• The site has been updated!

    If you see any bugs, please report them in this thread.

    VIEW THREAD

US Navy uses 40,000lb explosive to test warship

RGStory

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 31, 2020
393
375
Oklahoma
A lot sooner than you think...they're called large deck Amphibs.
I'm familiar with the helicopter landing ships, but are they actually planning on building one that is entirely optimized for drones or are they just repurposing existing assets to accommodate drones?
 

MarinePMI

Ban Cat Handler
Staff member
Moderator
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jun 3, 2010
    7,339
    9,450
    San Diego, Ca
    I'm familiar with the helicopter landing ships, but are they actually planning on building one that is entirely optimized for drones or are they just repurposing existing assets to accommodate drones?
    I'd venture to guess, they'll repurpose initially. But eventually, you'll seen drone carriers. It just makes sense.

    Something like the Puller, only more seaworthy. A fairly large ship (not CVN sized per se) that has a flight deck and hanger space made for launching and recovering drones (air, surface and subsurface). That's how they can/will saturate an area for deniability IMHO. Forget patrolling it with humans; let the drones do the heavy lifting. Plus, if you lose one <shrug>, just launch another one.

    "Pets, not cattle" People treat things like pets, when instead, they need to be thinking about treating things like cattle. If it dies, go get another one. Quit trying to nurse that 30 year old tech to do things it was never intended. Make them cheap, plentiful and disposable.
     

    DocRDS

    Knows Nothing
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 21, 2012
    751
    1,114
    Texas
    My main customer for the last 10+ years has been the Navy. Make no mistake, nothing is taking its place. But a peer adversary has made the carrier a relic. When missile ranges and engagement times out strip the carrier's ability to support the fleet via air assets...then it has become outdated. As pmclaine stated, they're great for parking off the coast of a 3rd world country, and pounding them with air strikes. But that's not the kind of war you fight with a peer adversary.

    There's a reason everything is being geared for CRUDES and any weapon/any shooter scenarios. If you think otherwise, I would submit your understanding of current capabilities are woefully out of date. I deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. EVERYONE knows that the CVN won't be anywhere near the fight, when the balloon goes up...never mind whether it'll have shit for comms when the fight even begins, to even have a significant role.

    The carrier has become an anachronism. Much like the battleships in 1939. They (carriers) will play a role, but not as the center of gravity in the fight to come.
    Disclaimer: I'm talking outta my ass only from what I have read of history.

    We are still kicking the crap outta the Japanese 70 years later.. As usual everyone is busy fighting the last war instead of preparing for the next one. In the last war of true naval equals there was:
    Not jet fighters
    No Satellites
    No missiles
    And one side barely had radar.

    There is also the cost aspect (sorry you posted while I was typing). Missile/UAV tech is CHEAP and can essentially 'swarm' a complex weapon system like the Carrier. Carriers can no longer hide (ok they can somewhat, but not really). With Satellites, your position is known. You can't hide from even land based threats given the range of today's missile systems. While there are counter-measures they are essentially untested. Sure a single incoming threat can be neutralized. But how about 10 incoming threats. What about 100? Its just unproven, and given the investment in capital, we are essentially one bad day from being on equal footing with the Chi-coms. How many hits can a carrier take and stay operational? No one has ever taken a nuke power reactor into battle. As much as I am pro-nuke, holy crap that is a HUGE unknown.

    It is the great unknown--what will be the next key strategy to victory or deterrence. I don't have the answers, but at least China seems keen on matching us on carriers. Which means if we keep our officer corp away from gender studies and onto winning, THEY are also one bad day from being set back 40 years.

    If anyone thinks Im bullshitting about a 40 year setback (granted these were only 20 year setbacks):
    Search for:
    Pearl Harbor (Hey US Navy have fun fighting WW1!)
    Taranto (Hey Italian Navy have fun fighting WW1!)
    Midway (Hey Japanese Navy, you just formed the single most powerful naval force in history. Be a shame if we blowed it up!)
     

    Choid

    Slinging it. Left and right.
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 13, 2017
    4,242
    2,726
    That has been my exact sentiment regarding lawyers.
    Not untrue. I look at a lot of legal and financial services as a tax on the system. Insurance companies, brokers, money managers, lawyers, etc. None of us really makes anything, but we do take our cut. To be fair, each of these industries provides a valuable service, and that is why we tolerate them. Even lawyers.

    The difference between lawyers and licensure systems is that even lawyers are useful when they are yours. Oh wait, that is a similarity. I mean, lawyers do serve a purpose other than to screw things up. Sometimes. But think about licensing schemes. Why do we license barbers and cosmetologists? It serves no purpose other than to provide those already in the industry with a barrier to entry, and, even worse, to get in young barbers need to do internships with existing ones, so the schemes also provide cheap labor. Arguably you could even apply this to doctors, who use medical schools and residencies to lighten their workload, and licensing to keep non doctors from practicing. We've accepted this as good for our health, but I am not 100% convinced even this is a necessary license. Lawyers either.

    But I'm kind of a radical like that.
     

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    5,556
    13,392
    Have you personaly ever held a union job?
    Have you ever worked at the
    same facility on the same project as union labor?
    yup, they sucked ass.

    worked at raytheon with union guys, absolutely miserable bunch of pricks......we couldnt move lab equipment, office chairs, or supplies on our own, as that was "a union job"......so we would put in a ticket to have it done, and hopefully it got done sometime in the next 3 days....and they acted like they were doing you a favor doing it that "fast"

    having labwork delayed by 3 days put a real hamper on progress, especially when working in R&D and funding can be cut off any minute.

    fucking couldnt even move office chairs into meeting rooms on our own, or else the union guys would decend from the wood work to tell you that you are "stealing their jobs!".....fuck, never seen them move so fast in my life.....funny, if they moved that fast all the time, they wouldnt have to worry about people "stealing their jobs".....

    or better yet, if you only have a job, because you artificially prevent someone else from doing theirs.....you dont deserve a job.

    so dont act like unions are all sunshine and rainbows.

    and lets not forgets that most unions donate almost exclusively to Dems.
     

    pmclaine

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 6, 2011
    24,741
    39,658
    53
    MA
    That is another story. I served on that ship, not when it ran aground though.
    When it got underway, they were required to use digital charts. The CO and XO objected and wanted to also plot on nautical charts.
    They were refused and ordered to use the digital charts, which had an error.


    It looks like a beautiful ship.....

    Small crew must have been a good crew work dynamic.
     

    pmclaine

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 6, 2011
    24,741
    39,658
    53
    MA
    I'm sure you and others understand that aircraft carriers do not exist (or operate) in isolation?


    No they dont but my money is on the Boomers.

    Baldwin meant "The Boomer will always get through"

    What I think is intended for the carrier group shock test looks more like this....

    1624398117421.png
     

    pmclaine

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 6, 2011
    24,741
    39,658
    53
    MA
    We had a peer adversary at sea all through the mid 80s to the late 90s. Today's missiles aren't that much faster and longer ranged than the ones my generation faced.

    Help me understand. Are you saying that missile flight times and profiles have defeated our current detection and engagement cycle time? Sorties aren't launched after weapons are inbound, so................feel free to PM if needed.


    I dont think back in the day they had the tracking ability we have now to pin point locations and than pin point the strike of the missile.

    There was still mystery of what was over the horizon and the world was much bigger.

    Now I got Google earth telling me where the Iranians are building nukes as determined by some nerd in his kitchen.

    Shit the autistics on 4Chan took about three days to figure out where Shia LeBeouf hid his Fuck Trump flag using constellations, aircraft flights and the sound of a honking horn.

    All they have to do is figure the square mile. Use a Multi Entry Vehicle warhead and Carrier Battle Group will be glowing.

    Thing is we have to believe that humans would be willing to eradicate each other in such a way....a no winner war.

    That would be nuts.......like giving people a virus to win a Presidential election.

    What if one side launches its shit because it knows the other guy is to feeble to open the code bag and besides that dude doesnt want to lose the cut his family is making.
     

    Ravenworks

    Zebco Pro Staffer
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 8, 2019
    3,323
    6,172
    Somewhere
    Disclaimer: I'm talking outta my ass only from what I have read of history.

    We are still kicking the crap outta the Japanese 70 years later.. As usual everyone is busy fighting the last war instead of preparing for the next one. In the last war of true naval equals there was:
    Not jet fighters
    No Satellites
    No missiles
    And one side barely had radar.

    There is also the cost aspect (sorry you posted while I was typing). Missile/UAV tech is CHEAP and can essentially 'swarm' a complex weapon system like the Carrier. Carriers can no longer hide (ok they can somewhat, but not really). With Satellites, your position is known. You can't hide from even land based threats given the range of today's missile systems. While there are counter-measures they are essentially untested. Sure a single incoming threat can be neutralized. But how about 10 incoming threats. What about 100? Its just unproven, and given the investment in capital, we are essentially one bad day from being on equal footing with the Chi-coms. How many hits can a carrier take and stay operational? No one has ever taken a nuke power reactor into battle. As much as I am pro-nuke, holy crap that is a HUGE unknown.

    It is the great unknown--what will be the next key strategy to victory or deterrence. I don't have the answers, but at least China seems keen on matching us on carriers. Which means if we keep our officer corp away from gender studies and onto winning, THEY are also one bad day from being set back 40 years.

    If anyone thinks Im bullshitting about a 40 year setback (granted these were only 20 year setbacks):
    Search for:
    Pearl Harbor (Hey US Navy have fun fighting WW1!)
    Taranto (Hey Italian Navy have fun fighting WW1!)
    Midway (Hey Japanese Navy, you just formed the single most powerful naval force in history. Be a shame if we blowed it up!)
    I'm going to guess somewhere in there WWII has something to do with the above?
    Are there any Navel ring nockers in here who can shed some light on this?
    Anyone?
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: Mr. Z

    DocRDS

    Knows Nothing
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 21, 2012
    751
    1,114
    Texas
    I'm going to guess somewhere in there WWII has something to do with the above?
    Are there any Navel ring nockers in here who can shed some light on this?
    Anyone?
    Yeah sorry--I get so full of inside snide references only I know what I am talking about. (its ok , I know I am a full on blow-hard)

    What I consider (and of course I am an expert--just ask me) the last great Naval Conflict was U.S vs Japan during WW2. Every other conflict since then there has been no naval presence from our opponents.

    Our tactics and current Navy is essentially and extension of the 3rd/5th fleet from WW2 which was our Fleet Carrier Strike Force--which was in turn modeled on Japan's Kido Butai ("Mobile Fleet") of 6 Fleet Carriers that dominated early Naval Conflict of WW2. (Which wiped out all of our battleships (esentially all of our building from 1910 to 1940), learning the lessons of the British at Taranto who wiped out Italy's Battleships. But Japan blew their load by losing 4 fleet carriers at Midway because we were reading their code--they got cocky--just like we were pre-Pearl Harbor and the previous 15-20 years of air operations experience and ship building is sitting at the bottom of the Pacific.

    However,. our Modern Navy appears to be Modeled on the early WW2 Amercian Tactic of Single Carriers Operating a Strike Group as opposed to late WW2 tactics of Multiple Carriers (to be fair, there is not much fleet on fleet action, so why form an modern Strike Group). Again, I'm just a dude who reads a lot and thinks too much.

    Our Modern Navy has never faced a serious threat from Jet Based Anti-Ship attack or land based Anti-Ship attack. It is essentially unproven. If you look at the Falklands Conflict, Argentina posed a serious threat to the UK Carrier Group with Exocet missiles (and did serious damage to Destroyers). And Argentina is not exactly China or Russia. The USS Cole wasa nearly taken out by a single suicide boat. Now the Stark did survive a hit, so that gives me some comfort, but there are A LOT of unknowns.

    Look at the Battle of Okinawa for how a future war might go. Kamikazies were esstially crude guided missles--they did a massively disporportial amount of damage--really worse than anything their Navy did outside of Pearl Harbor.

    With the discussion of UAVs, they could really push the Carrier Group out of range with a cheap "swarm" attack--again missles are cheap (relatively) compared to Carriers.

    I don't want to knock the US Navy. We're top dog right now and everyone is gunning for us. China is not some boogey man that is suddenly develop super powers, but on the other hand we severely underestimated the Japanese, who were clearly our equal during WW2. If you look at modern scholarship on the Pacific War--Japan esstially squandered its advantage--its mobile striking force and got caught in a grinding brawl late 1942 and 1943. The problem was the last thing they needed was a grinding battle--they couldn't out build the US. The United States didn't care, we could build and train our way out of our losses, Japan Couldn't. However, China is becoming our equal in Manufacturing. That means a grinding brawl is no longer a guaranteed victory.

    Its not all doom and gloom--we always thought the Russian Tanks were going to kick our ass across Germany too, but learning from Gulf War I (yes, it wasn't frontline Russian Troops), we had our shit together and went through them like hot butter. Fingers crossed Navy guys are doing the same thing. All I can do is sit here and worry and fret on what's public. They aren't gonna tell me about the latest greatest super weapon that turns Chinese Destroyers into swiss cheese.
     

    RGStory

    Sergeant of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 31, 2020
    393
    375
    Oklahoma
    Not untrue. I look at a lot of legal and financial services as a tax on the system. Insurance companies, brokers, money managers, lawyers, etc. None of us really makes anything, but we do take our cut. To be fair, each of these industries provides a valuable service, and that is why we tolerate them. Even lawyers.

    The difference between lawyers and licensure systems is that even lawyers are useful when they are yours. Oh wait, that is a similarity. I mean, lawyers do serve a purpose other than to screw things up. Sometimes. But think about licensing schemes. Why do we license barbers and cosmetologists? It serves no purpose other than to provide those already in the industry with a barrier to entry, and, even worse, to get in young barbers need to do internships with existing ones, so the schemes also provide cheap labor. Arguably you could even apply this to doctors, who use medical schools and residencies to lighten their workload, and licensing to keep non doctors from practicing. We've accepted this as good for our health, but I am not 100% convinced even this is a necessary license. Lawyers either.

    But I'm kind of a radical like that.

    Not radical. Just sane.

    I don't mind licenses any more than I mind college degrees. If they have value, then the market will be naturally predisposed to select them. I don't want to go under the knife of an unlicensed doctor that never graduated med school. Until you can prove negligence though, why can't they hang out a sign for any brave and stupid enough to try.

    In many cases a veterinarian is just as qualified to set my bones, sew some stiches and prescribe some antibiotics, but somehow that is illegal medical practice?

    Likewise, I've met more than a few paralegals that know more than the attorney's that only affix their signature to the paralegals' final work.

    Almost seems as if lawyers had to band together to fix the game in order to prove their overpriced degrees are worth something special enough to justify dressing up like a bunch of fucking wizards graduating from Hogwarts.



    fine-quality-regalia.jpg



    So yeah, if you'll concede that lawyers are worthless pieces of shit playing a fixed game, I'll concede that trade unions are equally outdated repositories of trade skill.


    - In case you couldn't tell, I'm joking here.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: deersniper

    Nik H

    Constantly Learning
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 22, 2014
    8,964
    9,719
    Small town New England
    True, but nowadays, the loss of a carrier would be catastrophic. 5K loss of live, versus 115 on a CRUDES. Math is pretty simple then; so the carriers will hang back. With the advent of drones and such, area defense/area denial has changed dramatically.
    I have no understanding of Naval operating procedures or tactics but in a full on attack, I don't believe that the risk of destruction today is really any different than it was in the 70s. A nuclear attack has always been possible and represents a line that can't be defended. Carriers won't survive a war where nukes are used but that is no different today than it was when the Enterprise was commissioned.

    Although we have higher performance, non nuclear options today, the carrier can defend against these more effectively due to vast improvements in defensive systems. Even if all of the ship's systems failed, it is unlikely that a single weapon could pass the outer defenses of a carrier group and sink a carrier. Conventional weapons systems can be effectively neutralized by a carrier's on-board systems or through supporting assets.

    However, nukes are nukes and there isn't shit that can prevent the catastrophic damage that would result if an enemy wants to use them. The latest underwater drone technology that is deployed by Russia could take out a carrier group in its entirety - surface and sub-surface without issue. I think that is highly worrisome.

    However, this is the way it has been since the 70s. No difference in risk today versus yesterday

    Carriers are still viable as long as we don't cross the nuclear line. If we do, it is all academic

    Just my 2 cents
     
    Last edited:

    308pirate

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 25, 2017
    16,012
    22,028
    Our Modern Navy has never faced a serious threat from Jet Based Anti-Ship attack or land based Anti-Ship attack. It is essentially unproven.

