User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 10:06:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
killing those little fuckers would seem to be secondary to simply identifying them in a timely manner as a threat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
killing those little fuckers would seem to be secondary to simply identifying them in a timely manner as a threat. Knowing their intentions is a problem. Killing them is not as simple as it seems, at least not with the systems currently fielded. You also need to consider that the FIAC threat exists in a stacked threat environment. Can't simply optimize against FIAC when there are CDCM, submarine, and air threats. Yes, some are easier to deal with than FIAC, but taken together, they add complexity. Quoted:
And is it a choke point issue specifically or just a generalized littoral threat/ While the threat may exist in the littorals, the nature of the SoH environment enhances Red's capability. It's not hard to have near perfect knowledge of current and future positions of ships transiting the TSS since they have to remain in the TSS, follow the Rules of the Road, are within the range of shore-based radars for some of the transit, may have their position reported via traffic posing as white shipping (no racist), and there is a large volume of historical data on SoH transits. FIAC swarms are predominantly, almost entirely, a SoH problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 11:29:04 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. I'm no fan of Navy senior enlisted. As you can see in this very thread, they tend to go off of memory (in this case a memory from 25 years ago) and think their soda straw view of the world is representative of the larger picture. And then they're arrogant about it. On a site that would go crazy if someone said .223 and 5.56 were the same cartridge, a Navy senior enlisted seems to think a 5mm difference in calibre is no big deal. Navy officers don't impress me either. Too interested in being a ship guy or a stick jockey or a nuke and not interested in the whole picture either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
he makes dport seem sunny and happy. I like him already. black shoes really are a grumpy bunch. Good point. Sh8, are you maybe an OSCS (ret) who hates SWOs? Or are you a shoe who hates everyone, not a hater of blackshoes, but rather a blackshoe who just plain hates? No. I'm no fan of Navy senior enlisted. As you can see in this very thread, they tend to go off of memory (in this case a memory from 25 years ago) and think their soda straw view of the world is representative of the larger picture. And then they're arrogant about it. On a site that would go crazy if someone said .223 and 5.56 were the same cartridge, a Navy senior enlisted seems to think a 5mm difference in calibre is no big deal. Navy officers don't impress me either. Too interested in being a ship guy or a stick jockey or a nuke and not interested in the whole picture either. Disgruntled junior enlisted it is. Opinions on officers from the other services? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 11:39:30 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have moved beyond SADARM Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Okay, more "so far outside the box you can't even see the box" thinking here: Develop a smaller version of the BLU-108 (2 or 3 smaller submunitions) that fits in a 120mm mortar shell. Uses an existing weapon system to add anti-small boat, anti-vehicle capability to even small ships, or land installations, with the added benefit of being able to use all of the other mortar shells. We have moved beyond SADARM SADARM!!! Thank you, that was the acronym I was trying to remember. While the existing BLU-108 might not be ideal for the anti-FAIC role, I think the concept of a moving-target-seeking submunition, lofted to a relatively low altitude at a relatively short range by a cheap rocket or shell that can be mounted to anything bigger than a Zodiac certainly could be. The mortar-delivery option would also open up a lot of options for anti-vehicle capability for small ground units and installations as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 12:54:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SADARM!!! Thank you, that was the acronym I was trying to remember. While the existing BLU-108 might not be ideal for the anti-FAIC role, I think the concept of a moving-target-seeking submunition, lofted to a relatively low altitude at a relatively short range by a cheap rocket or shell that can be mounted to anything bigger than a Zodiac certainly could be. The mortar-delivery option would also open up a lot of options for anti-vehicle capability for small ground units and installations as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay, more "so far outside the box you can't even see the box" thinking here: Develop a smaller version of the BLU-108 (2 or 3 smaller submunitions) that fits in a 120mm mortar shell. Uses an existing weapon system to add anti-small boat, anti-vehicle capability to even small ships, or land installations, with the added benefit of being able to use all of the other mortar shells. We have moved beyond SADARM SADARM!!! Thank you, that was the acronym I was trying to remember. While the existing BLU-108 might not be ideal for the anti-FAIC role, I think the concept of a moving-target-seeking submunition, lofted to a relatively low altitude at a relatively short range by a cheap rocket or shell that can be mounted to anything bigger than a Zodiac certainly could be. The mortar-delivery option would also open up a lot of options for anti-vehicle capability for small ground units and installations as well. If you have helicopters, they are flying around at 200-500 feet... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 2:46:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disgruntled junior enlisted it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disgruntled junior enlisted it is. Why are people so fixated on me instead of being fixated on learning and/or getting things right? Opinions on officers from the other services? All have their own particular weaknesses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:03:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except one would think that it would be relevant for a ship to be able to kill other ships/boats. But BMD is to USN ships as "expeditionary" is to ground forces and "tactical" is to civlian firearms instructors. USN aviators and submariners seem to keep a handle on the breadth of their warfare area responsibilities and have thoughtful, validated, and trained to. SWOs, not so much. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They seem to still take their job seriously, unlike the SW side of the Navy. You know how everybody bitches about the fighter mafia in the USAF. And how it used to be the bomber mafia? In the surface Navy, that role is taken by the BMD mafia. The surface navy is all about BMD and to a slightly lesser extend air defense. SUW, ASW, MIW - no time fo dat! What was the previous term? Search for relevance. Except one would think that it would be relevant for a ship to be able to kill other ships/boats. But BMD is to USN ships as "expeditionary" is to ground forces and "tactical" is to civlian firearms instructors. USN aviators and submariners seem to keep a handle on the breadth of their warfare area responsibilities and have thoughtful, validated, and trained to. SWOs, not so much. That's because the warfare area responsibilities of aviators and submariners are significantly narrower than it is for surface warfare. Being thoughtful about it  , what starts as an ASW problem can become an AAW and ASW problem very quickly. Submarines always have a couple big advantages - one, you can't see the sneaky bastards, and two, they are much more aware of and able to exploit the sonar conditions than are surface ships.
Aviators - what can you say about them? All the arrogance of the AF's Zipper Suited Sun Gods, with an extra dose for landing on a moving postage stamp. The biggest thing for Aviators is "being a good stick" Not reponsible for anything outside their own cockpit until they hit LCDR. When I was a frocked LT, I had two aviator LCDRs as JOOD and JOOW in my watch section. One commented to me "this Shoe shit is hard!" The concept of managing abridge watch team, and the ship's routine and granting permission to the EOOW to do all manner of things from changing the steam and electrical plant configuration to purifying lube oil, transferring fuel from storage to service tanks, while monitoring 4 radio circuits and tracking contacts, and at the same time maneuvering not only our ship, but the entire formation, was a bit over whelming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:12:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have helicopters, they are flying around at 200-500 feet... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
SADARM!!! Thank you, that was the acronym I was trying to remember. While the existing BLU-108 might not be ideal for the anti-FAIC role, I think the concept of a moving-target-seeking submunition, lofted to a relatively low altitude at a relatively short range by a cheap rocket or shell that can be mounted to anything bigger than a Zodiac certainly could be. The mortar-delivery option would also open up a lot of options for anti-vehicle capability for small ground units and installations as well. If you have helicopters, they are flying around at 200-500 feet... Something about sitting on the ground (or sea) shooting down aircraft from above is appealing to me. 
Another thought... a "recoverable" option for the submunitions (the expensive part). The rocket/shell goes up, floats on the 'chute, but doesn't acquire a target... once it reaches 100 ft AGL it disarms itself and squawks a transponder so you can go get the all those expensive sensors and warhead back to re-use. (Defeatable of course... if operating in territory where recovery isn't feasible, the whole thing blows up so the bad guys can't snag it.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:13:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which can it do and which can't it do? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Also, I never said a battleship could do a carrier wings job. I said it can do most the jobs of a carrier. Big differance. Which can it do and which can't it do? Drive around and show the flag Shoot things look at things What it can't do; Provide an endless stream of sales to defense contractors for decades and decades. I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:19:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:24:54 PM EDT
[#10]
SADARM is not all that effective against moving targets; that was one of the reasons it was cancel when it was original cancelled the first go round; they later resold it as primary counter-battery for stationary SP artillery
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:26:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:48:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Something about sitting on the ground (or sea) shooting down aircraft from above is appealing to me.
Another thought... a "recoverable" option for the submunitions (the expensive part). The rocket/shell goes up, floats on the 'chute, but doesn't acquire a target... once it reaches 100 ft AGL it disarms itself and squawks a transponder so you can go get the all those expensive sensors and warhead back to re-use. (Defeatable of course... if operating in territory where recovery isn't feasible, the whole thing blows up so the bad guys can't snag it.) I volunteer DeltaElite to jump in and go pick up the recoverable submunition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:53:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I volunteer DeltaElite to jump in and go pick up the recoverable submunition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Something about sitting on the ground (or sea) shooting down aircraft from above is appealing to me.
Another thought... a "recoverable" option for the submunitions (the expensive part). The rocket/shell goes up, floats on the 'chute, but doesn't acquire a target... once it reaches 100 ft AGL it disarms itself and squawks a transponder so you can go get the all those expensive sensors and warhead back to re-use. (Defeatable of course... if operating in territory where recovery isn't feasible, the whole thing blows up so the bad guys can't snag it.) I volunteer DeltaElite to jump in and go pick up the recoverable submunition. Hell, probably wouldn't be the dumbest thing I've ever done. That being said, I'm pretty much the ultimate civilian.... I'd get lost halfway to the damn thing and winded just looking at the map.
Besides, Ideally they'd be floating in secure waters within a few thousand yards of your ship, amidst a lot of bad-guy corpses and small boat parts. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:54:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not reponsible for anything outside their own cockpit until they hit LCDR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not reponsible for anything outside their own cockpit until they hit LCDR. I guess I wasn't responsible for the 40+ junior Sailors who worked for me when I was Line Div O, the 70 when I was Aircraft DivO, or the almost 200 when I was AMO. LOL Quoted:
When I was a frocked LT, I had two aviator LCDRs as JOOD and JOOW in my watch section. One commented to me "this Shoe shit is hard!" The concept of managing abridge watch team, and the ship's routine and granting permission to the EOOW to do all manner of things from changing the steam and electrical plant configuration to purifying lube oil, transferring fuel from storage to service tanks, while monitoring 4 radio circuits and tracking contacts, and at the same time maneuvering not only our ship, but the entire formation, was a bit over whelming. LOL again. Driving a ship was easy. The only thing hard about it was listening to baby SWOs try to talk on the radio, or come up with a gameplan that was more than 2 moves ahead. 3 special evoluion OODs on the mighty warship LASALLE, me, and LDO, and a Diver with his SWO pin waiting to go to finish his tour so he could go to EOD school. 1110s, not so much. SWO shit was tedious, but it wasn't hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:56:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another thought... a "recoverable" option for the submunitions (the expensive part). The rocket/shell goes up, floats on the 'chute, but doesn't acquire a target... once it reaches 100 ft AGL it disarms itself and squawks a transponder so you can go get the all those expensive sensors and warhead back to re-use. (Defeatable of course... if operating in territory where recovery isn't feasible, the whole thing blows up so the bad guys can't snag it.) Lots of sensitive electronics are reuseable after a good saltwater soak. That's why we have sonobuoy retrieval ships, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:59:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SADARM is not all that effective against moving targets; that was one of the reasons it was cancel when it was original cancelled the first go round; they later resold it as primary counter-battery for stationary SP artillery It's also 40 year-old tech. We should be able to do better now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:00:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Drive around and show the flag Shoot things look at things What it can't do; Provide an endless stream of sales to defense contractors for decades and decades. I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... I notice you didn't say actually hit things when it shoots at them or provide useful information from looking at things, which is good. Maybe your analysis is more thoughtful than I first believed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:01:39 PM EDT
[#18]
I'm with Madcap. Bring back a BB.
What's the status of the Zumwalt? It was going to use the new AGS with gun range in the 40-50 mile range if I recall? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:01:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Billions is still less than trillions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. If you're that concerned about saving money, we should strike DDG-1000 and all other NSFS requirements for amphibious assaults of defended beaches that will never happen. Could preserve resources for combat capability that will actually be used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:02:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm with Madcap. Bring back a BB.
