Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USA vs EU
gixxxerking    1/6/2005 6:13:25 PM
This is the mood in the Fighters forums so I thought I would just declare war here instead. C'mon all you armchair generals, who wins this fight?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Bluewings    RE:Reality check .   1/12/2005 2:12:26 PM
You are right ex-98C . I was just refering to the futur , maybe in 20 years time ... Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Scenarios ...Bluewings   1/12/2005 2:49:29 PM
Before we start let me add some things. About logistics. In this scenario, I am acting as US Commander. So when I say I send 4 Carriers, my staff takes care of the implied task. So as long as what I say is reasonably possible, please lets not digress. Example, "8 Raptors enter EU airspace from CONUS". I know that they would need to refuel over the ocean both to and from their target. Or that TLAMs crater runways, I know that requires submunition warhead and Staff will see to it that such warheads are used. Thats how it worked for me in real life. My NCO's and subordinate Officers made it happen. So with that said lets go, Bluewings, It is reasonable to assume the SSKs will not be a problem in the open ocean. The Carrier Strike Group would not travel in straigh lines or along established sea lanes. This would give me a reasonable chance to avoid SSK in the open ocean. Not to mention the difficulty of SSks operating that far out. As for the SSNs, I would expect to encounter them in the open ocean. I will assume that at some point EU realizes that I am likely to attack. The only question is when and how. So lets assume that at 2000nm away from EU coast line, Your EW radar detects US Carrier and EU decides to respond. I do not think your SSNs would be following the CSG traveling at 25 knots because it would make you vulnerable to detection. I do think you would position your SSNs between the CSG and the EU. I would have the advantage of knowing the routes to position my 4 Carriers within 500 KM of your coast. Along those routes, I would position a few, about 8, SSNs at key points to listen for approaching EU SSNs. ASW aircraft would be aggressively clearing the sea along the routes just ahead of the CSG. Each of my CSG would have 2 SSN in direct support. So thats 16 US SSNs, 50+ embarked ASW aircraft and Support from land based P-3 to cover my transit of the Atlantic. USN would be weapons free for any unidentified Sub Surface contacts. This would be a reasonable defense against the 6 Rubis Class and 11 UK SSNs. SIGINT/ELINT would likely alert me if you were preparing a large scale attack. My Carriers would be grouped in twos initially Also Each CSG would have an ARG configured for Sea Control. So that would be 28 F-14D, 72 F/A-18E, 40 AV-8B in addition to AEGIS ships for air defence for each of the two groups. Because of the comming war I would also bring the Pheonix AAM back into service. This is in addition to land based F-15s/AWACS from Greenland on long range CAP. This would protect from EU air attack. Back in CONUS, B-2, B-1, B-52, F-15E and F-117 would be on Standby to to launch precision strikes with stand off weapons if you attempt to interdict my cross Atlantic Journey. No Aircraft, except B-2/F-117, would have to approach closer than 200 NM to deploy current US weaponry. Targets would be EW radar and communications. The F-117s would target military political leadership in a Decapitation/Psycological operations mission. SOF secretly deployed to EU would also target Nostadamus/Communications nodes/Military Political Leaders. link link link link The four links above discuss possible US ASAT capability. It would not be illogical to believe that classified programs exist that would allow the US to destroy satellites if they were determined to be national security threats. If these capabilities are currently not active. It is not unreasonable to say that they could be developed rapidly in a national crisis. War with the EU would be a national crisis of unprecedented magnitude. At the very least US Space craft could deploy debris in the orbits of EU satellites to collide with them. So any attempted interdiction of USN forces would brng the destruction of EU space assets. As an additional deterent. US SSNs, would be tasked to be prepared to destroy the 3 UK, 1 French, 1 Spanish and 1 Italian aircraft carriers on order in response to EU aggression in the Atlantic. I would also develop a form of Aerial Guerrilla Warfare centered on the limited numbers of USAF F-22 Raptors now being brought into service in limited numbers. The Two prototype YF-23 Fighters would also be pressed into service as well. These aircraft would be CONUS and Israeli based with attached tanker support. If hostilities broke out prematurely. They would use stealth and supercruise to hunt down and kill EU AWACS and TANKER aircraft. My reserve would be 2 more CSGs in CONUS territorial waters. Bluewings and others, thoughs/comments? Do you think this would allow me to get to the EU coast line
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    I dont know about some of you...   1/12/2005 2:52:32 PM
...but I learn a lot when we argue like this. Apologies to you HorribleSailor if you got offended. But the personal attacks got a little old and I was compelled to respond. So lets continue if you are interested. If not then ignore the thread. Agreed?
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    Please answer the questions put to you   1/12/2005 6:46:05 PM
You?re getting very outlandish now. Not only do you have two prototype aircraft being put into service, secret programmes sprouting up to take care of your problems, subordinates doing stuff you so you don?t have to explain yourself but you?re also developing a whole knew kind of warfare! And you still haven?t addressed the points put to you, instead of answering all of the questions I put to you, you chose to answer precisely none. I?ll repeat the points I brought up and then post some questions. Let?s get a bit of point, counter point going instead of you posting a different plan every other post. That way we can get to the root of many things. First point ? The longest range air to ground missile available with the USAF is the JASSM-ER with a range of 500nm, the intercept radius of a Tornado F3 is 1000nm. So in order to hit even the beaches of Spain or Ireland you have to be halfway into the range of just one of Europe?s interceptors. Second point ? You still have the US parked off the coast of the EU without the EU doing anything about it. Or God forbid actually watch what the USN is doing. Think about this logically, there is tension between the EU and US, and then the US dispatches 4 carrier groups to sit off the EU coast. Third point ? Raptors do not have unlimited range, in fact even if they did in terms of fuel the pilots would still be fatigued. From a US base to just the coast of the EU is nearing 7000km, the range of the Raptor is around 3000km, so lets say that they are refuelled the very second they?re about to run out. That gives them an extra 3000km range, which means they?re very close to the EU but not quite there. And that?s all there is to it. As soon as a Raptor got within 1000km of the EU it would run out of fuel and die. Added to the fact the Raptor isn?t in service yet either you?ve got a few problems. Where are your tankers coming from by the way? Fourth point ? SSKs are generally much quieter than SSNs and I don?t know if anyone?s told you but that usually means they?re harder to detect. And as pointed out even if the US can destroy 85% of the Europe?s submarines that still means that 12 have got through and killed all of your carriers, and even if the USN manages to kill 95% of the EU?s submarines that still means that all 4 of the US carriers sent have been sunk. Not to mention that 85% and 95% are nearly, if not actually, impossible figures to achieve. Your statement to qualify your confidence has only been ?US subs don?t have to match less capable SSKs sub for sub. That?s why they are so big and carry many more weapons and far more advanced sensors. They are more efficient killers.? In other words you are saying that the US is better so they would kill as many EU subs as is necessary. Tracking carrier, for SSNs is not that difficult. Once method to avoid detection is to literally sit right under it; that way submariners can mask the sound of there propulsion with that of the host ship. No matter how many assets you say you have it doesn?t change the fact that you would have to achieve a 95% success rate against EU submarines which is unprecedented in the history of submarine warfare. Note, before you say that I?m being hypocritical because I point out the assets the EU has to put against US submarines I will point out that the aim of US subs is supposedly to break the surface with a large number of missiles thereby making them very visible. Fifth point ? If years of cold war cooperation means you know how the EU operates do you not think that it also means the EU knows how you operate? Sixth point ? USN boats can?t operate anywhere undetected, why do you say this? Seventh point ? The USN operates? 51 Los Angeles classes each armed with up to 22 TLAMs and Torpedoes so around about 10 TLAMs optimistically. 2 Sea Wolves with around 25 TLAMs 1 Virginia with 12 TLAMs 2 Ohio classes with 154 TLAMs I don?t know if you?ve done your maths lately but that comes to 880 TLAMs capable of getting any where near the EU coast without detection. Remember what I said before, that to effectively target coastal targets of just the Western EU you would have to be within 500km of the coast and to hit deeper you would need to be as close as 300km. That area would be patrolled around the clock by a large number of both ships, submarines and aircraft, being able to actually fire without being discovered would be very difficult; getting surface ships into position would be suicide due to the fact that the USN would be out numbered in every way and generally by a wide margin. (IIRC the US only bought 4,170 TLAMs anyway) Eighth point ? With an average air group your four carriers would have only 192 fighter aircraft, maybe 300 if you have Harriers on a couple of Wasps. This would be against around 2000 EU fighter aircraft; you would be out numbered by nearly 7 to 1, even if you destroy 50% of them on the ground you would still be out numbered by over 3 to 1. Gr
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    The response was to Bluewings...you are next   1/12/2005 6:52:38 PM
Patience...
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:And of course Greenland is....to RM-Nod   1/12/2005 7:31:46 PM
and of course Greenland is Danish (EU) territory; perhaps they wouldn't notice the Raptors! In the context of this "game" (it isn't a strategy) it does reverse the strike radius in the EU favor... But then again my fellow countrymen who talk of EU or Europe rarely have any idea of the details...like the 3 neutral countries in the EU (have to avoid those!) or the 3 NATO European allies who are NOT in the EU, e.g. Iceland which in this context is rather important. This is just another of those "equipment list" threads with no knowledge of geography, strategy or tactics. P.S. Good post BTW. As usual.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Please answer the questions put to you   1/12/2005 7:57:56 PM
You?re getting very outlandish now. Not only do you have two prototype aircraft being put into service, secret programmes sprouting up to take care of your problems, subordinates doing stuff you so you don?t have to explain yourself but you?re also developing a whole knew kind of warfare! And you still haven?t addressed the points put to you, instead of answering all of the questions I put to you, you chose to answer precisely none. I?ll repeat the points I brought up and then post some questions. Let?s get a bit of point, counter point going instead of you posting a different plan every other post. That way we can get to the root of many things. ***Secret Program that sprouted out. link ***Prototype rapidly put into service. link ***this is a discussion board. So forgive me if I dont have time to write a Clancy novel for you. Larry Bonds book Couldron explains this in more detail. No general officer I know of handles the implied task personally. First point ? The longest range air to ground missile available with the USAF is the JASSM-ER with a range of 500nm, the intercept radius of a Tornado F3 is 1000nm. So in order to hit even the beaches of Spain or Ireland you have to be halfway into the range of just one of Europe?s interceptors. ***You are wrong. The US can deploy the ALCM, From well outside that range. link Second point ? You still have the US parked off the coast of the EU without the EU doing anything about it. Or God forbid actually watch what the USN is doing. Think about this logically, there is tension between the EU and US, and then the US dispatches 4 carrier groups to sit off the EU coast. ***If you read earlier, you will find that it was decided tht a period of tention would take place prior to war. Carriers in international waters 1000km off your coast is very practicle. Also you are more than welcome to put together a strike package and we can evaluate the merits of its success. BUt as long as I'm outside of your martime exclusion zone, legally you have no right to attack. It is likely that you would have difficulty convincing some member nations to launch an unprovoked attack against a U.S. warship in international waters. Third point ? Raptors do not have unlimited range, in fact even if they did in terms of fuel the pilots would still be fatigued. From a US base to just the coast of the EU is nearing 7000km, the range of the Raptor is around 3000km, so lets say that they are refuelled the very second they?re about to run out. That gives them an extra 3000km range, which means they?re very close to the EU but not quite there. And that?s all there is to it. As soon as a Raptor got within 1000km of the EU it would run out of fuel and die. Added to the fact the Raptor isn?t in service yet either you?ve got a few problems. Where are your tankers coming from by the way? ***Wrong. And these Raptors could be used against you. From Israel, Greenland and even from CONUS through refueling. Same for the Tankers. USAF pilots dont practice EU socialism when it comes to flight hours. link "F-117s flew non-stop from Holloman to Kuwait, a flight of approximately 18.5 hours -- a record for single-seat fighters that stands today."-- link Fourth point ? SSKs are generally much quieter than SSNs and I don?t know if anyone?s told you but that usually means they?re harder to detect. And as pointed out even if the US can destroy 85% of the Europe?s submarines that still means that 12 have got through and killed all of your carriers, and even if the USN manages to kill 95% of the EU?s submarines that still means that all 4 of the US carriers sent have been sunk. Not to mention that 85% and 95% are nearly, if not actually, impossible figures to achieve. Your statement to qualify your confidence has only been ?US subs don?t have to match less capable SSKs sub for sub. That?s why they are so big and carry many more weapons and far more advanced sensors. They are more efficient killers.? In other words you are saying that the US is better so they would kill as many EU subs as is necessary. Tracking carrier, for SSNs is not that difficult. Once method to avoid detection is to literally sit right under it; that way submariners can mask the sound of there propulsion with that of the host ship. No matter how many assets you say you have it doesn?t change the fact that you would have to achieve a 95% success rate against EU submarines which is unprecedented in the history of submarine warfare. Note, before you say that I?m being hypocritical because I
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:And of course Greenland is....to RM-Nod   1/12/2005 7:59:07 PM
Thanks for the clarification
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:And of course Greenland is....to RM-Nod   1/12/2005 9:37:45 PM
Gixx , i could take your points one by one and refute them all with ease . But I prefer to let the comunity decide if your "Fiction story" stands on 2 legs . Nevertheless , I am going to quote one thing from you which is very revealing of your entire "Pseudo-evaluation" . I quote : "LOL, what air defenses? EU IAD is not as strong as 1991 Iraq or 1990s Serbia." Complete and utmost Bullsh...sorry , nonsense . I was hoping you knew at least a bit about Europe 's defenses as we could have had a intelligent conversation but I now retreat in front a such ... ignorance . I rest my case . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Bluewings.   1/12/2005 9:41:57 PM
awe Blue did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry. Please educate me on the thousands of SAMs and AAA systems EU deploys? Also by all means refute me with ease. If you can.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy