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.

U.S. military officials had warned Wednesday that any attempt by Iran to disrupt oil shipments at the mouth of the Persian Gulf "will not be tolerated." Pentagon spokesman George Little described the Strait of Hormuz, as an "economic lifeline" vital to stability in the region.

And a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's 5th fleet warned Iran against disrupting shipments in the strait, saying the U.S. Navy keeps a "robust presence in the region" and is "ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

This was a few weeks ago. Very quickly after the US publicly announced retaliation and mentioned the fleet Iran backed down. Yes they are again rattling sabers.

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...

In no way is the CAS performed by the Tucano similar to the CAS performed by a B-52. This is especially imortant noting your idea of running missions on a budget. If you want scramble strategic air command every time Akmed jumps in his Jimmy then you are really out of touch. I said that a plane with 5 crew could never perform the kind of CAS missions that the Tucano or drones perform as effectively and or cost effectively......And it can't.

I mean you don't want to send carrier fleets out in roles they are entirely suited for, because subs are cheaper even though they in no way capable of the mission. Yet you also want to use costly B-52 s to do a job that a cheap drone can do. You know what, I do believe that you could now actually work in the defense industry, your ideas make as much sense as purchasing a Naval jet that can't land on an aircraft carrier. You are a genius.

...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.

The fact that moving carrier fleets into known hot zones has been a classic US tactic for the last 40 years shows who is the one pretending to know anything here.

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.

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

I said do you feel lucky enough to fire missiles. Your response was basically why would they care if there was a response, they don't carer about people anyway.

You continue to answer questions and make statements on a case by case issue without considering the entire argument. It's like having a conversation with Sheldon Cooper.

Andrew1975 wrote:
This was a few weeks ago. Very quickly after the US publicly announced retaliation and mentioned the fleet Iran backed down. Yes they are again rattling sabers.

Yeah, the political body that wants to appear strong in front of its electorate totally is a reliable source.

And when did I say that Iran wasn't rattling sabers?

Andrew1975 wrote:
In no way is the CAS performed by the Tucano similar to the CAS performed by a B-52.

Its still CAS, according to the Air Force, which is the initially argued premise.

Andrew1975 wrote:
This is especially imortant noting your idea of running missions on a budget. If you want to send a B-52 out every time someone hears a technical then you are really out of touch.

That's not how CAS works. You already touched on loitering, and seem have forgotten it selectively.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You are a genius.

Yes, I am. Thank you for coming to this conclusion, it is quite accurate.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The fact that moving carrier fleets into known hot zones has been a classic US tactic for the last 40 years shows who is the one pretending to know anything here.

Being time-honored doesn't mean a tactic is efficient, useful, or generally the best option. This has been the point of this entire argument. Frazzled made it several pages ago.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I said do you feel lucky enough to fire missiles. Your response was basically why would they care if there was a response, they don't carer about people anyway.

No, this...

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.

...is what I said.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You continue to answer questions and make statements on a case by case issue...

Welcome to real life, the place where gak is complicated.

That's not how CAS works. You already touched on loitering, and seem have forgotten it selectively.

I haven't forgotten anything. There is no way that having b-52 loiter over and area is any where near as efficient as having drones loiter.

Its still CAS, according to the Air Force, which is the initially argued premise.

All CAS is not the same, in fact CAS from a B-52 is a completely different beast that CAS done by a drone, or a Tucano. The CAS done by a B-52 generally requires an on ground forward observer, or better yet a Spec force spotter with a laser designator. You are talking about hitting targets that are 500 yards away from an allied unit and targets that are 100 yards from them.

Yes, I am. Thank you for coming to this conclusion, it is quite accurate.

As usual completely missing the point.

Being time-honored doesn't mean a tactic is efficient, useful, or generally the best option. This has been the point of this entire argument. Frazzled made it several pages ago.

I'm not stuck on tradition, but your idea of sending an unsupported submarine is ludicrous. Submarines are incredibly fragile once the enemy knows where they are. They are completely incapable of the role you suggest, just as frazzled's idea won't work.

No this

no this

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.

Welcome to real life, the place where gak is complicated.

It's not that complicated when someone can follow a train of thought and doesn't run off on their own tangents and flights of fancy.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I haven't forgotten anything. There is no way that having b-52 loiter over and area is any where near as efficient as having drones loiter.

I never said it was, I said B-52s can perform CAS.

Andrew1975 wrote:
All CAS is not the same...

Shockingly, I made this argument several pages ago.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not stuck on tradition, but your idea of sending an unsupported submarine is ludicrous. Submarines are incredibly fragile once the enemy knows where they are.

We send submarines around unsupported all the time.

And everything is fragile once the enemy finds it.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's not that complicated when someone can follow a train of thought and doesn't run off on their own tangents and flights of fancy.

So you're arguing that mu arguments are overly complicated, but that you can't follow my "train of thought"?

sebster wrote: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.

All of that, plus, the point of a carrier is to be a mobile airfield that supports a variety of aircraft including fighters, bombers, reconnaissance and transport.

These aircraft let the carrier do a whole lot more things than just launch missiles or torpedoes.

Carriers could also carry drones easily, as a supplement or replacement to conventional aircraft.

The carrier group contains a range of ships and subs because of the synergy factor mentioned earlier. The principle job of the rest of the group is to protect and support the carrier, but all the other ships add to capabilities of search, missile launch, carrying marines, supply, and so on.

dogma wrote: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.

The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, but the ships themselves aren't necessarily stationed there. Most ships don't stay at anchor, but regularly go out on patrols, for a variety of reasons.

The Navy didn’t disclose the Vinson’s exact location, but carriers supporting the war in Afghanistan typically do not operate from the Persian Gulf.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's not that complicated when someone can follow a train of thought and doesn't run off on their own tangents and flights of fancy.

I think what we have here is a classic case of pot meets kettle especially where it comes to flights of fancy.

It occurs to me that once we get boomers equipped to launch drones, we'll almost be able to have carrier groups entirely submersible. Just need anti-air coverage.

biccat wrote:
The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, but the ships themselves aren't necessarily stationed there. Most ships don't stay at anchor, but regularly go out on patrols, for a variety of reasons.

Of course, but the point is everyone knows the Fleet is coming back at some point. Iran probably wouldn't test a missile with a carrier group in the Gulf (for obvious reasons), but their belligerence hasn't been limited to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:It occurs to me that once we get boomers equipped to launch drones, we'll almost be able to have carrier groups entirely submersible. Just need anti-air coverage.