North Korea News

[DBTrek]

Let's be serious here. The USN has the largest budget. They starve out important programs for their carrier groups, which serve little unique strategic value other than dick waving. The Navy has almost twice the budget of the USAF and takes up almost half of the the defense spending.

If you want to seriously cut waste in the military, then cut the carrier groups at least in half.

That's reasonable.
Unlike anything GCF has uttered.

[Speaker to Animals]

Let's be serious here. The USN has the largest budget. They starve out important programs for their carrier groups, which serve little unique strategic value other than dick waving. The Navy has almost twice the budget of the USAF and takes up almost half of the the defense spending.

If you want to seriously cut waste in the military, then cut the carrier groups at least in half.

Aircraft carriers have a whole more strategic value than dick waving, but at least this an argument that isn't completely retarded, unlike the "fuck the navy, we have an air force and army, we don't need no stinking navy" one that I've been hearing.

Unique. They don't do anything we can't do with what we already have. We sure as shit don't need fucking eleven of them.

[StCapps]

Unique. They don't do anything we can't do with what we already have. We sure as shit don't need fucking eleven of them.

You have mobile air bases that float on the ocean, in a way that is cheaper and more effective militarily than an aircraft carrier? Not last I checked, looks like you still need at least a few of them then.

[Speaker to Animals]

Unique. They don't do anything we can't do with what we already have. We sure as shit don't need fucking eleven of them.

You have the ability to station aircraft in the ocean in a way that is more effective militarily than an aircraft carrier? Not last I checked, looks like you still need at least a few of them then.

I have a way to destroy any flotilla or strike group in the sea without using a single ship. It's called the USAF. Next question.

[StCapps]

I have a way to destroy any flotilla or strike group in the sea without using a single ship. It's called the USAF. Next question.

Only if they are in range of a non-mobile air base. If the enemy navy stays away from those then you can't take them out without the navy and have to move a aircraft carrier into range to attack those naval assets from the air. So they still have plenty of uses.

[Smitty-48]

The other thing which Grumpy has got (generally) right, is that with all these bases all over the world, the Pentagon has shot the aircraft carrier in the foot, because it is extremely difficult for the Navy to find a "Falkland Islands" scenario, where only the aircraft carrier would do, there are almost no scenarios at all, where the Air Force is not within strike range, and when it comes to strike, the Air Force dwarfs the Navy, rendering the Naval Air Force moot.

This also applies to the Marines and their opposed beachhead mission, because there are almost no scenarios whatsoever, where the US would actually conduct an opposed landing, rather than just blast the shit out of it with the Air Force, and then send the Army in to mop up. The whole US military doctrine revolves around airpower, so if you're not an airforce, you're not of much particular utility, at least until the counter insurgency phase starts, but again, Grumpy is right, for COIN, you just fly the troops in, mostly with commercial aircraft in fact, airliners chartered to move the troops.

[Smitty-48]

Even if the US had to retake the Falkland Islands, they still wouldn't need the Navy/Marine Corps to do it, they would just bomb the shit out of the Argies with the B-52's & Co., from Ascension Island, and then they would fly the 82nd Airborne in to mop up, the war would be over, long before the Marines were even halfway there.

[StCapps]

The other thing which Grumpy has got (generally) right, is that with all these bases all over the world, the Pentagon has shot the aircraft carrier in the foot, because it is extremely difficult for the Navy to find a "Falkland Islands" scenario, where only the aircraft carrier would do, there are almost no scenarios at all, where the Air Force is not within strike range, and when it comes to strike, the Air Force dwarfs the Navy, rendering the Naval Air Force moot.

This also applies to the Marines and their opposed beachhead mission, because there are almost no scenarios whatsoever, where the US would actually conduct an opposed landing, rather than just blast the shit out of it with the Air Force, and then send the Army in to mop up. The whole US military doctrine revolves around airpower, so if you're not an airforce, you're not of much particular utility, at least until the counter insurgency phase starts, but again, Grumpy is right, for COIN, you just fly the troops in, mostly with commercial aircraft in fact, airliners chartered to move the troops.

I know that you know, that the US navy has plenty of uses, militarily and otherwise. Just because the air force is often in strike range of most potential enemy targets and you can send the army to mop up instead, that doesn't change this fact. Aircraft carriers might not be as useful as they were in WWII, but we all know they are far from obsolete, well everyone except Grumpy.

[DBTrek]

Even if the US had to retake the Falkland Islands, they still wouldn't need the Navy/Marine Corps to do it, they would just bomb the shit out of the Argies with the B-52's & Co., from Ascension Island, and then they would fly the 82nd Airborne in to mop up, the war would be over, long before the Marines were even halfway there.

Or they could do it with a carrier group.
Either would work, really.

[Smitty-48]

To get the Navy involved, the US would have to deliberately put the war off, for six weeks, until the Navy could get down there, which they might do, just because the Navy would be lobbying furiously to get in the game, but it would not be necessary, what the Navy knows in the back of their minds, is that it would be a sop to the Navy, a deliberate pause, just to give the Navy a chance to justify their Expeditionary role, but with no actual requirement to do that, and if push ever came to shove, and it had to be done and done quickly, the Navy wouldn't even get a sniff.

There's two weeks to load and assemble, two weeks to sail into position, and since you sent the Navy, you have to defeat the Argentine Navy, so that takes some more time, and then they finally conduct the landing in week six.

Meanwhile, the Air Force and XVIII Corps could have got that done in a week flat. Two days to bomb the shit out of them, two days to conduct the Airborne landing, the Argies surrender on day five.