NamelessMarine
Member
+0|6746
Well, those missiles arn't 100% accurate, and if you pre-program the co-ordinents and the ship moves, wouldn't it be wasted?

And I remember the AGEIS can track like 100 airborn targets at once or something like that.
Lazarus Tag'lim
Have Wrench, Will Travel
+1|6792|Alabama Coast, USA
Ok... I'll let you know what I understand...

Modern carriers (in the US, at least) are the flagship of a Carrier Battle Group.  Unless maybe you're moving the thing from San Francisco to San Diego, it'll likely never sail alone.  These groups will have SEVERAL ships including the carrier itself, cruisers, destroyers, logistic ships, and an attack sub or two below for good measure.

Modern Guided Missile Cruisers and Guided Missile Destroyers come packed with the AEGIS combat system, which features at its core a 4 Megawatt radar system (my small town doesn't likely draw that much power), computer tracking and decision-making systems, and can track at or better than 100 air, surface, and submarine targets simultaneously.  Both carry anti-submarine hilos (2 choppers each, actually, the same Seahawks we fly in the game... no, the "Blackhawk" label is incorrect), fit with LAMPS mk III, which as best I understand, is a system which provides a data-link between the hilo and the ship, so that the hilo's radar and sonar information is relayed real-time, and can be used by the ships' weapons systems.  BTW... this picture is of a Sea Sparrow launch...  in combat, that thing would be on its way to an aircraft.
https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_040911-N-0989T-066.jpg

1-2 attack subs obviously provide additional anti-submarine support (Probably Los Angeles class, though there are several Sea Wolf class subs deployed, and the first of the new Virginia Class is out).

The carriers themselves also carry 2-3 Sea Sparrow missile launcher systems (Air-to-Air), as well as 3-4 Phalanx systems.  BTW... you do realize that modern Phalanx systems are equipped with radar, reinforced with FLIR, and are computer controlled, and can detect, track, and fire upon in-bound missiles automatically?  Oh... they're also fit on most cruisers and destroyers too.

Did you realize that carriers fly more than just fighters?  They also carry and deploy E-3C Hawkeye's...   these are "the Navy's all-weather, carrier-based tactical battle management airborne early warning, command and control aircraft."  Yeah... it's one of those planes with the huge funky-looking radar dome on top.
https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_040522-N-5821P-003.jpg

There's also the S-3B Viking which can be employed with capabilities including anti-submarine warfare, long range anti-surface warfare, surveilance, and is a carrier group's primary tanker for mid-air refueling.
https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/s-3b-kh-viking.jpg

Can't forget the EA-6B Prowler, based on the old Vietnam-era Intruder airframe, these are airborne electronic warfare platforms...  if you really need the use of your radar and other electronics systems, these guys can ruin your day.  The next generation carrier e-war bird is being based on the F-18, and will be called the "Growler".
https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_041205-N-8704K-005.jpg

You can of course add to that the massive compliment of fighters to perform combat air patrols, or ground strikes, etc.


Given all that, and given the ship alone is around $5 billion, with billions more in hardware aboard, a crew of about 3,000, and an aircrew of another 2,500 or so...  do you really think they're vulnerable to a couple jets or a sub?

Certainly in any area where there is a possible threat from either, you will have a Hawkeye in the air 24/7, as well as Seahawks dropping sonabuoys, and the Phalanxs will be armed.  There's not that great a threat from submarines, really...  aside from Brit ships (though I think they've gotten rid of the last of their diesel-electrics for blue water nukes, which generally, a good diesel-electric can be far quieter than a nuke), Russian Kilos are the only thing we *may* have a difficulty tracking.  Some countries have bought them for sure...  Iran, I think, has a couple... but they rarely take them out of the dock, and I'm not sure they've ever submerged them.  And... if they leave the dock, we know *points at the night sky*.  And of course... we'll find and follow them... probably with P-3's.  As for aircraft...  we'd see them long before 120 miles, unless of course their air base was within 120 miles, and we'll see them when they take off (and they'll be dead rather quickly...  this is of course granted that taking out the air fields wasn't one of the top priorities, before the ship was anywhere near that close).

