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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Forar wrote:
Anyone else think they should just get a room at this point?

... just askin'.

Maybe some of us like to watch

Awesome... keep it up ya'll.

I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.

 EmilCrane wrote:
I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.

This argument has been going on since long before the internet.... LOL

Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.

This argument has been going on since long before the internet.... LOL

I'm aware, naval history is the one thing I do know, I mean that no one wins internet arguments and considering that while we are all somewhat knowledgeable on the subject in different ways no matter what conclusion we come to it won't matter a bit unless one of us is highly placed in congress or the DoD

chaos0xomega wrote:
A naval aviator just acknowledged that the Air Force is a necessary component of America's military machine, now I've seen everything.

It very much is. The Navy can't churn out the best aviators in the world if they don't occasionally get to do aggressor training against inferior pilots in superior aircraft.

Plus, since the Navy's got the sexy and practical, someone needs to fly the unsexy and practical or sexy and impractical.

On a side note, the F-14 was a pig, great for taking down bombers, but it wasn't the air-to-air dogfighter that everyone wishes/thinks it was.

It wasn't an F-15, but it was a surprisingly capable dogfighter by the time the D hit. As long as you didn't get suckered into bleeding energy, it had a shot against anything.

 LordofHats wrote:
Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first

And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first

And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.

Exactly, who needs a battleship when you can drop ICBM's from airplanes now!

http://defensetech.org/2012/02/17/video-a-c-5-galaxy-air-launches-an-icbm-what/

 djones520 wrote:

And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.

Point of fact, DoD did that on their authority, and told Congress it was a fait accompli, and Congress didn't put up any resistance because they're having their own drama and Bush signed it into law.

 whitedragon wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first

And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.

Exactly, who needs a battleship when you can drop ICBM's from airplanes now!

http://defensetech.org/2012/02/17/video-a-c-5-galaxy-air-launches-an-icbm-what/

If and when we actually use ICBMs in wartime it will be relavant.

 EmilCrane wrote:
I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.

Sorry but I find your argument...unconvincing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EmilCrane wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
I agree that the battleship guys will never convince the plane guys and the plane guys will never convince the battleship guys. But then again no one ever convinces anyone of anything on the internet.

This argument has been going on since long before the internet.... LOL

I'm aware, naval history is the one thing I do know, I mean that no one wins internet arguments and considering that while we are all somewhat knowledgeable on the subject in different ways no matter what conclusion we come to it won't matter a bit unless one of us is highly placed in congress or the DoD

oh contraire, the guy arguing with the other guy who got that guy to say he was going to go berserk and attack a school or something, won, because he siced the police on him. I have to respect that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Usually in the military, the winner of any debate is whoever doesn't kick the bucket first Or whoever manages to convince the third party (congress) first

And since Congress has deactivated our Battleships and authorized their use as museums, I'd say the winner has been decided.

Exactly, who needs a battleship when you can drop ICBM's from airplanes now!

http://defensetech.org/2012/02/17/video-a-c-5-galaxy-air-launches-an-icbm-what/

If and when we actually use ICBMs in wartime it will be relavant.

If we're in a war where we have to pull out the battleships from museum land, yea the missiles have already been launched...

 Frazzled wrote:

If we're in a war where we have to pull out the battleships from museum land, yea the missiles have already been launched...

Yes, Frazz, because Nukes are preferable to conventional war... oh, wait...


A little info on the hilarity that is the LCS program:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/



BTW: Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.

I don't know why the LCS program reminds me of Hitler and the bomber variant of the ME-262.

M.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
BTW: Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.

Oh nooooooooooooooooooo!

Armed Forces Journal believes a lot of kooky gak.

Don't know if we can throw this one in here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/world/asia/india-aircraft-carrier

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

If we're in a war where we have to pull out the battleships from museum land, yea the missiles have already been launched...

Yes, Frazz, because Nukes are preferable to conventional war... oh, wait...


A little info on the hilarity that is the LCS program:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/



BTW: Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.