    I wore the uniform during a period of time when the threat of destruction of an American carrier battle group from sea, land, and air launched supersonic cruise missiles was the highest it has ever been in my lifetime.

    I don't think people realize how scared the Soviets were of our carrier battle groups in the 80s. If you think they weren't serious, then you don't really understand how capable were the Kirov-class cruisers, the Tupolev Tu-22M, and the AS-4 Kitchen supersonic cruise missile they both deployed. You also probably don't know how seriously the Pentagon took the threat.

    It sorta looked like this coming at you
    1624416851444.png


    1624417059779.png
     
    Last edited:

    DocRDS

    Knows Nothing
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 21, 2012
    751
    1,114
    Texas
    I wore the uniform during a period of time when the threat of destruction of an American carrier battle group from sea, land, and air launched supersonic cruise missiles was the highest it has ever been in my lifetime.

    I don't think people realize how scared the Soviets were of our carrier battle groups in the 80s. If you think they weren't serious, then you don't really understand how capable were the Kirov-class cruisers, the Tupolev Tu-22M, and the AS-4 Kitchen supersonic cruise missile they both deployed. You also probably don't know how seriously the Pentagon took the threat.

    It sorta looked like this coming at you
    View attachment 7653137

    View attachment 7653140
    It paid my salary in the early 2000s. So yeah I am familiar. And they are rightfully still worried. The arms race continues...

    But everything goes out the window when the shit starts flying for real. "Unproven" means just that--it might be 100% perfect. It might be shit. Let's hope we did our job right.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Hobo Hilton

    Snuby642

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 11, 2017
    6,228
    7,513
    yup, they sucked ass.

    worked at raytheon with union guys, absolutely miserable bunch of pricks......we couldnt move lab equipment, office chairs, or supplies on our own, as that was "a union job"......so we would put in a ticket to have it done, and hopefully it got done sometime in the next 3 days....and they acted like they were doing you a favor doing it that "fast"

    having labwork delayed by 3 days put a real hamper on progress, especially when working in R&D and funding can be cut off any minute.

    fucking couldnt even move office chairs into meeting rooms on our own, or else the union guys would decend from the wood work to tell you that you are "stealing their jobs!".....fuck, never seen them move so fast in my life.....funny, if they moved that fast all the time, they wouldnt have to worry about people "stealing their jobs".....

    or better yet, if you only have a job, because you artificially prevent someone else from doing theirs.....you dont deserve a job.

    so dont act like unions are all sunshine and rainbows.

    and lets not forgets that most unions donate almost exclusively to Dems.
    See here we go again.
    You were not in a union job you were a salaried prick.

    One that thinks there better than others.

    Acting like an elitist prick is why those chairs sat around.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: thejeep

    quietmike

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 17, 2009
    1,113
    2,621
    Shelbyville, TN
    See here we go again.
    You were not in a union job you were a salaried prick.

    One that thinks there better than others.

    Acting like an eleatist prick is why those chairs sat around.

    Why would a capable person need someone else to sell their qualifications for them?
    Isn't one necessary qualification salesmanship?

    BTW- It's elitist.
     

    Snuby642

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 11, 2017
    6,228
    7,513
    Thanks for spelling correction it's late.

    It's a closed shop situation you can not walk in and negotiate pay scale.

    I can say that my experience expertise and output was worth more than the top union pay scale I recived.

    You don't get that the company decides what jobs are salary or labor, not the union.

    The union just represents the workers on those jobs.

    You union hating pricks wont have to worry they are caving all over since the hard core like me are gone.

    Along with pride and expertise the products will fail and the elites will still be looking for thier damn chairs.
     

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    5,556
    13,392
    See here we go again.
    You were not in a union job you were a salaried prick.

    One that thinks there better than others.

    Acting like an elitist prick is why those chairs sat around.
    Ah yes, me wanting you to do your job is why you didn't do your job.....nice cope....

    More importantly, why does a union "chair mover" job exist?

    You expect people to respect you when you can't even do your made up job properly??
     