What's the status of the Zumwalt? It was going to use the new AGS with gun range in the 40-50 mile range if I recall? It's floating... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:06:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you're that concerned about saving money, we should strike DDG-1000 and all other NSFS requirements for amphibious assaults of defended beaches that will never happen. Could preserve resources for combat capability that will actually be used. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. If you're that concerned about saving money, we should strike DDG-1000 and all other NSFS requirements for amphibious assaults of defended beaches that will never happen. Could preserve resources for combat capability that will actually be used. More money for cheap battleships to turn defended beaches into undefended beaches.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:08:49 PM EDT
[#22]
For the interested, a lesson in naval gunnery will be provided later in our program. FTR, my best GQ job EVER was as Director Officer in a Mk-68 director on a destroyer. Nothing like shooting twin 5" autocannons.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:15:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I notice you didn't say actually hit things when it shoots at them or provide useful information from looking at things, which is good. Maybe your analysis is more thoughtful than I first believed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Drive around and show the flag Shoot things look at things What it can't do; Provide an endless stream of sales to defense contractors for decades and decades. I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... I notice you didn't say actually hit things when it shoots at them or provide useful information from looking at things, which is good. Maybe your analysis is more thoughtful than I first believed. Also, with emerging technology, the BB's can shoot at things that in the near future could wipe out a carrier.  IMHO going into the future, especially one that might fill up full of high energy weapons like lasers, coil, and rail guns, and cheap ICBM's. Carriers are not going to be able to compete. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:18:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess I wasn't responsible for the 40+ junior Sailors who worked for me when I was Line Div O, the 70 when I was Aircraft DivO, or the almost 200 when I was AMO. LOL LOL again. Driving a ship was easy. The only thing hard about it was listening to baby SWOs try to talk on the radio, or come up with a gameplan that was more than 2 moves ahead. 3 special evoluion OODs on the mighty warship LASALLE, me, and LDO, and a Diver with his SWO pin waiting to go to finish his tour so he could go to EOD school. 1110s, not so much. SWO shit was tedious, but it wasn't hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not reponsible for anything outside their own cockpit until they hit LCDR. I guess I wasn't responsible for the 40+ junior Sailors who worked for me when I was Line Div O, the 70 when I was Aircraft DivO, or the almost 200 when I was AMO. LOL Quoted:
When I was a frocked LT, I had two aviator LCDRs as JOOD and JOOW in my watch section. One commented to me "this Shoe shit is hard!" The concept of managing abridge watch team, and the ship's routine and granting permission to the EOOW to do all manner of things from changing the steam and electrical plant configuration to purifying lube oil, transferring fuel from storage to service tanks, while monitoring 4 radio circuits and tracking contacts, and at the same time maneuvering not only our ship, but the entire formation, was a bit over whelming. LOL again. Driving a ship was easy. The only thing hard about it was listening to baby SWOs try to talk on the radio, or come up with a gameplan that was more than 2 moves ahead. 3 special evoluion OODs on the mighty warship LASALLE, me, and LDO, and a Diver with his SWO pin waiting to go to finish his tour so he could go to EOD school. 1110s, not so much. SWO shit was tedious, but it wasn't hard. What can I say? On SAIPAN, the Special Details OOD was... me. Just me. ALL of them - GQ, Cond IA, Sea & Anchor, UNREP, whatever. Also had the permanent midwatch, because the aviator Captain liked to sleep at night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:21:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was pretty gay in there 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I had to watch movies in ANGLICO's berthing area, that was enough for me They aren't known as "Naval Gang Bang" for nothing.
It was pretty gay in there
It's only queer on the pier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:26:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Put your money where you mouth is ... please please please! I can come up with an amazing massive mountain of cash by next week and when you put up matching funds I'm willing to meet you any place on the planet and prove to you in any logical/rational way that I was in the Navy. Please. (I so rarely beg) Yeah 25 mm, the CIWS is 20mm. Unfortunately I was never on a small boy that had the canon but I still should have remembered from my writing of the ESWS guide in the mid-1980's.  I had lunch with "Wild Bill" Rogers in San Diego (while in the Navy) which would have been 1989 or 1990 so in the ~25 years I might have forgotten some of his story and going from memories that old is never good. I didn't say that the ships mounted .50's for the first time I said additional ones. Carriers had four - two forward and two aft on the port and starboard sides in the early 1980's when I was first assigned aboard USS Midway. My last two ships (USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson) had prepared mounts for several times that as a result of that lesson learned. Following the attack on the USS Cole in 1987 we were happy to have those positions ready on USS Abe Lincoln. I'll have to pull the Rogers book out (which he autographed for me) and find the portions about the frigate dancing with ... (again 25 year old memory) ... five or seven boghammers who had hit the frigate with small arms fire and IIRC even some RPG rockets. The frigate had expended enough 5" 54 rounds that they were concerned about running out IIRC. Knox class frigates were bad ass little guys for their size and age but nothing compared to the Tico cruisers like the Vincennes. So I missed the chaingun by 5mm and that's enough for you to attempt to call my service into question?  