Under Obama Army shrinks to smallest level since before World War II

Sounds like a great place to start cutting

 

Obama has been pretty busy purging the Officer Corps of all four services. But he always fast tracks some unqualified officer who's a yes man or yes woman and moves them into the empty position.

 

And you conveniently ignore that it has been pointed out many many times in that thread that you don't have to sink an Iowa to mission kill it. A SS-N-12 may not sink an Iowa but the fire and explosive damage it causes will render one combat ineffective.

 

Sounds like you have an opinion....nothing more

 

Navy deep strike is perfectly well handled by Tomahawk cruise missiles and the Super Hornet is just as capable of deep strike as the A-6, more so because it can actually defend itself.

We have less ships, we also have less real naval threats and our ships are far more capable. A single Arliegh Burke loaded with Tomahawks has more firepower than an entire battlegroup from your 900 ship navy days.

 

Supplement them with patrol ships and land based bombers equipped with long range anti-ship cruise missiles.

 

Not every AOR warrants a carrier. South America and Africa certainly don't.

 

In the modern world, keeping sea lanes open does not require carriers. You could do it with converted yachts (to take care of pirates) and minesweeper ships.

Seriously a navy designed to protect commerce would look nothing like the navy we have now.

 

Not an American Iowa class BB but the IJN battleship Kirishima.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

Not an Iowa class BB but the USS South Dakota and it took numerous hits from a Japanese battleship 14" guns and kept fighting.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis_Summary.pdf

Damage Review
Tabulation of all hits
The projectiles that caused each Hit as estimated in this essay:
Hit 1 – 6-inch Type 0 HE or Type 4 base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 2 – 14-inch Type 0 HE projectile
Hit 3 – 6-inch Type 0 HE or 5.5-inch Type 2 HE projectile
Hit 4 – 8-inch Type 91 AP projectile
Hit 5 – 8-inch Type 0 HE projectile
Hit 6 – 8-inch Type 91 AP projectile
Hit 7 – 5.5-inch base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 8 – 5.5-inch base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 9 – 8-inch Type 91 AP projectile
Hit 10 – 8-inch Type 91 AP projectile
Hit 11 – 14-inch Type 0 HE projectile
Hit 12 – 5.5-inch base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 13 – 6-inch Type 4 base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 14 – 6-inch Type 4 base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 15 – 14-inch Type 3 Incendiary AA projectile
Hit 16 – 6-inch Type 4 base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 17 – 8-inch Type 91 AP projectile
Hit 18 – 6-inch Type 4 base-fuzed Common projectile
Hit 19 – 5.5-inch base-fuzed Common projectile or 6-inch Type 4 Common projectile
Hit 20 – 6-inch Type 4 base fuze Common projectile
Hit 21 – 14-inch Type 1 AP cap head and windscreen
Hit 22 – 5-inch Type 0 HE projectile
Hit 23 – 14-inch Type 3 Incendiary AA projectile
Hit 24 – 6-inch Type 0 HE projectile
Hit 25 – 8-inch Type 91 AP projectile
Hit 26 – 14-inch Type 1 AP projectile
Hit 27 – 5-inch Type 0 HE projectile or fragment damage

 

And how many of those ships were covered in a couple tons of burning toxic rocket fuel that says "(*)(*)(*)(*) you" to water?

 

An SS-N-12 is a missile with a NUCLEAR warhead. The "N" in the designation.

Of course it is going to destroy any ship it hits.

What are you thinking???

- - - Updated - - -

Really? What about these Chinese and Russian cruise missiles everyone keeps saying that can destroy or mission kill U.S. aircraft carriers.

How would your "yachts" work against them?

- - - Updated - - -

How many of each?

 

And if that "single Burke" is sunk or put out of action, the equivalent of an entire battlegroup is neutralized.

Not to mention the "single Burke" can't be in more than one place at once.

And an F/A-18 doesn't remotely have the strike radius of an A-6 Intruder.

 

No it doesn't, a carrier air wing back during the Vietnam war had greater range than todays FA-18 Super Hornets and could carry a larger payload. F-4 Phantoms, A-7 Corsairs, A-6 Intruders, F-8 Crusaders (aka Mig Killer), A-4 Skyhawks, A-1 Skyraiders and of course the big boys the A-3 Skywarriors and the A-5 Vigilante when you really had to reach out and touch someone with nukes.

