Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

The Marine Corps is going back to it's roots. It's official.

Conducting amphibious assaults to establish advance naval bases and defending those bases.

Most remember what happened on August 7th, 1942 when the U.S. Navy put the 1st Mar Div. ashore on Gudacanal and before they could even unload one half of the Marines supplies, Admiral Ghoremly ordered his fleet to get out of harms way when he heard the IJN fleet was coming down the "Slot." For landlubbers, the U.S. Nabvy fled, ran away.

The Marines were on their own, no naval support, no air support, little ammunition and food. While every night the IJN would land fresh Jap reinforcements just a few miles up the coast.

Every night from then on Jap battleships and cruisers would come down the "Slot" uncontested bombarding the Marines who were ashore with really big guns and the only defense the Marines had were a few batteries of naval shore 5" guns.

FYI:
It was Admiral Ghoremly fleeing from the Japanese Navy that would lead to Admiral Nimitz replacing Ghoremly with Admiral "Bull" Halsey who had really big cajones and was willing to take the fight to the enemy.

 

Not yet...but that time is fast approaching, IMO.

 

Why do you think so? Basic m1a1 has roughly twice better protection than Iowa belt.

 

Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/

 

Depends on the particular Rocket Propelled Grenade you add into comparison. Early PG-7V grenade for RPG-7 would be roughtly 1/5th of Maveric. Latter tandem shot would be 1/2. RPG-30 should be ~20% less than Maverick in terms of armor penetration against homogenous steel.

That is not the point, though. Noone thinks that shooting RPG-7 at a battleship is a valid strategy.
The point is that in general the thickest place in battleship's armor is not that much to modern weapons, let alone the rest of a ship. T-54 model 1951 has turret's front armor equivalent between 200 and 400 mm of steel. Roughtly Yamato's armor levels. Much more than Alaska could ever dream of.
We are talking about 60th hand-held launchers, which are capable of making holes in it, let alone missile warheads with 600 kg of explosive worth shaped charges.

Dumb bombs and torpedoes sent a lot of battleships to the bottom during WW2 but somehow some people are confident that nowadays the very same torpedoes or missiles all of sudden are not capable of doing the same job.

 

Exactly what advanced naval bases do we need to conduct amphibious invasions for?

So you have to go back 70 years in order to find the last time the Marines were under serious shore bombardment? How does this justify wasting money on land based anti-ship missiles today?

 

The United States hasn't fought a naval war since WW ll.

The British have, the Falklands War.


Right now the U.S. Navy only has one forward naval base west of Hawaii.
Guam.
The same Guam that liberals say is so small if we put to many people on Guam that it will tip over and sink into the sea.
Why do Democrats send so many stupid people to Congress ???



Guam is so small and it's harbor and anchorage area and lack of piers and docks, that since WW ll Guam has only been used as a submarine base. But the U.S. Air Force does have Andersen Air Force Base where during the Vietnam War B-52's operated from bombing North Vietnam, Laos and the Ho Chi Mien Trail

But there's a huge problem with Andersen AFB, we no longer have the forward naval bases and air fields we use to have.

When I served we had Midway Island, Wake Island, Subic Bay and Clark AFB in the P.I.'s.

Guam today is with in missile range of main land China.
Knock out Clark air base runways you can't conduct flight operations for twelve or more hours until the runways are repaired by the engineers.

Any B-1, B-2 or B-52's and F-15's etc who are caught in the air low on fuel have no freaking place to go.

We no longer have Clark AFB in the P.I's and Obama took Midway Islands from the military and turned it over to the liberal environmentalist who allowed Midway to deteriorate that it's a disgrace what they did in the name of political correctness.
http://www.midway-island.com/

http://www.midway-island.com/bird-photos/before-and-after/

What few civilian airfields there are in the Marianas, the runways are to short and can't handle the weight of today's military aircraft and can't conduct military flight operations.

The USAF Pacific Command last year said that Andersen AFB on Guam needs two or three outlying auxiliary air bases that can be used as emergency landing fields and be able to conduct combat flight operations...right now.

If not and war with the Chi-Coms or Russia you will see U.S. Marines landing on islands to establish forward air bases for the USAF like we saw U.S. Marines doing in the Mariana's during WW ll.

The amphibious assaults conducted in the Caroline Islands and Marshal Islands in the Central Pacific were for establishing forward naval bases to support the U.S. Navy's fleets. The coral atolls that were picked to invade to establish forward naval bases was decided on how big the anchorage area was with in atoll lagoons.

ULITHI
Its existence kept secret throughout the war, the US naval base at Ulithi was for a time the world’s largest naval facility.
http://www.laffey.org/Ulithi/Page 1/Ulithi.htm



850 miles east of the Philippines, Ulithi Atoll provided the Navy and idyllic protected
anchorage as the U.S. Fleet fought its way ever closer to Tokyo Bay. This partioal view
of the fleet at anchor was taken late in 1944 when Ulithi saw its optimum use. A few
months later the world's largest naval facility became a ghost town.

