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
Alexis    To Gixxxerking ... asking for answers, please !   1/13/2005 9:42:25 AM
Could you please post a reply to the four precise questions I asked you in post link ? It would appear that you posted a reply in link ... however, this post and this post alone has been unavailable to viewing. Imagine my frustation :-) ! So could you please answer the four questions I asked ? Thanks in advance.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    Gixxxerking ...Clarification Please   1/13/2005 10:12:10 AM
Just trying to see where you are coming up with some of this stuff from, and how your thought process is working. And to give you a little factual info so that you might make adjustments to your Fatally Flawed Plan. 4 CBGs, reinforced I?ll use the Stennis Battle Group She went heavy in 02. Only listing ships with Mk-41s. She and a ESG might also have a OHP attached. No VLS and only around 35 SMs 1 Tyco 60 cells (except for the first 5) 3 Burkes 90 cells 1 SSN 12cells 343 Cells for each group 1372 for 4 CBG if no Subroc/AA missiles carried Each ESG (Not ARG) has 1 Tyco 60 1 Burke 90 SO if configured the ESG strictly for AD you get 150 SM-2 shots Still no ASW. Want to put a few VLASROC or will you depend on helo and ship tube launched Mk-46s for ASW? I'm sure you know that S-3Bs dont do ASW anymore. They are the primary tankers, with surface control thrown in. Where and what are these 50 ASW aircraft organic to the CSG I?m assuming that each group contains 2 CBG and 1 ESG. You quote 28 F-14D, 72 F/A-18E, 40 AV-8B air loadout for each group. Where do you get these numbers from? Wasp class in SCS role would carry 20 Harriers. So your numbers there are total numbers. And as cute as they are, what does the harriers give you? Except something to eat missiles and task your SAR assets. Each Carrier will have 40/42 Fighter/Attack aircraft. If she has 14s then you get the extra 2. Hornet squadron have 10 planes. Unless you pull the planes off of your ?2 CONUS CSG? you don?t get anymore planes. Navy has 10 CAWs for 12 carriers and they incorporate the MC squadrons. SO 80/84 planes total. Why do you want Phoenix? Plan to kill some Bears and Backfires? Won?t do you any good against fighters. So you did some joint ops with the Connie 2 yrs ago. What type? Your statement that CBG would not travel in straight line or along shipping lanes. Well duhh, That?s how you think the EU would find you? Nothing to do with that big electronic signature from your Aegis. Your Prototype rapidly put into service. Was nothing more that the tubes off M-110s with a guidance system added. Not a aircraft or missile system. Your F-22s are nicknamed RAMPtors, and where will you get all those tankers? How many of the airfields/ports/C4 sites do you plan on your initial strikes? Any why? How many of your subsonic Tomahawks do you think will get through. Our ASAT weapon right now is Minuteman. Do you think we would risk that? In the AEW game , who do you think has the advantage US E-2 or EU E-3s? What service are you an ?Operator? in? Since you are new, before you start getting huffy, I'm a retired Marine with experence in both MEF and JTF G-3 shops.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    Alexis   1/13/2005 10:22:29 AM
Did you read addendum I made for you on French force reshaping? After recalculation I think we can spare at least 1.5 Billion euro on Titre III i.e salaries and current operations so a 1.5 billion euros would be enought to procure right weapon numbers and systems.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    Gixxx is sinking ...lol   1/13/2005 10:35:53 AM
I said in my last post that I would leave the community deal with Gixxx aberations . It 's happening nicely , hehe ... Gixxx , you 're taking water , you 're sinking . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Gixxxerking ..One more thing   1/13/2005 11:51:06 AM
I thought that you wanted to make a landing. Your Wasps used in the Sea control/minicarrier mode pretty well dumps that idea. I only sat that since she would normally have,In addition to the helos to shore, The MEB/MEU Command element, the embarked MEU command element the Infantry HQ (COC), the Artillery battery, the weapons company, a Infantry company and a few other assets like CI and LAR. WHat will you do about those? Or have you given up the landing, since the MOST the US could hope to land is 2 MEBs, using ALL amphibous shipping in the US Navy. An opposed large scale airborne(parachute) assault isn't a real option. (Sorry to you airborne guys) Especially since you cannot be assured of air superiority. Even if you did the 'Assault by Air" how do you supply that 1 division that will take over europe?
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Please answer the questions put to you   1/13/2005 1:00:00 PM
Ok I?ll start with the secret programme nonsense. Does this mean that the EU gets to pull out all of its secret and in development programmes? HALO, Duc, fully operational Celldar etc? No, that would be a silly way to conduct this discussion wouldn?t it; ?you can?t do X because I have a secret weapon? Can we at least try and be sensible. Also if you are unwilling to actually back up what you say with details, facts and figures then don?t start the discussion and definitely don?t whine about general officers not having to do it. On the subject of ALCM, the range is only 100nm greater than the one I quoted and it still does not come anywhere near being able to be launched outside of intercept range. I?ll remind you, the maximum range of this weapon is 600nm and the Tornado F3?s (as an example) maximum range is 1000nm that?s 400nm of air in which a bomber can be downed without launching its weapons; further if you factor in the range of air to air missiles and if the said Tornado is carrying fuel tanks. Now this is a long distance, however if say they are coming towards Ireland for example, as we?ve heard French radar can detect the aircraft up to 1080nm, factor in AWACs as well and I think it?s safe to assume that a B1 or B52 could be detected, this would mean that the bomber would have to fly 480nm before it could release its weapons and that is only if it wants to hit the beach; so around 5-600nm to hit any meaningful target. I think that is plentiful time to intercept a bomber, of course if there is a long range CAP in place then obviously this would give the EU the advantage. Obviously I?m not considering carriers either. Also to point out that the above only applies if these bombers are targeting sites very close to the EU coast; if they wanted to target anything further inland then this would be fairly impossible. Moving onto this period of tension business, if you look you will notice that I never mentioned anything about the EU pre-emptively striking USN assets, this you assumed on your own. What I did say is that the US could not simply move four carrier groups towards the EU while there are major tensions between the two without the EU doing something. This ?something? could take many forms but what I?m talking about is marking targets, tracking, gathering intelligence etc as ex-98c said. In your scenarios you seem to assume the EU is just sitting back and watching the world go by. Raptors (and F-15s etc) would have to be refuelled at least three times to get into EU air space and have enough fuel to get back to a refuelling point; one of those three times would have to be within EU airspace itself which would be very unlikely against such a massive threat and if this tanker is shot down then the Raptor has no escape route. Moving tankers in from Greenland would be an odd thing to do since you have to closer to EU airspace than you would if you sent them from the US itself. Basing aircraft from Israel just seems a bit silly to be honest. As I pointed out earlier and ex-98c has brought up again, fatigue would be a major issue. I believe gf0012-aust and ex-98c has covered the sub-surface aspect very well, so just reiterating there points. History has clearly shown that any force has had trouble with submarines, being able to stop 95% of those that are brought against you is very very optimistic and frankly saying that the USN?s ASW capability and training is the best in the world is not proof of the fact, actually that statement is debatable in itself. Speaking of submarines, ex-98c, ?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.? That was the point I was making, USN boats can?t simply operate undetected forever as gixxxxering asserts. You?ve shown yourself up a bit with regards to both EU ground based air defences and the number of aircraft. Saying that EU IAD is worse than that of Iraq in 1991 and asking me to prove that the USN air assets would be outnumbered are both very telling statements. First of all the EU has some 2000 SAM systems both long and short range, more than enough to guard key areas against TLAM strikes; and the EU air forces have some 2000 combat aircraft, the USN could muster around 250 or at the very most (i.e. ever asset being at sea) 1000 combat aircraft. So the US would obviously be outnumbered. By the way can you qualify that USN boats are the quietest in the world? ?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.? You do realise that even at top speed it would take a USN carrier 9 hours to get within 500km of the EU, not sure how you consider that ?rushing?. ?2) What makes you think the EU would not send submarines to park themselves right under your carriers?
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:To Gixxxerking ... asking for answers, please !   1/13/2005 2:36:56 PM
I usually save the questions and answers so let me see if I can remote in to my office and retrive them. Bluewings, no one is sinking, I'm PROVING that you cant stop US. Tercio, Sam and TDHM. Why am I an idiot but EU posters who say they will detect B-2 1000nm out arent...lol You baised idiots. And I forgot who said it but to think this could never happen. Thats a true idiot. Of course its not likely today, but who knows what tomorrow brings. My plans ESPECIALLY for ASW are sound. And I never said SSKs operate in the open ocean. EU guys started that. Also dont you think if an attack was planned a year out US would add more VLS ships to SAG. And anybody who questions my military experience or that Im not an officer is a absolute fool. How could you prove that Im not? Simple answer, you cant so get off it. Like I said, some of you liberals and EU guys dont like hearing the truth. Alexis I'll find those answers...
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:To Gixxxerking ... asking for answers, please !   1/13/2005 2:39:19 PM
"Why am I an idiot but EU posters who say they will detect B-2 1000nm out arent...lol" I think you'll find no one said that. As for the rest, does it not give you a hint absolutley no one agrees with you even your own countrymen?
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:To Gixxxerking ... Four Questions   1/13/2005 3:27:17 PM
QUESTION 1 : How could US forces locate 4 (four) European SSBNs in the vast oceans ? First of all there is no question that US could take down your satellites. As for other means of communication. I dont believe we could totally cut the SSBNs off until we established airsuperiority over western EU. And there is no way to ensure the location of 4 SSBNs in the open ocean. But in the time prior to the war SSNs could track them as they leave port. Intelligence Agencies could try to do it. But nothing would be guranteed. However, my strategy does not rely on this. Our vast nuclear arsenal would have to serve as a deterent to yours. But if the conflict goes much beyond 6 months and we havent nukes each other, your boats will have to resupply. They will be vulnerable then. But thats the best we could do. QUESTION 2 : How could the US block communications between national authorities and their SSBNs ? PGMs/ASAT/sabotage/EW techniques. But this wouldnt really be effective until air superiority is achieved. QUESTION 3 : How do you succeed in a landing when under nuclear fire ? I would not try a landing. Except maybe in greenland by airborne units. to bring n more land based assets. And while you would enjoy many tactical advantages defending the continent. The US would have the advantage as targets move further away from EU continent. My plan is for air and sea war to force your surrender. If I had to land, then I would have to rely on theater missile defense systems and interceptors. To increase the chances of this working. We would target WMD delivery systems prior to landing. Hopefully you will be degraded enough to allow our defenses to stop any attacks you make. QUESTION 4 : How do you establish air superiority when you're both at strong numerical disadvantage and partly at quality parity (with Mirage 2000 or Tornado or F16) partly at a quality disadvantage (with Rafale or Eurofighter) ? OK before you get caught up in the hype, there is no quality disadvantage. At best some of your aircraft have parity with late model F-15/F-18s in aerodynamics. Our avionics are still more powerful than yours. And even then the advantages are largely acedemic. And while I dont need numerical superiority to win, I dont believe you have a numerical advantage. As the attacker, I can concentrate my assets on areas of interest while you have a continent to defend. So I can still achieve mass when necessary. Lets see what forces I would bring to bear at a minimum. on the first night. F/A-22 -40 F-117 -40 F-15C -100*** from captured airfields, Isreal and CONUS with tanker support. F-15E -100*** from captured airfields, Isreal and CONUS with tanker support. F-16C -200*** from captured airfields, Isreal and CONUS with tanker support. F-14D -56 F/A-18E -144 AV-8B -80 SH-60/S-3 -56+ E-2C -12 E-3 -6 EA-6B -8 minimum B-2 -21 B-1B -30 minimum B-52H -40 KC-10 -10 KC-135 -20 C-130 -48+ C-17 -24+ Question 5: Someone asked about Spanish F/A-18C in the Canary Islands. I would use strategic bombers to destroy the facility from standoff range. Then deploy Army Rangers to secure the facility for US land based assets. If you want details on an assault I could give an overview but I dont think its inconcievable that the US military could take it from the Spanish. May not be until after the first day of the war however. Depends on how close short legged F/A-18Cs could get to my CSG. P.S. I still have 2 more CSGs in reserve. I would also put the 4th ID, 1st CAV, 101st, 82nd, 1st AD, 1st Marines, 40th ID on alert. Does that answer your questions?
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Pretend I'm GWB...   1/13/2005 3:36:48 PM
I dont lead by opinion poll. That just means they are wrong too. Also I'm going to quote some of the more wild EU posters comments. You be the judge if its just me comming up with unorthodox solutions. "Use ASMP to terminate any US beachhead if one is conquered, even if that occurs in a population center. However, make public the fact that for each European nuke that has to be fired over European territory in that way, 10,000 US tourists (which are now housed in detention centers, in case I forgot to tell you) will be killed. Of course, if it's a US nuke that fires at a European population center, then one among the European SSBNs will have to be sacrificed. But its 16 SLBMs with several tens of warheads will have created havoc among CONUS military targets, while its little sisters safe at sea will ensure that the probable US follow-on nuclear strike will avoid European cities" " In addition, make sure the US leadership understands that if the US has not stopped its attacks on the evening of Day 7, Islamist terrorist groups all over the world will have been provided with a few tens wallet nukes" "How could any land based fighter from the US reach the EU?" Those are just a few. So you guys who disagree, back off. You dont see me calling them stupid or idiot. I simply try my best to counter them with facts.
 
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