4 ms·

This rivalry between branches is probably the leading cause to the excessive military budgets the US has. Between the boondoggle that is the F35; the rivalry am

This rivalry between branches is probably the leading cause to the excessive military budgets the US has. Between the boondoggle that is the F35; the rivalry amongst the branches they would not compromise on a design so it had to do it all; to the ludicrous idea that super carriers have survivability in a world of submarines and drones. By being separate it introduces coordination problems, results in duplicated systems, and an all around pissing contest. Give them all one uniform, one set of regulations, and one source of funding. Then retire off all the desk jockey O-6 and and above who simply serve no purpose but to manage an acronym

wdewind 12y ago
> to the ludicrous idea that super carriers have survivability in a world of submarines and drones. Can you expand on that? Super carriers seem to be a central part of our ability to exert influence globally. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
- ef4 12y ago
  In an infamous 2002 wargame, an American carrier and much of its fleet were destroyed by swarms of speedboats with missiles, simulating potential Iranian tactics. Also, anti-ship ballistic missiles keep getting better. It's not clear whether the US Navy could stop the latest generation of Chinese anti-ship missiles. In both cases, a supercarrier suffers a serious probabilistic problem: the attackers only have to get through once. The defenders need to be 100% effective. That's not realistic in a world where it's economically feasible to field thousands of cheap drones.
  - robotresearcher 12y ago
    Cheap drones have small payloads, and one small payload won't do disastrous damage to a carrier. The attackers have to get through once with a serious weapon, or many times with small, cheap weapons. Is there a small, cheap weapon that is nasty enough, without relying on crazy luck? Do carriers have known vulnerabilities to small weapons, as in Star Wars Ep. IV? Edit: Just read up on USS Cole, and a small boat made a 40ft hole in the side, killed 17 and injured 39 sailors. Very serious. Is this enough to disable a carrier? Also, small boats have enormously more payload than a drone. Wikipedia says an attack on USS Sullivan failed when the overloaded attack boat sank, so clearly they are using all that capacity.

wdewind 12y ago

> to the ludicrous idea that super carriers have survivability in a world of submarines and drones. Can you expand on that? Super carriers seem to be a central part of our ability to exert influence globally. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

ef4 12y ago
In an infamous 2002 wargame, an American carrier and much of its fleet were destroyed by swarms of speedboats with missiles, simulating potential Iranian tactics. Also, anti-ship ballistic missiles keep getting better. It's not clear whether the US Navy could stop the latest generation of Chinese anti-ship missiles. In both cases, a supercarrier suffers a serious probabilistic problem: the attackers only have to get through once. The defenders need to be 100% effective. That's not realistic in a world where it's economically feasible to field thousands of cheap drones.
- robotresearcher 12y ago
  Cheap drones have small payloads, and one small payload won't do disastrous damage to a carrier. The attackers have to get through once with a serious weapon, or many times with small, cheap weapons. Is there a small, cheap weapon that is nasty enough, without relying on crazy luck? Do carriers have known vulnerabilities to small weapons, as in Star Wars Ep. IV? Edit: Just read up on USS Cole, and a small boat made a 40ft hole in the side, killed 17 and injured 39 sailors. Very serious. Is this enough to disable a carrier? Also, small boats have enormously more payload than a drone. Wikipedia says an attack on USS Sullivan failed when the overloaded attack boat sank, so clearly they are using all that capacity.