Hopefully your balls and bankroll is as big as your mouth. Paul EMCM (SW/AW) USN (ret) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: firing trials of the 127/64 of the FREMM frigate Carlo Bergamini. The first image shows the excellent capability of engagement at very short range, which can seriously ruin the day for suicide boats and similar threats. The real world experience of the US Navy tends to disagree. See Storm Center by Will Rogers where Iraqi boghammers gave the 5" 54 calibers where the USS Elmer Montgomery a Knox Class frigate emptied a good portion of her magazine at the small craft without fending off the attack and called in the USS Vincennes for assistance. Seems the small craft are small enough they don't present much of a radar signature and nimble enough to avoid the canon. Following that event the USN put Bushmaster 20 mm cannons and additional .50 caliber machine guns on the decks. Were you actually in the Navy? The Mk38 is a 25mm cannon. The same cannon as is on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Navy at least was smart enough to take an off the shelf solution. As for .50 cals, there were .50s mounted on decks as far back as WWII, non-stop. See USS Pueblo and USS Liberty incidents. You also don't know much about the IR655 incident. The Vincennes took tactical control of Montgomery and charged off after the Boghammers that supposedly fired on Vincennes' helo. I'm starting to doubt you ever were in the Navy if you get basic facts such as these wrong. Put your money where you mouth is ... please please please! I can come up with an amazing massive mountain of cash by next week and when you put up matching funds I'm willing to meet you any place on the planet and prove to you in any logical/rational way that I was in the Navy. Please. (I so rarely beg) Yeah 25 mm, the CIWS is 20mm. Unfortunately I was never on a small boy that had the canon but I still should have remembered from my writing of the ESWS guide in the mid-1980's. I had lunch with "Wild Bill" Rogers in San Diego (while in the Navy) which would have been 1989 or 1990 so in the ~25 years I might have forgotten some of his story and going from memories that old is never good. I didn't say that the ships mounted .50's for the first time I said additional ones. Carriers had four - two forward and two aft on the port and starboard sides in the early 1980's when I was first assigned aboard USS Midway. My last two ships (USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson) had prepared mounts for several times that as a result of that lesson learned. Following the attack on the USS Cole in 1987 we were happy to have those positions ready on USS Abe Lincoln. I'll have to pull the Rogers book out (which he autographed for me) and find the portions about the frigate dancing with ... (again 25 year old memory) ... five or seven boghammers who had hit the frigate with small arms fire and IIRC even some RPG rockets. The frigate had expended enough 5" 54 rounds that they were concerned about running out IIRC. Knox class frigates were bad ass little guys for their size and age but nothing compared to the Tico cruisers like the Vincennes. So I missed the chaingun by 5mm and that's enough for you to attempt to call my service into question? Hopefully your balls and bankroll is as big as your mouth. Paul EMCM (SW/AW) USN (ret)  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:41:42 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What can I say? On SAIPAN, the Special Details OOD was... me. Just me. ALL of them - GQ, Cond IA, Sea & Anchor, UNREP, whatever. Also had the permanent midwatch, because the aviator Captain liked to sleep at night. I didn't get to play GQ OOD or qualify as TAO because the SWOs also were not capable of running the ship's tactical drills so I got to be the ITT lead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:42:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
rofl.... what you don't like technology BB's are pretty accurate... when the Navy is not fucking around mixing powders. Also, with emerging technology, the BB's can shoot at things that in the near future could wipe out a carrier. http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg IMHO going into the future, especially one that might fill up full of high energy weapons like lasers, coil, and rail guns, and cheap ICBM's. Carriers are not going to be able to compete. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Drive around and show the flag Shoot things look at things What it can't do; Provide an endless stream of sales to defense contractors for decades and decades. I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... I notice you didn't say actually hit things when it shoots at them or provide useful information from looking at things, which is good. Maybe your analysis is more thoughtful than I first believed. Also, with emerging technology, the BB's can shoot at things that in the near future could wipe out a carrier. http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg IMHO going into the future, especially one that might fill up full of high energy weapons like lasers, coil, and rail guns, and cheap ICBM's. Carriers are not going to be able to compete. Which doesn't mean a nuclear powered BB will be able to either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:48:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[span style='BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d5d4d5']For the interested, a lesson in naval gunnery will be provided later in our program. Will it cover the relevant target set and the latest TACBULs on 5" employment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:54:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's floating... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm with Madcap. Bring back a BB.
