Posted on 06/05/2019 11:00:21 AM PDT by RevelationDavid
Ask the Brits how the Prince of Wales and Repulse faired against slow land-based Jap bombers.
(Today, our best warships, manned by PC idiots can’t even stay out of the way of tankers.)
And our CVNs dare not get in attack range of China. That’s a fact. CVNs are great against 3rd world pirates, but they dare not sail near China, lest they be sunk before they get off their aircraft to attack China.
So what you’re saying, if I understand correctly, is that our Navy is pretty much “water infantry” to our Air Power “artillery?”
The usual rah-rah crowd is out today. The comments are eye-rolling in their naivete.
Like Billy Mitchell, the Prince of Wales and Repulse never happened.
Rule Britannia! (Eye roll)
Not at all. Not a good analogy. Our Navy is the Prince of Wales and Repulse, promising that thick AA will keep any possible air threat out of range. It didn’t work out.
Even our own war-gamers acknowledge that our CVN battle groups are useless against China, in that the battle groups are in range of salvos of deadly land-based missiles long before our CVNs are in aircraft launch range of China.
It’s just math and physics, the rah-rah only gets people killed.
“Whose freighter was it in the first place?”
Freighters are being retired every day. It would be easy to use an obsolete freighter to do the trick.
It would depend on who was President. Trump? Oh yeah, they’re toast.
Some Democrat who’s been pocketing bribes for years from our enemies?
They would wait until someone was in the White House who would play ball.
“Wiping out a national strategic asset like a carrier group would result in a full bore war”
Sure, but how would such a military conduct a war, send more ships?
I get that, but as a given doesn't that mean warships are relegated to consolidating coastal gains made by air attack?
I remember a war games episode in the mid 1980’s. I mentioned a retaliatory nuclear strike by a carrier group. The answer asked how could they do that from the bottom of the ocean. No one in the nuclear forces believed the carriers would survive the first few hours of any first-world war.
It’s Murphy’s law of military actions: if they are in range, then so are you.
For a carrier group to accomplish anything useful, they need to get their planes within their combat radius to the objective, and hope that range is greater than that of the enemy’s missiles.
Ask the Brits how the Prince of Wales and Repulse faired against slow land-based Jap bombers.
= = = = = = = = =
Ask the Brits about the HMS Sheffield and the Exorcet missile in the Falklands, or ‘US’ about the USS Stark etc
OTHO ask the Iranis if they remember what the Vincennes did FOR them...(those bodies looked like they just had come out of the morgue or as I said at the time “OSCAR LIVES”.
And we still have a Boomer or two in strategic places.
Only difference is that when it comes to Russia/US/China there is some awareness...it is when the nut cases get hold of this stuff when it is time to worry.
With the latest crop of pols we are nurturing tossed in with the old fossils that are anti EVERYTHING ‘US’ unless it is to line their pockets, none of our ‘secrets’ will be safe.
The countermeasures against unescorted torpedo bombers were combat air patrols and lots of flak. And so it was.
“For a carrier group to accomplish anything useful, they need to get their planes within their combat radius to the objective, and hope that range is greater than that of the enemy’s missiles.”
And regarding China, they ain’t by a LONG shot.
Even a 100 meter rusty fishing boat can launch a modern missile one time.
Go total nuke, or withdraw out of China’s range.
But today the CVN CAP range is far exceeded by the range of China’s hypersonic sea skimmers and steerable reentry ballistic missiles.
I think if we ever have a first-world war the military on all sides are going to be in for a shock at how effective certain things were and how noneffective other things were.
No one listens to the intelligence guys. They buy weapons and systems based on politics far more than they listen to science.
But the POW and Repulse were the last Allied battleships sunk by air attack. The countermeasure was air superiority and lots more flak, plus even more flak on the larger number of escorts. The POW and Repulse were knowingly risked, with unreliable CAP, poor radar and minimal destroyer escorts, in a desperate operation, as British assets in theater were very limited. And they were very poorly equipped with AA by later standards.
As for modern ships vs modern missiles I don’t know. None of us really knows the state of play here, of threat and counter threat, only a real war will tell us that.
Lol. Was watching and telling someone about that the other day. They didn’t believe me. Had to pull it up on yourliberaltube.
The British were extremely aware of the danger of air attack on Naval units.
They did a lot of it themselves, with great success. The first capital ships sunk by air attack were sunk by the British, note. The British also suffered major naval losses in the Eastern Med in 1941 from German bombers. They had no illusions about the risks. They really weren’t stupid you know.
The situation with the POW and Repulse was that of a desperate hail-Mary play. They had to respond to the Jap invasion, but they had very limited resources in theater. They gambled and lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.