North Korea News

[Ex-California]

She's gotten big





SAD!

Vice Principals is better than Eastbound and Down

[BjornP]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39638012

The US Navy said on 8 April that the Carl Vinson strike group was travelling to the Korean peninsula amid tensions over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.
Last week President Trump said an "armada" was being sent.
But the group was actually farther away over the weekend, moving through the Sunda Strait into the Indian Ocean.
The US military's Pacific Command said on Tuesday that it had cancelled a port visit to Perth, but had completed previously scheduled training with Australia off its northwest coast after departing Singapore on 8 April.
The strike group was now "proceeding to the Western Pacific as ordered".

Submarine armada, instead? I know nothing about naval strategy, but it feels that it would make sense to send in the submarines before you send in your naval carriers.

[kybkh]

My understanding of advanced naval warfare is that surface vessels are simply targets while anti-ship defenses are operational. Until 1st salvo of missiles destroy anti-ship capabilities they are rather useless.

If the United States Navy is either unwilling or unable to conceptualize a carrier air wing that can fight on the first day of a high-end conflict, then the question becomes: Why should the American taxpayer shell out $13 billion for a Ford-class carrier?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... raft-17240

[SuburbanFarmer]

My understanding of advanced naval warfare is that surface vessels are simply targets while anti-ship defenses are operational. Until 1st salvo of missiles destroy anti-ship capabilities they are rather useless.

If the United States Navy is either unwilling or unable to conceptualize a carrier air wing that can fight on the first day of a high-end conflict, then the question becomes: Why should the American taxpayer shell out $13 billion for a Ford-class carrier?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... raft-17240

As I've argued before, why the hell do we even need a Navy, aside from boomer subs?

[doc_loliday]

The navy allows us to project force; we can deploy aircraft and personell, launch missiles, and shoot big guns. We can control shipping. Unless you are saying we shouldn't be doing those things...

[SuburbanFarmer]

The navy allows us to project force; we can deploy aircraft and personell, launch missiles, and shoot big guns. We can control shipping. Unless you are saying we shouldn't be doing those things...

Don't need it. We have 800+ military bases spread around the globe, with long-range aircraft and drones everywhere. There's nothing to be accomplished with the Navy that we can't do already.

Also, I don't see any desperate need to 'control shipping', for any reason other than to show how big our balls are. That could be accomplished by the Coast Guard, off our shores.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... rld-119321

[DBTrek]

As I've argued before, why the hell do we even need a Navy, aside from boomer subs?

Can't launch fighter jets from subs.

[TheReal_ND]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39638012

The US Navy said on 8 April that the Carl Vinson strike group was travelling to the Korean peninsula amid tensions over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.
Last week President Trump said an "armada" was being sent.
But the group was actually farther away over the weekend, moving through the Sunda Strait into the Indian Ocean.
The US military's Pacific Command said on Tuesday that it had cancelled a port visit to Perth, but had completed previously scheduled training with Australia off its northwest coast after departing Singapore on 8 April.
The strike group was now "proceeding to the Western Pacific as ordered".

Submarine armada, instead? I know nothing about naval strategy, but it feels that it would make sense to send in the submarines before you send in your naval carriers.

ITS A ARMADA ITS YUGE *PEW PEW*

[SuburbanFarmer]

As I've argued before, why the hell do we even need a Navy, aside from boomer subs?

Can't launch fighter jets from subs.

What use is an oceanic fighter jet? Again, we have 800+ military bases - hundreds with air strips - that could launch jets anywhere.

[DBTrek]

What use is an oceanic fighter jet? Again, we have 800+ military bases - hundreds with air strips - that could launch jets anywhere.

You can launch jets from bases, but you can't violate the sovereign airspace of another nation without it being an act of war.

Really, did you need me to explain that?
Surely you could've come to that conclusion on your own.