What's the status of the Zumwalt? It was going to use the new AGS with gun range in the 40-50 mile range if I recall? It's floating... 
That's a start...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:55:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which doesn't mean a nuclear powered BB will be able to either. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Drive around and show the flag Shoot things look at things What it can't do; Provide an endless stream of sales to defense contractors for decades and decades. I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... I notice you didn't say actually hit things when it shoots at them or provide useful information from looking at things, which is good. Maybe your analysis is more thoughtful than I first believed. Also, with emerging technology, the BB's can shoot at things that in the near future could wipe out a carrier. http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg IMHO going into the future, especially one that might fill up full of high energy weapons like lasers, coil, and rail guns, and cheap ICBM's. Carriers are not going to be able to compete. Which doesn't mean a nuclear powered BB will be able to either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 4:57:59 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Billions is still less than trillions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. You don't seem to understand. The system is set up to take taxpayer money and distribute it to the various Congressional districts as pork. Money buys votes. The amount won't change even if the platform does. All you're doing by changing platforms is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:02:13 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't seem to understand. The system is set up to take taxpayer money and distribute it to the various Congressional districts as pork. Money buys votes. The amount won't change even if the platform does. All you're doing by changing platforms is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. You don't seem to understand. The system is set up to take taxpayer money and distribute it to the various Congressional districts as pork. Money buys votes. The amount won't change even if the platform does. All you're doing by changing platforms is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm not under any illusion that anything I say about it matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:02:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless you're looking for a more survivable boat that can mount weapons that are both offensive and defensive in a way that is more useful against the threats, and can still project power that's more than just paper thin aircraft or missiles that are easily shot down. How are your 500 mile range yet to be invented shells less easily shot down than our current cruise missiles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:03:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a start... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm with Madcap. Bring back a BB.
What's the status of the Zumwalt? It was going to use the new AGS with gun range in the 40-50 mile range if I recall? It's floating...
That's a start... http://beta.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1550433 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:05:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No... I don't care... I'm not under any illusion that anything I say about it matters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean think about it pragmatically... what do carriers do with the bulk of their time... Sit at the pier undergoing countless overhauls. It's quaint that people think a carrier is survivable or even a necessary instrument of national power. Battleships are not the answer either. Battleships would be the new carriers as the vessel of choice for contractors to bilk the tax payer out of billions of dollars. You don't seem to understand. The system is set up to take taxpayer money and distribute it to the various Congressional districts as pork. Money buys votes. The amount won't change even if the platform does. All you're doing by changing platforms is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm not under any illusion that anything I say about it matters. If you don't care, then why bring up that billions are less than trillions? The money will be spent without regard for actual capability gained or lost, nor with any respect to the national debt. So why buy something less capable? If they money is going to be spent anyway, you might as well buy a carrier which is more capable than a battleship will ever be. We proved that in 1942. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:05:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless you're looking for a more survivable boat that can mount weapons that are both offensive and defensive in a way that is more useful against the threats, and can still project power that's more than just paper thin aircraft or missiles that are easily shot down. C-RAM data shows that it is much easier to shoot down/render ineffective a shell than a missile. I don't think you understand shipboard survivability and threat weapon capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:13:23 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: C-RAM data shows that it is much easier to shoot down/render ineffective a shell than a missile. I don't think you understand shipboard survivability and threat weapon capabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Unless you're looking for a more survivable boat that can mount weapons that are both offensive and defensive in a way that is more useful against the threats, and can still project power that's more than just paper thin aircraft or missiles that are easily shot down. C-RAM data shows that it is much easier to shoot down/render ineffective a shell than a missile. I don't think you understand shipboard survivability and threat weapon capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:16:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's because the warfare area responsibilities of aviators and submariners are significantly narrower than it is for surface warfare. Being thoughtful about it , what starts as an ASW problem can become an AAW and ASW problem very quickly. Submarines always have a couple big advantages - one, you can't see the sneaky bastards, and two, they are much more aware of and able to exploit the sonar conditions than are surface ships.
