IN RESPONSE TO FREM ABOUT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

IN RESPONSE TO FREM ABOUT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 08:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 842
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, July 25, 2008 4:05 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I do not feel that the aircraft carrier is an outdated or useless technology. It IS a very expensive technology, but it has good uses.

In Defense of the Aircraft Carrier:

Q1) Aren't aircraft carriers just sitting ducks, able to be swarmed and destroyed by multiple civilian craft?

A1) That's a good question. During World War II, the danger of swarming, suicide vehicles became well understood. In that case, the Kamikaze. While Kamikaze attacks did more to deplete the enemy of pilots than it did to deplete the US of warships, it was nontheless a frightening tactic. Dozens of vehicles piloted by men who were willing to die to destroy their targets are difficult to stop in a swarmed attack. Indeed, many warships were severely damaged and a few were sunk due to Kamikaze attacks. Nowadays, the threat of speedboat swarms has become a reality that needs to be dealt with. Speedboats need fairly little expertise to pilot, so an enemy need never run out of pilots the way the Japanese did. They can send boats until all the boats are gone.

However, just as the threat of submarines did not end the era of surface craft, the threat of speedboats does not end the era of Aircraft Carriers. There was a threat before the Kamikaze that was very similar to the 'speedboat swarm' threat of today. Think back to World War I, when small, fast, maneuverable torpedo boats gave great alarm to the Navies of the world. Dozens of these inexpensive boats could be launched to fire vast quantities of torpedoes at naval squadrons. If they were sunk in the process, it was of little import, because they were cheap to build and easy to crew. This danger gave rise to a special ship called the torpedo boat destroyer, designed to intercept and destroy the torpedo boats before they could sink a squadron of ships. Torpedo boats, confronted with this countermeasure, gradually faded away, and torpedo boat destroyers then evolved into a completely different kind of ship as a result.

As such, the proper response to the threat of speedboat swarms is not to retire our carrier fleet, but rather to adjust our tactics. I expect to see two things happen. First, I expect that Aircraft Carriers will be stationed far enough from shore that any approaching vessels will be detected long before they arrive. Second, I expect the navy to field a 'screening' vehicle exactly like the destroyers of old, specifically designed to intercept and destroy small, fast attackers before they can close within killing range. This vehicle may be a purpose dedicated ship or aircraft, depending on what will accomplish the goal best.

Q2) But why bother with all that changing of tactics, and the designing and building of screening vehicles? Isn't the Aircraft Carrier just a weapon of aggression that has no role in defending our country?

A2) It certainly might seem that way. However, it is important to note that 'defense' is a much more complicated term that you might think. Defending oneself does not mean standing idly by and trying to kill people who come by and try to kill you. A purely defensive posture is generally a losing proposition, because an enemy can regroup and keep attacking indefinitely. Once attacked, it is important to be able to retaliate on enemy territory. The aggressors ability to wage war must be eliminated. A Navy is the only reliable way to get troops and war machines to the enemy, and an Aircraft Carrier is the best way to project air dominance over the theater of combat.

Q3) But we aren't using the Aircraft Carriers to retaliate against aggressors. We're using them to conquer countries that offend our sensibilities or who have resources we covet!

A3) It is not the Aircraft Carrier's fault if our leaders misuse them. Might as well blame the hammer when you hit your thumb.

Q4) Aircraft Carriers are expensive! We could use that money elsewhere!

A4) Aircraft Carriers are very expensive, and we could probably field fewer of them and still retain our military dominance in the world. I think we should be content with one aircraft carrier in each ocean, with two more stationed at home for maintenance and national defense and rescue duty. The rest of the carriers could be retired, for all I care, and the savings could be put into National Improvement Projects.

Q5) Aircraft Carriers have no utility outside of warfare!

A5) Not true. They can turn seawater into freshwater and they can field rescue and cargo helicopters to assist people after a natural disaster. And while they aren't hospital ships, they do have extensive medical facilites. I would say that Aircraft Carriers could have a major disaster rescue role, if the government is so inclined to use them that way.

I hope that this is a thoughtful defense of the Aircraft Carrier, our most versatile surface ship in the Navy.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:58 AM

ELVISCHRIST

Anthony:

Thanks for that well-reasoned response.

