U.S military plans released on twitter

Status
Not open for further replies.

PhilM said:
It's not the current issues which concern me, rather future planning - or shortfalls in such planning.

The carriers alone may appear substantial, but they require significant assets to run as I mentioned.

To protect the carriers adequately against a mid to high nation state (not fighting Al-Qaeda etc) would bring large risks. This brings costs.

With increasing submarine and aerial capabilities of nations, aircraft carriers are viewed by many in naval forces as increasingly vulnerable.

While they offer great flexibility, they are extremely costly to maintain, operate and defend as a whole. This includes technological development.

Although of much greater quality, would we risk quantities of our decreasing number of GDMs (namely Type 45) to act as the required shield?

The new Type 26 frigate will not be completely in service till late 2030s, and will be expected in ever decreasing numbers.

Add to the requirement for increasing the current quota of aircraft (and their costs) which each craft will carry, without adding NATO allies aircraft.

So, to adequately protect a carrier against a significant threat would require between three and five vessels, excluding support ships or subs.

That's a fairly high percentage of our naval assets when you consider current ships on the role. Will a government be willing to risk this?

Added all together it makes their potential use in a full combat role for sustained durations as pretty limited.

They'll obviously sail around the globe 'displaying' their power, but they will very rarely close to capability and not for extended periods.

To be a top tier nation, you need the potential for sustained combat capability. We cannot offer that and I doubt we will in the future.

Do not get me wrong, it will be fantastic to have them in our navy. However, do not overstate their long-term capability.

You mention the Falklands as an example. We barely had the capability back in 1982 to undertake such an operation.

Now? Pretty much impossible, although the Argentinian capabilities are even worse so that threat has receded.
Click to expand...

Paragraphs please?
 
bizzaro said:
They've protected the carriers.

The type 45. That's effectively a dedicated air defense escort.
Click to expand...
It's not 'effectively' an air defence escort, that is its primary role. It is also pretty darn good at it, but it is far from being a blanket protection.

With ever sophisticated ASM platforms being developed, the Type 45's may not be able to counter all over the horizon threats.

A Darling class has an effective air defence range of up to 120km-130km. Some anti-ship missiles can already match this; more will beat it.

That means they'll have to rely on targeting the missile and not the release platform: a far more difficult method of defence.

Frigates are also needed for the threat of anti-submarine warfare, although this applies more to competing against more developed opponents.

There is defence there as you mentioned, but one Type 45 isn't going to be enough. Two destroyers and two to three frigates for full shield.

With the total cost combined (carrier, air group, support ships etc. weapons) the admiralty will be hard pushed to risk them without good reason.
 
Hellerad said:
@Toffeelover

It really is a bit absurd to have a Twitter account for a military command. I was only kidding around.

That being said, if you hear choppers in the distance, you should hide.
Click to expand...


Blast you mean I cannot dive out with my camera and get some nice Apache shots, or even Osprey shots with Special Forces sliding down ropes.

haha I know, but over there you better watch out for Kim Il Sung, can't trust NK fatties. I understand he has ended his IT squad for not getting into the twitter a/c first.;)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top