Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Drill Here, Drill Now |
The novel The Sum of All Fears was significantly different than the movie. Hollyweird changed a lot of stuff to be politically correct, changed stuff to shorten the story, changed stuff because their writers didn't understand Clancy, etc. I found the movie to be a very disappointing adaptation of the novel. The way Clancy used actual military consultants in writing the novels I would say the novel would be much more accurate than the movie. The problem is that I read the book a few years before I saw the movie, and the movie came out 19 years ago which means I can't remember details on the differences between the aircraft carrier strike. Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. | |||
|
Member |
It's still the same. It would be extremely difficult to surprise a CSG. 10 years to retirement! Just waiting! | |||
|
| Member |
In my opinion, one of the items many people including our enemies forget is that our Naval men and women are second to NONE in fighting shipboard fires and damage control. We have more experience than any other world navies. God Bless  "Always legally conceal carry. At the right place and time, one person can make a positive difference." | |||
|
| Run Silent Run Deep  |
Trust me… Subs can get under battle groups pretty easily. We followed ships for days undetected. The issue is getting away after a strike. Losing an asset after a first attack is not a good strategy nor a good trade in battle capabilities. _____________________________ Pledge allegiance or pack your bag! The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher Spread my work ethic, not my wealth | |||
|
Member |
Yeah, but the Russians have a lot more subs than we have Carriers. They can afford to trade them. Of course it might not seem that good a deal if you were part of the sub's crew... | |||
|
| The Ice Cream Man |
It’s pure SWAG on my part, but I think the first time the “Swarm” is used, it will change warfare the way the sinking of the Bismarck did, and we are ill prepared for Swarm warfare. Rods from God would also change it, but that turns into Armageddon rapidly | |||
|
| The Ice Cream Man |
We saw that in the WOT. We killed an incredible number of terrorists to our soldier, but I think we lost more of our GDP per death than they did. IOW, all warfare is economic, and civilization has not had the will to fight savages in an economically practical fashion for decades. Now, I think the right answer is proselytizing. That is probably the most economically efficient, but people have a hard time with the idea that “3rd world” places should be encouraged to be brought up to 1st world standards, as a good thing. And I think that’s politicians pushing that, as they don’t want to have to compete for brains and talent | |||
|
| Member |
Warfare is changing as we sit here. A missile barrage could take out a carrier group. The question is then what. It is as much a deterrent as it is being destructible. What kind of wrath would you expect if you killed 7500 sailors? I am sure generals in China and North Korea have done the math. So far they don't think it is worth it. | |||
|
| Member |
I am relatively certain we don't have Carriers running rogue out there unescorted. The biggest threat to any naval vessel will always be from below - not above. | |||
|
goodheart |
I recently read this article on strategy-age.com: Link (3/29/17)
Since that was written, Japan is indeed acquiring F35B VTOL fighters. They are limited by their Macarthur-written constitution so cannot have "aircraft carriers", but call these 27,000 ton ships "helicopter destroyers" or some such. I wonder how the QUAD alliance will integrate conventional carrier groups with small attack carriers. This question comes from someone who knows nothing about naval warfare except what I've read in history books. _________________________ “Remember, remember the fifth of November!" | |||
|
Witticism pending... |
I'm lost. Which dark blue filter?? Dan I'm not as illiterate as my typos would suggest.☮ | |||
|
A Grateful American |
The old "shooting day for night" Hollywood filming in daylight using dark blue filter to "create night" effect. </Maxwell Smart Voice> I was poking fun at thumperfbc about Hollywood film not likely to be "realistic". "the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב! | |||
|
Official Space Nerd |
I believe the reference is how hollywood films scenes set at night. I believe they basically film in broad daylight, then apply a dark blue filter to make it look like it's night. MUCH easier than trying to film in 'real' dark conditions. . . Fear God and Dread Nought Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher | |||
|
| Member |
The Quad alliance is nowhere close to being a NATO clone; resurrecting SEATO or similar has been spoken of, but a number of countries still need to sort some things out. Japan and South Korea still have some unsettled issues, not to mention the ROK president is looking like a NorK apologist  New Zealand looks to be perfectly content isolating itself more so than it geographically is, what's left of their armed forces can barely keep tabs on the Chinese fishing militias in/around the fishing areas in the South Pacific. Australia's amphibious carriers are made for a East Timor-type situation, very limited in scope and ability to project power, hence their importance of the recent submarine deal that was struck earlier this week. India is getting its own dedicated aircraft carrier but, they've got some ways to get it operational. Japan's 'carriers' are made to defend the Senkaku Islands, land troops and provide nominal air support; I would be surprised if Japan allows its navy to conduct operations South of Taiwan as the threats are much closer to it's home islands. The air wing of each ship is pretty small and limited; I suppose some air is better than no air  Japan's Soryu-class submarines are possibly the best non-nuclear boats in the water today, despite their screw-up with the Australian's, they'd be best to continue building and advancing their subs. | |||
|
| goodheart |
Thanks, Corsair; that perspective was very helpful. _________________________ “Remember, remember the fifth of November!" | |||
|
| Witticism pending... |
Thank you both I'm not as illiterate as my typos would suggest.☮ | |||
|
Member |
Concur. Even if a E-2 wasn’t airborne, it would be very difficult to penetrate the Air Defense schemes of the Aegis equipped escorts.
______________________________________________ Life is short. It’s shorter with the wrong gun… | |||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
Look up the present state of the Russian Navy. They are not the Soviet Union and even then we probably overestimated them. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
| Member |
Corsair, in your experience, what is the REAL risk of Chinese or Russian hypersonic missiles to a US CSG? Can our air defenses deal with Mach 5 missiles? We know what sea-skimming missiles can do (Falklands Exocet), and we know that the US/NATO has been concerned about Backfires and anti-ship missiles for decades now. There’s a reason for that. While a lot of folks are saying that subs are the number one threat, I worry that we underestimate the ability of the hypersonics and overestimate the ability of our ship-borne missile defenses against them. Thoughts? | |||
|
| Member |
I don't think anybody is underestimating the capabilities of hypersonic weapons however, how realistic is its employment vis-a-vie its capability is up in the air. Hypersonics are very visible to most sensors, they have to fly high (thin air) and very fast (Mach 6+) thus every sensor and then some, will be able to pick it up. I believe THAAD interceptors and SM-6 have had a series of successful tests against such high-speed threats. If a threat is detected, the entire battlegroup is going to a heightened state of alert and focused on countering it. There's quite a bit of defenses available, both kinetic and electronic, and of course the best defense, is a good offense. Get them before they get you. I believe the more persistent threat are sea skimming cruise missiles, and the submarine threat. While we've yet to see how China's more advanced weapons can perform, we've seen in the past that Soviet/Russian weapons have been shown to be vulnerable to electric warfare and countermeasures. So, they may have large warheads and impressive speed but, hacking and scrambling of the weapon's guidance is very real option. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024