Why does the US need a large surface navy?

so what's the probability of ships all of a sudden going on suicide missions to try and sink an aircraft carrier and succeeding?

planes would go intercept the drone off of the aircraft carrier before it got close enough. Do you really think they have no ability to detect that?

so you would need a squadron of drones possibly 50 large aircraft sized drums to approach the target to deliver the missiles I don't think they're going to get close enough. All you need to do is send the aircraft that are there on the ship to intercept them. Drugs typically don't have fighting capability so shooting them down with guns and say two or three jets would really be easy.

Explain to me how this massive squadron of Jones sneaks up on an aircraft carrier.

frankly with only a couple of federal crimes you could make something that could sink an aircraft carrier the problem is delivery.

You've dreamed up the squadron of drones with 100 missiles that would have to magically never be detected despite having to be big enough to carry two missiles each.

Your scenario is far more farfetched then I think you realize.

We have satellites and detection systems that can see when drones are launched let alone when they approach a vessel at sea.

 

I sincerely hope you're right, but I've seen "Chaos Theory" work too dependably (à la Dr. Ian Malcom, in "Jurassic Park") to imagine that things are always going to go like we hope they will.... A catastrophe may be only 1 in100, or 1 in 10,000 -- but -- if (and when) it happens, it's a catastrophe nevertheless.

 

all you have to do is look at history.

Let's look at the skirmishes we've been involved in. World war I didn't sink an aircraft carrier or battleship they suck a cargo ship that was enough to get us in that war. World war II the attack ships in a harbor not at sail. September 11th they attacked civilians.

The point of doing damage the maximum amount possible isn't about finding the strongest most powerful weapon in a field and thinking it it's about catching them with their guard is down or attacking civilians.

yeah I don't see a single drone capable of carrying a missile approaching close enough to a carrier in order to launch and attack that would sink it.

And have air traffic control towers on the ships I have radar they have satellite uplinks they know when drones take off let alone when they approach.

If a carrier gets sunk I think the most likely reason would be operator error or natural phenomena. I don't have to default to a goofy theory put forth by a character played by Jeff goldblum in the 1990s.

 

Things that aren't supposed to happen do happen, and always to someone's else's amazement....

Do you remember the Falklands War in the 1980's? Here's a tidbit that stunned the boys in Whitehall pretty badly 'back in the day':

"On May 2, 1982, a British submarine sank the ARA General Belgrano, a massive but aging destroyer nearly as big as the Moskva. Two days later, an Argentine aircraft fired an Exocet missile at the HMS Sheffield, crippling the destroyer. Abandoned, it sank less than a week later while being towed."
Link: https://coffeeordie.com/major-warsh...n May 2, 1982, a,week later while being towed.

I know, I know... we Americans have much better 'stuff' than either the Brits or the Argentinians had back 'when dinosaurs roamed the earth' (so to speak), but I think you get the point. Anything's possible, and no one should ever deny it.

. "Naw, we took precautions, nothing bad will happen to us!"

 

We really don't need a navy...or an army or any military. The world, now that Biden is in charge, has never been more safe and the ONLY thing we need in this country is a strong federal law enforcement contingent to keep track of all the white nationalist domestic terrorists that are wrecking the place!

 

I do hope you're merely being sarcastic. Surely you are just being sarcastic. SURELY!

 

Sorry. I watched 15 min of MSNBC and got a little carried away.

 

Sure. I don't think it's going to and scraping carriers because someone might attack them is dumber than using them.

so nobody should have warships because they get damaged in war????

Yeah anything is possible but that doesn't mean everything is probable. I carry a gun for example. It's possible somebody can karate kick it out of my hand or use a bullwhip to take it from me. But those things aren't likely.

I don't think modern warfare is as risky as genetically engineering dinosaurs.

 

[QUOTE="Polydectes, post: 1074419313, member: 49589"
I don't think modern warfare is as risky as genetically engineering dinosaurs.[/QUOTE]

. "I want no more thinking!"

 

Delete

 

Aw, heck! Don't you remember Peter O'Toole as Henry II in "Becket"? Maybe one of the five best movies in the last 60 years!

