America's Incredible Shrinking Navy

[Mushroom]

Cruisers are designed to attack, Destroyers are designed to defend.

Also, how can this claim be rationalized given the roles of Zumwalt and the canceled CG(X).

Zumwalt Destoyer = with the Advanced Gun System is taking the role of the US Navy's primary (only?) dedicated long range high volume shore bombardment artillery system.

CG(X) = To replace Tico, with primary role being ballistic missile defense and air defense for a carrier group.

To begin with, my opinion of the Zumwalt is that it is a complete waste. I see it as a complete waste, a ship without a mission. However, the gun system is a great piece of engineering.

But that gun is designed for shore bombardment (primarily to assist the Marines), not as a main weapon platform. 2 155mm guns is nice for fire on shore, but of not much use against other ships or aircraft.

And my opinion of CG(X) is no better then that of the Zumwalt. People getting all excited over a "stealth ship", without even thinking why a ship needs to be stealth in the first place.

 

[mamooth]

It is not "just labels". Otherwise you could call the USS America an "Aircraft carrier" because it can carry aircraft.

The Ticos were originally labeled as DDGs, and there was discussion to label the Burkes as CGs. They're just labels.

Not only does the Ticonderoga carry more missiles, it has double the number of launchers! It can fire twice as many missiles then the Burkes can.

I believe you're missing the point of a vertical launch system.

The Ticonderoga also carries 20 RUR5 anti-submarine missiles.
The Burke carries none

Because RUR-5 is the old ASROC in the box launcher, used only on the old Ticos. Both new Ticos and Burkes have their RUM-139 ASROCs in the VLS.

The Ticonderoga in addition to the VLS has 8 Harpoon missiles.

Harpoon is a somewhat obsolete missile, hence why it was left out. It's being replaced by LRASM, which will go in the VLS.

Their role is to attack, not defend.

Their original role was air defense for carrier groups.

 

[SteadyMercury]

It is not "just labels". Otherwise you could call the USS America an "Aircraft carrier" because it can carry aircraft.

You are the one ignoring the labels and what they mean. They mean a lot. Now let me get specific since you continue to look at simply superficial information and not look into what it actually means.

Nope, between a cruiser and a destroyer is just labels. They have similar size (Burke is bigger than many ships previously labeled cruiser) and can both function in offensive and defensive roles.

The Ticonderoga 41 has 2 61 cell launch platforms, for a total of 122 missiles.
The Burke Flight II have a single 96 cell launch platform.

OK, see the difference yet? Not only does the Ticonderoga carry more missiles, it has double the number of launchers! It can fire twice as many missiles then the Burkes can.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Tico has two 61 cell launchers, Burke has one 32 fore and one 64 aft, not a single launch platform.

In what math class did you learn 122 is twice as much as 96?

Also = The Tico doesn't carry 122 missiles, it has 122 launchers. It certainly cannot fire twice as many missiles as a Burke.

The Ticonderoga also carries 20 RUR5 anti-submarine missiles.
The Burke carries none.

The Ticonderoga in addition to the VLS has 8 Harpoon missiles.
The Burke Flight II has 0.

That is because the Destroyer is designed primarily as air defense, it is not designed to attack other ships. That is the purpose of the cruisers.

Wrong, they both carry ASROC anti-submarine missiles, and the amount is mission dependent. Where did you get that Burkes an't carry antisubmarine missiles?

Newer Burkes don't carry harpoons since harpoons are being phased out, they are easy to bolt on if needed.

If those eight harpoons are designed to attack other ships, then the earlier Burkes are offensive ships by your definition. Same amount of harpoons right? How's that fit into your destroyer versus cruiser logic?

In a traditional fleet arrangement, a Cruiser would primarily be carrying offensive weapons. Tomahawks, Harpoons, ASW missiles, and the like. Generally they only have enough defensive missiles to defend themselves. Their role is to attack, not defend.

Wrong, in a US carrier group cruisers primary role is air defense of the carrier.

The Burkes are an outstanding defensive platform, one of the best ever designed. But it is not a very powerful or effective offensive platform.

Yet Burkes have tomahawks, and ASROC... just like the cruisers. Some flights have the harpoons too. When the USN fields the LRASM the Burkes will probably carry that too, maybe they'll rename them "cruiser" for you.

Want to continue playing? Then get off of the numbers and look at what the missiles actually are.

