Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The SuperCarrier and Amphib are Dead, we just don't know it yet...
dynmicpara    10/3/2007 9:13:20 AM
The future of our vessel Navy is submarines...we may not realize this until our Midway/Iwo Jima racketeers get sunk badly but nothing is stopping us from waking up and changing before its too late... Mike
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Herald1234    Are you the M-113 nut?   10/3/2007 9:16:29 AM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       10/4/2007 3:29:46 PM

The future of our vessel Navy is submarines...we may not realize this until our Midway/Iwo Jima racketeers get sunk badly but nothing is stopping us from waking up and changing before its too late...
>

Mike

Ok, I'm quite ignorant as well so I'll bite the hook. Just what makes sense about a submarine aircraft carrier that can carry only 3 or 4 manned aircraft and costs probably $4+billion? Admittedly, it might be able to carry a lot more UCAV's - if they're small and VTOL capable. Don't know of any of VTOL UCAV's with long range capability.
 
Why does this make more sense than filling a boomer with bunches of cruise missiles and a few MRBM's?
Again showing my ignorance, its seems that a super-carrier, combined with acoustic and explosive defense against torpedos, and defensive missiles, high-firing rate CIWS, fragmenting steerable 50+mm CIWS, and defensive DEWS such as lasers and microwave/radar beam system would be more effective.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/4/2007 4:45:17 PM
Herald:

Yes, it's Mike Sparks, or someone living up to his stereotype, at least.
* Irrational love of M113s, plus a habit of calling them "Gavins"
* Irrational hatred of the USMC and USN
* Irrational love of anything chairborne, sorry, airborne
* Irrational hatred of anything with wheels.
* Every post linked to Combatreform.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       10/4/2007 5:00:24 PM
"* Irrational love of anything chairborne, sorry, airborne" - flaming knives

Hey now!  I resemble that statement and I'm not Mike Sparks! 

Seriously though.  The man has some ideas that make sense to me as a former paratrooper.  The advance tactical parachute is one of them.  Equipping the combat support/anti-armor companies in airborne units with some sort of light tracked vehicle is another.  I'm not sure that the M113 is, or is not, the best vehicle for that but I believe there has to be a better option than the Hummers they now use.

One the other hand he's not explained to my satisfaction why wheeled vehicles are a bad option for LIC in Iraq now when the Rhodesians and South Africans used them for LIC in southern Africa in the '70s and '80s.  Maybe that analogy is flawed.  If so, tell me how it's flawed.  
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/6/2007 11:35:20 AM
I would suggest that the Stormer series, or something like it, would be fairly useful, provided that you have the lift capacity to get them there and sustain them, whilst retaining sufficient advantage in the air to secure your airlift.

Maybe it would make sense to develop a new form of strategic airlift? Those heavy lift airships would give you the capability to land proper armoured vehicles where you liked.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       10/8/2007 7:33:44 PM
Uh Mike simply put that is one the silliest things you've written.  So just how does the SSN or SSGN or SSK provide "Sea Control"?  Imagine it's 1987 and the Kuwayti's want to re flag tankers and run convoys, now how does the -688 class run convoys?  How do submarines provide air defense for tankers?  How do submarines provide air support?  Look you dweeb the essence of a fleet, in a Western sense, is to be able to support and protect trade and trade moves on the surface!  Economics dictate it, there are no cost-effective submarine merchant vessels.  So the USN and the RN MUST protect surface traffic and SSN's and the like can not perform that mission, in a cost effective manner.  If this is the level of thought that you have put into all your "reform" efforts I am forced to conclude that the M-113 SUCKS and that the Stryker is great, because your argument, here, is so ill-conceived and thought out that they call into question your beliefs in other realms.
 
And Mike, I admire your chutzpah or your silliness.  This ain't your website where everyone agrees with you.  This website is going to make you prove your points.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics