Article

2005-07-11 Home Front: Tech

US To Sacrifice a Carrier for Brown Water Navy?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-07-11 09:44|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hmmmmmmm. Tough call. Right now, an LCS would probably be the better use of our limited funds. But, ~~when~~ if we end up fighting China, we will badly miss every CVA.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-07-11 10:03|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-07-11 10:03|| Front Page Top

#2 I would agree with this. We can already dump 4 or 5 CVAs into the already crowded Tiawan strait and really don't need anymore. However, several small, fast gunboats with medium range anti-ship missles, linked to the JSTAR to go after the amphibious assault ships....Oh baby! I'm also for completely covering the China side of the Tiawan coast with large, radar guided guns. Say, oh, around 155mm or larger. 5,000 or so ought to do it. China can't destroy them all with missles, and our and Tiawan's aircraft keep them from attacking them as well. It would make an amphibious attack, difficult...

Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-11 10:11|| 2005-07-11 10:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Apropo of not much at all, does anyone remember a book called The Only War We've Got. It was like Catch22 written by a combination of HS Thompson and Tom Sharpe. Amazon doesn't recognize it. They have also completely expunged any reference to the Just William books which were my absolute favourites as a child, along with the Jennings books. I guess I am doomed to love the things that get edited out of history.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-11 10:17|| 2005-07-11 10:17|| Front Page Top

#4 The problem with the LCS, as I see it, is that there is still too much emphasis on quality over quantity. Imagine building ships that only cost $10M each. A simple, multi-purpose vehicle that just acts as a pad for a whole range of weapons: *either* 155 arty, rockets, SAMs, depth charges or whatever else you installed on it *that morning*. It doesn't have to do everything all at once, just one thing really well. Now consider that for the same price as a single LCS, you can build 25 of these! By just pure numbers alone, it is obvious that you can do a heck of a lot more with such ships then you can with a single LCS. And while it might freak out some to think of the reduced "survivability" of such ships: they are expendable, granted; but match them against a single ship and THEY WILL WIN. So what does that have to say about survivability of a $250M LCS? As things stand now, it doesn't matter how an LCS is disabled; it is far too critical a loss. Lose a fleet of the cheaper ships and you might lose a battle. Lose a few of LCS's and you might lose the war.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-07-11 11:08|| 2005-07-11 11:08|| Front Page Top

#5 Moose, they're called PT boats.

I thought the Navy's infantry was called the Marine Corps?

Too much interservice rivalry!!

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2005-07-11 11:34|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org] 2005-07-11 11:34|| Front Page Top

#6 And while it might freak out some to think of the reduced "survivability" of such ships: they are expendable, granted; but match them against a single ship and THEY WILL WIN.

Never mind the cost in training and staffing all those ships, and the loss of all that investment when your disposable firecrackers go off.

Oh, and the larger supply needs of such a force. More fuel, more spare parts, more food, more water, more medical support, more mail, more harbor space, more more more.

Naturally, of course, once you've taken the "quantity over quality" route, you can't really divide your forces up (their combat ability depends on numbers, remember?), so you're stuck with the same strategic flexibility as you'd have with the smaller number of gold-plated ships.

So, what was the advantage, again?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-11 12:39|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-11 12:39|| Front Page Top

#7 Aircraft carriers are last century's weapons. They're huge targets. How do you kill an aircraft carrier whose defenses include 120 antimissiles? Fire 121 cruise missiles at it. The aircraft carriers were built to counter the Soviet threat, which no longer exists. I mean, don't get me wrong, aircraft carriers are nice, I like them, but it's time to shift our priorities elsewhere. Coastal operations are the wave of the future.

Naval Infantry is different from Marines. I don't remember how exactly, it has to do with the missions that they're tasked with. The Russians have always seemed to be big on Naval Infantry, for some reason.

Posted by gromky">gromky 2005-07-11 12:59|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/] 2005-07-11 12:59|| Front Page Top

#8 You guys may be missing the point. The LCS is a new concept in naval warfare. They are extremely fast and agile and can carry a variety of weapons. They can work as anything from a sub hunter/killer to a fast attack, first strike weapon. They are small enough to be hard to spot and track, but they are large enough to carry weapons that can sink a carrier. A swarm of these little fuckers would be the chinese fleets worst nightmare.

Posted by Sheamble Unairt5149 2005-07-11 13:00|| 2005-07-11 13:00|| Front Page Top

#9 Only an insane admiral would put the carriers in Taiwan Strait. Carriers are to be out of trouble only the planes are supposed to fight.

Posted by Hupomoque Spoluter7949 2005-07-11 13:51|| 2005-07-11 13:51|| Front Page Top

#10 I mean, don't get me wrong, aircraft carriers are nice, I like them, but it's time to shift our priorities elsewhere. Coastal operations are the wave of the future.

And the coastal operations will get their air cover from where, exactly?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-11 14:29|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-11 14:29|| Front Page Top

#11 phil_b, I believe the book The Only War We've Got was published in England and still available "used" through Amazon UK. Being a book it has no regional coding problems.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-07-11 18:19|| 2005-07-11 18:19|| Front Page Top

#12 I find it curious that no one is talking about naval equivalents of UAVs or autonomous vehicles. In several ways an unmanned marine vehcile is an easier problem than the aerial equivalent.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-11 18:26|| 2005-07-11 18:26|| Front Page Top

00:04 CrazyFool
00:00 Frank G
23:30 CrazyFool
23:28 R
23:26 gromgoru
23:24 Cyber Sarge
23:24 Cyber Sarge
23:22 muck4doo
23:22 gromgoru
23:15 Bomb-a-rama
23:07 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
22:59 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
22:50 eLarson
22:48 Zhang Fei
22:33 Jarhead
22:26 Pappy
22:22 Jarhead
22:12 Laurence of the Rats
22:03 Bomb-a-rama
21:58 Unavinter Sloluque7110
21:58 Bomb-a-rama
21:44 Unavinter Sloluque7110
21:42 Bobby
21:41 muck4doo