I know very well what the missiles are. You are the one who first claimed Tico had 130 (wrong) then that they carry 122 missiles (wrong) then that Burke doesn't have antisub missiles (wrong) that Burke has one single launch platform (wrong) that 122 is twice as much as 96 (wrong) and that the cruiser's role is offensive (wrong)

 

[SteadyMercury]

But that gun is designed for shore bombardment (primarily to assist the Marines), not as a main weapon platform. 2 155mm guns is nice for fire on shore, but of not much use against other ships or aircraft.

That platform gives the ship a uniquely offensive capability, and is one of the main features as a weapon capability. Yet it is in a ship class (destroyer) that you claim is defensive.

Are you suggesting Zumwalt is to protect the fleet from threats masses on the shore?

And my opinion of CG(X) is no better then that of the Zumwalt. People getting all excited over a "stealth ship", without even thinking why a ship needs to be stealth in the first place.

Your opinion doesn't preclude the fact it is a cruiser with a stated primary role of replacing the tico in providing wide area antiaircraft defense. Defense! Cruiser! Defense!

So here we have the two newest ship designs, a destroyer for offense and a cruiser for defense. So much for labels.

 

[whitehall]

It's logical to shrink the US Navy when the recruitment logo states "The US Navy, a global force for good". We really can't afford a "global force for good". There hasn't been a naval battle since WW2's battle of Leyte Gulf so what logical future does a gigantic Navy have?

 

[RandomVariable]

Yes, I guess I am talking about something like the RORO, updated of course. As far as the land vehicle I can't remember where I was it, I think it was in a article from the Army War College. It would not be able take heavier IED's but it would make a good squad transport. As far as the Abrams I don't know. Israel had the pride of the world, the Merkava, and one can see how effective that was in the Israel/Hezbollah War of 2006. The fundamental question is always, how does one get boots on the ground? Then what kind of equipment should they have? Support? It would be easy enough to say the world has changed and we can start scaling back the military until it finally just fades away quietly. Some power structures, either now or what will development in the future, are not going to go so quietly into that night and will take out as much as they can in the process. Even if it is the most illogical choice they could possibly make, they will make it. Organizations will flounder while the balance quickly moves past the 'easy answers' point. You can blame RandomVariable if it never happens but take my word for it, something will go wrong. (I still can't edit but it is less important that it used to be. )

Well, the RORO is a ship, and there is really not much they can do to "modernize" it, other then make new ones. Even the USNS Bob Hope is little changed from similar ships made 30 years prior.

As for the vehicles, that is not "heavy armor". We already have vehicles like you describe, like the MRAP. But these are simply armored personnel carriers, no weapons heavier then a 40mm grenade launcher. Think of them as IED protective jeeps.

Good for use against irregulars, but not against a real military force.

Well now you are discussing tactical equipment without having specified the strategic objective. Are we preparing for a militia uprising or WW III?

 

[Mushroom]

It is not "just labels". Otherwise you could call the USS America an "Aircraft carrier" because it can carry aircraft.

The Ticos were originally labeled as DDGs, and there was discussion to label the Burkes as CGs. They're just labels.

Of course, at that time we still had 29 cruisers in the Navy. The change from Destroyer to Cruiser was made before even the first keel was laid, as the capabilities of the Aegis system let them pack in more offensive capabilities then originally envisioned.

And yea, the rest you said, yadda-yadda-yadda. Harpoon obsolete, LSRAM being better.

Yea, if the LSRAM is put into service when expected, in another 4 years!

I do not count on any weapon or system to being useful at all until it is in service. Particle beams, plasma weapons, death rays, EKV, DF-21D, J-20, Qaher-313, until something is actually put into service it should not be considered a real weapon or system.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Maybe we should ask N. Korea to return the Pueblo....

 

[Mushroom]

That platform gives the ship a uniquely offensive capability, and is one of the main features as a weapon capability. Yet it is in a ship class (destroyer) that you claim is defensive.

Are you suggesting Zumwalt is to protect the fleet from threats masses on the shore?

Your opinion doesn't preclude the fact it is a cruiser with a stated primary role of replacing the tico in providing wide area antiaircraft defense. Defense! Cruiser! Defense!

So here we have the two newest ship designs, a destroyer for offense and a cruiser for defense. So much for labels.

Destroyers are having to operate in more roles, because we do not have any other ships that can do those jobs. The Battleships are all gone, the Heavy Cruisers are all gone, all that is left in another decade are Destroyers.