Internet Start

Though Ulithi's recreational facilities were limited, it nevertheless gave sailors the
comfort of feeling sand rather than a ship's deck under their feet. Mogmog Island was
the fleet's mid-ocean beer garden. This was the beach on the inside of the lagoon.
There were beaches on the seaward side, but they were a bit more treacherous.


The amphibious assaults conducted in the Mariana Islands in the north western Central Pacific were for establishing forward air bases for the U.S. Army Air Forces.

Iwo Jima, one of the largest and bloodiest battles fought during WW ll. The largest amphibious landings ever conducted under one flag.

What was the purpose of invading the 8 sq. mi. Iwo Jima that cost the lives of 6,821 Marines and sailors with 19,217 wounded Marines and sailors ?

To establish an emergency auxiliary air field for crippled U.S. Army Air Forces B-29's.

6,821 Marines and sailors paid the ultimate price to save the lives of 20,000 American airmen of the USAAF who would have perished over the sea if we hadn't taken Iwo Jima. .

 

I know the reasoning in taking Iwo Jima but I've read that post World War II analysis indicates only a fraction of the claimed "20,000" airmen were actually saved by having it as an emergency recovery strip.

 

Not true. The deserts had been used for thousands of years, why would they suddenly be impassable now?

And I suggest you learn a bit more about the Marine operations in the Gulf War.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/battleships-pulled-off-the-biggest-ruse-of-operation-de-1754104974

As far as a cruise missile, why spend millions of dollars, when artillery rounds cost only a dozen thousand or so? And cruise missiles are also a piss-poor weapon to use against troops. They are not designed to be used that way (with the exception of our runway denial munitions - which we have agreed would not be used against troops).

I will say this yet again. Cruise missiles are designed to use against select targets. Runways, bridges, a command post, things like that. They are not designed to be used against tanks, troop concentrations, and things like that.

And to see how well that works, look to the actions President Clinton did. He would send a dozen or more million dollar cruise missiles against essentially troops in tents. And had almost no effect, other than a propaganda victory.

And in a great many situations, you will not have a carrier available. There was no carrier sitting off the coast of Beirut. They had the Marines on the ground, and the New Jersey off-shore. That was all they needed, a carrier would have not really given them any other
benefit.

You have to get to the missiles first, and they are in the bunkers. As for how many, who knows? It is not all that hard to hide the construction of a bunker.

And for the "bunker buster" weapons to be effective, you have to know where they are. That is why Battleships are so good for that kind of thing. They can lay barrages of hundreds of rounds and pepper a huge area. They will kill or damage whatever they hit, for a fraction of the cost and resources of high cost bombs, and the flight crews to fly them there.

And it is damned hard to shoot down a ship.

And the PATRIOT system can not operate in those conditions, that is why they are in the bunker. However, since they operate from prepared positions, they can be put back in place and operational in less than an hour (20 minutes if safety procedures are waived).

But for other systems? Well, many air defense systems (AVENGER or GOPHER for example) can be operational in minutes. Some versions of the SILKWORM can be fires in minutes also, so long as there are no friendly ships in the area. These can be fired blind with no RADAR, relying upon the on-board RADAR to acquire and attack any ships detected.

 

20,000 does seem rather high.

But there's more to the story, the USAAF P-51's that provided fighter escort for the B-29's bombing Japan.


P-51s at Iwo Jima preparing for escort mission to Japan

 

Stopped reading here. Apparently you are unaware of places called Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and Singapore.

 

TRACKLESS deserts have most definitely NOT been used as avenues of invasions for thousands of years.

No one had ever launched an invasion across the deserts hundreds of miles inland of the coast between Iraq and Saudi Arabia prior to 1991. The Iraqis weren't looking there because they didn't believe it could be done.

Why spend billions of dollars to man and maintain ships whose only purpose is just as easily served in the extremely rare chance that it occurs by cruise missiles that any destroyer can carry?

Or things like SAMs and ASM launchers. So you kill the SAMs, their radar, the ASM launchers, and crater the runways, and then who gives a flying **** what else they have on those islands? They aren't strategically important in a conflict except for their ability to interdict sea lanes, which would be eliminated by destroying their ability to launch air and missile attacks.

Its pretty hard to hide a bunker on artificial islands made out of dredged sand being constantly watched by the imagery intelligence services of multiple nations. And the missiles can't fire from the bunkers. So if you send a B-2 or other stealth aircraft in and collapse the bunker entrances, then those missiles might as well not exist.

Not going to hide bunkers on artificial islands. We'll know where they are.

And how long would it take for a F-35 moving at supersonic speeds to lay a load of JSOW's over the islands? More or less than 20 minutes?

 

The U.S. Navy has bases in Taiwan and Singapore?

 

Taiwan and Singapore have bases, use compatible equipment, and are our allies. So for all practical purposes, yes we do.

 

Taiwan and Singapore use B-1, B-52, and B-2 bombers, F-22 fighters, A-10 ground attack aircraft, Tomahawk cruise missiles

When is the last time the U.S. military staged combat formations out of Taiwan?

