Future Carrier (Including Costs)
"We never really prosecuted Afghanistan like a real War....."
The Russians did and look how that finished up - and the first 3 British Afghan Wars weren't fought with hands tied behind backs and they finished up in the same horrible mess.
We have to face it that the Afghans really don't like foreign intervention and, unlike many places, are willing to fight for their country whatever the cost in human life.
The Russians did and look how that finished up - and the first 3 British Afghan Wars weren't fought with hands tied behind backs and they finished up in the same horrible mess.
We have to face it that the Afghans really don't like foreign intervention and, unlike many places, are willing to fight for their country whatever the cost in human life.
It used to be the mindset of the US Army that it would be capable to two Conventional Wars at the same time but that has changed as our force size has been diminished over time and even the dullards at the Pentagon currently have had to admit to themselves that is no longer remotely possible.
If the allegations against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are to be believed....the shift to Iraq resulting in ignoring Afghanistan in the process....then your Military Leaders need to wake up and smell the coffee.
We never really prosecuted Afghanistan like a real War.....sadly for the Troops who gave so much for so long while fighting there.
If the allegations against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are to be believed....the shift to Iraq resulting in ignoring Afghanistan in the process....then your Military Leaders need to wake up and smell the coffee.
We never really prosecuted Afghanistan like a real War.....sadly for the Troops who gave so much for so long while fighting there.
The US foreign policy establishment appears just as impervious to learning as the 'ancien regime'.
The Syrians were doing a bang up job of smashing up their own Country long before we got involved and then we played a very small role if you care to check it.
Iraq....Saddam's followers also did just a bit of damage to the place over the years and especially during the first Gulf War as I recall.
Remember their sacking of Kuwait....setting fire to a couple of oil wells?
Iraq....Saddam's followers also did just a bit of damage to the place over the years and especially during the first Gulf War as I recall.
Remember their sacking of Kuwait....setting fire to a couple of oil wells?
The Syrians were doing a bang up job of smashing up their own Country long before we got involved and then we played a very small role if you care to check it.
Iraq....Saddam's followers also did just a bit of damage to the place over the years and especially during the first Gulf War as I recall.
Remember their sacking of Kuwait....setting fire to a couple of oil wells?
Iraq....Saddam's followers also did just a bit of damage to the place over the years and especially during the first Gulf War as I recall.
Remember their sacking of Kuwait....setting fire to a couple of oil wells?
Why are they still in Syria, trying to overturn the government?
Possibly because :
1. There was this little thing called "the Arab Spring" during which numerous arab populations decided that they were less than content with the way their countries were being ruled. One of them was Syria, where Assad junior decided his response to this would be to use WMD on his civpop. The West rather understandably took a dim view of this and began supporting his opponents
2. Spillover from the ISIS palaver, complicated by ongoing interference from Iran, Saudi, Turkey and Russia, which poured fuel onto the existing civil war, resulting in huge displacement of the civpop that hadn't been gassed and an ongoing refugee crisis in the Med and beyond.
Does the west have a realisable end-game? Different question.
1. There was this little thing called "the Arab Spring" during which numerous arab populations decided that they were less than content with the way their countries were being ruled. One of them was Syria, where Assad junior decided his response to this would be to use WMD on his civpop. The West rather understandably took a dim view of this and began supporting his opponents
2. Spillover from the ISIS palaver, complicated by ongoing interference from Iran, Saudi, Turkey and Russia, which poured fuel onto the existing civil war, resulting in huge displacement of the civpop that hadn't been gassed and an ongoing refugee crisis in the Med and beyond.
Does the west have a realisable end-game? Different question.
"fDon’t lump all Afghans together. Many, especially woman with dreams beyond a life spent covered head to toe subjugated to their husbands were quite vocal in their criticism and fear of the US withdrawal."
I know you are absolutely right - but few women in Afghanistan are armed - the population that is - almost all male are ,unfortunately, the ones that count in this situation
Much the same in the Yemen
I know you are absolutely right - but few women in Afghanistan are armed - the population that is - almost all male are ,unfortunately, the ones that count in this situation
Much the same in the Yemen
"We never really prosecuted Afghanistan like a real War....."
The Russians did and look how that finished up - and the first 3 British Afghan Wars weren't fought with hands tied behind backs and they finished up in the same horrible mess.