The idea of the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship or Little Crappy Ship - take your pick) has merit. Ideally they work in shallow waters, normally close to shore. They are "stealthy" (not to be confused with "stealth"), so they are ideal in doing patrol missions away from other ships. The Persian Gulf, Gulf of Mexico, Philippines, off Somalia, these are some great places for an LCS to operate in. Also in fleets revolving around an amphibious force.

But they are not the "heavy hitters" that are needed to protect capitol ships. They are almost literally "jack of all trades - master of none". I see them as useful ships, but not as any kind of replacement for the Burkes.

*****

Now this is a bit of a pipe dream I know, but I would like to see the Tico's replaced with a ship that is no longer in service, the Heavy Cruiser.

The biggest hole we now have is big guns. This may not sound like much, but if you are a Marine on shore there is nothing better then knowing a lot of hurt is coming in on the bad guys. And since the last of the Iowa class retired, our ships only have missiles and 5" popguns.

But one thing I admit, the Zumwalt shows what can be done to modern guns with modern technology. A 155mm gun that can fire at targets 95 miles away, very impressive.

Now I think a real use for that would be to modernize the basics of a ship like the Baltimore class cruiser. 2 turrets of 3 8" guns in the front, on the rear place VLS for multiple defense and strike missions.

But this is a ship I would not send with carriers, but with amphibious forces. I would rather see a "Flight III" Tico built for that purpose.

 

[SteadyMercury]

And yea, the rest you said, yadda-yadda-yadda.

Okay lets talk yadda and instead of opinion discuss what we can prove with facts and sources.

You oringally said Tico has 130 missiles, still stand by that?
You said Tico has 122 missiles, still stand by that?
You said Tico has twice as many missiles as Burke, still stand by that?
You said Burke doesn't have antisub missiles, still stand by that?
You said Burke has just a single 96 cell launch platform, still stand by that?

It is easy to wave off being busted being clueless by saying "yadayadaaya" but I'd be happy to go deeper into any of these misconceptions you have about these ships. Which of the above misguided claims you've made would you like to discuss?

Or are you instead to content to wave off all the bullshit you've been spewing with a yada?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Not only does the Ticonderoga carry more missiles, it has double the number of launchers! It can fire twice as many missiles then the Burkes can.

Btw this is my favorite turd you laid so far, fucking hilarious. How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion, a math fail or a knowing nothing about the ships fail?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you think that means that a carrier is safe by itself, you are delusional.

I guess the lives of the 4,000+ sailors on board mean nothing to you, as long as the ship does not sink.

Why are you editing out the part that contains a link and addresses what you said? Are you wanting to dumb it down?

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

[begin quote]

The answer to that question, it appears, is “no,” for at least four reasons. First, whatever weapons China may be buying, it lacks the sensors and command system to track and promptly target a carrier. Second, U.S. forces have multiple options for actively and passively impeding the effectiveness of any attack, including targeting forces ashore. Third, if a carrier actually were hit by anything less powerful than a nuclear weapon, it could absorb the damage and continue operating in some diminished capacity; it almost certainly would not be sunk. Finally, the U.S. Navy is taking numerous steps to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of its aircraft carriers, enabling them to cope with whatever new capabilities the Chinese field.

SO I can only assume that the answer is yes, you believe a carrier all by itself, and that the loss of life is acceptable.

Notice, the article concentrated on sinking, and it clearly stated about the fact it is not hard to disable one. And it also talks about the "defenses in place", which is the other ships in the force.

Comprehension fail.

That is not what he said and not what he meant.

I see nothing but assertions from you, which mean nothing.

Give us the data, give us the building programs of Russia, China, Japan, the US, UK, and France, and the expected strengths, weaknesses, projection of power, and tackle capacity.

You, Mushroom, have not gotten to even the second level of analysis.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Mushroom, the USA is not going to move massive numbers of vehicles, munitions, resources, and personnel in the future. Vietnam and Gulf II have taught us that we cannot gain our political goals in the ME or SEA through military action.

Then we learned the wrong lessons. Political goals can CERTAINLY be met through military actions...a FACT that has been proven repeatedly throughout history. The problem with America is we, politically, no longer have the stomach to do what it takes to defeat the enemy.

If we don't "move massive numbers of vehicles, munitions, resources, and personnel"...then some other country will sometime.