    Last edited:

    Doc68

    Almost a doctor
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 17, 2014
    3,705
    6,461
    CO, Fort Carson
    I was union at my old job as a lineman and fiber splicer for verizon.

    Always wanted me to vote democrat....

    I always voted republican and was given shit for it. Back then I was young and never understood why.

    Doc
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Snuby642

    Nik H

    Constantly Learning
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 22, 2014
    8,964
    9,719
    Small town New England
    yup, they sucked ass.

    worked at raytheon with union guys, absolutely miserable bunch of pricks......we couldnt move lab equipment, office chairs, or supplies on our own, as that was "a union job"......so we would put in a ticket to have it done, and hopefully it got done sometime in the next 3 days....and they acted like they were doing you a favor doing it that "fast"

    having labwork delayed by 3 days put a real hamper on progress, especially when working in R&D and funding can be cut off any minute.

    fucking couldnt even move office chairs into meeting rooms on our own, or else the union guys would decend from the wood work to tell you that you are "stealing their jobs!".....fuck, never seen them move so fast in my life.....funny, if they moved that fast all the time, they wouldnt have to worry about people "stealing their jobs".....

    or better yet, if you only have a job, because you artificially prevent someone else from doing theirs.....you dont deserve a job.

    so dont act like unions are all sunshine and rainbows.

    and lets not forgets that most unions donate almost exclusively to Dems.
    The highlight of my career at Raytheon was the shit ton of grievances I would regularly get from the union steward because the LAZY union technicians complaining that I was taking their work. LMAO!

    Fucktards took an hour to make a couple of solder connections and generally couldn't make measurements without someone holding their hands....I loved grievances. I also loved cornering the steward at a bar and telling him what I thought of him and his union...I was actually hoping he would take a swing since I was just a college boy. He knew better though. Loser
     
    • Like
    Reactions: deersniper

    Snuby642

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 11, 2017
    6,228
    7,513
    Ah yes, me wanting you to do your job is why you didn't do your job.....nice cope....

    More importantly, why does a union "chair mover" job exist?

    You expect people to respect you when you can't even do your made up job properly??

    I was a little buisy fabricating, packaging, wiring, installing and testing data acquisition and telemetry systems.

    Worrying about why some salaried puke at a vendor facility was not smart enough to use the system to get a chair was not my concern.

    If the above is true, the union failed you, so why is it you support them?

    Supporting the union was tactical and amusing, but mostly to protect my benefits package.

    I used to stir up the union guys just to see my boss fry.
     

    MarinePMI

    Ban Cat Handler
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 3, 2010
    7,339
    9,450
    San Diego, Ca
    I have no understanding of Naval operating procedures or tactics but in a full on attack, I don't believe that the risk of destruction today is really any different than it was in the 70s. A nuclear attack has always been possible and represents a line that can't be defended. Carriers won't survive a war where nukes are used but that is no different today than it was when the Enterprise was commissioned.

    Although we have higher performance, non nuclear options today, the carrier can defend against these more effectively due to vast improvements in defensive systems. Even if all of the ship's systems failed, it is unlikely that a single weapon could pass the outer defenses of a carrier group and sink a carrier. Conventional weapons systems can be effectively neutralized by a carrier's on-board systems or through supporting assets.

    However, nukes are nukes and there isn't shit that can prevent the catastrophic damage that would result if an enemy wants to use them. The latest underwater drone technology that is deployed by Russia could take out a carrier group in its entirety - surface and sub-surface without issue. I think that is highly worrisome.

    However, this is the way it has been since the 70s. No difference in risk today versus yesterday

    Carriers are still viable as long as we don't cross the nuclear line. If we do, it is all academic

    Just my 2 cents
    Two words. Hypersonic missiles. Carriers are done.
     

    Snuby642

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 11, 2017
    6,228
    7,513
    I was union at my old job as a lineman and fiber splicer for verizon.

    Always wanted me to vote democrat....

    I always voted republican and was given shit for it. Back then I was young and never understood why.

    Doc
    I always voted strait Republican ticket since President Reagan.

    The Union leadership was bought by the dems the workforce was not.
     

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    5,556
    13,392
    I was a little buisy fabricating, packaging, wiring, installing and testing data acquisition and telemetry systems.

