Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined?

This is a discussion on US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Friedman said this in his book "The Next 100 years." Could the US Navy really beat all the others in ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 18th, 2012   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3
Threads:
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?
Berkeley is offline  
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pakistan Navy (PN) News, Updates & Discussions mysterious Navy & Maritime 848 April 5th, 2012 03:48 PM
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution? Falstaff Air Force & Aviation 1341 November 6th, 2008 12:15 AM
Budget cuts in European Navies contedicavour Navy & Maritime 122 August 23rd, 2006 11:54 AM
French Navy Replaces British Royal Navy As 1st West European Navy overlander Navy & Maritime 48 April 29th, 2006 04:40 PM
A really nice account of Pak Navy's psycological hold over Indian Navy. farooqjalalmalik Navy & Maritime 24 January 4th, 2005 01:20 PM

Old September 18th, 2012   #2
New Member
Private
DrewUSA's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 19
Threads:
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.
DrewUSA is offline  
Old September 18th, 2012   #3
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,502
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewUSA View Post
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.
swerve is offline  
Old September 18th, 2012   #4
New Member
Private
DrewUSA's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 19
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
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.
DrewUSA is offline  
Old September 18th, 2012   #5
Moderator
Major General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,196
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
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 View Post
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.
RobWilliams is offline  
Old September 18th, 2012
RobWilliams
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: Deleted at poster's request
Old September 18th, 2012   #6
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3
Threads:
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?
Berkeley is offline  
Old September 18th, 2012   #7
Super Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,499
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewUSA View Post
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...
Bonza is offline  
Old September 18th, 2012   #8
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,162
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkeley View Post
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.
Abraham Gubler is offline  
Old September 19th, 2012   #9
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,306
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkeley View Post
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.
StobieWan is offline  
Old September 19th, 2012   #10
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 57
Threads:
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.
USAF77 is offline  
Old September 19th, 2012   #11
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,162
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF77 View Post
Its not even reasonable to ask it.
You sound like you didn't enjoy Battleship!
Abraham Gubler is offline  
Old September 19th, 2012   #12
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 822
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
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...
Marc 1 is offline  
Old September 19th, 2012   #13
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,306
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1 View Post
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
StobieWan is offline  
Old September 19th, 2012   #14
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
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.
1805 is offline  
Old September 19th, 2012   #15
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,306
Threads:
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
StobieWan is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 AM.