The Mess

Okeefenokee
Posts: 12950
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
Location: The Great Place

Re: The Mess

Post by Okeefenokee » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:00 pm

StCapps wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:They seem extraneous, to say the least. The entire planet is within land-based range - especially for bombers. We were flying from Georgia to Iraq in a single mission in the 90s.
Yeah but if the planes are launched from further away the enemy has more warning and it is harder to return safely to base. Mobile air bases that float can come in handy in such scenarios, don't front like they don't because they aren't as useful now that US has more ground based air bases worldwide, they still have their uses.
Plus, don't you want us to reel in all those forces spread far and wide in foreign lands? Don't ya think the cvs will be a little more valuable then?
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.

viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: The Mess

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:03 pm

GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dude. 800 military bases across the globe. Where can we not launch a jet from, at this point?
800? Dude it was 700 a week ago, you got to stop building them that's madness. :lol:
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 25087
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: The Mess

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:08 pm

StCapps wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:They seem extraneous, to say the least. The entire planet is within land-based range - especially for bombers. We were flying from Georgia to Iraq in a single mission in the 90s.
Yeah but if the planes are launched from further away the enemy has more warning and it is harder to return safely to base. Mobile air bases that float can come in handy in such scenarios, don't front like they don't because they aren't as useful now that US has more ground based air bases worldwide, they still have their uses. Naval surface vessels being less useful than in their heyday hardly renders them obsolete.
In any sort of rational risk/reward analysis, most of the US Navy would be scrapped.

1 - Advance warning: Stealth bombers.
2 - Speed of attack: Jets
3 - Local assets: Drones

Cost of an aircraft carrier: 4-5 BILLION
US aircraft carriers - 19
Carrier groups of rest of planet combined - 20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... in_service

What the fuck, dude. This is insanity.
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 25087
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: The Mess

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:09 pm

Okeefenokee wrote:
StCapps wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:They seem extraneous, to say the least. The entire planet is within land-based range - especially for bombers. We were flying from Georgia to Iraq in a single mission in the 90s.
Yeah but if the planes are launched from further away the enemy has more warning and it is harder to return safely to base. Mobile air bases that float can come in handy in such scenarios, don't front like they don't because they aren't as useful now that US has more ground based air bases worldwide, they still have their uses.
Plus, don't you want us to reel in all those forces spread far and wide in foreign lands? Don't ya think the cvs will be a little more valuable then?
Not unless you believe that scarcity determines value...

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0

User avatar
StCapps
Posts: 16879
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:59 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: The Mess

Post by StCapps » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:12 pm

GrumpyCatFace wrote:[In any sort of rational risk/reward analysis, most of the US Navy would be scrapped.

1 - Advance warning: Stealth bombers.
2 - Speed of attack: Jets
3 - Local assets: Drones
These are not always a better option than Aircraft Carriers in all situations, despite your insistence that the US having these capabilities somehow renders them obsolete, it simply isn't true. It just makes them less effective than they were in their heyday, but there is no need to throw the baby out with bathwater. Launching stealth bombers and jets from a Aircraft Carrier mitigates advanced warning and increases the speed of attack, more than launching them from further away, this is a fact.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Cost of an aircraft carrier: 4-5 BILLION
US aircraft carrier groups - 19
Carrier groups of rest of planet combined - 20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... in_service

What the fuck, dude. This is insanity.
So you want to dial back the amount of aircraft carriers because you think it's overkill, still a long way from that position to surface naval vessels being obsolete. The former being true, does not lead to the latter conclusion.
*yip*

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 25087
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: The Mess

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:17 pm

There's literally no reason to have a surface navy, other than carriers. Maybe some humanitarian shit that could be done better by a cargo ship.

Note that I am not talking about the coasties. There's at least a point to that.
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: The Mess

Post by Speaker to Animals » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:21 pm

Adapt the Aurora platform to run air strikes. Maybe even deploy kinetic rods from suborbit.

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18695
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: The Mess

Post by Montegriffo » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:29 pm

Speaker to Animals wrote:Adapt the Aurora platform to run air strikes. Maybe even deploy kinetic rods from suborbit.
YAY Star Wars.
That's a great use of resources. not
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Ex-California
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:37 pm

Re: The Mess

Post by Ex-California » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:58 pm

Speaker to Animals wrote:Adapt the Aurora platform to run air strikes. Maybe even deploy kinetic rods from suborbit.
Rods from God?

Theoretically, those will FUCK SHIT UP
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: The Mess

Post by Smitty-48 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:43 pm

The surface combatant is the constable of the seas, general purpose, their role is patrol and escort, they deter and influence by patrolling, they escort against submarine and air attack.

The submarine of the sniper of the seas, highly specialized, it's very good at what it does, but it really only does that and cannot do anything else.
Nec Aspera Terrent