Of course it is. If we're pulling out battleships, old Sherman tanks, and Civil War Napoleon cannon we've already lost. Time to form up the ragtag fleet for a lonely quest for a place called Earth because the Cylons are nuking Caprica.

You never know when you will need a battleship!

Man, Battleships look tiny!

Don't you have anything ....errrrr... Biggar with lazzors?

Frazzled wrote:

Of course it is. If we're pulling out battleships, old Sherman tanks, and Civil War Napoleon cannon we've already lost. Time to form up the ragtag fleet for a lonely quest for a place called Earth because the Cylons are nuking Caprica.

Well.... first, those Israeli rebuilt Shermans can pack a fething wallop. They took the gun out of a French AMX 13, so that's a rapid fire 75mm that can pierce the side of a variety of currently in service MBTs (admittedly not including the Abrams).

Secondly, again, fail comparison: the Sherman and the Napoleon were replaced by something that does the same thing, but better. The battleship was not, as absolutely nothing does NGFS like a battleship. Which does free up aircraft to go do more important things like bomb the enemy's runways and C&C which are usually further inland.

Seaward wrote:
Armed Forces Journal believes a lot of kooky gak.

Still, nice to see currently serving, ranking officers writing articles that agree with me. I particularly like the part where he brings up the ranking officers in charge of the failed projects going on to post military positions with the same companies that benefited most from the failed effort.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder if it is easier to put mines in coastal waters or in deep ocean waters.

Strategically better in coastal waters.

To clarify, its strategically better to place them in coastal waters because it can deny use of ports, etc. BUT the reality is that most ocean travel occurs along just a handful of "highways" due to them being the optimum passage by which to go from point A to point B, so in that sense, seeding deep ocean waters is actually easier (since its much easier to say... fly a B-52 over the mid-atlantic and air-drop mines than it would be to attempt the same within site of shore), and wouldn't you know it we have mines designed for just that purpose.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So, a ship that is good at hitting stuff 20 miles away is better than a ship that is good at hitting stuff 200 miles away when it comes to supporting land warfare?

Well, it depends on what you're trying to do I suppose. Personally I wouldn't put much stock in the bombardment of something 200 miles away, we're talking some serious accuracy needed to pull that off, and at the point you're 200 miles inland you likely already have howitzer batteries and some serious air support options available to you anyway.

Planes simply can't keep a sustained bombardment up. It took many months to reduce German cities to rubble with an air campaign. A single battleship could do the same in a couple days.

Dresden burned to the ground after a night... and theres a couple Japanese cities that would like to have a word with you as well...

It very much is. The Navy can't churn out the best aviators in the world if they don't occasionally get to do aggressor training against inferior pilots in superior aircraft.

Plus, since the Navy's got the sexy and practical, someone needs to fly the unsexy and practical or sexy and impractical.

Well played, I ROFL'd, totally and demonstrably false mind you, but well played nonetheless

It wasn't an F-15, but it was a surprisingly capable dogfighter by the time the D hit. As long as you didn't get suckered into bleeding energy, it had a shot against anything.

What we learned from Vietnam however is that air-to-air engagements with another fighter will require you to bleed energy in a turning engagement. People like to point out the Iran-Iraq war and the nonsense in Libya as evidence that the F-14 was a better plane than its given credit for, BUT the reality is both the Libyan and Iraqi pilots were pretty suicidal... they flew straight and level approaches at full speed, likely figuring they didn't have to maneuver cuz... yknow, missiles are fething magic and will kill anything. The Navy (and the Iranians) showed them otherwise. The other major advantage of the F-14 was the AIM-54, which as I understand it was of questionable effectiveness against anything smaller than a 747, but it meant (provided it worked as intended and the pilots were actually authorized to fire them without visual id first) that the F-14 really never did have to bleed speed in the first place.

Seaward, tell me again how my views on the incestuous relationship between Navy command and Defense contractors is just me parroting conspiracy theories? Because this month's Armed Forces Journal disagrees with you.

I'm not defending the Navy (as General LeMay once said "The Soviets are our adversaries, the Navy is our enemy.") but its kind of unfair to single them out for an "incestuous relationship" with the defense industry when pretty much the entire US armed forces are involved in one big incestuous orgy...

BTW, y'all should look into the Air Forces "Prompt Global Strike" program. They're attempting to use a hypersonic cruise missile (probably based on the waverider program) as a conventional replacement for nuclear-tipped ICBM's, except apparrently they're claiming they can get multi-kiloton level (small nuclear device) level yields out of it (and at a budget price!). I doubt it'll be anywhere near as cost-effective or sustainable as parking a battleship, but it changes the equation a bit.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I'm not defending the Navy (as General LeMay once said "The Soviets are our adversaries, the Navy is our enemy.") but its kind of unfair to single them out for an "incestuous relationship" with the defense industry when pretty much the entire US armed forces are involved in one big incestuous orgy...

True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.

chaos0xomega wrote:

BTW, y'all should look into the Air Forces "Prompt Global Strike" program. They're attempting to use a hypersonic cruise missile (probably based on the waverider program) as a conventional replacement for nuclear-tipped ICBM's, except apparrently they're claiming they can get multi-kiloton level (small nuclear device) level yields out of it (and at a budget price!). I doubt it'll be anywhere near as cost-effective or sustainable as parking a battleship, but it changes the equation a bit.

I don't really buy those yields, unless someone has made a a tremendous advancement in conventional explosives (though it might be FAE based, but still), and even if they had, it also changes how much firepower a battleship can lay down if it can be applied to a 16" shell. I want to file this one away with Hot Eagle which included (I gak you not) the ability to deploy a 13 marines via drop pod anywhere on Earth in half an hour. AFAIK the project was cancelled due to budgetary reasons (insert joke about the cost of a USMC battle-barge or strike cruiser here).

 BaronIveagh wrote:


True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.

The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it

 EmilCrane wrote:

The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it

This will be a very broad statement, but: generally the Corps likes to stick with what works until something comes along that's proven to be clearly superior and just as dependable.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.

The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it

Using the M60A1 for so long instead of the M1A1 is another example. I think they just have a "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." mentality. Sometimes that's good to have,but not all of the time.

chaos0xomega wrote:
What we learned from Vietnam however is that air-to-air engagements with another fighter will require you to bleed energy in a turning engagement. People like to point out the Iran-Iraq war and the nonsense in Libya as evidence that the F-14 was a better plane than its given credit for, BUT the reality is both the Libyan and Iraqi pilots were pretty suicidal... they flew straight and level approaches at full speed, likely figuring they didn't have to maneuver cuz... yknow, missiles are fething magic and will kill anything. The Navy (and the Iranians) showed them otherwise. The other major advantage of the F-14 was the AIM-54, which as I understand it was of questionable effectiveness against anything smaller than a 747, but it meant (provided it worked as intended and the pilots were actually authorized to fire them without visual id first) that the F-14 really never did have to bleed speed in the first place.

Partially true. We learned that you have to bleed energy if you get involved in knife-fighting due to a combination of extremely restrictive ROE and not bothering to teach anybody how to dogfight anymore. Every fighter's got its own performance characteristics, and if you're not fighting in a manner that favors your plane, you're going to lose.

I personally think the F-14 was a better dogfighter than the Super Hornet currently is, despite the latter's nimbleness. If somebody takes the fight vertical on you in a Super Bug, you're in a world of hurt. Of course, in both cases, the AIM-9X makes up for a world of deficiencies, and I think the F-14 would've been an incredibly difficult platform to beat if it'd ever gotten mated to the JHMCS and the 9X.

 Seaward wrote:

Partially true. We learned that you have to bleed energy if you get involved in knife-fighting due to a combination of extremely restrictive ROE and not bothering to teach anybody how to dogfight anymore.