A few things should be noted in addition to what you've already pointed out:

1) An aircraft carrier never goes anywhere alone. It is typically the center of a Carrier Battle Group, surrounded by support craft. At times, the mere appearance of a Carrier Battle Group off the shores of an unstable area is enough to defuse the situation.

2) Carriers are intended to project airpower and to establish and maintain air superiority. As was discovered early on in WWII, he who controls the air controls the battle. As such, a carrier's "umbrella" of control extends well beyond the visible horizon. In other words, if you SEE an aircraft carrier, you're not the one at war with it. You're not going to "swarm" a carrier battle group with speedboats very effectively in the open ocean.

3) After the Falkland Islands war and the damage inflicted by Exocet missiles on British warships, much attention was paid to dealing with surface-level and low-flying threats to warships. This led to the introduction of the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS). Actually, the Phalanx had been in development for nearly a decade prior to the Falklands war, but that conflict intensified the need for fast-responding close-in support for naval fleets.

The Phalanx uses an automated, computer-driven Vulcan Gatling cannon to locate and target inbound threats, and then lays a "wall" of defensive fire at the target(s). Most of the US Navy's ships are now equipped with the Phalanx system, meaning it would be very difficult for any enemy to get close enough to damage one of our carriers.

An exercise like Frem talked about in which several warships were damaged or destroyed by "swarming" doesn't mean that warships are obsolete - only that there are new tactics that must be dealt with. Or, to look at it another way... Does the fact that terrorists used airliners on September 11 (and destroyed several of them in the process) mean that airliners are obsolete?

Takin' Care of Business, Baby!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 26, 2008 9:18 PM

FREMDFIRMA

You know, I didn't really expect a response to said Anvilicious rant, much less a well reasoned one, but hey thanks, twice over for putting it in it's own thread where it properly belongs.

You forgot one other role of the Carrier though, in it's defense, it's also an excellent platform for delivering combat-ready aircraft with full loadouts to newly built airbases in the combat theatre.

Otherwise the planes have to be uncrated, assembled, function-checked, loaded out, fueled up, etc.... but with a carrier you just fly em in, land em, and they're prettymuch good to go.

And yes, they do have uses outside of combat, but we really DON'T need more than three of the freakin things, one off each coast and one in the gulf would do perfectly fine as both utility, training base and deterrent.

But currently, we're using them in a role that has utterly nothing to do with national defense, and using them stupidly besides, in a confined area that takes away their best defenses, distance from the enemy and fast mobility.

As for their escorts, the escort they have is insufficient to adequately protect them in the situation, especially against the three primary threats they would face, likely all three at once if Iran wanted them gone badly enough to provoke us that way.

Firstly, they have a damn plethora of surface skimmer missles, I forget what they're called, but it's a soviet design capable of Mach2 or better, and at THAT speed, it's payload is almost an afterthought since the sheer kinetic energy of the hit would be devastating - they're VERY hard to catch with our current radar systems unless the launch is detected, and against a multiple launch the Phalanx system would be of limited effectiveness.

Subset of this would be plane launched Exocets or similar, but Phalanx is quite effective against THAT threat, and while not fond of our military in general, it's an out and out fact that if you put your airforce up against USN and Air Force pilots, in about a week, you HAVE no air force - so that threat is of less significance.

They also have three Kilo class subs, which are damnedably hard to detect, yet small enough to maneuver - it's unlikely they'd favor a direct engagement in daylight, but might pop a few torps at extreme range as a harassment gesture.

The primary threat from these, however, is that they would immediately slam closed the Strait of Hormuz on us, the Kilo can be equipped to deploy mines although we've no idea if these three have that capability - mostly it would make conventional resupply/refuel a suicide mission, and without fuel the escort craft and planes would soon be a non-factor.

I also wouldn't reccommend trying to use OUR subs in there for anything but launch platforms for Tomahawks, cause for one they are too big, and more easily detectable, even the Los Angeles class, and the Virginias just aren't ready (being "built by committee" has that effect).

And let's not talk about Seawolf, lol... you can practically hear THAT thing comin with the unaided ear, unless they're sitting on the bottom in the middle of a reactor scram, which they usually are.