Aviators - what can you say about them? All the arrogance of the AF's Zipper Suited Sun Gods, with an extra dose for landing on a moving postage stamp. The biggest thing for Aviators is "being a good stick" Not reponsible for anything outside their own cockpit until they hit LCDR. When I was a frocked LT, I had two aviator LCDRs as JOOD and JOOW in my watch section. One commented to me "this Shoe shit is hard!" The concept of managing abridge watch team, and the ship's routine and granting permission to the EOOW to do all manner of things from changing the steam and electrical plant configuration to purifying lube oil, transferring fuel from storage to service tanks, while monitoring 4 radio circuits and tracking contacts, and at the same time maneuvering not only our ship, but the entire formation, was a bit over whelming. Ahem... I beg to differ. At least do not paint all Naval Aviation communities with such a broad brush. The number 1-5 students in the SWOS Tactics Phase in my class were all P-3 TACCOs there to become CVN TAOs. A 300 knot brain in a 20 knot world. MPA has to know ASW, ASUW, ISR (PHOTOINT, ELINT, RADINT), MIW, SAR, Strike, Coordinated Operations, Combined Operations, etc. A P-3 Mission Commander is a detachment OIC as a LT operating from foreign countries independently and running a det of 20-40 people. In the air you're managing an 11 man crew with widely varied position responsibilities and duties. Developing a coordinated plan for the sensors and comms set up and employment, directing the flight station, reporting to other units., controlling several helos in a coordinated prosecution, weaponeering, navigation, flight rules, international and martime law, acoustics, radar propagation, tactics, etc., etc. Just for starters. On the GW the "Ship Driver of the Year" for the Atlantic was a P-3 Pilot. Hell - PACCOM is a P-3 guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:17:53 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much data is there on countering 16" shells? How much on countering laser or rail gun projectiles? How about MIRV's? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless you're looking for a more survivable boat that can mount weapons that are both offensive and defensive in a way that is more useful against the threats, and can still project power that's more than just paper thin aircraft or missiles that are easily shot down. C-RAM data shows that it is much easier to shoot down/render ineffective a shell than a missile. I don't think you understand shipboard survivability and threat weapon capabilities. Shells vs missiles - It's a matter of background clutter and radar horizon. Rail gun. Sure, whatever. How much data is there on rail gun effectiveness, accuracy, availability,etc? I've seen one. Nice science project. Useable weapon, not so much. MIRV - this BBN is going to launch exoatmospheric missiles in addition to 16" shells? Are these missiles not going to be "paper thin"? Laser - I thought you wanted this thing to do long range fire support. Laser is LOS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:21:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess I wasn't responsible for the 40+ junior Sailors who worked for me when I was Line Div O, the 70 when I was Aircraft DivO, or the almost 200 when I was AMO. LOL LOL again. Driving a ship was easy. The only thing hard about it was listening to baby SWOs try to talk on the radio, or come up with a gameplan that was more than 2 moves ahead. 3 special evoluion OODs on the mighty warship LASALLE, me, and LDO, and a Diver with his SWO pin waiting to go to finish his tour so he could go to EOD school. 1110s, not so much. SWO shit was tedious, but it wasn't hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not reponsible for anything outside their own cockpit until they hit LCDR. I guess I wasn't responsible for the 40+ junior Sailors who worked for me when I was Line Div O, the 70 when I was Aircraft DivO, or the almost 200 when I was AMO. LOL Quoted:
When I was a frocked LT, I had two aviator LCDRs as JOOD and JOOW in my watch section. One commented to me "this Shoe shit is hard!" The concept of managing abridge watch team, and the ship's routine and granting permission to the EOOW to do all manner of things from changing the steam and electrical plant configuration to purifying lube oil, transferring fuel from storage to service tanks, while monitoring 4 radio circuits and tracking contacts, and at the same time maneuvering not only our ship, but the entire formation, was a bit over whelming. LOL again. Driving a ship was easy. The only thing hard about it was listening to baby SWOs try to talk on the radio, or come up with a gameplan that was more than 2 moves ahead. 3 special evoluion OODs on the mighty warship LASALLE, me, and LDO, and a Diver with his SWO pin waiting to go to finish his tour so he could go to EOD school. 1110s, not so much. SWO shit was tedious, but it wasn't hard. "In 20 minutes, we're going going to CPA that contact at 3 miles. WE NEED TO TURN NOWWWW!!!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:28:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shells vs missiles - It's a matter of background clutter and radar horizon.
