Defense Technology & Military Forum

Defense Technology & Military Forum (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/)
-   Navy & Maritime (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/)
-   -   US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined? (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/us-navy-more-powerful-than-all-other-navies-combined-12177/)

Berkeley September 18th, 2012 11:39 AM

US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined?
 
Friedman said this in his book "The Next 100 years." Could the US Navy really beat all the others in open water? Is it reasonable to say this?

DrewUSA September 18th, 2012 02:15 PM

US Defense overall/ navy's role. US navy world's most powerful
 
Well who thought 300 + years ago a group of farmers could beat the World's greatest military power(Those redcoats). It took some unusual combat tactics. You will never see any officer recommend attacking a US Battle Carrier Group... How many times do we have to learn the same lesson. rebels against The Nazis. The Japanese by the end of the war, Vietnam, Russia's unvasion of Afghanistan, Desert Storm, operation Iraqi freedom. When faced with an overwhelming opposing force in everyway ( nowadays with tech, stealth, numbers, reinforcements, etc.) but either way one will adapt to use his assets to increase his kill/loss ratio, try to fight on his terms and try to use his underpowered assets in their most effective positions, tactics, etc. whatever he can do to increase his chances. As for the US Navy, of course we are the greatest in the world, I would hope for the amount that we spend.
I am not in the military, just have always loved strategy, and what I can't figure is why we send so much on the Army, why do we have some 8,800 est. M1 (of all variants) in stock? What is the point of the apache if not to destroy the 12,000+ Soviot tanks. Not to mention systems of other countries. We are basically one large island with two large Allied nations on either side. We need to focus less on army and airforce bases around the world and increase the size of our navy. By the time it would all be done, you will have UCAV's flying sleath missions anywhere in the world. A global struck platform to hit anywhere in the world within a few hours, but do we really need the ability to invade and control 2 wars the size of Desert Storm. First of all, how about just 1 war and if another should arise, you knock their ass back in the stone age, dropping 10 M.O.A.Bs (mother of all bombs) on their ass to warn them not the time and if that doesn't make them stop in their tracks, then u destroy them without ever having to step on their soil and without using nuclear weapons. Just sit there firing tomahawks from over 1000 miles away. Anything that moves you wipe off the face of the planet. War is messy and there is no room for appeasement.
Returning to the original question, this is why defense is so important. The Russians knew our navy was superior, which is why they built the P-700 or (NATO SS-N-19 Shipwreck). They are launched in groups of 4-8 even more swarming the enemy. China is looking at using a similar tactic. The north Koreans are building tons of subs because they know they can not touch our serface fleet, but in a region where a mile in the ocean could mean the depth difference of 100 ft to 10000ft trench, seems like the ideal setting for hiding behind reef, ocean underwater barriers similar to the U-boats of WWII if anything were to break out. Let's build a larger navy, remove a lot of our men from these old bases (Germany/ GB!). We need to worry about protecting our boarders and with just the other day a story was out about a Russian sub in the golf of Mexico, we have some ocean control issues for the greatest navy in the world. In terms of mission capable, survivabilty, the US is def. the best equipped. Now let's get moving on building one platform for the destroyer and cruiser rather than 2. We have to replace them within 30-50 years anyway, and use nuclear power. Forget the cost. What is the cost of being able to go anywhere in the world, only limited by food, which could always be flown in, priceless and as the rail gun, newer laser and other electronic weapons, lethal and non-lethal, along with increases in survalance equipments power consumption (I.e. stronger spy2 radar), we will need an unlimited supply of power because then when the airborne laser can fit on a ship, you can have unlimited ammo for the defensive and even offensive weapon. (laser killed destroyed moving target in water, 2010). It comes down to politics. No one wants to loose contracts, factories and jobs in their district. Look at what is good for the country. I know what I will be called. But u know what... It is the job of the military and our officials to keep the US on the top of ever list in the world. Financial, military, power, influence.... We would notbe the country we are today without our forefathers thinking that way, and they just took it. Tht not being right resource management ( fresh water, food, petro, then natural gas,) is going to be the next critical issue and we need to be ready.

swerve September 18th, 2012 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewUSA (Post 251923)
Well who thought 300 + years ago a group of farmers could beat the World's greatest military power(Those redcoats).

You're off topic, your dates are several decades off, Great Britain wasn't necessarily the world's greatest military power at the time (France could almost certainly beat us on land), & "a group of farmers" didn't win. How many French troops were there at Yorktown? And how many countries was Great Britain at war with in the early 1780s?

I suggest you read a little history.

DrewUSA September 18th, 2012 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swerve (Post 251931)
You're off topic, your dates are several decades off, Great Britain wasn't necessarily the world's greatest military power at the time (France could almost certainly beat us on land), & "a group of farmers" didn't win. How many French troops were there at Yorktown? And how many countries was Great Britain at war with in the early 1780s?

I suggest you read a little history.