Back then the U.S. Navy was capable of providing NSFS for the Marines. Today the Navy isn't capable of providing NSFS that is required with just one or two 5"/54 popguns.

No gun cruisers today like the Des Moines class and Boston class 8" gun cruisers or the Worcester and Cleveland class 6" gun cruiser.


When I served we had...
23 aircraft carriers
1 battleship the USS New Jersey
35 cruisers
219 destroyers
50 frigates
105 attack submarines
41 SSBNS boomers
84 mine warfare ships
157 amphibious ships
210 auxiliaries

Today Obama's PC navy consist of...
10 carriers
22 cruisers
62 destroyers
No frigates
5 LCS (aka Little Crappy Ship)
54 attack subs
14 SSBN boomers
11 mine warfare ships
30 amphibious ships
59 auxiliaries

Note: 1/2 of Obama's PC navy ships aren't capable of putting to sea and being able to fight.



The Navy's Tomahawk cruise missiles are subsonic and easy to shoot down. They are land attack only capable of hitting targets that aren't moving. The U.S. Navy doesn't have a Tomahawk that's able to be used in naval surface warfare that can hit a ship that is moving.

But that will be changing probably in 2022 when the first anti-ship Tomahawks start entering the fleet.

Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles are only used during the opening stages of combat targeting C&CC, radar sites and SAM's sometimes an aspirin factory.


Harpoon anti ship missiles, small warhead and again subsonic.

 

Uh no. The "N" in SS-N-12 stands for "Naval"' meant to distinguish it from the SS-12' a land based ballistic missile.

But thank you for demonstrating you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what you are talking about. It means that no one needs to take anything else you post on this topic seriously.

Why would the Russians or Chinese close sea lanes? Their economies are dependent on foreign trade.

Patrol ships? A few dozen. Bombers? Enough to launch a 1000 missile strike on a fleet.

 

With mid-air refueling, yes it does.

How many places does the US Navy need to be in? There are what? Like 20 real naval crisis zones in the entire world?

 

And I bring up again, how many Marine missions have failed because we only have "popguns"? What was the count again? Oh yeah, zero.

The Marines aren't going to be battering their heads against hardened fixed defenses like they did in WW2. The entire point of modern amphibious warfare is to avoid defended beaches.

 

Warships are compartmentalized all with water tight and blast proof hatchets.

If you ever been on a warship when the claxton is sounded and general orders or battlestations is sounded you have to be quick on your feet because every hatch on the ship is being secured and you could find yourself trapped in come compartment.

The U.S. Navy is known for it's battle damage procedures, every sailor is a fireman. All warships are equipped to use fire retardants on fuel fires.

 

It is true that we are totally unprepared to fight a wwIi war
Otoh
Any branch of are current armed forces would quickly obliterate out large wwIi army

Saddam hussein did not lose from a shortage of men or tanks

 

Air to air refueling isn't always available. It is an extra step requiring extra aircraft for a given mission.

- - - Updated - - -

Big deal. I make one mistake in half a decade or more of posting.

Your entire concept of national defense are hideously flawed.

- - - Updated - - -

Big deal. I make one mistake in half a decade or more of posting.

Your entire concept of national defense are hideously flawed.

 

how about we add a war tax to pay that extra cost of war and taking care of our soldiers when thy return

 

I wonder if those small islands in the South China sea will be defended ?

Been studying the satellite images of what the chi-coms have been building. Those are awful large concrete plants, more concrete than needed for building a runway.

What could they be building to defend these islands ?

Well if I were a chi-com I would be studying the battle of Iwo Jima, paying very close attention to this study. -> IWO JIMA NAVAL GUNFIRE SUPPORT -> http://www.allworldwars.com/Iwo-Jima-Naval-Gunfire-Support.html

 

I'm pretty sure Bernie has included a war tax in his proposed $18 trillion dollars tax increase.

 

Could be trying to turn it into Iwo Jima 2.

 

That's..The whole island is a bunker.It didn't exactly work for the Japanese.
Q:Why is it there are no Japanese posters on this forum?
Also:I find it hard to seriously to consider a nation the US's ally when they did what they did in WW2.
Nothing against Japanese people but..They attacked us.

 

Indeed. I've heard forumites claim we forced Japan to attack us-yeah right. Im sure we forced them to invade manchuria too.

Our own POTUS would apologize for dropping the bomb if he could stand the political repercussions.