 

Those bases or stations are on foreign soil and are under control of the guest nations.

Actually there are no U.S. Naval facilities in Singapore, Taiwan or Australia, the U.S. Navy is allowed to make ports of call in these nations, just like when Royal Navy, French Navy or Japanese navy ships makes ports of calls in San Diego.

There is no U.S. Naval Ship Yard at the USN Yokosuka naval base which is a fleet support activities base for the logistic, administrative, recreational support of the USN 7th Fleet. The Japanese Self-Defense Forces defends and provides perimeter security at Yokosuka N.B. All American military personnel fall under Japanese laws on and off the base.

Where as the former U.S.N.B. Subic Bay and the former USAF Clark AFB were American sovereign territory that was under complete control of the U.S. military and it's military personnel on and off the base came under U.S. military jurisdiction not Philippine's jurisdiction.

It helps if one knows what the difference is between a U.S. Navy Base; Navy Station; Navy Ship Yard; Navy Depot; Naval Air Station, Naval Auxiliary Air Field; Navy Camp; Naval Weapons Station; Naval Ammunition Depot; Marine Barracks; Marine Base; etc.etc. All have different missions.

As you might have seen when I refer to the former Long Beach naval facility I will use Long Beach "Naval Base/Naval Station" since it's founding it has been classified as a Naval Air Base, Naval Reserve Training Camp, Naval Base, Naval Station, Support Activities Base during it's history. The Long Beach Naval Ship Yard was a completely separate facility next door to the Long Beach Naval Base/Station.

 

They use the same munitions and fuel that we do. That’s what really matters. The logistic support base is already there.

If the necessity arose, we could easily use them as a forward naval base.

 

And the practical difference in time of war is exactly what?

 

Taiwan and Singapore are both of course in very close proximity to China and in the case of a major war in the Pacific would be vulnerable to intimidation by the Chinese. Not to mention vulnerable to medium range ballistic missiles.

 

If the mission changes the classification of the facility changes.

During WW ll the same Long Beach naval facility was classified as a Naval Air Base, Naval Station and Naval Base.

In 1921 Marine Corps Base San Diego was commissioned. In 1948 the base became a Depot named Marine Corps Recruit Depot.(MCTRDSD)

For almost fifty years there was the Los Angeles Air Force Station. Today it's the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

In 1942 the MCAS El Centro was commissioned.

The mission changed in 1946 after WW ll and the Naval Air Facility El Centro was commissioned.

The mission for El Cento changed again and today it's El Cento Naval Air Station.

 

So none? The naval bases of our allies in Asia have no practical difference with US naval bases in time of war/crisis.

 

I'm trying to remember which overseas American military base on foreign soil that we were forbidden from conducting combat operations from ?

Was in in the 80's or 90's ?

Do you remember ?

Maybe it will come to my mind some time today.

When Reagan bombed Libya we were allowed by the UK to conduct combat operations from our U.S. Air Force Base in England.

U.S. military aircraft were also allowed to fly over France's air space but not allowed to fly over France while conducting combat operations. So our F-111's had to fly around France and be refueled in the air to bomb Libya.

Right now Russia, China, India are all in negations with Vietnam wanting to establish a naval shore support facility at Cam Ranh Bay. One of the conditions that Vietnam has is that who ever gets Cam Ranh Bay it can not be used for conducting fleet operations from, only logistical and administrative support.

Ports of call.

Hong Kong (Oct. 7, 2006) — Submarine tender USS Frank Cable (AS-40) tends deployed submarines USS Honolulu (SSN-71 and USS LaJolla (SSN-701) while anchored in Hong Kong Harbor. The tender's presence made it possible for the two submarines to make a port visit to the Asian metropolis as United States submarines are not allowed to moor to the mainland.


A Los Angeles-class, fast attack submarine USS Hampton moors alongside the submarine tender USS Frank Cable in Hong Kong waters May 17, 2011.

 

If you think that if the US and China got into a scrap over the area around the Philippines that Taiwan and Singapore are going to do anything other then declare themselves neutral and prohibit either side from using their bases, you must have rocks in your head.

We do not even recognize Taiwan (Formosa, Taipei, Cathay, Republic of China, take your pick), nor does the UN. They will stay completely out of any conflict unless they are directly attacked.

Because if they got involved they would undoubtedly be attacked by China.

 

There is a very important geopolitical term for such cases. It is known as "Finlandization". It stems from the influence that the Soviets were able to influence over Finland for their backing the Germans against them in WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

Anybody who thinks that neighbors not directly involved in a Sino-American War would jump in have rocks in their heads. About the only countries I would expect to join in outside of a UN response would be our traditional allies in Japan and some members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

 

During the strike on Libya in 1986, Both France & Spain forbid U.S. F-111s from overflying them enroute to the targets (and back).

In 2003, U.S. NATO ally Turkey refused to allow the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division to stage out of Turkey to attack into Iraq from the north.

In 1973, Operation Nickel Grass, U.S. NATO allies refused to allow our transport aircraft flying to Israel to overfly their territory.