Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

NightChild wrote:
Runaway thread from the original topic but what the hell I'll take a swing.

Drones have a lot of potential with range (until recently, many drones were being flown over Afghanistan by operators located in Iraq - think about who's airspace you had to cross for that one) and yes you can hotseat swap operators.

No.

Yes. True story.

I will correct 2 of my statments though. Avg speed is 70-90mph rather than knots and my reference to 3-4liters were in regards to smaller drones such as the Scan Eagle and Shadows. I believe the predators have somwhere between 80-100 gallons

Andrew1975 wrote:

You don't need a carrier group for that however. Indeed, you can rack up a bunch of subs to perform the function along with waves of...AIR FORCE ( ) drones coming in.

So what is protecting the subs? The whole idea of the carrier fleet is a show of force. A bunch of subs under water does not project the same kind of fear that a carrier group does. And then subs are pretty vulnerable without protection. Subs are currently protected by the interdiction abilities of naval aircraft, drones can not do air interdiction yet. So basically you are stuck with a bunch of subs that have to hide deep underwater where their presence is not felt, which is the whole point of having a carrier fleet parked just far enough to be in international waters. It's scary.

The subs are protecting the subs. It sure aint carriers.

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

You don't need a carrier group for that however. Indeed, you can rack up a bunch of subs to perform the function along with waves of...AIR FORCE ( ) drones coming in.

So what is protecting the subs? The whole idea of the carrier fleet is a show of force. A bunch of subs under water does not project the same kind of fear that a carrier group does. And then subs are pretty vulnerable without protection. Subs are currently protected by the interdiction abilities of naval aircraft, drones can not do air interdiction yet. So basically you are stuck with a bunch of subs that have to hide deep underwater where their presence is not felt, which is the whole point of having a carrier fleet parked just far enough to be in international waters. It's scary.

The subs are protecting the subs. It sure aint carriers.

How do subs protect themselves from sub hunting aircraft without air cover from a carrier fleet? They have very limited anti air ability almost none really, well most have none. A few used to have anti aircraft capabilities, but I don't think they do anymore at all actually. They either rely on stealth, (which means they are not projecting the threat that a carrier group does) or they rely on protection from the carrier fleet.

They hide. Its what they do. You don't think boomers are sitting under carrier fleets do you?

Frazzled wrote:They hide. Its what they do. You don't think boomers are sitting under carrier fleets do you?

Right but by hiding you are not force projecting.....you are not threatening. The whole point of the fleet is the show of force. Anybody can say hey we have a hidden sub there. It's another to look off your coast and see a giant carrier fleet filling your seas and their aircraft filling the sky.

Submarines are a standard part of carrier fleets, they usually have Up to two attack submarines, usually of the Los Angeles-class used to screen the strike group against hostile surface ships and submarines, but which also carry Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability.

The carrier doesn't really protect the carrier group, does it? The carrier is the payload that the group is transporting. If you change the payload to something else, you just need the aegis, etc to protect it.

Rented Tritium wrote:The carrier doesn't really protect the carrier group, does it? The carrier is the payload that the group is transporting. If you change the payload to something else, you just need the aegis, etc to protect it.

The carrier is not the only protection. But the air patrol provides the first line of defense as they extend far beyond any of the fleets other defenses.. If incoming fighters have made it to the point where aegis is needed than they are already way too close.

Rented Tritium wrote:The carrier doesn't really protect the carrier group, does it? The carrier is the payload that the group is transporting. If you change the payload to something else, you just need the aegis, etc to protect it.

Its synergistic. The carrier's interception and strike capacity supplements, and is supplemented by, the rest of the task force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Right but by hiding you are not force projecting.....you are not threatening.

True, but I imagine that most countries would take the statement "There are Ohio class submarines within 50 miles of your coastline." fairly seriously.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The whole point of the fleet is the show of force.

That's part of the point, but not the whole point. Carrier fleets are shows of force, but also capable of actually using force.

Well of obviously they are actually able to strike, what would be the point of parking near the enemy if it couldn't. But the intimidation factor is a big part of their role. Submarines just don't cut it. The oppositions citizens don't get to see the sub floating off their harbor, or see the sky fill with aircraft. We can always say that we have a sub someplace, most of our opposition is not going to tremble about a sub off their coast, they need to see the threat to take it seriously. Most of the scumbag rulers that we are talking about don't act until they see proof. Hence sending carriers fleets to the straight whenever Iran rattles some sabers.

