Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Reply

Old 11th Sep 2018, 16:18
  #5221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,774
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Proportionality. The Strike of purely Military assets at sea with no collateral would not be proportional to a similar Strike on a land target in a populated area. OAP
Hmmm. An enemy that nukes a carrier battle group "with no collateral" has no military assets anywhere that could be nuked "with no collateral"? And once a nuclear exchange begins that is pure military "with no collateral" (yah shur), it will in no wise escalate? Yah shur.
KenV is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Sep 2018, 17:01
  #5222 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 15,843
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
Hmmm. An enemy that nukes a carrier battle group "with no collateral" has no military assets anywhere that could be nuked "with no collateral"? And once a nuclear exchange begins that is pure military "with no collateral" (yah shur), it will in no wise escalate? Yah shur.
Ken, it might escalate but the whole point of selecting a purely military target is to reduce the certainty of escalation.
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Sep 2018, 18:20
  #5223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Derby
Posts: 0
I think kenv is right... you let the N cat out of the bag and all bets are off

nuke maybe 8000 people and god knows how many zillion dollars worth of kit..... no political system anywhere could stand by and not retaliate....
friartuck is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2018, 07:28
  #5224 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 15,843
Originally Posted by friartuck View Post
I think kenv is right... you let the N cat out of the bag and all bets are off

nuke maybe 8000 people and god knows how many zillion dollars worth of kit..... no political system anywhere could stand by and not retaliate....
Retailiate, yes, but what target?

Destruction of a nuclear asset by non nuclear means is still retaliation. You could boil a bit of sea but an SSN has a greater chance of a confirmed kill and of course why stop at one?

Nuking a CVS with any certainty is not as easy as it sounds. Penetrating the defensive screen is not easy. Launching a 'barrage' of SSM/ASM might give a greater assurance of at least one hit, but would they want to salvo off all their missiles in one blow? Of course there is the question of use it or lose it.

*
In one paper exercise, pre-Able Archer, a subordinate commander sought first use ofva nuclear weapon to stop the Red advance. SACEUR got authorisation for nuclear release. We were surprised that the target list was 50 targets; it certainly showed the thinking at star level.
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2018, 13:39
  #5225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,774
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Ken, it might escalate but the whole point of selecting a purely military target is to reduce the certainty of escalation.
"It might escalate?" Or not. You really want to bet on "It might not escalate?"

"Reduce the certainty of escalation?" Which is more certain, that it will or that it will not escalate? And given the uncertainly, you are willing to bet the vast majority of the planet's entire civilized population that it will not? Sounds like a terrible bet to me, whether the target is a CBG or a land air base.

And on the subject of "proportionality", what's proportional about using a Super Hornet launched from a super carrier and now cruising at 15,000 ft releasing a 1000lb guided bomb to take out a Taliban on a bicycle with an RPG? Or using Stealth bombers who've just flown the long way round from the US to Afghanistan to bomb a bunch of stinking dudes hiding in a cave? In the real world of actual military operations, "proportionality" is usually the last thing on any one's mind. If the folks in the field are given weapons free to use nukes, the target list is CERTAIN to include lots of stuff that is not going to be remotely "proportional" in the sense used here.

Consider that Japan bombed "purely military targets" (most of them naval) in Hawaii in 1941. What was the response? B-25s launched from a carrier which bombed the biggest (and very densely civilian populated) city in Japan. And ultimately two nukes on two cities. Why imagine the response will be so much different today?

In short, "proportionality" in military operations is almost certainly a pipe dream. The US has a long history of meeting a direct military threat with overwhelming force. Why imagine that will change? And the US does not even have to use nukes to provide a very devastating response. Is bombing Shanghai or another strategic target into oblivion using non nukes "proportional" to using nukes to take out a CBG? I don't know. Do you?

Last edited by KenV; 12th Sep 2018 at 14:26.
KenV is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2018, 13:58
  #5226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 222
I'm pretty sure the last time someone attacked another country's fleet it escalated to nuclear retaliation. Of course they had to invent the bomb first but still.
Bing is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2018, 17:04
  #5227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by KenV View Post

Is bombing Shanghai or another strategic target into oblivion using non nukes "proportional" to using nukes to take out a CBG? I don't know. Do you?
Yes, I do.
The answer is no, in the case of Shanghai, a city of 24 Million people. "Another strategic target" depends on what the target is, how it is attacked and the collateral.

OAP
Onceapilot is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2018, 06:53
  #5228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 907
Bing - the twin seaters will be along in a second to say something about attacking the Libyan Fleet in 2011.
orca is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2018, 16:01
  #5229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,774
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Yes, I do.
The answer is no.
You sound very sure of yourself. I wonder if Trump, Mattis, and Adm Mullen agree with you. I have my doubts. The US military had little compunctions about bombing Hanoi and no CBG was remotely threatened, never mind nuked. And the US military was desirous and even anxious to nuke China during the Korean War when no CBG was threatened, never mind nuked.

And even if Shanghai were not conventionally bombed, would the US hesitate to mine every significant Chinese port and for good measure also bomb a significant number of "pure military targets?"
KenV is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2018, 19:50
  #5230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 249
To change direction a bit: Where are the F35/Queen Elizabeth trials being mounted from, and will wherever it is survive the hurricane?
Timelord is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2018, 20:31
  #5231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 48
Posts: 124
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post
To change direction a bit: Where are the F35/Queen Elizabeth trials being mounted from, and will wherever it is survive the hurricane?
Well it was supposed to be Pax River for the aircraft and Norfolk VA for the ship. Might be a bit of sweeping up to do after Florence... messy girl!
Obi Wan Russell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2018, 12:00
  #5232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 139
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
And the US military was desirous and even anxious to nuke China during the Korean War when no CBG was threatened, never mind nuked.
"
Ken, I think that was more due to the input of General Douglas -I'm-so-important-I-dont't-need-to-listen-to-my-president McArthur.
Mk 1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2018, 12:04
  #5233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,512
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post
To change direction a bit: Where are the F35/Queen Elizabeth trials being mounted from, and will wherever it is survive the hurricane?

#You know that moment when someone says "watch this"....

Hope they enjoy the ride!
glad rag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2018, 13:03
  #5234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Derby
Posts: 0
One of the stated uses of the QE's is "disaster relief" - all part of the service .................
friartuck is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2018, 14:38
  #5235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,774
Originally Posted by Mk 1 View Post
Ken, I think that was more due to the input of General Douglas -I'm-so-important-I-dont't-need-to-listen-to-my-president McArthur.
Indeed, and what stopped him from using nukes was his civilian commander in chief. If Truman had OK'd a nuclear release does anyone imagine the target(s) would have been "purely military with no collateral." Nope. Same with nuking a "purely military target" like a Carrier Battle Group. Nuking a CBG would be taken as a declaration of war, just as taking out battleships at Pearl Harbor was taken as a declaration of war. Once war is declared and nukes released, the target list is certain to include much more than "pure military targets". The notion that the US would restrict itself to "proportionality" in a full on war is absurd. Essentially all of US military doctrine calls for an overwhelming response. Remember "shock and awe"? Zero "proportionality" there, and yet zero carriers threatened, much less nuked.

There's an old saying dating back to WW2. If you shoot at a squad of troops, how do you know who they are?
If you get accurate return fire with rifles, they are Brits
If you get return fire with machine guns, they are Germans
If nothing happens for 10 minutes, but then your position is obliterated with an artillery barrage, they're Americans.

For good or ill, the American military mind set is to use overwhelming firepower. That's doubly true after the Vietnam experience. Remember that the US entered WW2 because a bunch of battleships were sunk on a fairly remote island outpost not even part of the US homeland. Take a look at any photos of Dresden and Tokyo after WW2 and then try to sell the notion of "proportionality". That dog won't hunt. Proportionality in a full on war is a pipe dream.
KenV is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2018, 20:20
  #5236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,543
As this is the Military forum of PPRuNe, readers might be expecting informed and professional level opinion on Military matters. Those who wish to explore the background information about LOAC in open source might search out the subject in the Government documentation that is published. This documentation lists the various conventions and protocols that nations have, or have not, signed and ratified under law.

OAP
Onceapilot is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2018, 20:32
  #5237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,512
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
As this is the Military forum of PPRuNe, readers might be expecting informed and professional level opinion on Military matters. Those who wish to explore the background information about LOAC in open source might search out the subject in the Government documentation that is published. This documentation lists the various conventions and protocols that nations have, or have not, signed and ratified under law.

OAP
Try telling it to the guy on the err....left.

glad rag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2018, 20:40
  #5238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,543
HE (or his agencies) know alot about it. You can be sure.

OAP
Onceapilot is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Sep 2018, 17:51
  #5239 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,372
Since her arrival in Mayport, Queen Elizabeth appears to have gone silent regarding the media and Twitter. Some fools might think she has been idling in port, waiting for the weather to prove. No! She has been doing warm water trials.


Those trials will have involved flying.

In the last few days, she has arrived at Norfolk:
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Sep 2018, 17:20
  #5240 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,372

I saw that on the documentary in 2011 - the fact that SDSR 10 was not a terminal blow for RN carrier aviation speaks volumes about how rugged and innovative the Navy, and the people in it, can be.


SQEP!


Last Harrier landing in 2011? Eh?


Fleet Commander embarked - what about the First Sea Lord?


Flag Foxtrot coming soon.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service