SSGNs Take Significant Step Towards Rejoining the Fleet

[Kharn]

WT:

The ROOSEVELT website is proud of the fact they launched 4,000 sorties to drop 28,000 lb of weapons. That's about 7 lb/sortie. A couple of A-1 Skyraiders would work better.

The carriers keep launching planes 24/7, even when they're thousands of miles away from the war zone. Missions also happen where no ordnance was dropped, even though they were over hostile territory. And, even in a war zone, at least half the planes in the air at any given moment are either protecting the carrier or are support aircraft for the other aircraft in the air.

Kharn

 

[Preacherman]

WT, you really need to remove your foot from your mouth before pontificating...

The ROOSEVELT website is proud of the fact they launched 4,000 sorties to drop 28,000 lb of weapons. That's about 7 lb/sortie. A couple of A-1 Skyraiders would work better.

Let's see now. Typical all-day, every-day carrier flight missions:

1. Helicopter transfers of personnel and freight to and from other ships and shore bases;

2. COD (Carrier On-Board Delivery) cargo flights, in and out;

3. Helicopter search and rescue crews to support flight operations;

4. Air-refuelling tanker operations;

5. Patrols of the carrier battle group's airspace and environs, to see who dat out dere;

6. Electronic surveillance flights (e.g. Hawkeye AWACS aircraft) to keep an eye on a several-hundred-mile radius of airspace around the carrier battle group, plus others nearer to the enemy positions to control aircraft combat operations;

7. Training flights to re-qualify pilots or maintain their qualifications;

8. Flights to and from friendly countries for aircraft maintenance at USN shore stations;

9. Flights of Navy aircraft to USAF stations ashore, where they're refueled, bombed-up, and sent into enemy territory for a mission (often happened during both Gulf Wars);

10. Exercises, where large numbers of aircraft will be launched and recovered to test various wargaming scenarios, provide training to other ships in the carrier battle group, etc.;

11. Routine anti-submarine patrols to protect the carrier battle group.

And we haven't listed a single combat mission so far...!

(And, BTW, I wonder how long a Skyraider, great plane though it was, would survive at less than 200 knots air speed, fully loaded, in an air-defence environment like today's?)

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Ok, I guess I’ll have to do some typing after all, crapola… Anyway I guess I can start here;

Tell me with a straight face that we need supercarriers, battleships, and nuclear submarines to fight 3rd and 4th world countries.

The US Navy is in the business of providing Power Projection, and the ONLY platform which can truly project power is the modern supercarrier. No other vessel, including the VSTOL carriers of other nations, can influence world affairs the way a carrier battle group can. When the bleeding hearts demand we put a stop to the mass kitten stompings taking place in Southwest Nowhereistan, and none of our “Allies” in the EU or Asia, will let us use airfields for combat missions, then the only option for air superiority is a haze grey airfield which can deploy to support virtually any theatre.
Battleships, well they’re not used anymore, so I’ll skip to nuclear submarines.

For openers, where do you think a large portion of the Tomahawks launched during every major conflict in the past 15 years came from? Submarine launched cruise missiles are a staple for every foreseeable conflict throughout the world, and the SSGN boast the capability to have 154 SLCM’s available from just one platform. And that platform, due to its nuclear propulsion, has a loiter time limited only by the crew, and after 80 or so days can be relieved on station by one of the other GN’s operating in that region.

Tell me how a special forces team will practice infantry squad tactics, rappelling, position assaults, etc. in the confines of a submarine.

It’s not as though the spec-ops guys practice diddily squat inside the belly of a C-130 or C-141. They run table-top exercises and perform mission planning en-route to the target onboard a ship the same way they do on an aircraft.

You guys claim to be in the know. Instead of attacking me, tell THR what the heck the Navy is doing re WOT? Please don't claim OPSEC.

As far as the GWOT goes, it’s not necessarily a conflict well suited to the US Navy’s mission, however;
1. The aforementioned carrier task force, available for combat missions virtually round-the-clock.
2. The involvement of Naval Special Warfare is a no-brainer.
3. Submarines and surface ships alike providing on-demand cruise missile tasking and high value asset (SSBN and CGN) protection.
4. Finally, the low profile, no glamour, thankless job of Strategic Deterrence. Provided by such icons of American pride as the USS Kentucky (SSBN 737 Blue). Sniff, sniff… -Anchors Away plays softly in the background……..



Oh, and then there's;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy

Or maybe, India, Iran, or North Korea.....

 

[carebear]

No, no, he's right. Let's destroy or let rot everything in the inventory designed for conventional warfare against major powers. Screw innovation and planning for the next one. It's a long American tradition that served us so well prior to 1812, WWI, WWII and Korea.

We won't know what we'll need til we need it. Let's wait to build it til then.

 

[Waitone]

The current conflict may be fourth generation warfare but you'd be delusional to think it couldn't drop back into third generation in a heartbeat. Taiwan, Korea and the Middle East spring to mind without serious thought. Has it occured to you that the reason North Korea is behaving itself is because of boomers somewhere on that side of the world, not to mention all the other kinds of things that may be going on which don't get reported. All three theaters feature lots of water and the need for beaucoup firepower. Frankly, I'm happy to see the Navy get with the program. Afghanastan would have been a different fight it it were not for the flattop playing like an airfield for assorted grunts. Power projection is the name of the game and carriers and subs do just fine.

 

[Coronach]

What I always enjoy is listening to people say:

1. There is not a single navy out there who can challenge us!

2. We don't need all this stuff!

That's the logical equivalent of sawing off the branch upon which you sit, between you and the trunk.

There is currently no navy out there that can take on the USN, toe to toe. This is precisely because we have overwhelming force, and developing a navy to counter it would cost billions. Keep drawing down the USN's strength, however, and sooner or later someone will look at what it would take to achieve parity and say "Yeah, we have enough Yuans to buy that." The currency noted is a hint about who might say such a thing.

Note, btw, that the strength has been drawn down, and note also that with global reach come global commitments. It is no coincidence that North Korea chose to pipe up the first time back while Mr. Clinton was fighting a war in the Balkans, conducting peacekeeping operations in Haiti and whacking Saddam Hussein over the head in the gulf. Petty tyrants note when CVBGs are in a different ocean.

Should we develop proper equipment for brownwater ops and dealing with 3rd world pests? Absolutely. It's pure silliness to send in an AEGIS cruiser to deal with clowns in speedboats with RPGs. But it is just as silly to erode the very capability that keeps us decades in front of everyone else in the bluewater fighting game.

Oh, and we no longer have battleships in the active fleet. They were deemed too expensive to retain on active duty.

Mike

 

[Preacherman]

Another point on the 28,000 pounds of bombs dropped by the Roosevelt. In times past, a given target would be attacked by a section or flight of aircraft, each dropping several "dumb" bombs, so that it would take (say) 10,000 to 20,000 pounds of bombs to destroy it. Nowadays, the aircraft are loaded up with terminally guided munitions. A grunt on the ground (or another aircraft nearby) puts a laser designator on the target, or provides precise GPS co-ordinates of the target. The pilot sets the guidance system accordingly and launches a single bomb - often a 500-pounder, but with the newer stuff coming into inventory, as little as a 250-pounder. That one bomb, placed in exactly the right spot, eliminates the target. Other times, a homing missile will be used, instead of a bomb. So, that 28,000 pounds of ordnance represents at least 56 targets if 500-pound bombs are assumed - more if a Maverick or something like that was launched. In older times, it might mean no more than one or two targets destroyed.

 

[buzz_knox]

Guys, did you all have a straight face when refuting WT's bogus claims? Because, you know if you didn't, he'll just say those fact don't count.