I was talking about redcoats in battle, great army, great navy, great fighting tech... terrible camo and just the sense of who thought back in the day that a group of farmers, meaning how they looked at us... How could we ever win.... I am trying to make the point that there is a difference between force size and ability, standing, on paper, in reserve, but until put to the test, ALL of these events in history has taught us the same thing. Never expect anything and nothing is certain. History isn't about just numbers u accountant. But interpretation of those numbers, events, outside factors, how and what ppl precieved at the time vs the outcome this is what history is all about. And my point exactly, everyone thought Britain had us, but other wars, our allies formed with the French, etc all helped.... Same as today right. We could go to war with let's say Australia. Yes we could probably def win right, but wait. We have 78+ in conflicts in Africa alone plus Iraq and Afghan... Yes we have the greatest navy, but would it dominate 100% of the time. Probably not.

RobWilliams September 18th, 2012 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swerve (Post 251931)
You're off topic, your dates are several decades off, Great Britain wasn't necessarily the world's greatest military power at the time (France could almost certainly beat us on land), & "a group of farmers" didn't win. How many French troops were there at Yorktown? And how many countries was Great Britain at war with in the early 1780s?

I suggest you read a little history.

Indeed, it was a VERY glib interpretation of events.

I've also got a feeling it was also intended as bait to draw people in + end in a "country v country" scenario, in my opinion :)

Veeeeeery iffy post, proceed with caution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewUSA (Post 251933)
History isn't about just numbers u accountant.

No idea where you got the impression that swerve was going by numbers alone, seemed a very rational and sensible post to me.

Berkeley September 18th, 2012 06:39 PM

Just to clarify, we are talking about a fictional situation stacking all of the USA's navy ships and subs against those of every other country in the middle of a huge fictional ocean. At first glance, it appears that 500 US carrier-based F/A-18's would be able to wipe out the air wings of the single carriers from the UK, France, Russia etc almost immediately. What happens then? What kind of missile defense can other countries put up? How does the US fare in the submarine war?

Bonza September 18th, 2012 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewUSA (Post 251933)
History isn't about just numbers u accountant.

You're immediately having a go at mods, you're twisting what you previously said to try to continue making a point that's wrong, and you don't know how to use a paragraph.

Nah... you can bugger off I think...

Abraham Gubler September 18th, 2012 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkeley (Post 251936)
What happens then? What kind of missile defense can other countries put up? How does the US fare in the submarine war?

Then those Hornets hunt down all the poor destroyers and frigates of the rest of the world... Probably the hardest part for the USN would be going in and killing all the lurking submarines but with all their Orions and SSNs it should be possible. Just hold down the SSKs until their batteries are low and then kill them when they are punch drunk.

StobieWan September 19th, 2012 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkeley (Post 251919)
Friedman said this in his book "The Next 100 years." Could the US Navy really beat all the others in open water? Is it reasonable to say this?

There's a big qualitative difference as well as the quantitative one - so yes, there's a lot of distance between first place and the rest in today's naval lineup. Right now, the USN is probably about the same size as the next 12-14 navies and ships individually are very strong.

You could probably send a Burke for a quick tour of South America or Africa and pick off everything they have that floats over a period of time, assuming she set off with full VLS and had tanker support. That's without sending in a carrier - and a carrier can launch more aircraft than some countries.

Basically, there's the number 1 slot, which the USN occupy, then the next four or five navies are broadly similar in size, followed by a sharp drop down to minor ships and second hand escorts. I suspect that the position of primacy the US occupies will never be replicated.

USAF77 September 19th, 2012 05:17 AM

I think the entire premise of this original post is silly. Such a conflict, the idea of it, hasnt made it off of comic books yet. A better thread would be "does the USN stack up well quality-wise compared to other navies".

This entire "USA can conquer the world" concept shouldnt make it out of grammar schools to say the least.

Quote:

Friedman said this in his book "The Next 100 years." Could the US Navy really beat all the others in open water? Is it reasonable to say this?
Its not even reasonable to ask it.

Abraham Gubler September 19th, 2012 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAF77 (Post 251964)
Its not even reasonable to ask it.

You sound like you didn't enjoy Battleship! :hehe

Marc 1 September 19th, 2012 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StobieWan (Post 251960)
I suspect that the position of primacy the US occupies will never be replicated.

I'm sure that the Spanish Armada throught the same a couple of hundred of years ago too...

StobieWan September 19th, 2012 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc 1 (Post 251981)
I'm sure that the Spanish Armada throught the same a couple of hundred of years ago too...

I just don't think you'll see a situation where there'll be such a hefty gap between the top dog and the rest of the world again, given the emergence of other countries, the levelling of the playing field with rising GDP's and wealth.

There'll be someone at the top but I don't think the gap will be maintained as is or that it'll be repeated.

Passing thought for the day is all, no agenda present :)

1805 September 19th, 2012 12:09 PM

You have to take into consideration many other areas than just hardware; training/experience, leadership, innovation and fighting spirit for starters..... all of which the USN has a significant lead. But thats not a reason to be complacenent, a powerful USN guarantees the freedom of us all.

StobieWan September 19th, 2012 03:38 PM

No indeed - very technically skilled crews, with an at times fanatical attention to damage control. I'm certainly glad we're on the same side :)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2003-2011 DefenceTalk.com. All Rights Reserved.