 

I deleted my post because I misinterpreted your response I'm not sure what to make of it to be honest.

 

I was just trying my hand at a little humor, and failed... not for the first time. Cheers!

 

Fair enough sorry it went over my head.

 

Why does America need a large navy?
1. Keep the booze, prostitution and spinach industries in business
2. Provide an occupation for second sons who won't get an inheritance and can't get into business
3. Stick it to the Air Force!

 

You should add another one to the list --

4. Provide targets to test the efficacy of the latest hypersonic missiles carrying tactical nuclear weapons, easily capable of sinking the largest surface vessels in the world....

 

Interesting article re: hypersonic missiles and navy surface vessels: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine...-aircraft-carriers-survive-hypersonic-weapons

Now, juxtapose that information with this:
https://coffeeordie.com/hypersonic-...laring technological,writing, the US has none.

The most optimistic estimates I've seen on when the U. S. might have hypersonic weapons aboard our navy's surface vessels is 2025. And, the earliest we are told to expect hypersonic weapons aboard our submarines is 2029. Do we have that much time before the **** hits the fan with our likely opponents, who already have hypersonic missiles?

 

The MICC Military Industrial Congressional Complex needs to sell weapons and it doesn't matter to whom.

And preferably a steady supply of weapons, so they needed to get the war in Ukraine going well before ending the war in Afghanistan, and of course the weapons were left behind in Afghanistan so they could sell a whole bunch more for our war in Ukraine.

But the aim of the MICC is to make money, not to win wars. Keeping our technology up with the Russians or maybe
even getting ahead, is DARPA's responsibility.

 

All I can say is that as a result of my own experience being in prime contractor corporations working with the U. S. Gov't. in military 'matters', in 2023 I'm recommending submarines, submarines, and MORE submarines -- all of them packed to the 'gills' with missiles carrying a variety of goodies to keep the bad guys from killing us. But, I'm retired now and so nobody cares what I think... so, sure, let's go right on building and deploying multi-billion dollar "targets"....

 

We should choose our opponents more carefully

instead of just letting Joe Biden who seems to hate everyone and everything, pick them.

 

Not impressed with the DICTATORS that Inmate P01355809 made FRIENDS with.

 

Why does the US need a large surface navy?

SLOC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lines_of_communication

 

But wait, Joe just got through participating in a big 'love-in' with Vietnam!

"Hanoi and Washington raised their relationship two levels, to a "comprehensive strategic partnership," in a meeting between Biden and Communist Party chief Nguyen Phu Trong in the Vietnamese capital.
The upgrade comes "as both countries work together to achieve our shared goals of peace, prosperity, and sustainable development," the White House said in a news release." Link: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/In...ties-as-Biden-blasts-China-for-changing-rules

Actually, Joe's side trip to Hanoi was probably a good thing! As it is, you can buy anything from cheap shirts to packaged, dried Shiitake mushrooms from Vietnam right here in America! And it kind of wipes away the memory of liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson making up the "Tonkin Gulf" lie that eventually got almost 60,000 American military personnel killed and countless more 'messed-up' for life....

 

Is there any reason why we cannot secure our rights to international waters with a submarine force? "Gunboat Diplomacy" worked in our favor all the way up to the end of the 20th-century, but ever since Obama turned-tail and was chased away from the Eastern Mediterranean by the Russians (the "Red Line" fiasco over Syria in 2012), the presence of big ships 'ain't what it used to be'.

Surface vessels? You can see them, you know where they're going hours or days before they get there, etc., etc. But, a fleet of submarines with bleeding-edge stealth technology is a different thing altogether! An adversary rarely knows for certain where they are, how many of them there may be, what they're armed with, what their mission is, or what prerogatives a submarine captain may exert on his own volition....

 

Compared to surface ships, SSNs are limited -- for instance, you cannot force a boarding action with a SSN.
In fact, you cannot do anything w/a sub, other than shoot something, without surfacing -- rendering moot its main advantage and primary purpose.
So, yes - many reasons.