be:

1. Why is the Nassau, a Marine ASSAULT carrier with all of 8 AV-8Bs and 8 Skids (at best) is so close inshore that a destroyer based action group can pin their location and stage a harrassing/intervention attack?
ANS: Haze Grey Admirals, in love with their effectively worthless tin can navy, don't want to admit that the USN should NEVER be less than 400nm offshore while naval warfare ops are ongoing (i.e. the enemy fleet is not pinned down and/or sunk). Because then the bad guys would have to come so far to get to you, that 'conventional' threats like surface action groups would not be able to sortie and come to you without multiple engagement overlaps.
2. Why, if the Nassau's air elements are 'otherwise commited' (as if force protection is not THE MOST critical 'mission' of the MAGTF trying to sustain ops ashore) is there nothing on the destroyer deck with the performance, cheapness and to make the opfor declare his intent in a way that is irrevocable for dead-or-aggressive?
ANS: The Brown Shoe (Air) Admirals are too pretentious to admit that their 40 million dollar airframes and 2 billion dollar carriers are too few and too timidly 'busy' elsewhere to provide useful overhead FORCAP cover to anything but their own CVSFs. For to admit that would be to admit that not only is Naval ops doctrine /seriously/ ***ked. But that the very CONCEPT of airpower has gone too-macro to be _available_ for the small fights that the USN gets into, every day. And you cannot fight your best-vested (mega-$$$ for squid air) asset where you are not present with it. Which is of course implicit to the notion of small Destroyer groups going into places like the South China Sea to begin with.

CONCLUSION:
Nobody who cares anything about the utter corruption that plagues our armed forces are still in uniform because they know it's career suicide to change the same'ol'same'ol. And those who are left are either too stupid to care or too busy playing the game themselves to want to try.

And so we have million dollar writeoffs that never should have happened. And never would have, if our doctrine matched our intent. And we illustrated intent /early enough/ in the engagement to make it clear that there _would be no_ approach to dangerously close-aboard distances. Because we would finish the fight with anyone that chose to press their luck, several MILES sooner.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Full Metal please don't get yourself involved in topics that you know nothing about. If you seriously think we don't need a navy I recommend not visiting the weaponry forum again.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Really? What, does Canada's Navy pose that much of a threat? No American enemy has a Navy. Iran? No, Syria? Aren't they land locked? Same with Jordan? Maybe North Korea, they must have a Massive Navy.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Really? What, does Canada's Navy pose that much of a threat? No American enemy has a Navy. Iran? No, Syria? Aren't they land locked? Same with Jordan? Maybe North Korea, they must have a Massive Navy.


Neither Syria, nor Jordan are land locked:

www.uark.edu...

The U.S. Navy allows us to project force anywhere in the world, and do so on short notice. The Fleet Ballistic Submarine is the most survivable of the three elements of our strategic defense system.

And then there's the Marines... You just have to love the Marines...

Yes, a Navy is necessary.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Modern mines are torpedos..not some mine on a cable. If you see mines like this on a cable they got them at a yard sale or flea market.

Modern mines can sit on the bottom and respond to a program. They can move to another location. ..respond to a sound or a magnetic stimulus...etc etc.

If you dropped ten such modern mines close to a harbor...the ships there would be landlocked..they are very difficult to find much less disarm.

They can be launched from submarines or aircraft...

I agree with one of the other posters...public education has not served you well.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Really? What, does Canada's Navy pose that much of a threat? No American enemy has a Navy. Iran? No, Syria? Aren't they land locked? Same with Jordan? Maybe North Korea, they must have a Massive Navy.


One more point to add to the others. You forgot to mention China a country which is attempting to rival american naval power in the Pacific.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Really? What, does Canada's Navy pose that much of a threat?

Well I would say so since they have up to date weapons.


No American enemy has a Navy.

Really?
Hmmm someone doesnt do homework..



Iran? No, Syria? Aren't they land locked? Same with Jordan? Maybe North Korea, they must have a Massive Navy.

Well lets see, I just said iran and told you what they have but heh your only seeing what YOU want...I smell a troll..



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join