    Worrying about why some salaried puke at a vendor facility was not smart enough to use the system to get a chair was not my concern.



    Supporting the union was tactical and amusing, but mostly to protect my benefits package.

    I used to stir up the union guys just to see my boss fry.
    the chairs were not my concern....the delays to AMDR testing was.....

    but so long as you get your union mandated 15, i guess national security can wait.
     

    BytorJr

    Old Salt
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 28, 2018
    2,526
    2,565
    My main customer for the last 10+ years has been the Navy. Make no mistake, nothing is taking its place. But a peer adversary has made the carrier a relic. When missile ranges and engagement times out strip the carrier's ability to support the fleet via air assets...then it has become outdated. As pmclaine stated, they're great for parking off the coast of a 3rd world country, and pounding them with air strikes. But that's not the kind of war you fight with a peer adversary.

    There's a reason everything is being geared for CRUDES and any weapon/any shooter scenarios. If you think otherwise, I would submit your understanding of current capabilities are woefully out of date. I deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. EVERYONE knows that the CVN won't be anywhere near the fight, when the balloon goes up...never mind whether it'll have shit for comms when the fight even begins, to even have a significant role.

    The carrier has become an anachronism. Much like the battleships in 1939. They (carriers) will play a role, but not as the center of gravity in the fight to come.
    I have this argument with a former Navy acquaintance. Swears they can defend against everything. I called BS and of course I get the "have you ever served in the Navy" BS.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: kortik

    Snuby642

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 11, 2017
    6,228
    7,513
    Salary could take a break / lunch when it was amiable .
    Labor had set times and since most managers were not flexible that was the way it went.

    When in the field or special areas and management shit asses were not present labor and engineering staff always worked well together.

    When you have obogs screwing up or tail hooks caving we always came through.

    I have always took care of critical situations ocassionally I needed program managers to remove my boss from the loop to make it happen.

    Boy does that piss them off.
     

    RGStory

    Sergeant of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 31, 2020
    393
    375
    Oklahoma
    I have this argument with a former Navy acquaintance. Swears they can defend against everything. I called BS and of course I get the "have you ever served in the Navy" BS.

    Seems familiar to the type of closed minded thinking that led to the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. Someone "Knew" That battleships couldn't be sunk by medium range bombers.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: kortik and BytorJr

    RUTGERS95

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 2, 2009
    1,155
    731
    NJ
    Two words. Hypersonic missiles. Carriers are done.
    You know more than I her so take this as genuinely curiosity and some practical sense and not challenging as I enjoy these discussions.

    wouldn't they be detected by forward radar, satellites etc? I'd have to believe, since we knew about these threats for a decade, isn't there defense parameters established or being put in place for this? I'd be shocked if there was no defense for a threat that was on the table within the past decade. Now I realize from conception to application is one thing but, the moment a threat is realized, threat mitigation forms to reality right?
     
    • Sad
    Reactions: Hobo Hilton

    E. Bryant

    STABILITRAK ACTIVE
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Oct 25, 2010
    3,686
    3,983
    MI
    You know more than I her so take this as genuinely curiosity and some practical sense and not challenging as I enjoy these discussions.

    wouldn't they be detected by forward radar, satellites etc? I'd have to believe, since we knew about these threats for a decade, isn't there defense parameters established or being put in place for this? I'd be shocked if there was no defense for a threat that was on the table within the past decade. Now I realize from conception to application is one thing but, the moment a threat is realized, threat mitigation forms to reality right?

    If you can detect a hypersonic weapon (either a cruise missile flying low or a ballistic missile with a steerable delivery vehicle), what are you going to do about it?
     

    RGStory

    Sergeant of the Hide
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 31, 2020
    393
    375
    Oklahoma
    You know more than I her so take this as genuinely curiosity and some practical sense and not challenging as I enjoy these discussions.

    wouldn't they be detected by forward radar, satellites etc? I'd have to believe, since we knew about these threats for a decade, isn't there defense parameters established or being put in place for this? I'd be shocked if there was no defense for a threat that was on the table within the past decade. Now I realize from conception to application is one thing but, the moment a threat is realized, threat mitigation forms to reality right?

    I remember when the Canadians first released the information about development on a supersonic torpedo (might have the term wrong). The concept was that an opponent would be able to detect it coming with sonar, but since its traveling faster than the ping returns to the sub, they literally know about after they would have been hit.

    Each active defense system will have to overcome inertia before it can be effective.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: RUTGERS95

    MarinePMI

    Ban Cat Handler
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 3, 2010
    7,339
    9,450
    San Diego, Ca
    I have this argument with a former Navy acquaintance. Swears they can defend against everything. I called BS and of course I get the "have you ever served in the Navy" BS.
    Whenever I hear that argument, I respond "You mean the same Navy that ran into other civilian ships? Twice?"
     

    MarinePMI

    Ban Cat Handler
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 3, 2010
    7,339
    9,450
    San Diego, Ca
    You know more than I her so take this as genuinely curiosity and some practical sense and not challenging as I enjoy these discussions.

    wouldn't they be detected by forward radar, satellites etc? I'd have to believe, since we knew about these threats for a decade, isn't there defense parameters established or being put in place for this? I'd be shocked if there was no defense for a threat that was on the table within the past decade. Now I realize from conception to application is one thing but, the moment a threat is realized, threat mitigation forms to reality right?
    Without getting into too much detail (caps/lims), time of flight plays a huge part in countermeasures. The earth is round and the horizon can obscure things.

    Are there defense mechanisms? Sure. We have, what, eight carriers? So 4 in one theater is pretty much a max, without leaving our ass swinging in the breeze in another. Four. Think about that. How many missiles, UUV's and fast movers do you think would be brought to bear against those capital ships? It's a numbers game, of which the Chinese and Russians are masters of ("quality can be quantity, but quantity has a quality all of its own").
     

    MarinePMI

    Ban Cat Handler
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 3, 2010
    7,339
    9,450
    San Diego, Ca
    I am more worried about large unmanned underwater drones that can carry a Tzar Bomba undetected
    Actually, I'd be more concerned about all the chinese commercial shipping that they have already publicly stated that they will/are arm(ed). There's a lot more of them, and they tend to get lost in all the maritime traffic.

    Specifically the Club K variant.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: deersniper

    308pirate

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 25, 2017
    16,012
    22,028
    Actually, I'd be more concerned about all the chinese commercial shipping that they have already publicly stated that they will/are arm(ed). There's a lot more of them, and they tend to get lost in all the maritime traffic.

    Specifically the Club K variant.

    Unrestricted submarine warfare tends to work well against that threat
     
    • Like
    Reactions: deersniper

    BytorJr

    Old Salt
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 28, 2018
    2,526
    2,565
    Whenever I hear that argument, I respond "You mean the same Navy that ran into other civilian ships? Twice?"
    That usually gets met by "well, obama killed training and promoted people that shouldn't be there." Or the latest one "well, there are always a few nuts in the general/admiral ranks." The only thing that makes me not freak out is just how screwed up are our adversaries?
     

    308pirate

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 25, 2017
    16,012
    22,028
    Without getting into too much detail (caps/lims), time of flight plays a huge part in countermeasures. The earth is round and the horizon can obscure things.

    Are there defense mechanisms? Sure. We have, what, eight carriers? So 4 in one theater is pretty much a max, without leaving our ass swinging in the breeze in another. Four. Think about that. How many missiles, UUV's and fast movers do you think would be brought to bear against those capital ships? It's a numbers game, of which the Chinese and Russians are masters of ("quality can be quantity, but quantity has a quality all of its own").

    The calculus I hear against carriers makes some assumptions that border on the incredible
    • You're not going to lose all hands if a carrier gets hit unless the magazine takes a direct hit. Chances of that: pretty slim
    • I never see anyone take into account losses taken by your opponent before weapons launch. Everyone seems to think that a CSG will always be on the defensive.
    • Where in the equation are force multipliers like network-distributed shooters, AI in combat systems, and directed energy weapons (true these are not mature but still)
    • Defense against maneuvering hypersonic threats is something being developed right now: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...attempt-to-swat-down-a-mock-hypersonic-weapon
     

    308pirate

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 25, 2017
    16,012
    22,028
    That usually gets met by "well, obama killed training and promoted people that shouldn't be there."
    That isn't true?

    And if it is, do you think it would have a positive or negative impact on competency and readiness?