77
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
77 points (88.9% liked)
US News
2022 readers
114 users here now
News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, but also no. They're explicitly FOR someone with a "decent navy or airforce". Against an enemy using conventional naval forces and tactics aircraft carriers are king. You basically can't beat them with a conventional ship.
Three dudes in a dingy with a death wish and a big enough bomb? It's fucked. Or at least none of its fancy defenses will do shit, if they can get past its escort. The US navy lies awake at night scared of drones and cheap SCUDs. But they're BEGGING for someone to bring a "decent" navy against an aircraft carrier.
Also want to point out that this is almost all theoretical doctrine. There hasn't really been peer-level fleet combat since WW2 so realistically we can only guess at what kind of doctrine and weapons work and which don't.
We can only guess. But every single thing the US puts out about its doctrine, about its capacity and about its plans are about how much they can't wait for China to try to build a modern-but-slightly-out-of-date Yamato (For some reason) so they can do the pacific campaign but better.
Not sure if you meant the battleship or just Japan in general, but funny either way
What do you mean by "conventional naval forces" here? WW2 dreadnought? Or something like this, specifically with anti-ship missiles to kill carrier groups?
Not really true, Swedes of all people proven several years ago that even farily cheap conventional submarines can be very dangerous to US carriers, and lots of navies have those.
If you're going for a "decent navy" plan, there is hardly any better use for your money than ordering few Kilo II subs or similar.
Carriers are the naval past, subs continue on into the future, but you can't conquer shit with a sub.
We are not talking about any conquering here though. And btw you can't conquer anything with a carrier either, it's pure racket weapon.
Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.
Yeah but also on very small scale since each LHA can carry 1687 marines without heavy support. And there are 9 of them currently, so using just them and other ships for support they can conquer some islands or make a shore landing at most. That make them also mostly a terror weapon, like the XV - XIX century raids colonizers did. Not a serious conquering like in Iraq.
you cant conquer things with weapons, that's not how you occupy/hold land. the only thing that works is boots.
Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.
All you need is a lot of cheap, shitty missiles on a lot of cheap, shitty platforms. Three dudes on one dinghy will get got by the .50 cals, 25mm, and Phalanxes (they learned from the Cole in the Gulf of Aden). Lots of dudes on lots of cheap, fast boats with the cheapest, most basic anti-ship missiles will take out any modern surface navy ship. The IRGCN swarm tactics will work.