"We are going to close the straight!"

Carriers move in.

"Of course we would never close the straight, you got it all wrong."

Not going to work with a sub.

Oh and yes I still own the bar the duck island club and I just bought a 7000 square foot club called DNA Level C which is Cleveland spelled backwards, which is fitting since they are all in Cleveland.

Andrew1975 wrote:Well of obviously they are actually able to strike, what would be the point of parking near the enemy if it couldn't. But the intimidation factor is a big part of their role. Submarines just don't cut it. The oppositions citizens don't get to see the sub floating off their harbor, or see the sky fill with aircraft. We can always say that we have a sub someplace, most of our opposition is not going to tremble about a sub off their coast, they need to see the threat to take it seriously.

That only matters if its a real threat and not a target. You may think "wow that inspiring." They may think, "if I can get a dingy full of explosive in there, imagine the BOOM!"

Now I am not an expert, and don't have a fixed opinion, other than future budgets are going to decrease. Now is the time to make sure we are not fighting WWIII with WWII technology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Well of obviously they are actually able to strike, what would be the point of parking near the enemy if it couldn't. But the intimidation factor is a big part of their role. Submarines just don't cut it. The oppositions citizens don't get to see the sub floating off their harbor, or see the sky fill with aircraft. We can always say that we have a sub someplace, most of our opposition is not going to tremble about a sub off their coast, they need to see the threat to take it seriously. Most of the scumbag rulers that we are talking about don't act until they see proof. Hence sending carriers fleets to the straight whenever Iran rattles some sabers.

"We are going to close the straight!"

Carriers move in.

Or...
"Awesome, we're going to fire so many SS's at them thousands will die and the infidel will never return"

Andrew1975 wrote:Well of obviously they are actually able to strike, what would be the point of parking near the enemy if it couldn't.

Pomp and circumstance.

Which is basically the pretentious version of intimidation.

Andrew1975 wrote:
But the intimidation factor is a big part of their role. Submarines just don't cut it. The oppositions citizens don't get to see the sub floating off their harbor, or see the sky fill with aircraft.

If a carrier is parked in international waters, no one is going to see it without binoculars and probably not even then.

Andrew1975 wrote:
We can always say that we have a sub someplace, most of our opposition is not going to tremble about a sub off their coast...

I suspect that most of our opposition has sufficient familiarity with the capabilities of our subs (ie. Google access) to know they're serious business.

Or...
"Awesome, we're going to fire so many SS's at them thousands will die and the infidel will never return"

The thing is a carrier fleet is able to protect itself pretty well. How are you going to launch those anti ship missiles? Would you have enough to get through the fleets anti missile defense? Are you ready for the hell that comes if you fire those missiles?

The citizens and politicians know when a carrier fleet is coming. Subs just don't strike that kind of fear or have the intimidation quality needed. You have to remember people still know we have nukes and it doesn't stop them. Governments can think we have subs around them, it still doesn't appear to intimidate them. Carrier fleets present a clear a present threat that no other force presents.

I don't know that carriers will be any good in world war III. Carriers have been pretty good at making little dictators know that we mean business now and in the past though. Which is good enough for me right now. Do I think we need to spend billions on new carriers, meh probably not, and certainly not until we find an aircraft worth carrying them. The f-35 is not currently that plane and won't be without a another massive investment in research. Even then I think it will be pretty meh. Rarely if ever has a multi role frame (especially one with such limited capacity) been able to handle a dedicated frame. The f-35's lethality against other future generation craft is in doubt, it's weapons system is currently a mess.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Or...
"Awesome, we're going to fire so many SS's at them thousands will die and the infidel will never return"

The thing it a carrier fleet is able to protect itself pretty well.

How do they know that? Seriously, thats a Q not an incrimination.

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Or...
"Awesome, we're going to fire so many SS's at them thousands will die and the infidel will never return"

The thing it a carrier fleet is able to protect itself pretty well.

How do they know that? Seriously, thats a Q not an incrimination.

You got me before I could update. Check the past post and get back to me.

More tomorrow. I've got to go.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The citizens and politicians know when a carrier fleet is coming. Subs just don't strike that kind of fear or have the intimidation quality needed.

Again, most nations will take a threat from the US constituting the parking of submarines off their coast quite seriously.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You have to remember people still know we have nukes and it doesn't stop them.

It stops them from invading the US, and makes them think long and hard about doing things we don't like.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't know that carriers will be any good in world war III.

If carriers aren't good, as in the war becomes a nuclear exchange, I wouldn't worry about victory so much as the condition "not dead".

The navy has put a lot of time and money into anti missile technology. Currently a carrier fleet has multiple layers of anti missile protection. Is it perfect? Good question?

I've got a carrier fleet that can bomb you back to the stone age. It's got the latest anti missile technology. You have former cold war anti ship missiles. The question you've got to ask yourself is will you kill my fleet before they are able to rain death on you. Do you feel lucky punk, well do you?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again, most nations will take a threat from the US constituting the parking of submarines off their coast quite seriously.

Yes, I mean I would take it seriously. But if the US felt it was really a threat why do we always send carrier fleets? Carrier fleets are just in all ways a better and more effective threat. Sending a sub does not show the commitment that sending an entire carrier strike force does.

"Carrier Fleets. When you want to show someone you really care"

If carriers aren't good, as in the war becomes a nuclear exchange, I wouldn't worry about victory so much as the condition "not dead".

There are other scenarios where carriers are not good that does not include nuclear exchange. All it requires is for the enemy to have a counter, and or our carriers having crappy planes, which may not be too far in the future.

Andrew1975 wrote:The navy has put a lot of time and money into anti missile technology. Currently a carrier fleet has multiple layers of anti missile protection. Is it perfect? Good question?

I've got a carrier fleet that can bomb you back to the stone age. It's got the latest anti missile technology. You have former cold war anti ship missiles. The question you've got to ask yourselfwill your kill my fleet before they are able to rain death on you. Do you feel lucky punk, well do you?

Yes, because if my civilians die I don't care. They don't vote, and if they do I kill (or beat, or maim, etc.) them when they vote the wrong way.

Oh, and my military is loyal, and willing to force civilians into locations that effectively turn them into shields.

I don't care about their lives, but your population does.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:The navy has put a lot of time and money into anti missile technology. Currently a carrier fleet has multiple layers of anti missile protection. Is it perfect? Good question?

I've got a carrier fleet that can bomb you back to the stone age. It's got the latest anti missile technology. You have former cold war anti ship missiles. The question you've got to ask yourselfwill your kill my fleet before they are able to rain death on you. Do you feel lucky punk, well do you?

Yes, because if my civilians die I don't care. They don't vote, and if they do I kill (or beat, or maim, etc.) them when they vote the wrong way.

Oh, and my military is loyal, and willing to force civilians into locations that effectively turn them into shields.

I don't care about their lives, but your population does.

Yea cause every leader wants their population centers blown up. Including there own homes and families and even themselves. Why don't you ask Saddam or Osama or Gadafi how wonderful it was to make an enemy of the US. Oh that's right, you can't, they can't talk anymore.

Andrew1975 wrote:But if the US felt it was really a threat why do we always send carrier fleets?

Because they're there, and more threatening than submarines.

You seem to be consistently confused by arguments from degree.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Carrier fleets are just in all ways a better and more effective threat.

Yep, and a 100 USD hooker is probably better looking than a 2 USD one.

Not that subs are cheaper, but cost is an important variable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yea cause every leader wants their population centers blown up. Including there own homes and families and even themselves.

They probably don't want it to happen, but they might not care either.

I'll phrase it differently: genocide is a thing that happens. Leaders kill their own people (where possession is defined by the West) en masse. People that consider politics and war (myself included) often don't care about individuals. They're numbers, not people.

Because they're there, and more threatening than submarines.

Exactly my point. Subs are probably there too. One of the major advantages of subs is that the enemy doesn't know where they are. Hence why carrier groups are better at intimidation. I don't follow your arguments because they don't make sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'll phrase it differently: genocide is a thing that happens. Leaders kill their own people (where possession is defined by the West) en masse. People that consider politics and war (myself included) often don't care about individuals. They're numbers, not people.

People are not just numbers, they are a manifestation of power. There is no point in being a ruler if there is no one left to rule? Yes individuals do not matter, unless that individual is yourself. Any leader that launches anti ship missiles at a US carrier fleet will consider his chances of ending up a dead individual like many other former leaders. Now maybe he won't care about that either, most leader are pretty self centered, but you do have maryters every now and then. So what. Your missiles are probably not going to hit anyway, so go ahead launch them, see what happens. The US military has little issue with responding to threats. As long as the enemy fires first nobody else is gonna care.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Exactly my point. Subs are probably there too. One of the major advantages of subs is that the enemy doesn't know where they are. Hence why carrier groups are better at intimidation. I don't follow your arguments because they don't make sense.

When I said "they're there" I meant "They exist, and can be deployed." If they didn't, they couldn't, and wouldn't.

To roughly analogize, again, bigger doesn't mean better. Something can be more capable of X and be unnecessary.

Andrew1975 wrote:
People are not just numbers, they are a manifestation of power.

If they're just a manifestation of power, then they are, basically, just numbers.

"I can make X people do Y!" is a statement of power.

To roughly analogize, again, bigger doesn't mean better. Something can be more capable of X and be unnecessary.

No kidding. Better is better. And as you said carriers are more of a threat. Sure you can use subs, I have yet to hear of anyone really relenting because the US has subs. I don't think Iran is gonna care if there are subs. Their capability is very limited compared to a carrier.

You can make x people do Y only if you have x people that fear you more than getting blown up. Not to mention that an ego manic is not going to like the insult of having his people blown up and his county blown to bits by anyone but himself. If anybody is going to do that he is, those are his people to kill. Ego maniacs hate not having control of a situation. And their desire for self preservation is well documented.

Andrew1975 wrote:Right but by hiding you are not force projecting.....you are not threatening.

Actually, subs are threatening BECAUSE they hide so well.

It's the same reasoning behind stealth aircraft. They're more threatening because they're harder to detect.

Melissia wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Right but by hiding you are not force projecting.....you are not threatening.

Actually, subs are threatening BECAUSE they hide so well.

It's the same reasoning behind stealth aircraft. They're more threatening because they're harder to detect.

Actually no. For a show of force (which is one of the main features of carrier fleets) there must be a show. Yes subs and stealth are threatening, but not in this context or for this purpose.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No kidding. Better is better. And as you said carriers are more of a threat. Sure you can use subs, I have yet to hear of anyone really relenting because the US has subs. I don't think Iran is gonna care if there are subs. Their capability is very limited compared to a carrier.

Iran hasn't done a whole lot of relenting despite the presence of carriers, because it would be comically stupid for the present government to do so. But that's beside the point.

Whether or not something is better at a task depends entirely on the task. If the task is just "blowing things up" carriers are better than your average submarine, but a whole lot worse than your average submarine carrying ICBMs. The task is complicated, and affected by variables that you don't seem to have considered; chiefly monetary cost.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You can make x people do Y only if you have x people that fear you more than getting blown up.

Shockingly, the people that actually matter in terms of state policy are generally more aware of military action than Joe the Plumber. They're generally well educated, well supported, and if not are advised by people who are. The average person is only relevant insofar as they can be coerced by their government, which is easily accomplished by way of a speech and some stock photos.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Not to mention that an ego manic is not going to like the insult of having his people blown up and his county blown to bits by anyone but himself.

Probably not, but he probably won't be able to do anything but grandstand either.

I think what people are perhaps missing is that carriers are expensive because of the scale they operate on, not the inherent nature of being an aircraft carrier. You can represent a threat to any nation by putting a submarine off shore, but it’s a limited threat because it can only launch cruise missiles so often, and only launch so many before it has to go chugging back home. To deploy the kind of firepower that lets you put troops onto a beach unharmed, and lets them move around at will while the enemy cop so much punishment that they just bunker up and entirely concede the initiative, well that requires planes in the air, launched from a carrier, or it requires submarines launching so many damn missiles that you’d need to have more submarines than have ever been built, times by about 200.

At which point you’re looking at paying so much for your giant mass of submarines you might as well just build a carrier fleet or two. Or seven.

Iran hasn't done a whole lot of relenting despite the presence of carriers, because it would be comically stupid for the present government to do so. But that's beside the point.

Really? They recently toned down their whole closing the straight BS because the fleet came back

Whether or not something is better at a task depends entirely on the task. If the task is just "blowing things up" carriers are better than your average submarine, but a whole lot worse than your average submarine carrying ICBMs. The task is complicated, and affected by variables that you don't seem to have considered; chiefly monetary cost.

True, but as usual you forget that we have already defined the task. Intimidation by a non destructive show of force. I don't know where you are going, but I'm used to you going off on tangents. Earlier I was talking about Tucanos and you brought up B-52's for the same mission, I mean focus man.

Shockingly, the people that actually matter in terms of state policy are generally more aware of military action than Joe the Plumber. They're generally well educated, well supported, and if not are advised by people who are. The average person is only relevant insofar as they can be coerced by their government, which is easily accomplished by way of a speech and some stock photos.

Yeah they are so well versed in your world that they are going to launch ineffective missiles at a carrier fleet just to give us the finger, even though they know there will be retaliation. Do you ever have consistency of thought?

Probably not, but he probably won't be able to do anything but grandstand either.

So one second he is crazy and he's going to shoot the missiles, the next he's only capable of granstanding.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Really? They recently toned down their whole closing the straight BS because the fleet came back

The 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, and has not been stationed elsewhere. It would be obvious, and very public, news if it were relocated. The specific location of the fleet had no bearing on what Iran has been saying.

Also, an Iranian official, according to an Iranian government mouthpiece, said, today, that Iran is willing to attempt closing the Strait.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't know where you are going, but I'm used to you going off on tangents. Earlier I was talking about Tucanos and you brought up B-52's for the same mission, I mean focus man.

The mission regarding Tucanos was CAS, and B-52s have been used in a CAS role. I brought this up because you said a plane with 5 crew members could never be used in a CAS role. I thought that was obvious given the specific claim, made by you, that I was addressing.

At the moment I'm claiming that the task in question...

Andrew1975 wrote:
Intimidation by a non destructive show of force.

...involves more than just intimidating someone, you also have to consider cost, political will, political will relative to cost, etc. The task of intimidation by a non-destructive show of force is really "How can we intimidate someone with a non-destructive force without expending too much political capital, money, and military resources without irritating our allies, or provoking our target; provided that we do not want to provoke them." There is no such thing as a simple question in IR, and pretending that there is generally indicates that the pretender doesn't know what he's talking about.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah they are so well versed in your world that they are going to launch ineffective missiles at a carrier fleet just to give us the finger, even though they know there will be retaliation.

Not a significant one. We're not going to invade Iran. We might try to destroy their nuclear facilities, but we probably won't get them all, and doing so only bolsters their "Great Satan" argument.

And Iran hasn't actually launched missiles at any US fleet (actually is an important word here), unless you're working off Rense articles, in which case they have, and are planning to launch nuclear missiles at the 5th.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So one second he is crazy and he's going to shoot the missiles, the next he's only capable of granstanding.

Who is firing missiles? You said that, not me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:To deploy the kind of firepower that lets you put troops onto a beach unharmed, and lets them move around at will while the enemy cop so much punishment that they just bunker up and entirely concede the initiative, well that requires planes in the air, launched from a carrier, or it requires submarines launching so many damn missiles that you’d need to have more submarines than have ever been built, times by about 200.

The bold is the important bit, and gets at what submarines can't do. Carriers can establish air superiority, submarines cannot.

Ground attack isn't an issue, outside targeting. The SSGN Ohios carry 154 Tomahawks, though the cost differential is likely not sufficient to account for the carrier's versatility.

dogma wrote:The bold is the important bit, and gets at what submarines can't do. Carriers can establish air superiority, submarines cannot.

Ground attack isn't an issue, outside targeting. The SSGN Ohios carry 154 Tomahawks, though the cost differential is likely not sufficient to account for the carrier's versatility.

My point is that, theoretically, you can launch so many tomahawks from so many submarines that you achieve the same effect as if you have carrier borne aircraft above.

But the scale of missiles needed, and the sheer number submarines needed to fire that many missiles makes it a ridiculous notion. Demonstrating that what makes carriers expensive is not the inherent nature of being a carrier, but just the scale on which they operate relative to submarines.