Though... back to P-3's.  You may have heard a couple years ago, I'm thinking shortly before we went into Iraq, a story of a Spanish Navy ship stopping a freighter, and discovering a cruise missile shipment hidden under a cargo of concrete (obviously not yet mixed), which was part of an arms sale from North Korea to Yemen.  It was not a gut instinct that caused the Spanish to want to look under the concrete.  We told them to (it was all just a, "we want you to know we know" thing... it went through anyhow).  Here's how it went down...  our sattelites saw them loading the ship.  Then when an image came through without the ship, P-3's were sent to find and track the ship.  They acquired that non-descript freighter among the thousands in the Sea of Japan, then kept a 24-7 (no, not the same plane the whole voyage, hehe) airborne tail on it (no, not the same plane the whole voyage, hehe), all the way to the Persian Gulf, where wow... the Spanish decided to take a closer look.  My dad was deployed with that squadron at the time, they had sites at Misawa Air Base, Japan, in Okinawa, on Diego Garcia (an island which is probably a tad smaller than Wake looks in the BF2 map, but is a major base for British and American Indian Ocean operations, air and sea), and Masirah (I think an island off UAE, or Oman, on which we don't technically officially claim to have any operations).  BTW... P-3's have been modified to carry air-to-surface missiles, including Harpoons, so I suppose they could have destroyed the ship at any time they pleased.

You don't think we know when Chinese subs leave port, and know about where they are operating?  Or who has airbases, and where?  And given either threat, given all the resources present in a carrier battle group, you don't think they can protect that ship like a Kodiak momma protecting her bear cubs?
Lazarus Tag'lim
Have Wrench, Will Travel
+1|6792|Alabama Coast, USA
Oh, btw...  I have also read that a carrier group always sails in a way that the carrier never remains in the same position in relation to the group as a whole, and you won't find it by targetting the ship in the middle...  so one hour it may be towards the left of the cluster, another hour it may be near the front, etc...  so you better have some damn sophisticated radar to figure out which one it is... but then of course, if your fighter's radar can pick out the carrier, you've been visible to the group for a long time, and must be friendly.
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|6792

I think just Lazarus's reply should be featured!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|6775
Ok, everyone is talking about how invunerable a carrier is.  That is not true, the fleet in and of itself is not perfect, hence why we are always developing new technology. 

The largest threat to a fleet is a massive airstrike.  I know you're all thinking well we have all this interecption gear, planes, and ships.  You have f-15s in several models, f-18s in several models, f-14s (still the most dominate interceptor I believe.)  Agies Cruisers that are not all the same.  Because of the way that it takes years to build a ship some are more advanced and better at their jobs.  Cruisers that are anti-air are very powerful, but in overall terms shortranged vs some anti-ship weaponary.  You're main defense for a fleet is airpower.  Namely the F-14 and the F-18s are the interceptors, F-14's are faster and hold, I believe, a slightly larger payload.  Both aircraft can fire "over the horizon" due to the radars equipped. 

Now the largest threat against the US Naval fleet in the next decade or two will probably be either the Chinese or North Koren Naval and Air Force.  Both forces are dominated by the military, and lets take worse case, China. 

An Air force that may lack in technology compared to ours, though they have some brillant minds over there, and their economy is huge and growing, don't expect them to lack too much.  They have numbers. a large amount of numbers. 

An organized assault on a carrier battlegroup would take Chinese intereceptors to outside of the security curtain of the fleet, I believe 250 miles or so, and idealy for them engage radar homing missiles, either passively or actively against our interceptors, its a who's who toss up.  I would expect high casaulties on either side.  Both sides either close and a dogfight ensues, or if the doctrine stands as I last understand, both sides would track multiple targets get to range and fire and turn tail, the one with a farther range would hold the advantage, but in the time it takes to turn, they would be fired on more then likely.  Thats your first wave. 

To take the strain off the Carrier crew the Vikings would be launched and hold positions, they hope well off from the fray but close enough to get a radar signature on the incoming waves and organize the assault/defense of the carrier.  This is a high value target as well as jammers, each side would have jammers, probably their equivalent to the viking in chinese terms too.

Second wave would be fighter-bombers with anti-naval weaponry and long range radar.  These fighters are not meant for close strafing runs but rather radar guided fire and forget, turn and run.  Repeat the waves hopefully hurt 50 to 80% of the fleet.  Not destroy but hurt to cripple the ships and knock out some of the fighters. 

Now while the carrier would be the overall objective they would not be the only objective.  Not every ship the USN deploys is a nuclear powered vessel.  That means that the crusiers, destroyers, and other ships in the fleet need to be refueled.  One this takes time and slows the fleet down, vunerability.  Second this ship is key to keeping the entire fleet moving.  While I am not sure how many accompany a carrier fleet, if these ships can be targeted and crippled or destroyed the fleet is in trouble. 

Chinese submarines are, from what I know, just plain old POS.  Although if they deticate the time and resources that they have to other aspects of their military and space programs, then don't count on them being too far behind in the coming years.  I believe that the USN fast attacks can, and will, be dominate in this area for years to comes though, and no enemy fleet is going to counter act them with their own submarines.  Active sonar to protect their fleet yes, submarines that can outright kill them by themselves, no.

Satellite scans (both countries have this capability) can help locate a fleet, the USN's greatest weapon in a battle is not being found.  A naval fleet is never the overwhelming factor in a war.  Its the land forces, and to get on the land you have to get close to it with your fleet.  This means that the Chinese could play a game of sit and wait and combine both naval and land based airpower. 

The green machine (USMC) is the foremost power in amphiouslanding, but they aren't any good at sea battles.  Get them, their equipment, and supplies and they'll clear the way.  But without the Marines the only thing that the Navy can do alone is hold the enemy at bay.

Also, moving off topic and onto a little rant of mine, in a move to sperate the Navy from the Marine Corps it seems, the Navy is asking for congressional approval of a Navy land fighting force.  They would use the washouts from the SEALs program to create battlions of men able to assist the Marines in landings.  Something that while it is a sense of pride to the Marines, could prove to be a big help in the future.  Also, if given their own, seperate budget from the Navy I believe the Marines could achieve much more.  Look at the new RST-V in development and the new camo.  The USMC is looking ahead for better ways of fighting its battles.  More money could do them a lot of good.
cmdwedge
More TK's than you can poke a stick at
+5|6821|Canberra, Australia

Dilly wrote:

lol, you know your name is nameless marine? right?  marines are part of the navy!
No, they're not.

US Army
US Marine Corps
US Navy
US Air Force
US Coast Guard
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|6775
No, the USMC is a department of the Navy.  I'm off to basic training at the beginning of '06.  Thats something we have to know.

The four military advisors on the Joint Cheifs of Staff are USMC, US Army, USAF, and USN.  This is even though the USMC is a department of the Navy, they command enough respect to get their way a lot.
ayb
Member
+0|6766|Orlando, FL

cmdwedge wrote:

Dilly wrote:

lol, you know your name is nameless marine? right?  marines are part of the navy!
No, they're not.

US Army
US Marine Corps
US Navy
US Air Force
US Coast Guard
your eyes dont work too good do they?

Lazarus Tag'lim wrote:

Yeah... you know little about the Navy.  And, when's the last time you took a good examination of the Marine Corps seal?  Take a read around the edges.
https://usmilitary.about.com/library/graphics/marineseal.jpg
CombatRsq
Member
+5|6737|California
As a career miliatry person, there are only Three Branches of the US Military.

Air Force
Army
Navy

The Marines are part of the Navy
The Coast Guard was part of the Dept of Transportation, but after 9/11 they were moved to the Dept of Homeland Security.  ( In time of war the are activated to suplement the Navy, in Port and inshore duties)
VirtuaLResistancE
ArmChair Warrior
+4|6766|NH - USA
I think the battleships and sub's played a bigger role in WWII than they do now and I think the game would get crazy if they introduced that stuff into BF2. Granted they are still used in life and an important asset, I just dont see how they would fit into the "game balance" when there are so many other factors involved in BF2 that where not in BF42. Someday I'll have to drop in on BF42/DC and get my naval fix.
ayb
Member
+0|6766|Orlando, FL

VirtuaLResistancE wrote:

Someday I'll have to drop in on BF42/DC and get my naval fix.
woot for aircraft carriers passing through solid matter!!
Lazarus Tag'lim
Have Wrench, Will Travel
+1|6792|Alabama Coast, USA
As basic as you can get it, the Navy is *the* maritime branch of the military, and has 4 different types of weapons it can deploy.  Ships themselves are no longer really weapons (as in battlehships that would sit offshore and pound a beach with its cannons).

a) Aircraft.
b) Missiles: ballistic, cruise, etc.
c) SEALs

These three weapon types can be used to soften up a target, and the Navy can then use it's fourth and final weapon to take the ground...

c) The USMC.

This is really the dynamic of the Navy and Marines.  The Navy pushes in from the Sea, softens up a shoreline, deploys the Marines to take the beach, create a strong hold, and then once we have land, a port, an airfield, a base of operations, we can start to bring in the Air Force and Army to begin setting up shop to push the line the Navy and Marine Corps established inland.

Of course... all that I mentioned was in response to what someone posted about carriers being vulnerable to really small-scale attacks... *a* sub... *a* plane... maybe a half dozen planes.  The context of his statement wasn't refering to all out war with a major force like the Chinese military.  And yeah... if you put a big enough force against a carrier group, of course you could inflict damage...   warfare at that scale, and superpower or not, you're gonna get your nose bloodied.  Of course... in such a scenario as you're talking about, I think we'd use a bit more stand-off weaponry before sailing in full force.  Cruise missiles and such... maybe even deployed stealthily from subs.  Or SEALs to wreck their ports...  deployed stealthily from subs.
Kingswat
Member
+0|6766
subs in bf2 would be fun, but do you know how long it would take DICE and EA to put that in the game, they would have to make it another expansion pack, battleships as someone said are obsolete. 

Someone also mentioned the Yamato.

https://211.155.23.140/biku/warships/japnavy/japbb/pics/japbb01-yamato-cool.jpg 


and

https://www.uss-bennington.org/pics/phznh62582-yamato450407.jpg
=ST6=SewerMaster
AK Whore
+152|6807|Barrington, RI

NamelessMarine wrote:

The corps has their own comidant.  their own chief of staff.  I consider them a separate branch as do many others.  Navy = USMC Taxi Service
As my boss (a US submarine Vet.) would say of the Marines: "you guys are pretty good, you haven't lost a gate yet." lol.

and "The best marine is a submarine". 

but Sub's (although it would be nice to have them), would require too much effort to implement.  you would have to add sonar and ASW weapons to the game, and make it so the commanders assets could find the subs. and who would want to sit a a sonar station doing almost nothing unless it somehow earned them a badge/ribbon or some points?

Last edited by sewermasta324 (2005-11-28 11:52:51)

kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|6854|Bryan/College Station, TX
There are two Battleships sitting in decommisioned status on each coast. While each maintains only a small harbor security force and maintenance engineers. They can be outfited and ready for sail if they are needed again within a short period of time. We will never remove the battleship completely from service at least I hope not. Those guns are still very intimidating to any enemy within range of them.

Currently in the Navy there are three types of Task Forces that I know about, which doesn't mean there aren't more, I just know about three of them. Each surrounds three types of ships. You have either the Carrier Task Force or the Amphibious Task Force or a Guard/Patrol force. One obvioiusly has a Carrier (sometimes two!) as the primary flag ships. The Amphibious Task Force has an LHD or LHA or some sort of LH* variant. Having toured and been given an indepth explanation by the skipper of the LHD-3 USS Kearsarge, they maintain the flag ship role on massive amphibious landing situations. If the Marines are landing in large scale they are going to have an LHD type vessel there and probably a Carrier Task Force nearby. The last one is a smaller group that will most likely have an AEGIS Cruiser as its flagship with a support Frigate and a few Destroyers. This group is more used for fast intercept, patrol functions or attack sorte since the AEGIS Cruiser and Missle Frigates are our primary offensive vessel outside the Carrier. BTW They also have AEGIS Destroyers. By the way, each Task force usually has a Sub with it. I know at very least a Carrier Task Force will have one with them at all times.

That's my limited knowledge on modern Naval task groups. I'm sure there are much much more out there and many different variants. I just know of the 3 largest.

On the post up above that talked about the vulnerability of the Carrier Task Force. Don't be so certain. They are not easy to crack. It would take a major ship and air action to do so. Or else a massive launch of missles the likes the world has never seen. The defensive perimeter surrounding a Carrier Task force is mamoth.  In fact the only place I have ever read about a serious attack on a Carrier Task Force was in the Tom Clancy book Red Storm Rising and that's fiction.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Lazarus Tag'lim
Have Wrench, Will Travel
+1|6792|Alabama Coast, USA
Well... I would like to use this moment to remind people that LHD's (as well as LHA's and the under-development LHAR) are Amphibious Assault Ships...  they are also called "Big-Deck Amphibs", and "Gator Freighters".  While it is technically correct to call them a "carrier", they should not be confused with true modern aircraft carriers, such as Nimitz class CVNs (Carrier Vessel Nuclear).  The capabilities and uses are EXTREMELY different, and to put the two side by side, a Nimitz class ship would make a Wasp Class (LHD, such as depicted in the game) ship look like a bath toy.  I find this particularly important because of the huge glaring error in "The Iron Gator", where the deck and hangar bays are littered with F-18s, which cannot operate on an amphib, as it's too small, and has neither steam-driven catapults nor arrestor cables.

That out of the way... yeah, fiction is a good source for the stuff.    Robinson had a good one called "Nimitz Class".  I don't think in that book it was revealed who the guy was working for, but he was Iranian...  he bought a Kilo class sub from Russia (actually, from a Russian submarine crew... not from the country itself), along with a high speed (possibly supersonic) torpedo with a nuclear warhead.  He used this to destroy a fictional Nimitz Class ship.  The *only* way it worked, of course, is that he had been a sleeper, and was trained as a submariner by the Brits...  one of only 3 really talented submarine Navies (along with ourselves and the Russians... and I don't know about them anymore, that program may or may not be deteriorating).  In another of Robinson's that I read, that same antagonist stole I think the HMS Unseen, or another British ship being sold to the Brazilian Navy in order to fit it with some SAMs and take down a few trans-Atlantic airliners.

Oh... supersonic torpedo is no joke.  No one (except some Russians and unfortunately Chinese) knows exactly how fast it goes, but it's rocket-propelled, and uses some special physics of supercavitation, which helps it to create and maintain an airbubble around the body of the torpedo, meaning extremely little contact between the torpedo and the water in which it is traveling (making it seriously fast... some thing at or near supersonic speeds).  Fortunately, to our ears Chinese subs are about as noisy as the Tin Man doing the Riverdance, so even if they wanted, they'd likely need to work on that a bit more before being able to get close enough to get a shot off.

Last edited by Lazarus Tag'lim (2005-11-29 22:26:41)

Tangy Meat Sauce
Member
+0|6737
Rumor has it drivable ships weren't included in BF2 because of the tendency of dipshits to drive the ships in BF1942 off the map and deprive their team of a spawn for a while.
RadeonII
Member
+1|6786
HA HA HA  I want to say ( no way !! ) but I could see some dipshit doing that...
dshak
Member
+4|6824
I didn't read every single post in here so I'm sure what I'm about to say has been said... but the modern battleship is one of the most sophisticated long range weapons used by the navy today. you might remember seeing tomahawk cruise missles being launched from them (and a few other classes of ships) during the original gulf war.

There are still very much battleships, and they are incredible modern, highly mobile long range attack weapons. To be specific, the U.S.S. Missouri fired 28 Tomahawks and the U.S.S. Wisconsin fired 24 during the first gulf war, both of which are battleships. Thats accounts for 52 of the 288 total tomahawks fired during that conflict, a signifigant portion. While a larger total number were fired from Aegis Destroyers, no specific destroyer class vessel fired as many individually as either the Missouri or Wisconsin.

I don't think they should be in this game either, but I just thought I'd do my part to rebuff the earlier post saying "this is modern combat" and "there aren't really battleships anymore." Calling them obsolete is just plain, well, wrong.

Last edited by dshak (2005-11-30 02:36:11)

LoaderX
Member
+-1|6768|Tucson, Arizona
For clarification --

There are no "UV" tracking missiles.  IR missile track a narrow band of the IR spectrum which prevents them from locking onto things like the sun, hot terrain, or reflections off such things as concrete.  Newer ones have limited target recognition incorperated into thier software.  Even "passive" missiles rely on the aircrafts radar for tracking until launch so there is warning, but once an aircraft fires an IR missile the launching aircraft can nose away "fire and forget".  With the exception of the A-10 in which case there is no warning because there is no radar in the A-10.  There is a flare (MJU-50) that when fired emmits no visible light.  Fully IR.  Lauch it in the dark and you don't give away your position.

Radar guided missiles fall in to two catagories.  Semi and full.  The AIM-7 series relies on the launching aircrafts radar for target postition all the way to impact.  Which means the aircraft has to stay lock onto that one target the whole time.  The AIM-120 flies mid course semi-active until within the range of the missiles radar then it's on its own (which is a LONG way).  With the radar sets in F-15, F-16, F-14, and F-18 they can track and target up to eight seperate aircraft (called Track-While-Scan) and fire at each one in turn or priorititze the targets of greater threat.  I don't know much about the AIM-54 Phoenix, mainly because I'm in the Air Force not the Navy, but what I do know is that because of the size and range of the missiles radar it's one of the ONLY full active missiles, anywhere.  Also works simularly to the AIM-120.  Target multiple, shoot multiple.  It's unfortunately going away with the F-14 retirement.  And for those who are wondering, the Phoenix is not the longest ranged A2A missile ever made.  The Soviets had one that could be handed off to sattelites for over-the-horizon engagement.

The new AIM-9X is a serious heavy hitter...  Still tracks IR, but with the new helmet mounted targeting systems, it can be launched off boresight.  Normal AIM-9s (P/L/M) need to be actually pointed physically at the target in order to be within what is called the "cone".  Closer to the center of the "cone" the higher chance of kill.  All the pilot has to do with the AIM-9X is look at the target, fire, and the missile will go almost in any direction within I believe 75-90 degrees from the aircraft without aid of radar.  There is a great video on the Raytheon website that shows this. http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim_9x/

Oh, the anti-air missiles on the carrier in BF2 are WAY off.  In reality, they are the sea launched version of the AIM-7. "Sea Sparrow".