We have to face it that the Afghans really don't like foreign intervention and, unlike many places, are willing to fight for their country whatever the cost in human life.
The Russians did and look how that finished up - and the first 3 British Afghan Wars weren't fought with hands tied behind backs and they finished up in the same horrible mess.
We have to face it that the Afghans really don't like foreign intervention and, unlike many places, are willing to fight for their country whatever the cost in human life.
Calling Afghanistan a country does not make it a cohesive entity, and calling someone an Afghan is a crude all-embracing generalisation.
It is possible that something may have happened to my scenario since 1920 but I have not read or heard anything to change my tentative judgement.
I write from a comfortable armchair having served no further east than Nicosia, but I write surrounded by a military library heavily influenced by the NW Frontier and the Great Game.
Discuss.
To a large extent you are correct but the people living in "Afghanistan" have always had a pretty solid idea of what it is - or rather what it isn't.
It's not part of Russia, Iran/Persia, China or The British Empire/Pakistan.
Each tribal group seems to aspire to rule the whole lot - other tribal groups .... disagree and violently so. Loyalty seems to be bottom up rather than top down.
whatever it is they dislike foreigners more than their neighbours
It's not part of Russia, Iran/Persia, China or The British Empire/Pakistan.
Each tribal group seems to aspire to rule the whole lot - other tribal groups .... disagree and violently so. Loyalty seems to be bottom up rather than top down.
whatever it is they dislike foreigners more than their neighbours
Thread Starter
Did someone say VERTREP?
Or perhaps a more conventional RAS whilst also conducting flying operations?
Or perhaps a more conventional RAS whilst also conducting flying operations?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Aug 2021 at 19:20.
Thread Starter
One of the reasons I started this thread (on ARRSE) and was so interested by this US congressional document was because it illustrates the importance of carriers in the maritime domain:
Late 1970s US Congress report - the US Sea Control mission
The contributions of a former US Navy EA-6B Prowler veteran are very informative - in the the carrier in the Atlantic was all about defeating the Soviets at sea. Even the anti radar capabilities like HARM were for use against Soviet warships. Yet many of the public and the media seem to think that the carrier is first and foremost a platform for ground attack. Why? Up until 1945 the carrier was mostly used to protect friendly forces and convoys, and to attack enemy naval forces. Although these things have continued as roles throughout the Cold War and beyond, and conflicts such as the Falklands and things such as US carrier based fighters intercepting Iranian P-3 Orions during the 'tanker war in the 1980s, this belief persists.
In 1990, pretty much at the end of the Cold War, a defence related publication claimed that the role of the US supercarrier was (ground) attack. During the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam carriers provided ground attack - I am not sure if carrier aircraft took part in the few naval battles. Did that influence the authors? Since then, in the Gulf, Adriatic, and Afghanistan carriers have provided various capabilities but mostly ground attack.
Now we are waking up to a return to having adversaries with conventional capabilities across the environmental domains. Can the media and public be educated? Can the media be dissuaded from talking about fighters being carried 'to defend the carrier' or ASW helicopters 'defending the carrier'. In a documentary in the nineties the Captain of a Royal Navy CVS described the role of the carrier as providing local air superiority around a naval force. Is that too complex for the public?
Late 1970s US Congress report - the US Sea Control mission
The contributions of a former US Navy EA-6B Prowler veteran are very informative - in the the carrier in the Atlantic was all about defeating the Soviets at sea. Even the anti radar capabilities like HARM were for use against Soviet warships. Yet many of the public and the media seem to think that the carrier is first and foremost a platform for ground attack. Why? Up until 1945 the carrier was mostly used to protect friendly forces and convoys, and to attack enemy naval forces. Although these things have continued as roles throughout the Cold War and beyond, and conflicts such as the Falklands and things such as US carrier based fighters intercepting Iranian P-3 Orions during the 'tanker war in the 1980s, this belief persists.
In 1990, pretty much at the end of the Cold War, a defence related publication claimed that the role of the US supercarrier was (ground) attack. During the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam carriers provided ground attack - I am not sure if carrier aircraft took part in the few naval battles. Did that influence the authors? Since then, in the Gulf, Adriatic, and Afghanistan carriers have provided various capabilities but mostly ground attack.
Now we are waking up to a return to having adversaries with conventional capabilities across the environmental domains. Can the media and public be educated? Can the media be dissuaded from talking about fighters being carried 'to defend the carrier' or ASW helicopters 'defending the carrier'. In a documentary in the nineties the Captain of a Royal Navy CVS described the role of the carrier as providing local air superiority around a naval force. Is that too complex for the public?
Thread Starter
Once again carriers may be needed for sea control missions in the NATO theatre. History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Admiral Warns America's East Coast Is No Longer A "Safe Haven" Thanks To Russian Subs - 4 February 2020
"Our new reality is that when our sailors toss the lines over and set sail, they can expect to be operating in a contested space once they leave Norfolk," Lewis said. "Our ships can no longer expect to operate in a safe haven on the East Coast or merely cross the Atlantic unhindered to operate in another location."
"We have seen an ever-increasing number of Russian submarines deployed in the Atlantic, and these submarines are more capable than ever, deploying for longer periods of time, with more lethal weapons systems," he continued. "Our sailors have the mindset that they are no longer uncontested and to expect to operate alongside our competitors each and every underway."
Allied Joint Force Command Norfolk declares Full Operational Capability - NATO 15 July 21
NATO’s newest operational command, established in July 2019 as part of the Alliance’s command structure adaptation, is the first NATO headquarters dedicated to the Atlantic since 2003. Its mission is to protect the Strategic Lines of Communication across all domains, protect sea-lanes between Europe and North America and enable the reinforcement of Europe.
Opening the ceremony on-board the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), Vice Admiral Lewis acknowledged the importance of this achievement. “The security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex – particularly in the Atlantic. JFC Norfolk demonstrates NATO's dedication to security and stability in the region and sends a strong message of reassurance to both North Americans and Europeans, while serving as a powerful signal to deter any potential adversary”.
Admiral Warns America's East Coast Is No Longer A "Safe Haven" Thanks To Russian Subs - 4 February 2020
"Our new reality is that when our sailors toss the lines over and set sail, they can expect to be operating in a contested space once they leave Norfolk," Lewis said. "Our ships can no longer expect to operate in a safe haven on the East Coast or merely cross the Atlantic unhindered to operate in another location."
"We have seen an ever-increasing number of Russian submarines deployed in the Atlantic, and these submarines are more capable than ever, deploying for longer periods of time, with more lethal weapons systems," he continued. "Our sailors have the mindset that they are no longer uncontested and to expect to operate alongside our competitors each and every underway."
Allied Joint Force Command Norfolk declares Full Operational Capability - NATO 15 July 21
NATO’s newest operational command, established in July 2019 as part of the Alliance’s command structure adaptation, is the first NATO headquarters dedicated to the Atlantic since 2003. Its mission is to protect the Strategic Lines of Communication across all domains, protect sea-lanes between Europe and North America and enable the reinforcement of Europe.
Opening the ceremony on-board the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), Vice Admiral Lewis acknowledged the importance of this achievement. “The security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex – particularly in the Atlantic. JFC Norfolk demonstrates NATO's dedication to security and stability in the region and sends a strong message of reassurance to both North Americans and Europeans, while serving as a powerful signal to deter any potential adversary”.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 9th Aug 2021 at 08:03.
Convoy Protection is a based on a Conventional War in Europe lasting for more than a week............. I don't think any exercise since the '50's has shown that that is a realistic outcome
The Russians will be in Calais or the buckets of instant sunshine will be flying in that time frame
The Russians will be in Calais or the buckets of instant sunshine will be flying in that time frame
???
How should they get there? Except by Aeroflot!?
Russia is light years away from being able to conventionally conquer Western Europe.
That might theoretically still happen but the scenarios leading to that would not be Tank hordes (which don't exist any more in a state and size that would realistically allow them to do so - not even considering survival rates of Tanks on the modern battlefield) rolling 1000 kilometers through Poland, the Eastern parts of Germany even before reaching the famous Fulda Gap...
Those scenarios would rather result from escalation on the outskirts (Baltic states) or escalations following the sinking of Military vessels around Ukrainian waters.
How should they get there? Except by Aeroflot!?
Russia is light years away from being able to conventionally conquer Western Europe.
or the buckets of instant sunshine will be flying in that time frame
Those scenarios would rather result from escalation on the outskirts (Baltic states) or escalations following the sinking of Military vessels around Ukrainian waters.
Last edited by henra; 9th Aug 2021 at 10:19.
WEBF.....The Admiral is correct to point....but do remember one cannot sell the need for more and better Submarines without talking up the threat.
The Days of SOSUS and a Western Powers Attack Sub tailing Soviet Boomers the full time they were operating are gone perhaps.....but the public will be unknowing of the actual capabilities of the US DOD currently.
It is not only Russian nuclear Submarines that pose a threat....but now we have very quiet Diesel Boats been operated by several Navies.
The Days of SOSUS and a Western Powers Attack Sub tailing Soviet Boomers the full time they were operating are gone perhaps.....but the public will be unknowing of the actual capabilities of the US DOD currently.
It is not only Russian nuclear Submarines that pose a threat....but now we have very quiet Diesel Boats been operated by several Navies.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Days of SOSUS and a Western Powers Attack Sub tailing Soviet Boomers the full time they were operating are gone perhaps.....but the public will be unknowing of the actual capabilities of the US DOD currently.
https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/sosus.htm
On 26 April 1999 Lockheed Martin Corp., Manassas, Va., was awarded a $107,031,978 firm-fixed-price contract for Phase II of a deep water, undersea surveillance system. This system is a long life, passive acoustic surveillance system that can be configured for multiple mission applications. It has the capability to provide long-term barrier and field acoustic surveillance, long-range acoustic surveillance coverage of open ocean areas, and acoustic surveillance in areas with high ambient noise.
This contract contains one option, which, if exercised, would bring the total cumulative value of this contract to $153,234,288. Work will be performed in Manassas, Va., and is expected to be completed by September 2005…..
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2010...marine-Warfare
https://www.govconwire.com/2017/01/l...-modification/
http://mseas.mit.edu/archive/PLUSNet/5stewamsPAF2.pdf
https://www.naval-technology.com/fea...nce-auvs-uuvs/
"Russia is light years away from being able to conventionally conquer Western Europe."
Exactly - it won't be a conventional conflict for long enough to worry about 1940's style convoys..............
Exactly - it won't be a conventional conflict for long enough to worry about 1940's style convoys..............
There was a debate here, or maybe in another thread, a while ago about the provision of simulation on HMS QE, and whether civ instructors are aboard. Anyway, article in today’s Times describes DMRTs and says instructors are provided by BAeS.
Thread Starter
A56/henra
We are not talking about the conquest of central Europe by by the Third Shock Army, but a limited scenario as outlined in the Fire and Ice paper. You can see that carriers groups are important in all the scenarios outlined, securing sea lines of communication, defending NATO points of vulnerability, dealing with the Russian bastion.. Note that the recommendations include that for deterrence, NATO should establish routine exercises to rehearse the escorting of military convoys across the Atlantic and that it should ensure at least one exercise centred upon a minimum of one US or UK fleet carrier takes place in NATO’s northern region per year, and rehearse the integration of northern European NATO navy escort vessels into larger US and UK-led task groups.
SASless
Indeed - Iran and North Korea come to mind. Argentina had them in 1982.
We are not talking about the conquest of central Europe by by the Third Shock Army, but a limited scenario as outlined in the Fire and Ice paper. You can see that carriers groups are important in all the scenarios outlined, securing sea lines of communication, defending NATO points of vulnerability, dealing with the Russian bastion.. Note that the recommendations include that for deterrence, NATO should establish routine exercises to rehearse the escorting of military convoys across the Atlantic and that it should ensure at least one exercise centred upon a minimum of one US or UK fleet carrier takes place in NATO’s northern region per year, and rehearse the integration of northern European NATO navy escort vessels into larger US and UK-led task groups.
SASless
Indeed - Iran and North Korea come to mind. Argentina had them in 1982.
Fire & ice starts with ", there is a serious risk that Moscow may take aggressive action against the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia" as the Conflict Scenario and then discusses the Baltic and goes on to suggest the Russians will grab N Norway
The first is a possibility but the second seems to be a bit far fetched - the Russians have nowhere near the capability they had in the area in say the mid 1980's - people on here have posted links in the last year showing some of their bases have effectively been under reconstruction for decades with little sign of completion
The first is a possibility but the second seems to be a bit far fetched - the Russians have nowhere near the capability they had in the area in say the mid 1980's - people on here have posted links in the last year showing some of their bases have effectively been under reconstruction for decades with little sign of completion