5 ms·

I too was duped into assuming the headline implied a carrier group. But then I looked up the stats for the USS Wasp and was surprised to find out that it can ca

I too was duped into assuming the headline implied a carrier group. But then I looked up the stats for the USS Wasp and was surprised to find out that it can carry up to 20 F-35s (in addition to a wide array of other VTOL aircraft) and it pretty much looks like a little aircraft carrier. And it can carry 1600 Marines. I agree with your assessment, just was surprised to learn that “amphibious assault ships” are formidable weapons platforms.

dforrestwilson 8y ago
They are formidable weapons platforms. The 1600 marines are the real story. You can cause a lot of destruction with subs and carriers in a region, but you still need people with guns to lay claim to territory, or to police it effectively.
- papermill 8y ago
  They are formidable platforms for sure, but you aren't claiming any territory with 1600 marines against a major country with millions of troops like china. 1600 marines could hold territory against a bunch of ill-equipped and unorganized terrorists or insurgents. But 1600 marines ain't holding territory against any major state military.
  - PopeDotNinja 8y ago
    1600 marines could occupy the heck out of a non-trivial amount of land. The thing to keep in mind is that it's not like the USS Wasp would show up on a beach of some million person, do an amphibious assault in it's own, and then get an Insta message from the other armed forces saying "we're gonna be late, still playing Fortnite because no parents lol". Military campaigns are ridiculously large, complex, and coordinated. It's not a one ship operation (unless you watch The Last Ship).
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    With air support, 1600 marines could probably seize any city on the planet. The key is, strike first and hard before the enemy has time to mobilize. Destroying their comms, they'll have no way to repel them, because aside from the people fleeing on foot, the enemy's central command will be completely unaware that an invasion took place, only that they're being attacked. This is exactly what happened with war in Iraq. The enemy was completely unable to mobilize. Naturally, if the enemy is already in a war-time posture and already mobilized, you can't employ this tactic for any city, but it might be enough to seize a port or other piece of strategic infrastructure (such as an air field).
    - u10 8y ago
      1600 Marines even with air support is not enough to seize a city (by reasonable definition). Sadar City and Fallujah show that even asymmetric Opfor can provide a serious threat. Of course this is different when conducting maneuver warfare such as the initial invasion of Iraq in 03, still took 250,000 troops 3 weeks to claim 'victory'.
      - uncoder0 8y ago
        If we're talking about most developed cities outside they US they're going to have a hard time waging an asymmetric war without a substantial amount of semi-automatic rifles. If we're talking about better armed populace like you are in the middle east yes it is indeed very difficulty to hold a city with such a force.
        linuxftw 8y ago
        Depends on your desired level of despotism. Could be achieved with 'shoot anything that moves' strategy. Asymmetric response with artillery and airstrikes on any hostile target.
        pasabagi 8y ago
        People have tried playing exceedingly dirty in the past - colonial powers, especially. It doesn't usually work. Ultimately, unless you're willing to build your own infrastructure, you need to rely on local infrastructure. That requires supporters who won't try and sabotage you at every turn, and report everything you do to the enemy. Building your own infrastructure takes lots of people, money, and time. Successful asymmetric warfare works exactly the opposite way to killing all your enemies - it works by taking a group of your enemies, then convincing them you're the better bet.
        linuxftw 8y ago
        There are different approaches, it depends entirely on what your strategic goals are for the city. You can drop leaflet propaganda informing citizens to evacuate such as they did in Aleppo [1] and many other places. The premise is simple: give harbor to combatants and you will be treated as such. Here's a great site that has some leaflets from the Iraq war: [2] 1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-regime-drops-leaflets-telling-civilians-in-aleppo-to-expel-terrorists-or-die-as-advance-a6872056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-... 2: http://www.psywarrior.com/IraqNFL062.html http://www.psywarrior.com/IraqNFL062.html
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Is the F35C even ready yet? It was my impression that carrier groups still primarily flew F18s.
- openasocket 8y ago
  Looks like they just started initial operational capability in February 2019, I think just one squadron has them
- nradov 8y ago
  Amphibious ships like the USS Wasp can only operate the F-35B variant, which has been operational for several years.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Yes, which is why I think “marine” pops into my mind when ships with F35s are mentioned, not navy carriers.
Agathos 8y ago
USS Wasp (LHD-1) displaces slightly more than the USS Wasp (CV-18), a World War II Essex-class aircraft carrier. So when we say amphibious assault ships aren't real carriers, it's only because carriers have been growing bigger for some time.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  Not even that - if you look at what the rest of the world calls "carriers", the US's Wasp and America classes definitely qualify. This [0] is a good comparison, if more than a few years out of date. It's just that the US operates the only nuclear powered supercarriers, which make everything else look puny in comparison. 0: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2014.gif https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2014....

dforrestwilson 8y ago

They are formidable weapons platforms. The 1600 marines are the real story. You can cause a lot of destruction with subs and carriers in a region, but you still need people with guns to lay claim to territory, or to police it effectively.

papermill 8y ago
They are formidable platforms for sure, but you aren't claiming any territory with 1600 marines against a major country with millions of troops like china. 1600 marines could hold territory against a bunch of ill-equipped and unorganized terrorists or insurgents. But 1600 marines ain't holding territory against any major state military.
- PopeDotNinja 8y ago
  1600 marines could occupy the heck out of a non-trivial amount of land. The thing to keep in mind is that it's not like the USS Wasp would show up on a beach of some million person, do an amphibious assault in it's own, and then get an Insta message from the other armed forces saying "we're gonna be late, still playing Fortnite because no parents lol". Military campaigns are ridiculously large, complex, and coordinated. It's not a one ship operation (unless you watch The Last Ship).
- linuxftw 8y ago
  With air support, 1600 marines could probably seize any city on the planet. The key is, strike first and hard before the enemy has time to mobilize. Destroying their comms, they'll have no way to repel them, because aside from the people fleeing on foot, the enemy's central command will be completely unaware that an invasion took place, only that they're being attacked. This is exactly what happened with war in Iraq. The enemy was completely unable to mobilize. Naturally, if the enemy is already in a war-time posture and already mobilized, you can't employ this tactic for any city, but it might be enough to seize a port or other piece of strategic infrastructure (such as an air field).
  - u10 8y ago
    1600 Marines even with air support is not enough to seize a city (by reasonable definition). Sadar City and Fallujah show that even asymmetric Opfor can provide a serious threat. Of course this is different when conducting maneuver warfare such as the initial invasion of Iraq in 03, still took 250,000 troops 3 weeks to claim 'victory'.
    - uncoder0 8y ago
      If we're talking about most developed cities outside they US they're going to have a hard time waging an asymmetric war without a substantial amount of semi-automatic rifles. If we're talking about better armed populace like you are in the middle east yes it is indeed very difficulty to hold a city with such a force.
      - linuxftw 8y ago
        Depends on your desired level of despotism. Could be achieved with 'shoot anything that moves' strategy. Asymmetric response with artillery and airstrikes on any hostile target.
        pasabagi 8y ago
        People have tried playing exceedingly dirty in the past - colonial powers, especially. It doesn't usually work. Ultimately, unless you're willing to build your own infrastructure, you need to rely on local infrastructure. That requires supporters who won't try and sabotage you at every turn, and report everything you do to the enemy. Building your own infrastructure takes lots of people, money, and time. Successful asymmetric warfare works exactly the opposite way to killing all your enemies - it works by taking a group of your enemies, then convincing them you're the better bet.
        linuxftw 8y ago
        There are different approaches, it depends entirely on what your strategic goals are for the city. You can drop leaflet propaganda informing citizens to evacuate such as they did in Aleppo [1] and many other places. The premise is simple: give harbor to combatants and you will be treated as such. Here's a great site that has some leaflets from the Iraq war: [2] 1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-regime-drops-leaflets-telling-civilians-in-aleppo-to-expel-terrorists-or-die-as-advance-a6872056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-... 2: http://www.psywarrior.com/IraqNFL062.html http://www.psywarrior.com/IraqNFL062.html

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Is the F35C even ready yet? It was my impression that carrier groups still primarily flew F18s.

openasocket 8y ago
Looks like they just started initial operational capability in February 2019, I think just one squadron has them
nradov 8y ago
Amphibious ships like the USS Wasp can only operate the F-35B variant, which has been operational for several years.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Yes, which is why I think “marine” pops into my mind when ships with F35s are mentioned, not navy carriers.

Agathos 8y ago

USS Wasp (LHD-1) displaces slightly more than the USS Wasp (CV-18), a World War II Essex-class aircraft carrier. So when we say amphibious assault ships aren't real carriers, it's only because carriers have been growing bigger for some time.

DuskStar 8y ago
Not even that - if you look at what the rest of the world calls "carriers", the US's Wasp and America classes definitely qualify. This [0] is a good comparison, if more than a few years out of date. It's just that the US operates the only nuclear powered supercarriers, which make everything else look puny in comparison. 0: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2014.gif https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2014....