I know more, just can't tell. 
starman7
Member
+15|6736
As for a CVBG (Carrier something Battle Group), it really is a tough nut to crack.  It would take a massive effort of combined air, surface, and sub-surface units to take one down without totally wrecking one of these three classes.  And if that sort of threat existed, we'd have 3 or 4 carriers operating together (and computer simulations have shown that carrier efficiency exponentially increases until 4 carriers), not just 1, and 3 or 4 CVBGs would mean an awesome amount of firepower would be headed to the attacking submarines, ships, airplanes, and stand-off missiles (yes, today's SAMs can hit cruise missles).  As for an air attack.  First, you'd have to avoid the radar until you can get close enough to launch without getting bounced by F-14s and F-18s (although the F-18's would be slower in coming and less effective without the 90-mile range of the F-14's Pheonix missle).  If you don't, you're going to lose more cruise missles (not to mention the planes) to each missle fired in defense.  Then, once the cruise missles are launched, the F-14s would engage them with those Phoenixes from maximum range, and then if they had the fuel for it, chase the bombers and engage them with any remaining light missiles (usually, they carry 4 Pheonixes, 2 Sidewinders, and 2 AMRAAMs if I remember right).  I'm going strictly off what I remember can engage missiles, so I don't think the F-18's, with lighter missles, could engage.  However, then you get to the many SM-1 and SM-2 Standard SAMs fired by the AEGIS cruisers (Ticonderoga class, which can fire and track at least its own 64), and the others fired from the carrier itself and lesser cruisers/destroyers (which can only fire a few at a time unless the AEGIS system can co-ordinate those ones as well).  I need to double-post to fit this all in, so it'll be continued.
starman7
Member
+15|6736
Then, you've got chaff, which can decoy some of the missles, and the CIWS guns.  The CIWS are basically big radar-guided chain-guns, which I don't put all that much faith in.  They could probably hit 4-8 missiles before impact.  Given 12 F-14's launching 4 Pheonixes, that's 48 missiles fired and killed.  64, plus maybe another 28 (estimate) from the other ships, that's a total of 140 missiles fired/killed.  Maybe 30 killed by CIWS.  And then about 1/3 of the rest having been decoyed by chaff.  And you still have to count that some of the missiles won't go for the carrier.  170, cut in half (for missiles double-hit by SAMs, misses, etc.), that's 85 killed.  You have to put up a lot of planes to fire off that many cruise missiles, and that many will almost undoubtedly be detected and intercepted.  All in all, very tough if you're trying to get it from the air.

Surface ships-just plain launch off a lot of TASMs (Tomahawk Anti-Shipping Missles) from subs and escort ships and some Harpoons from the same and F-18s, as well as the possibility of some being hit by our own subs.  No country can intercept the same amount of cruise missiles as we can, and we (usually) have the range.  Plus, subs can launch well away from the CVBG, giving us extra range as well.  Enemy surface ships would be slaughtered, since they have nothing even coming close to the AEGIS.

Subs... I just have to laugh.  There are two types of sonar-active (which sends out pings of sound, which although giving you a clear picture of your surroundings, also gives away your position and those of your allies), and passive, which is basically just listening for sounds of enemy ships (plainly mechanical like those of an idiot junior officer dropping a wrench or torpedo doors opening are called transients).  Most of the time, to stay hidden, subs and surface ships use passive.  Now, there's a double-whammy for us.  Our passive sonar is godlike compared to what the Soviets build, and our subs are far quieter (discounting the possibility of a Kilo, but even then, it would have to be stationary or going very slowly).  Plus our torpedoes are just plain better (longer range, better built-in sonar, ability to hit surface and sub-surface).  And then finally add in the various cruisers, choppers, planes, and SURTASS (big fishing trawlers fitted with no weapons, but a godlike passive sonar.  THey might not exist in anything but Red Storm Rising, though).

In all, it would take an enourmous expenditure, possibly ruinous, to take down even one CVBG, and then we still have nine others we can call in.
starman7
Member
+15|6736
As for the actual topic, yeah, battleships, drivable carriers, and subs would be very difficult to implement.
DrewH
Member
+0|6854

Dilly wrote:

lol, you know your name is nameless marine? right?  marines are part of the navy!
The CMC reports to the Secretary of the Navy, as does the CNO.  The USMC is a part of the Department of the Navy, however it is not under the command (as a whole) of the US Navy.

NamelessMarine wrote:

The corps has their own comidant.  their own chief of staff.  I consider them a separate branch as do many others.  Navy = USMC Taxi Service
The Commandant of the Marine Corps is be default a Joint Chief (like the CNO and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force).  Given that the CMC doesn't report to the CNO, I don't see how that makes justification for calling the USMC a separate branch.

Also, according to the CIA world fact book, the four military branches are  Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
LoaderX
Member
+-1|6768|Tucson, Arizona
The Phalinx is a 20mm gatling.  Same gun as in the F-16, F-15, F-15 and so on.  M61A1.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard