Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/1/2020 7:22:26 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 753
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CmdrMctoast2

With drone technology, under water, on surface, in the Air, In space and Mach 10 plus missile tech showin up (we see) I think Carriers days are numbered, well they are still good for wrangling third world countries for now but drone swarm tech will start eating up what it wants when it wants in the future.
smoke that statement, lol


You must have seen this scary video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU


(in reply to CmdrMctoast2)
Post #: 31
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/1/2020 10:13:30 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14464
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CmdrMctoast2

With drone technology, under water, on surface, in the Air, In space and Mach 10 plus missile tech showin up (we see) I think Carriers days are numbered, well they are still good for wrangling third world countries for now but drone swarm tech will start eating up what it wants when it wants in the future.
smoke that statement, lol



Sure. And phasers , photo torpedos and disruptor rays too. Billy Mitchell said carriers would be doomed back in the 1930's too. I'm not from Missouri , but you'll have to show me. And I've heard a great deal of Mach 10 missiles (almost as often as I've heard of flying saucers) but I haven't SEEN one demonstrated. And you would think that if such a weapon existed , someone , somewhere would sink at least an old barge, wouldn't you? And the closest you see is Iran or some other lower echelon power want to be drive around with a mock up in a parade that is probably paper mache.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to CmdrMctoast2)
Post #: 32
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/1/2020 10:44:29 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13955
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: CmdrMctoast2

With drone technology, under water, on surface, in the Air, In space and Mach 10 plus missile tech showin up (we see) I think Carriers days are numbered, well they are still good for wrangling third world countries for now but drone swarm tech will start eating up what it wants when it wants in the future.
smoke that statement, lol



Sure. And phasers , photo torpedos and disruptor rays too. Billy Mitchell said carriers would be doomed back in the 1930's too. I'm not from Missouri , but you'll have to show me. And I've heard a great deal of Mach 10 missiles (almost as often as I've heard of flying saucers) but I haven't SEEN one demonstrated. And you would think that if such a weapon existed , someone , somewhere would sink at least an old barge, wouldn't you? And the closest you see is Iran or some other lower echelon power want to be drive around with a mock up in a parade that is probably paper mache.

Don't ballistic missile warheads have very high mach numbers on reentry from space? Any country with satellites able to detect ships should be able to fire a missile on an arc into space and diving vertically on the ship target. So far we have Russia, China, India, Japan and potentially North Korea with the technology to put a satellite or two up there.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 33
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/1/2020 10:51:59 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14023
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: online
But how many nutz will they kutz off?

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 3/20 it is 8/44.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 34
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 12:25:46 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5707
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: CmdrMctoast2

With drone technology, under water, on surface, in the Air, In space and Mach 10 plus missile tech showin up (we see) I think Carriers days are numbered, well they are still good for wrangling third world countries for now but drone swarm tech will start eating up what it wants when it wants in the future.
smoke that statement, lol



Sure. And phasers , photo torpedos and disruptor rays too. Billy Mitchell said carriers would be doomed back in the 1930's too. I'm not from Missouri , but you'll have to show me. And I've heard a great deal of Mach 10 missiles (almost as often as I've heard of flying saucers) but I haven't SEEN one demonstrated. And you would think that if such a weapon existed , someone , somewhere would sink at least an old barge, wouldn't you? And the closest you see is Iran or some other lower echelon power want to be drive around with a mock up in a parade that is probably paper mache.


All weapon systems eventually become obsolete, or at least repurposed and cease to be the premier system they once were.

I'm certain some Egyptian general told Pharaoh that chariots now made foot (infantry) soldiers redundant.
I'm certain some French Duc told the Dauphin that heavily armoured knights would make mince meat of enemy foot (archers) soldiers
I'm certain some industrialist assured the generals their machineguns would defeat all enemy offensive infantry actions
I'm certain Holland assured the admirals his submarine would render all surface ships useless


I have no doubt that in time, the pre-eminence of big 90k ton CVNs will end. They will be repurposed, redesigned. They already have been. Naval air activity has already changed quite dramatically from what it was 50 years ago. Now there is a plethora of helicopter carriers around the world. Air refuelling tankers have reduced one of the prime WWII usage of CV viz the projection of air power in areas which were beyond the range of land based air which, even with drop tanks, still lacked the range.

Just as in time effective counter measures against drones etc will be developed.

Combined arms is not just a tactical concept. It is also a strategic concept.

Alfred

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 35
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 2:38:32 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14023
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: CmdrMctoast2

With drone technology, under water, on surface, in the Air, In space and Mach 10 plus missile tech showin up (we see) I think Carriers days are numbered, well they are still good for wrangling third world countries for now but drone swarm tech will start eating up what it wants when it wants in the future.
smoke that statement, lol



Sure. And phasers , photo torpedos and disruptor rays too. Billy Mitchell said carriers would be doomed back in the 1930's too. I'm not from Missouri , but you'll have to show me. And I've heard a great deal of Mach 10 missiles (almost as often as I've heard of flying saucers) but I haven't SEEN one demonstrated. And you would think that if such a weapon existed , someone , somewhere would sink at least an old barge, wouldn't you? And the closest you see is Iran or some other lower echelon power want to be drive around with a mock up in a parade that is probably paper mache.


All weapon systems eventually become obsolete, or at least repurposed and cease to be the premier system they once were.


I'm certain Holland assured the admirals his submarine would render all surface ships useless


Alfred



I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure the Confederacy didn't have any admirals. Maybe they made Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard and honorary admiral?

My bad, he was a Brit. Never mind.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 1/2/2020 2:40:37 AM >


_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 3/20 it is 8/44.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 36
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 2:45:45 AM   
CmdrMctoast2

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 2/6/2017
Status: offline
Its good to back on the forumns from the multi year sebaticle, Was reading about all the fires weve had recently in port as well didn't we just lose a sub to construction fire in the not so distant past?

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under consideration all of the tendencies of the mind and soul in combination towards the business of war.....

Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 37
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 3:45:18 AM   
Shellshock


Posts: 319
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure the Confederacy didn't have any admirals. Maybe they made Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard and honorary admiral?

My bad, he was a Brit. Never mind.


Franklin Buchanan was the Confederate admiral in command at the Battle of Mobile Bay in 1864. But then he was one of the few Confederate naval officers who got to command something resembling a fleet. If you can call one decent ironclad and some scrappy gunboats a fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Buchanan

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 38
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 5:02:10 AM   
Bo Rearguard


Posts: 291
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Beauregard


My namesake and hero.


_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 39
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 7:54:40 AM   
Mercenary


Posts: 7
Joined: 12/25/2008
From: Russia, St.-Petersburg
Status: offline
Admiral Kuznutsov. I think it's over. it was burned :):)

(in reply to Bo Rearguard)
Post #: 40
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 9:31:02 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
ADM K is likely toast. As to the demise of USN 100k ton CVs....I think the pundits are too enamored of subs.....and most USN CVN battlegroups have a couple of SSNs in tow. Just to make things interesting.....

(in reply to Mercenary)
Post #: 41
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 2:42:48 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3190
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

All weapon systems eventually become obsolete, or at least repurposed and cease to be the premier system they once were.

I have no doubt that in time, the pre-eminence of big 90k ton CVNs will end. They will be repurposed, redesigned.
Alfred


You are right Alfred of course. Two factors that will impact modern CVs (N or not) are the crew size and automation which are mutually supportive. A big deck CV and associated airwing uses a LOT of people and the drive in a modern navy is to reduce people (one of the big drawbacks of Reagan bringing back the New Jersey class BB was it's huge crew needs). Also the drive toward automation will couple with this factor. Once we have pilotless combat aircraft things will change dramatically for a "CV". But one thing is certain, having a local "airfield" on hand is an asset as flying time is a factor that will not diminish in the near future. So there is a role for the CV, but what that ship looks like will undoubtedly change. I expect that the size of the future CV will drop, so the 95,000 ton CVN might be as large as they get.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 42
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 4:18:06 PM   
CmdrMctoast2

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 2/6/2017
Status: offline
A half dozen fast attack autonomous stealth frigates, subs or destroyers loaded with laptop sized small warhead tipped swarm drones numbering in the thousands could be a lethal combination and a real possibility.

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under consideration all of the tendencies of the mind and soul in combination towards the business of war.....

Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 43
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 5:48:52 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
I think drones are over-rated. You go against a prepped opponent and radio jamming/etc is going to kill the attack. As long as you have decent commanders. The one in SEA does not get high marks.....

(in reply to CmdrMctoast2)
Post #: 44
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 5:55:01 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3637
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
I believe it is space weapons what will make obsolete aircraft carriers... but I think we will all be long-dead by the time this happens

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 45
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 6:22:05 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
Agree - but not looking forward to that day!

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 46
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/2/2020 9:11:44 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14464
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
You know any person can shoot a gun . But how many can hit a target? During the ancient , long ago days of the cold war , the USSR had a massive ROSAT (RADAR Oceanic Satellite) program that could cover the world. They had thousands of land , air and sea based missiles that far out ranged anything the west had , most designed to kill our carriers. Yet they were reduced to assigning "trawlers" to shadow our carriers so that they could be a suicide beacon for incoming missiles. Why? Because despite all the time , effort and research , they never could manage to send a missile from space , or anywhere else to intersect with target that could move a 30 knots or more. You have to know where a ship is , and is going , before you can hit it. Period.

Launching or creating a weapon , and even firing it , is relative child's play. Hitting what you want to kill takes lots and lots of practice. Look at all the effort the USA has put into shooting down missiles. What someone once called "hitting a bullet with another bullet". The USAF and US Army can now do a limited missile interception , and the USN can do it with Aegeis ships en masse. And the USN had started deploying Laser anti missile systems to a limited number of fleet warships. How many times has China (or anyone else ) hit a seagoing target with a ballistic missile? Not a cruise missile , or a tactical missile? The answer is "not yet".


And lets say they do become capable of using a ballistic missile to kill a carrier. What do you think STRATCOM is going to do when they see a massed ballistic missile launch? Is China going to try and sink a USN CVN if it means full scale , global thermo nuclear war?


I have no doubt that every single weapons system on the world today will someday be rendered useless or at lease obsolete. But lets not do something stupid like the British MOD in 1957 did when their white paper declared "manned aircraft" obsolete and cancelled all aircraft designing that wasn't already in production.


In 1910 Douyet claimed aircraft were superior in every way. In 1923 Billy Mitchell rigged a test and said warships were obsolete (especially an aircraft carrier) yet it wasn't till 1942 that someone actually did it. Even today , it's easy. I love futurism. Buck Rodgers , Star Trek and other science fiction is a staple in my household.

And I greatly admire the GE mantra "if we dream it , we can make it happen". But I don't buy stocks or investments based upon that genre.


_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 47
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/3/2020 2:24:42 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5707
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

All weapon systems eventually become obsolete, or at least repurposed and cease to be the premier system they once were.

I have no doubt that in time, the pre-eminence of big 90k ton CVNs will end. They will be repurposed, redesigned.
Alfred


You are right Alfred of course. Two factors that will impact modern CVs (N or not) are the crew size and automation which are mutually supportive. A big deck CV and associated airwing uses a LOT of people and the drive in a modern navy is to reduce people (one of the big drawbacks of Reagan bringing back the New Jersey class BB was it's huge crew needs). Also the drive toward automation will couple with this factor. Once we have pilotless combat aircraft things will change dramatically for a "CV". But one thing is certain, having a local "airfield" on hand is an asset as flying time is a factor that will not diminish in the near future. So there is a role for the CV, but what that ship looks like will undoubtedly change. I expect that the size of the future CV will drop, so the 95,000 ton CVN might be as large as they get.


I'll see your crew size and automation and raise you capital cost/through life maintenance cost.

Current US aircraft carriers resemble department stores in as much as they attempt to provide a one stop shopping policy. This results in them being huge with accordingly huge size personnel needs, complexity, all of which lead to huge capital construction costs. There simply isn't enough money to acquire and maintain all the CV hulls (and necessary support) to meet all the needs. In fact I would argue that the current behemoths do not provide an economy of scale.

My crystal ball indicate the future will be dominated by smaller, specialised "carriers" providing mutual support to each other within the same task force. Along the lines of


  • a rotary wing carrier, probably in the 20-30k ton range, focused on ASW and stand off BVR anti-missile/electronic jammer defence
  • a drone carrier (with limited rotary capacity), probably smaller than 20k ton, to provide land offensive capability
  • a mid size (40k ton) fixed wing carrier capable of dealing with Chinese carriers


Such a modular task force spreads out the risk and would carry even more firepower and flexibility than the current carriers, at a lower crewing level and lower capital costs.

Alfred

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 48
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/3/2020 10:12:47 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
I don't know Alfred. I thought I read somewhere that the QE would normally only deploy with 12 F-35s but could surge to 36 if needed. 12 FBs is really not worth sending to sea. And if you are surging, do those additional pilots have up to date skills operating from a CV? The US did enjoy having all those Essex CVs that were specialized for ASW, but those days are gone. I'm not a huge fan of F-18s or F-35s being expected to do everything well (cough - A-10 debate), but having a large wing of them on a CVN will likely crush all opposition. I just don't see small carriers being able to project power. And that's before getting into the how many planes are operational on any given day discussion.

I do like the idea of a small drone carrier. Or sticking more strike drones on escorts.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 49
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/3/2020 1:53:16 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3190
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I'll see your crew size and automation and raise you capital cost/through life maintenance cost.

Alfred

It's easy to win at cards when you CHEAT Alfred!

We already see what you have raised to, by having helo carriers and jumpjet carriers. I think the concept of "all your eggs in one basket" CV will indeed be a thing of the past. What many don't realize is the fact that a CVN can't stand alone and a CV Battle Group is a HUGE investment as it deals with not only the CVN but the entire escort/support stuff that goes with it. This is what the Chinese, Russians and Indians are up against. Much like the turn of the last century, having a BB alone was a symbol, but NOT a fleet. Many smaller countries raced to have that symbol but it was a hollow one as they didn't have anything to support their "pride"! Today even the USN has trouble supporting it's own CVs. So your raise is a sure bet as even the richest country in the world is finding it difficult to create and deploy such behemoths.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 50
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/3/2020 2:04:50 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3190
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Such a modular task force spreads out the risk and would carry even more firepower and flexibility than the current carriers, at a lower crewing level and lower capital costs.

Alfred

One more thing Alfred, your use of the word "modular" is both attractive and terrorizing for those of us that lived through the McNamara era (you younger folk can look him up). His insistence on the FF type warship (if that's what you wanted to call it) and the F-111 were prime examples of one size doesn't fit all. However building a smaller more flexible CV that can specialize given minor changes might be "cost effective" as building in numbers is attractive (and reduces unit cost). This would only hold true if the changes needed to switch were MINOR and quickly "doable". One thing that is not "changeable" is the fact that big jets need catapults and that dictates a certain capability and size, which limits modular ability or "changeability".

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 1/3/2020 2:05:37 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 51
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/3/2020 4:14:28 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5707
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Ah, McNamara.  The perfect modern candidate for a Greek Tragic character.  A brilliant mind with huge intellectual lacuna not visible underneath the overall sheer brilliance.

There is modular and there is modular.  In modern American military terms it has come to represent a specific weapons delivery platform which can have bits and pieces added to and removed to undertake multiple tasks.  An excellent exemplar being the German "Nato" frigates which are marketed to different navies as modular ship designs which can be configured to meet specific national needs.  Another, albeit less obvious exemplar, is the current F-35 program, a modular design to meet carrier air, 5th generation air superiority, ground attack versions.


The above modular is not what I have in mind.  To me modular is overall force structure, based on specialised weapon delivery platforms.  So in the above posts  I postulate a modular carrier task force which would have at least 3 different types of carriers, each one specialised for a particular task, providing mutual support within the task force.  Depending on the overall mission one would add additional drone carriers to support an amphibious landing, or if the task is enemy carrier hunting one adds additional fixed wing carriers.  Not likely to meet enemy SS, one could dispense with the ASW carrier which might be undertaking a refit.  Thus one has both greater flexibility and swiftness to tailor the task force for the specific task.

Alfred

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 52
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/3/2020 6:06:16 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14464
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
I'd recommend we look to the past for a solution. In the late 70's the USN considered Zumwalt's Low-high-mix. We have the CVN's and their escorts , but we definitely need to supplement them with smaller craft in lower threat environments. While we are fresh out of Essex class CV's and CVE's or CVL's , we do have 14-16 large deck amphibious ships (LHA's and LHD's). When they are not carting Marines around they can embark F-35's , AV-8's and some form of modified V-22 as replacements for Hawkeyes and the now defunct S-3 Vikings. V-22s would be very easy to modify as ASW aircraft by installing a modularized palate for ASW. Larger scale versions have been done for C-130's back in the 1980's to supplement P-3C's. Such a concept could be scaled down. Can you imagine combing the range and nearly the speed of a S-3 with the ability to deploy dipping SONAR? Let me tell you 1st hand , most airborne ASW guys would salivate at the idea.

Such ships could easily operate in medium threat environments. For low threat environment , where the threat is primarily submarine (such as a mid-ocean convoy) we might look back to the Arapahoe concept that the US Navy considered in the early 1980's. Using prepared standard shipping containers , providing support and aircrew spaces , berthing and messing spaces , preloaded ASW and air defense cargos , a container ship could embark a flexible ASW helo's and VTOL attack/fighter aircraft to protect a convoy against most threats.

Don't consider this to be reasonable? Well the prototype was loaned to the RN in 1982 and embarked on board the Atlantic conveyor. It worked great. Until the RN sent her into a VERY high threat situation for which she was not equipped. Yet she transported a large number of Sea and RAF Harriers , which were transferred before her lost , as well as a sizable force of CH-47's that were not. Oops!

Hers a 1981 article (pre Falkands) on the concept. https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0106/010636.html


And the big carriers are growing better teeth as well. The Ford class CVN's (one in commission and two building) have 3 times the ability to generate electricity as the current CVN's , which in turn can generate 3 times the juice of the next biggest warship. Besides using them for the EMALs catapults , they are designed to employ laser weapons and potentially rail guns. While not necessarily anti ship weapons , the are perfect for anti air and anti missile defense. AND THEY NEVER RUN OUT OF AMMUNITION! Consider the ramifications of that.

So while China and Russia are talking about the 1980's sailors scifi weapon of choice the US Navy has embraced Buck Rodgers , Flash Gordon, Star Wars , And Stargate SG-1 weapons. (Star Trek will have to wait a while till phasers and quantum and photon torpedoes are perfected).

And the submarine service (which protects the CVN) has gone all out on undersea automatous devices for asw. At the same time the Triton Naval drone squadrons are being stood up, which do maritime patrol (surface) and asw patrol by being controlled by P-8a Poseidon aircraft , drastically increasing their search range and taking over low level asw from them (they are currently implementing MAD which the P-8a doesn't carry).

So while no ballistic missile has actually successfully tracked and sunk a ship or sea going target , the USN already has technology to defeat it and other threats and is beginning to employ them.

Please don't get me started on anti torpedo devices ! That's a whole OTHER rant!



< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 1/3/2020 6:08:05 PM >


_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 53
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/3/2020 10:44:12 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24553
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: online
I'm rereading the excellent Shattered Sword again for the third time. The authors spend some time talking about the design limitations of the Kido Butai fleet CVs as well as their American counterparts. They also spent some time juxtaposing the capabilities of Junyo, Hiyo and smaller and CVLs relative to the larger fleet CVs.

Their conclusion is that the smaller CVs/CVLs were decidedly less capable platforms, in terms of their airwing size, elevator / deck strike spotting capabilities and munition storage. In many ways capability was held constant by size. That's still true to this day.

Modern helicopter / VSTOL CVs hold this capability deficiency. They are decidedly less capable than the Nimitz-Ford class CVNs in all measured areas. On a fixed denominator aspect, they are significantly less efficient in their mission profile. It depends on what you want to measure for your size:efficiency denominator.

Put a Nimitz-Ford class CVN against any other smaller carrier and what do you get? If you measure crew: aircraft sorties which is more efficient? What about maximum sorties generated for an Alpha strike? Strike plane sorties versus required organic TF CAP? Stamina or staying power?

They're equivalent to comparing a Yorktown class against a Junyo. On paper (and probably in the game), the real life differences aren't as stark as they probably are in reality. Same goes with a Foch or Liaoning or Shandong or Kuznetsov versus a Nimitz or a Ford. They really should be considered two distinct carrier types. With markedly different efficiencies and capabilities.

So long as naval aviation is a useful force concentrator, the argument augurs for greater efficiency of design. At this point, the Nimitz-Ford is about as good as it gets. All others pale.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 54
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/4/2020 12:59:27 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14464
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm rereading the excellent Shattered Sword again for the third time. The authors spend some time talking about the design limitations of the Kido Butai fleet CVs as well as their American counterparts. They also spent some time juxtaposing the capabilities of Junyo, Hiyo and smaller and CVLs relative to the larger fleet CVs.

Their conclusion is that the smaller CVs/CVLs were decidedly less capable platforms, in terms of their airwing size, elevator / deck strike spotting capabilities and munition storage. In many ways capability was held constant by size. That's still true to this day.

Modern helicopter / VSTOL CVs hold this capability deficiency. They are decidedly less capable than the Nimitz-Ford class CVNs in all measured areas. On a fixed denominator aspect, they are significantly less efficient in their mission profile. It depends on what you want to measure for your size:efficiency denominator.

Put a Nimitz-Ford class CVN against any other smaller carrier and what do you get? If you measure crew: aircraft sorties which is more efficient? What about maximum sorties generated for an Alpha strike? Strike plane sorties versus required organic TF CAP? Stamina or staying power?

They're equivalent to comparing a Yorktown class against a Junyo. On paper (and probably in the game), the real life differences aren't as stark as they probably are in reality. Same goes with a Foch or Liaoning or Shandong or Kuznetsov versus a Nimitz or a Ford. They really should be considered two distinct carrier types. With markedly different efficiencies and capabilities.

So long as naval aviation is a useful force concentrator, the argument augurs for greater efficiency of design. At this point, the Nimitz-Ford is about as good as it gets. All others pale.



I could not agree more. But here's the thing...you can only afford so Many Fords. And not every mission needs one. So used the Fords where you need them , and send in a Wasp class LHA when you don't. Hurts the bad guys , and doesn't break the budget.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 55
RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual - 1/4/2020 1:12:59 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14023
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: online
"Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual"

Well they did make it legal in Illinois.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 3/20 it is 8/44.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172