But somehow we didn't learn not to stand around for ten years getting plastered by an insurgency while politicians play footsie.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.

The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it

Budget considerations? The USMC is bigger than the British army (but not better ) and the British Army has a budget of what? £80 Billion? I don't think money is a problem for the USMC, especially, when the entire military budget is $600 billion per annum.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
(but not better )

LOL no. (though there are a few noted exceptions that might give the USMC a run for their money one on one, most of those have been reduced in the reorg of 2006 or disbanded entirely, The Black Watch being of note in this regard was reduced to a single battalion.)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.

The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it

Budget considerations? The USMC is bigger than the British army (but not better ) and the British Army has a budget of what? £80 Billion? I don't think money is a problem for the USMC, especially, when the entire military budget is $600 billion per annum.

The US Marine Corp is actually equal size once you factor reserves in, and their budget is around 30 billion, so less then half the British Armies.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I'm not defending the Navy (as General LeMay once said "The Soviets are our adversaries, the Navy is our enemy.") but its kind of unfair to single them out for an "incestuous relationship" with the defense industry when pretty much the entire US armed forces are involved in one big incestuous orgy...

True about the fact it's endemic, but even the Air Force (traditionally the biggest offenders) and the Marine Corps (traditionally with ones with the biggest go feth yourself attitude) doesn't do it with the sheer balls the Navy does. It takes huge brass ones to tell Congress that a failed weapon program that will cost the lives of the Marines on the beach is 'acceptable' and then take fat paychecks from the companies that profited the most from that failed program.

Just going to throw it out there: This is in part due to the Navy's culture, where it breeds its officers as being "a world apart" from the enlisted. The Navy is, culturally, ass-backwards. Its the only branch where its a matter of policy for the officers to eat before enlisted, let alone the fact that the officers eat in a "wardroom" while the sailors go to the "mess", plus the seperate berthings, etc. etc. etc.

I don't really buy those yields, unless someone has made a a tremendous advancement in conventional explosives (though it might be FAE based, but still), and even if they had, it also changes how much firepower a battleship can lay down if it can be applied to a 16" shell. I want to file this one away with Hot Eagle which included (I gak you not) the ability to deploy a 13 marines via drop pod anywhere on Earth in half an hour. AFAIK the project was cancelled due to budgetary reasons (insert joke about the cost of a USMC battle-barge or strike cruiser here).

Well, I think part of it is that the yield is amplified by the kinetic energy generated on impact by a cruise missile traveling at Mach 20 (supposedly), which if you think about it isn't entirely unreasonable (the yield from those speeds, not necessarily the speed itself).

The Marines, maybe due to budget constraints, have always struck me as the service least likely to throw away a working weapons system for the new expensive defense contract system, like the Bradley for instance, there's a reason the marines will have nothing to do with it. Also they kept the M103 for almost twenty years after the army got rid of it

They have nothing to do with it because its too heavy to really be useful. M1's are technically "too heavy" as well, but they are used in a different manner doctrinally speaking, and in such limited quantities, that they can justify it. In any case, you should look up the EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) it might make you think twice about your stance.

I personally think the F-14 was a better dogfighter than the Super Hornet currently is, despite the latter's nimbleness. If somebody takes the fight vertical on you in a Super Bug, you're in a world of hurt. Of course, in both cases, the AIM-9X makes up for a world of deficiencies, and I think the F-14 would've been an incredibly difficult platform to beat if it'd ever gotten mated to the JHMCS and the 9X.

To this I will agree, but thats more because I think that the Super Hornet isn't a very good fighter in general (its much better in the ground attack role, hence the F/A designation, though it still ain't got gak on an A-10).

Budget considerations? The USMC is bigger than the British army (but not better ) and the British Army has a budget of what? £80 Billion? I don't think money is a problem for the USMC, especially, when the entire military budget is $600 billion per annum.

I don't really know the numbers for our allies all that well, but I do know that the USMC's problem (like the rest of the armed forces) is personnel costs.