Rail gun. Sure, whatever. How much data is there on rail gun effectiveness, accuracy, availability,etc? I've seen one. Nice science project. Useable weapon, not so much. MIRV - this BBN is going to launch exoatmospheric missiles in addition to 16" shells? Are these missiles not going to be "paper thin"? Laser - I thought you wanted this thing to do long range fire support. Laser is LOS. It's a nuclear powered battleship - it's gonna fire LASERS onto the target from SPACE! Who needs surface bound aircraft carriers once this battlestation becomes operational? The only thing that can take this baby out is a lucky shot from an X-Wing fighter!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:36:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Maybe Madcap should design an amphibious, long range tank with a 16 inch main turret and coaxial laser,. Spiral 2 could substitute a rail gun for the 16 inch turret, take the laser to an independent mount for air defense, and add nuclear power for even more range and to supply the RGL system. Spiral 3 - troop carrier section. Then the Corps wouldn't have to worry about USN support
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:42:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe Madcap should design an amphibious, long range tank with a 16 inch main turret and coaxial laser,. Spiral 2 could substitute a rail gun for the 16 inch turret, take the laser to an independent mount for air defense, and add nuclear power for even more range and to supply the RGL system. Spiral 3 - troop carrier section. Then the Corps wouldn't have to worry about USN support Imagine an up armored Bagger 288... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:43:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now you're talking... Imagine an up armored Bagger 288... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maybe Madcap should design an amphibious, long range tank with a 16 inch main turret and coaxial laser,. Spiral 2 could substitute a rail gun for the 16 inch turret, take the laser to an independent mount for air defense, and add nuclear power for even more range and to supply the RGL system. Spiral 3 - troop carrier section. Then the Corps wouldn't have to worry about USN support Imagine an up armored Bagger 288...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:46:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shells vs missiles - It's a matter of background clutter and radar horizon. Rail gun. Sure, whatever. How much data is there on rail gun effectiveness, accuracy, availability,etc? I've seen one. Nice science project. Useable weapon, not so much. MIRV - this BBN is going to launch exoatmospheric missiles in addition to 16" shells? Are these missiles not going to be "paper thin"? Laser - I thought you wanted this thing to do long range fire support. Laser is LOS. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:snip Shells vs missiles - It's a matter of background clutter and radar horizon. Rail gun. Sure, whatever. How much data is there on rail gun effectiveness, accuracy, availability,etc? I've seen one. Nice science project. Useable weapon, not so much. MIRV - this BBN is going to launch exoatmospheric missiles in addition to 16" shells? Are these missiles not going to be "paper thin"? Laser - I thought you wanted this thing to do long range fire support. Laser is LOS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:47:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are people so fixated on me instead of being fixated on learning and/or getting things right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Disgruntled junior enlisted it is. Why are people so fixated on me instead of being fixated on learning and/or getting things right? One of the nice things about being an aviator (former) is that I can do more than one thing at a time, Shoe. [b]Quoted:[/b
Opinions on officers from the other services? All have their own particular weaknesses. Well, that's delightfully specific and informative |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 5:51:19 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was talking more about what things like carriers are going to have to defend against moving into the future vs right now. We have right now figured out pretty decently. I just don't think right now is going to work later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:snip
Shells vs missiles - It's a matter of background clutter and radar horizon. Rail gun. Sure, whatever. How much data is there on rail gun effectiveness, accuracy, availability,etc? I've seen one. Nice science project. Useable weapon, not so much. MIRV - this BBN is going to launch exoatmospheric missiles in addition to 16" shells? Are these missiles not going to be "paper thin"? Laser - I thought you wanted this thing to do long range fire support. Laser is LOS. Same things a BB has to defend against and armor doesn't make you survivable against even current threats, so the BBN doesn't buy you anything there. What the carrier does give you is the chance to outstick the threat. That kind of offensive capability is something that the surface navy hasn't shown much interest in until extremely recently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 6:12:27 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 6:19:05 PM EDT
[#50]
The USS Zumwalt is big: It is 610 feet long, has an 11,000-square foot flight deck, and displaces 14,564 tons of water. That’s about 100 feet longer than other destroyers, as well a water displacement about 50 percent larger than the next biggest destroyer on the water, the Military Times reported. She's a big girl by todays standards. I did not realize how big she actually was. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
