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
gf0012-aust    RE:Operators - addendum    1/12/2005 11:40:23 PM
On the issue of subs I'd have to say that you are overconfident. Your view is certainly more optimistic than people that I've dealt with at a subwarfare level at various underwater defence technology events. example: The US acknowledges that she has degraded capability against current classes of some conventionals - the first warning noises were made internally some 10 years ago - little has been done to remediate that. The most recent "event" occurred when organic ASW from HSV-2 managed to find a North Korean Romeo off of Angola - there were two of them, and they managed to find one. The important thing re the above is that 1) CVN was too far out to be effective 2) HSV-2 was used as it was the only vessel able to be used close in the littorals 3) The organic air still only managed 50% contact strike 4) This was a Romeo - not a 212, or a 214 or even a french or UK nuke. The Romeo is the equivalent of an underwater Checker cab. 5) USN elements are now in the process of having more formalised aggressor training with a leased swedish sub to improve the ASW hunter/seeker skillset Points 1) and 2) mean that the HSV2 would have been close to land based air - and if a competent land based air defence was in play, both vessel and ASW elements would have been compromised. I just think that on the basis of a number of events, you are excessively confident about slotting EU subs - as the evidence doesn't support it. Granted the USN has the sheer mass and tempo generation to be able to attrit the odds, but unless you get it all right on day 1 and without any "hand of god" interference, then you're in for a very torrid time. The issue of Rafales/Typhoons/Hornets is a perennial problem - and is more due to people wanting to counter patriotic triumphalism more than anything. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:ex-98C...I did explain it in detail...   1/12/2005 11:42:33 PM
Ther reason I said 2000 TLAMs is because the EU guys said they wanted a perios of tension. And snce I was to be the aggressor. I would augment my forces and go heavy on the land attack missiles. The intent being to overwhelm their IAD, commo and destroy as much of their airforce as possible in the first strike. Then I could follow on with manned systems while the ships gradually rearm. I know thats A LOT of firepower but if I had 6 months to a year to prepare I would want to bring as much force as possible. Especially aganst a nuclear armed foe. The intent being to force a surrender ASAP.
 
Quote    Reply

ex-98C    RM-Nod's 8 Points   1/13/2005 12:25:55 AM
First point ? The longest range air to ground missile available with the USAF. Gixxxer is right on this one, the USAF retains an inventory of approx 200 CLACMs which have a 1000 mile range. Though RM-NOD gives us a bit more credit than we deserve as I believe we are still several years away from deploying the JASSM-ER. As for intercepting bombers 500 miles out from the coast, it is unlikely unless you were tracking them up to 1000 miles out. It?s not that Euro interceptors can?t reach them at 500 or even 1000 miles is that the time between detection and launch is going to be too short unless the interceptors are very very lucky. Second point ? You still have the US parked off the coast of the EU without the EU doing anything about it. Two points here, at first Gixxxer had written 1000 Kms which I believe would be a lot closer than a US fleet would want to be to a potentially hostile power like the EU. Yes, an attack on the fleet would be illegal (though wouldn?t a sneak attack be US forces on the EU also be illegal?) But Admirals care a lot more about capabilities and intentions than in legalities. The second point that has been repeated raised that Gixxxer has not addressed is the fact that the ships would be kept under observation by air, sub, and space assets. It would take a MINIMUM of 4 hours from the time that the fleet moves to attack till the missile hit there targets. How do you think the Europeans are going to be kept in the dark for those four hours? Third point ? Raptors do not have unlimited range, in fact even if they did in terms of fuel the pilots would still be fatigued. The Raptors would have no problem with the range issue, the USAF has plenty of tankers and could set up three or even four refueling points over the Atlantic, and also from airbases in New England to Paris the range is only 5500 klicks. Fatigue is a better issue as that is a LONG time to fly a mission in a fighter pit. Yes the F-117 flew 18 hours straight, but it did not conduct a mission at the end as I recall, it was a ferry flight. Having said that it is possible for the mission though it would be a lot more difficult than Gixxxer makes it sound. Fourth point ? SSKs are generally much quieter than SSNs Ok a spent a little time with Janes today and my own completely arbitrary break down is that the EU has 18 SSNs and approx 60 SSKs of while 20 or so are marginal (60?s early 70s designs), 20+ are good (Kilos, Type 209s) and 15 are top of the line (Type 212/214, A 17/19s). Again in my own personal opinion the power of the subs is roughly even against each other depending on where the combat occurred. However, against a surface force operating close to European waters they would be a deadly threat. Let?s remember that a few ?marginal? subs gave the Brits fits during the Falklands and they are pretty damn good at ASW. Most of the top of the line Euro boats are AIP so might not need to snorkel. 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? Yes they would, Gixxxer makes a decent point, that there would be some command and control confusion, though I doubt as bad as he believes there are a growing number of joint units and training being done. Sixth point ? USN boats can?t operate anywhere undetected, why do you say this? They have operated undetected, and they have also been detected, not sure the point of this point. Seventh point ? The USN operates? 20 Los Angles 31 Improved Los Angles (12 VLS plus same torpedo room capacity of the original) 3 Seawolfs 1(1) Virginias The current goal is to have 3600 Tomahawks in inventory by 2006. Gixxxer is right that the US could ramp up production, but the EU would also be ramping up production of SAMs and other equipment. I don?t think a lot of the EUs current Air defense system (or the US?s for that matter). They have excellent search and tracking capabilities, but to my knowledge the defense is based mostly on aircraft intercepts. Given time to set up robust SAM networks could make penetration very hairy. Eighth point ? With an average air group your four carriers would have only 192 It time of conflict the numbers would be ramped up probably 72 F14/18s operating per carrier, though that means a maximum effort would only get a little more than 250 in the air. Gaa that took a long time, well hope it helps, or something
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:RM-Nod's 8 Points   1/13/2005 12:52:49 AM
So you think 1000km is too close to the EU coast for comfort? I imagine that would be far enough away to keep the SSKs at bay whils close enough to rush in too fire missiles. Also I was going to use a combination of sub launched TLAMs/SOF/ASAT to blind the EU right before B-2s, F-117s and B-1Bs begin to penetrate EU airspace during the resulting confusion.
 
Quote    Reply

addo    RE:RM-Nod's 8 Points   1/13/2005 2:46:30 AM
Tis getting funnier and funnier
 
Quote    Reply

TDHM    Gixxerking   1/13/2005 5:02:13 AM
*El Gringo Speaking* "El Gringo, F*&k you. If you want to get nasty and insulting then I'll ignore you. I have proven myself under fire so I could give a sh*t what you think." Boodums Boy. You talk crap, you'll get called on it. You act like an idiot, you'll get told you're an ID 10 T. Easy enough to accept? "This is just a game. FUN WHILE I ENJOY SOME TIME OFF. Nothing to get nasty or mad about. If you think I dont know what I'm talking about then fine. Dont reply. pretend this is a science fiction topic you dont like and go away. Go get laid or something." Oh I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a nasty little topic, started by a nasty little man, who was undermined by a thread on the Typhoon, and needs to reassert his boyish manhood on the rest of us... Again, you're talking like an idiot, and you will get called on it. Free speech and all that. "Unless you have some legitimate question or counter strategy In your reply you will be ignored. Comments like "this can never" happen will also be ignored. That is the most foolish statement any military planner could ever make. OK, thats enough time wasted on some of the fools here. To everyone else who had the courtesey to reply to my post, thank you and I will get back to you shortly. " Whats the point of developing an counter strategy when what you have posted COULDNT happen in the first place, let alone your apprieciation of military doctrine and tactics, which are flawed to say the least!
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    RM-Nod, gixxxerking   1/13/2005 5:07:29 AM
RM-Nod wrote: "Personally I don't mind these threads as long as they don't start repeating themselves and get stuck in a loop. Hell in the past few posts I've discovered three very interesting documents on my computer that I had totally forgot about; not to mention the little bits you learn. Plus it's good to air out the things you take for granted every now and then; and stuff like that." Well, if this thread is able to bring up something positive... Personally I have not very good opinion of the US vs EU threads. I'm a little bit p*ssed off with threads where some American posters make references about Eurabia, European lack of will..., and some European posters reply with the same degree of ignorance about the US..., maybe I'm loosing my sense of humour. gixxxerking, a question: what do you plan to do with the Azores and the Canary islands?. I don't know which the Portuguese have in Azores, but the Spaniards have Harpoon capable F-18 in the Canary islands... Tercio
 
Quote    Reply

TDHM    Pants...   1/13/2005 5:20:41 AM
"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." No kidding. However do you realise the sheer logisitics of conducting 3 IFR in one sortie. The Tanker to refuel the F-22 will have to be in EU Airspace... "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," First off, there are barely any TLAMS in the D configuration, as far as I'm aware they haven't even been used in any conflict, which would suggest they've all be re-roled. Secondly, if you're an officer, I'm the queen of sheba. You lack the proper decorum to be an officer and well as basic reasoning and deduction. If you are in the Army at all, you're probably just a squaddie. "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." Again, this is where you're being an obtuse idiot. Firstly SSK's rarely operate in the Open ocean. Collins might be able to with they large endurance, as might Victorias, but SSK's are generally reside in Brown Water, where the waters are more restricted. And your carriers will have to be in Brown Water to get mainland strikes into the EU. "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." Please Gixxer, dont share with us your 'special' grasp of Submarine warfare... "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." Doesn't happen like that. Never has. Never will. " 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. " Unfortunately as far as I'm aware, USMC AV-8B's dont fire AMRAAM. As well as the F-14 being phased out, as they've all nearly reached their hour limits. F-15 from greenland? Great. Only another 3000km to fly until you even reach Ireland. Having read the rest of your post, its is so much bollocks you've obvisouly havent a clue.
 
Quote    Reply

TDHM    RE:Bluewings.   1/13/2005 5:27:52 AM
"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 " Ahem... Gixxerking, you dont really know that much, do you? IADS are not just AAA and SAMs. If you grew up for one second you would realise that it is the co-operation between Fighters, C4i and "Thousnads of SAM and AAA". With AWACs, vastly distrucbuted C4i and aircraft flwon by people who actually known what they are doing, supported with Tankers and the like, is actually what an Intergrated Air Defense System is. And a Decent one at that. But because you are fifthteen, you know approxiamtely SFA.
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    RE:RM-Nod, gixxxerking   1/13/2005 5:57:35 AM
"I don't know which the Portuguese have in Azores" Ooops!, that should have been "I don't know what the Portuguese have in Azores".
 
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