And the third threat is of course from swamping with civvie speedboats as adapted launch platforms or simply configured as bombs themselves, with disposable pilot or remote operated.

That would likely be done either as an opening gambit, or reserved for a third or fourth stage after they've cut off the Strait and worn them down a bit.

In the current tactical situation, they really are sitting ducks, and there's not really so much a way around it due to the confines of the area they're operating in - it's a lot like trying to use tanks in an urban environment, you can DO it, but it's so stupid it just plainly defies belief.

If we do manage to provoke Iran into a shooting war, we WILL lose most if not all of that fleet, some of which is in such poor shape from years of service and then being yanked out of mothballs, that their operational efficicency is under 40% in some cases.

It does give me to wondering, and believe me, some of the CREW of these boats have quietly wondered, if they aren't SUPPOSED to be slaughtered to provide a handy excuse - you can imagine morale on a couple of those boats ain't all that, yes ?

Anyhows, my primary concern isn't so much the loss of the vessels, which would suck, and the loss of the personnel would be tragic, sure - as much as in one days operation they consume a tremendous amount of fuel and resources that isn't actually accomplishing anything but pissing off the rest of the planet at us.

Surely we have better uses for that fuel and resources ?

Hell, gimme a couple of those rustbuckets that are about to heel over and sink without any help from the enemy, and recycle the damn steel to repair some of the bridges around here that are about to fall down for lack of maintainence since this stupid war is sucking up every goddamn penny and leaving nothing left for infrastructure.

Mostly I am sick of paying tribute to the Mil-Industrial Complex and funding the aggressive dreams of petty men drunk with their own sense of grandiose importance who delude themselves into thinking this whole mess is anything but a mountain of epic fail that is going to blowback on us for fifty years and more.

Even a monkey eventually lets GO of the banana to get it's hand out of the jar, yes ?

Are we not smarter than a monkey ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 27, 2008 5:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Frem - as usual, I find myself in general agreement with most of your thinking. Or as Zoe would say, "I don't disagree with any particular point, sir."

Yes, carriers have their uses, and likely will for the foreseeable future. And yes, we are tending to use them in the wrong context in this engagement. And, as you've pointed out, it really does make one wonder if that isn't the entire point of the exercise: goad the Iranians into firing the first shot in a war we seem to so desperately want - and if we have to sacrifice a few hundred or a few thousand of our brave men and women in uniform in order to get the nation behind the cause, then so be it, right?

Mainly, I just wanted to point out that if a set of tactics or a tool for doing something isn't working in one instance, it's not automatically a reason for scrapping the tool entirely, which is kind of what you seemed to be saying in your "rant". I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I may have simply misinterpreted your meaning. It just feels like, more and more, I hear people on all sides saying "This isn't working like we hoped. Let's ditch it." From the right, we hear "Social Security isn't working, so we need to dump it," or , "Public education is failing, so let's kill it." There never seems to be any GOOD alternative promoted; just kill what you don't like. Yes, those programs have problems, but what are the problems that will be brought on by simply doing away with them altogether? Would we be a BETTER nation if more of our people were uneducated? Is education only an option for the wealthy? Do we do away with public schools only to swamp our private schools with underfunded students?

And who says that private schooling is any better? Remember, George W. Bush is the product of a very expensive private education and an Ivy League college education. Does he seem "smart" or well-educated to anyone here?

Didn't mean to try to change tracks there; just trying to point out an analogy. If things aren't working out, we don't necessarily have to walk away; we can change tactics and adjust our tools to the task at hand (you wouldn't use a 12-pound sledgehammer to hang drywall, right?), not just throw down the tools and quit the job.

Back to the task at hand - how do we best use an aircraft carrier in this situation? How do we best defend it? How do we defend it against "the swarm"? Maybe it's something as simple as adapting something like an A-10 or an Apache into a naval defense aircraft. Either of those could probably do well against swarms of speedboats. Both craft are well-armed, well-armored, and highly maneuverable against multiple targets. They're designed to dance through tank battalions, after all; seems dancing their way through swarms of speedboats would be child's play.

Just thinkin' out loud, is all...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 27, 2008 7:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think we are all in agreement...

Fewer Carriers, Better Tactics, Better Purposes.

All faults of 'the man' and not the machine, no?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 27, 2008 10:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Prettymuch.

I've never liked the things, and consider them relics of a bygone era of warfare, but since we do got em, why waste em - they would indeed be useful as mobile bases for training, as a deterrent, and as rescue/relief operations.

Hell, just one carrier in the Gulf of Mexico to assist with the Katrina mess could have done a LOT of good, from providing fresh water, to fatigue parties and medevac, it would have made a hell of a difference yeah.

RE: A-10's as air cover

I dunno if it's doable, but to even TRY would scare the everliving shit out of anyone bent on swarm tactics, especially if they've ever seen what's left of a target when an A-10 has "serviced" it.

Hind pilots live in MORTAL dread of the damn thing because it can outrun them, gun-kill them before they can get lock on it, AND none of their primary armament is likely to do enough damage to do more than piss off the A-10 pilot.

Only twice have Hind's tried to engage a warthog, and both were promptly slapped from the sky without so much as a blink - and the occassional fighter finding itself anywhere NEAR that gun will run like hell, bullets the size of milk bottles are no joke, and the Warthog can damn near spin in place to lay the gun, it's a running joke amongst hog pilots, that if you DO see an enemy fighter just swing the main gun at them and invest in an underwear company.

Back in the day, the sound of a Huey would utterly terrify our foes vastly out of proportion to any damage it could really do - that role has been supplanted by the Warthog in the modern era, as it's more of a personal touch than a tomahawk or LGB, damned accurate, damned effective, and utterly terrifying to the putative "bad guys".

Even if they COULDN'T effectively do the job, simply putting them up there would accomplish a hell of a lot of deterrent force on fear alone.

Why one death instead of any other would terrify folk so, I dunno, but the mind works in mysterious ways sometimes, and that flying horror gives even hardened fanatics the willies.

And I am ALL FOR that, since I hate fanatics of any stripe regardless.

Anyhow, it's not a bad idea at all.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 27, 2008 10:07 AM

FREMDFIRMA

LMAO... I just HAVE to add this.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/warthog.html

Got a way with words, he does...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 27, 2008 12:53 PM

KWICKO

Sooooo... How difficult would it be to adapt the Warthog to naval service? It's already tough as nails, so it could handle carrier landings. It's slow, so getting it up to take-off speed would be a snap - catapults can fling F/A-18s, Vikings, and F-14 Tomcats off a carrier with ease, and those all have much higher take-off velocities than a 'Hog. Build some folding wings for the pig, and it's as stowable as any other naval aircraft.

As I see it, you wouldn't even need ALL of the armaments designed to be used by the A-10 - just load up that cannon with max rounds, maybe bolt another under each wing, and go to town. Instant "fleet defense aircraft". Put up an umbrella of four to eight of 'em, and you're pretty much safe from "The Swarm".

Next comes how to defend against Kilo-class subs and Mach 2 anti-shipping missiles. That could be a tougher nut to crack...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:35 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

I don't agree with the original Q4/A4.
We barely have enough. We need another or 2.

SocSec? Now that's something we truly need less of, save money there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 28, 2008 4:03 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
RE: A-10's as air cover

I dunno if it's doable, but to even TRY would scare the everliving shit out of anyone...

...anyone not flying a Soviet Bomber loaded with cruise missles attacking from a hundred miles away.

I'm a fan of the A-10. It was designed to kill Soviet tanks. It is very effective in that role.

Its low speed and limited stand off ability made it especially vulnerable to shoulder fired SAMs and the Soviet's very effective line of self-propelled Air Defense Artillery.

I do not think a plan such as the A-10 is suitable for any other role and, given the standoff attack ability of modern aircraft, the A-10 is best suited for use in the National Guard or for sale to other nations.

Geez...next you'll be wanting to dig up a squadron of F-111s.

Oh, and nuclear carriers rock...except in brown water areas like the South China Sea where they are vulnerable to diesel-electric subs. They should be very well protected if venturing in such an area against a well armed enemy.

Edited to add: More A-10s were brought down by the Iraqis in 1991 then any other type of aircraft. Most were shot down during the second half of the campaign since the planes are combat support aircraft and not strategic bombers or air-superiority fighters, and thus the A-10s were not widely employed during the initial phase of the air campaign. Like the overall campaign, however, aircraft losses for the A-10 were far below expectations. (Overall losses amounted to something along the lines of 2 tenths of a percent for the total air combat sorties flown).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 28, 2008 6:26 AM

KWICKO

Hero, you don't actually think I'm proposing something like the A-10 as the ONLY naval aircraft in the inventory, do you? Its role would be essentially the same as it is for the ground forces - close air support. A maneuverable, fast-moving (compared to a surface ship, anyway) gun platform to keep small targets away from the main battle group - much in the same way they are now used to keep main battle tanks from being able to join in ground battles.

The fighters, EW (electronic warfare, or jammer craft) planes, and such would keep their current role. Think of the Warthog as more of a replacement for the A6 Avenger, not the faster fighters or fighter-bombers.

And F111s? Once the Air Force actually picked a role for them, instead of trying to cram them into a multi-purpose, do-everything role they were never designed for, they actually did a fine job. They did great work in Libya in the 80s, and they did great in Iraq in '91.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 28, 2008 7:58 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
A maneuverable, fast-moving (compared to a surface ship, anyway) gun platform to keep small targets away from the main battle group,,,Think of the Warthog as more of a replacement for the A6 Avenger,

I'm not sure what aircraft your talking about.

If its the A-6 Intruder, your talking about a long range fighter-bomber that saw its best action during Vietnam and was later revamped into a multi-service airframe that could serve as an EW platform, SAM Suppresser (Wild Weasel), and tanker.

If your talking about the old prop plane torpedo bomber from WW2 that served in various forms even into Vietnam in close air support roles...then that role was filled by the faster and better armed aircraft like the AV-8 Harrier (now the Harrier II) and Cobra Gunships.

The A-10 carried a 30mm GAU Gatling Gun and could also carry laser guided bombs and Maverick Missles. It had no Air to Air capacity. Max speed 518mph. $11 million.

The AV-8B Harrier II could carry a 25mm cannon, Maverick or Harpoon (anti-ship) Missiles, Laser Guided bombs of all types, a targeting pod, and up to four Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAMS. Max speed 675mph...and it can fracking hover. $35 million.

Now you'll say thats the Marines...what does the carrier have that compares. Well its got a little something called a carrier battlegroup. Thats frigates and cruisers mounting surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, lots of guns including a number of Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CAWS). The CAWS is so effective the Army just started deploying a ground-based version, the C-RAM to counter rockets, artillery, and morters.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 28, 2008 1:14 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

I'm not sure what aircraft your talking about.

Whoops - I screwed the pooch on that one. I was indeed referring to the A6 Intruder, not the TBM Avenger of WWII. Sorry for the mixup. Brainfart, or lack of Red Bull.

I mentioned the Phalanx CIWS earlier on in this thread, but I was thinking of the Warty as something that could better deal with small surface craft at a range much further out than the Phalanx can engage them, as a direct tactic to deter or destroy the kind of swarming attack of small speedboats to which Frem referred.

The Warty would be excellent in such a close-air-support role at sea, as it is in land-based battles, in my opinion. And I'm sure you realize that the higher number of A10 shootdowns by the Iraqis also takes into account the fact that these aircraft and their pilots are SUPPOSED to go directly into the face of the enemy, at very close ranges. Those are the kinds of conditions that will lead to more hits and more damage to your aircraft, just by dint of the fact that if you're flying a hundred feet above a tank battalion, and EVERYONE is shooting at you with everything they've got, some of it's bound to hit you. I wouldn't say that makes the A10 less effective as a close support aircraft.

I'm certainly not advocating any kind of air-to-air role for the A10, unless you want to use it against helicopters. It's just not suited to go up against fighters.

As for weaponry, I'm sure the anti-ship missiles of the Harrier could be hung from the wings of a 'Hog. The Harrier has really never been that effective a weapons system. It's too slow to be an effective threat against fighters (but makes a nice, easy target for them), and it's not rugged enough to be very useful for close air support. Hovering is a cute trick at air shows, but in a battlefield situation, it makes you a REALLY tasty target and a sitting duck, and the Harrier can't really transition from hovering to hauling ass anywhere near quick enough to outrun anything.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 28, 2008 1:17 PM

KWICKO

Also, I'll be interested to see how the land-based Phalanx system works out. It's a good system, but it's not foolproof. It has fired upon our own ships, and it's shot down one of our planes that was towing a target drone - the Phalanx didn't know the difference between the drone and the plane, or which one was supposed to be the real threat, so it shot down the plane. Whoopsie!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 28, 2008 3:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Exactly.

No one is proposing expanding the role of the A-10 to air combat, it's not suited for it.

But within it's envelope, the things it IS designed for, it's damn near Machina Ex Deus.

It would be QUITE effective as a deterrent against any attempt to swarm our guys with armed civvie boats, but you really would wanna have something else in the deck to play against real fighters, sure.

Consider well that for all my bitchin about military spending, the A-10 is one thing I do NOT begrudge, it's inexpensive yet durable, extremely efficient in it's chosen role, and a key part of our ground support arsenal which delivers a massive bang for the buck when it comes to cost efficiency.

When you wanna put some lead into a flock of ground targets, and accuracy/potency MATTERS, the Hog is your go-to guy for the task.

Just think of the little nasty boats as oncoming tanks, and do what you do, no worries.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:12 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It would be QUITE effective as a deterrent against any attempt to swarm our guys with armed civvie boats, but you really would wanna have something else in the deck to play against real fighters, sure.

I think attack helicopters would be better suited then A-10s. You don't need a tank buster to sink fiberglass boats. That's a waste of resources.

Also speedboats are speedy and fairly manuverable, tanks are not. It might be a problem for a plane with the flight profile of an A-10 (slow, handles like a schoolbus). I'm sure if you got all the speedboats to line up and go the same direction and speed in rigid formation (per Soviet doctrine) then the A-10 would serve.

You might consider some kind of drone, but I think deck guns from the escorts for range work, and .50 cals for close in. Or use .50 cals mounted on SeaKings or the chin cannons on SeaCobra Attack Helicopters.

Save your A-10s for tearing up Chinese Armored formations, second-line Russian motorized infantry, and cast off Soviet crap being used in Korea, Iran, or Venezuela.

And don't forget the F/A-18 is pretty darn effective as close air support.

Oh, and my point about the air-to-air role is that there are other aircraft capable of the A-10s air-to-surface role that can engage in air-to-air combat. Multi-role platforms are the best use of resources.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:22 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Multi-role platforms are the best use of resources.

I tend to disagree with that statement. Multi-role platforms are the BEANCOUNTER'S idea of the best use of resources. See the F-111 - it was hamstrung with the ever-changing, ever-more-multi-role mission profile, until what you ended up with was a plane that was capable of many things, and good at none of them.

Also, look up the history of the world's first production jet fighter, the Messerschmidt Me-262. It was brilliant, far, FAR faster than anything the Allies could throw at it. In technology, it was a quantum leap over everything that had come before it. It could tear through bomber formations at will, and then simply walk away from enemy fighters like they were standing still. And Hitler, in his "wisdom", decided to pull it off fighter duty and utilize it as a light bomber.

The A-6 Intruder is a good attack bomber, and a lousy fighter. You don't go up against MiGs with it, because you'll lose. You use fighter escorts to draw off the attackers.

I'm fine with the idea of attack helicopters for fleet use, though. I'm right with ya on that one. Adapt the AH-64 Apache, or the new Commanche, to give it some at-sea capabilities, and you've made it that much more useful. Hell, you could even fly them off cruisers and destroyers, to give the fleet that many more eyes in the sky and that much bigger an air-superiority (and surface-superiority) umbrella.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:38 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I don't think it really matters what the solution is, exactly. The point being that the Navy can and will find a solution, in a combination of tactics and equipment, for each new threat that presents itself.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:41 AM

KWICKO

Bingo. We seem to have a general consensus that there IS a solution, and that the carrier itself is not an obsolete idea...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE