|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Not a drinker, Joo. Just another wild-eyed, hysterical and unrelentingly sarcastic, screaming, teen-aged poster, here to stand up, defy "the man," and defend the good people of the world, etc., etc. |
You have escalated my position, in your hyperbole and unrestrained sarcasm, with an ad hominem.
Last edited by The Hammer on Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| and treating the story you seem to admire, moreover, as a successful, realistic penetration of the carrier group's defenses |
Why do you have a need to characterize my position that way?
A diesel Chinese sub popped up where it shouldn't have been able to. The USA is committed to defending Taiwan. China is a possible future enemy.
| Quote: |
| As I have said before: some people here simply squirm and cannot stand to hear any talk whatsoever about the United States that is not negative. |
Characterizing me as one of those means you've not paid attention to anything I write.
Let me summarize:
America does a lot of good in the world.
America is not a nation in decline.
A carrier battle group is an impressive thing and it says a lot about the prowess of a nation that can deploy even one, let alone a dozen.
If you throw two or three dozen sea skimming super sonic missiles at a battle group, well, I remain to be convinced human and automated systems are going to get them all. Did even one Patriot missile intercept a scud in the Gulf war? Remember the one that hit the American base in the last days of the war and killed dozens? Was that supposed to happen?
I've seen no real world evidence the carrier group can handle the above scenario. I have seen real world evidence a chinese sub can pop up where it's not supposed to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How close would you have to get with one nuke to destroy one carrier group? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your question implies that you believe that one nuclear weapon could destroy an entire carrier group: the carrier, its aircraft, the destroyers and frigates, the submarine(s), the unrep ships. And that suggests that you do not understand carrier groups' dispersion and spread, or how much maritime space one occupies.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Why do you have a need to characterize my position that way? |
Your position that "a Chinese submarine appeared where it was not supposed to be" ignores that it did this (a) in peacetime; and that (b) China is or at least was not on the threatboard -- not since the Shanghai Communique, in any case.
Still, good for the Chinese and their nationalism. But what does this mean?
Had that carrier group operated on alert status, running ASW ops, and authorized to defend itself, that submarine would very probably have been dead before coming anywhere near striking distance of the carrier.
You take an incident where a guy approaches almost as if but makes no actual move to sucker-punch another guy and then overrate its importance, seeming to believe that the would-be sucker-puncher could knock the other guy down an out -- or even hit him once or twice -- at will. I disagree. Put another way: if you quickly snuck in and out of a big dog's backyard, while the dog was just chilling out, does that suggest that that dog is "fragile?"
In any case, could a govt with whom the United States is not at war possibly approach a carrier group and get in a surprise shot or two? Probably, in some conditions. Given the consequences of intending to destroy an American carrier via surprise attack, I tend to think that such a govt would be asking for self-destruction. Does this in any case mean that it could accomplish your massive torpedo or missile attack scenario? I think that most unlikely.
Do you not think planning staff's at the Pentagon have gamed that scenario?
And in a large-scale war, everything takes hits, Mindmetoo. Never denied it. If that is your point, I take it. But you seem to believe that anyone who wants can get close to and attack an American carrier at will. Kuros even goes so far as to characterize carrier groups as "fragile." But do you grasp the nature of a carrier group's overlapping defenses, including the aggressive measures it might resort to should it go on alert or into wartime? What do you know about carriers? Ever served in the Navy?
Did any of Saddam's SCUDs threaten any American carrier in 1990-1991? Why or why not? How about Terhan? Why or why not? Are there not carriers operating in the Gulf today? Does Tehran want them there? If not, why not simply move against the fragile things, at least forcing them to withdraw? How about O. bin Laden, Ya-ta Boy? Why does he not simply infiltrate a nuke and destroy a carrier in the Gulf or elsewhere?
| Wikipedia wrote: |
The U.S. Navy carrier strike group
The traditional term of carrier battle group (CVBG or CARBATGRU) has been replaced by carrier strike group (CSG) in the U.S. Navy. A CSG is a group of ships centered around an aircraft carrier and usually commanded by a one star rear admiral. The United States Navy maintains 11 carrier strike groups, 10 of which are based in the United States and one that is forward deployed in Japan (George Washington CSG). The fleet response plan requires that six of these groups be deployed or ready for deployment within 30 days at any given time, while two additional groups must be ready for deployment within 90 days. Their existence is an important part of the power projection capability of the United States in that they provide the ability to strike quickly almost anywhere in the world. The U.S. Navy provides a regular CSG deployment rotation of deployments typically lasting six months based on the needs of combatant commands (COCOMs) that request presence of a carrier in their respective area of responsibility (AOR).
The large number of CSGs used by the United States reflects, in part, a division of roles and missions allotted during the Cold War, in which the United States assumed primary responsibility for blue water operations and for safeguarding supply lines between the United States and Europe, while the NATO allies assumed responsibility for brown and green water operations.
While an aircraft carrier has the ability to project a large amount of air power, it is vulnerable to attack from aircraft, submarines, and other surface ships. The primary role of the other ships in the battle group is to help protect the carrier from enemy air, surface, and submarine threats. The primary role of the carrier and its air wing is to provide the offensive firepower. These roles are not exclusive. Other ships in the battle group sometimes undertake offensive operations (launching cruise missiles, for instance) and the carrier's air wing contributes to the battle group's defense (through combat air patrols and airborne anti-submarine efforts).
CSGs are not restricted to a specific composition and can be modified depending on expected threats, roles, or missions expected during a deployment, and one may be different from another. However, they are all composed of similar types of ships, and a U.S. Navy carrier strike group typically includes:
A supercarrier commanded by an aviation community captain (O-6) who reports directly to the commander of the CSG. The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government, ranging from simply showing the flag, to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, their aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces. The carrier is the flagship of the battle group, with the commanding rear admiral on board, making use of the advanced combat direction center and communications suite.
A carrier air wing (CVW) commanded by an aviation community captain (O-6) (or colonel in case of Marine serving as CAG) who reports directly to the commander of the CSG and is known as the "Commander, Air Group" (CAG). The carrier air wing typically has up to nine squadrons commanded by a commander (O-5) (or lieutenant colonel if a Marine squadron). The CAG and CO of the carrier are equal in status under the Commander of the CSG (historically, before 1983, the CAG was a department head under the Captain of the ship, but Secretary of the Navy John Lehman created and instituted the concept of a "Super CAG" with the same seniority as the CO of the carrier).
A destroyer squadron (DESRON) commanded by a surface community captain (O-6) who reports to the CSG commander and commands the escort ships.
One to two Aegis guided missile cruisers (CG), of the Ticonderoga class�a multi-mission surface combatant, equipped with Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability.
Two to three guided missile destroyers (DDG), of the Arleigh Burke class�a multi-mission surface combatant, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW), but it also carries Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability.
Up to two attack submarines, usually of the Los Angeles class; in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines. More frequently, however, the submarines will try to maximize their advantages in stealth by operating independently in support of the battle group.
A combined ammunition, oiler and supply ship (AOE/AOR), usually supply (T-AOE); provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence: on station, ready to respond.
The carrier strike group (CSG) could be employed in a variety of roles, most of which would involve the gaining and maintenance of sea control:
Protection of economic and/or military shipping.
Protection of a U.S. Marine Corps amphibious force while en route to, and upon arrival in, an amphibious objective area.
Establishing air superiority or supremacy in an area in combination with land-based aircraft.
Establishing a naval presence in support of national interests.
Power projection. |
Abraham Lincoln Battle Group |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Cool but then a clanking chinese sub pops up in the middle of the battle group and sinks her with a spread of torpedoes. |
If it's clanking it wouldn't get anywhere near enough to do anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Next question:
How many carrier strike groups does it take to win the war in Iraq?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Hammer wrote: |
Next question:
How many carrier strike groups does it take to win the war in Iraq? |
I never was for the war in Iraq, and still think its a horrible idea, but it seems that people have different ideas about how to define 'victory'. The U.S. military (with help from the 'coalition of the willing' - if you want to call it that ) kicked the shit out of the Iraqi forces with a quickness. Militarily, the U.S. handed their ass to them. No doubt about that.
The problem is the U.S. military is designed to kill people. They aren't designed for peace-keeping or occupation tactics. I would submit that a somewhat similar problem occurred in Vietnam. Killing everyone isn't difficult for them, the problem is detaching from the aftermath while still making the U.S. look like we did the right thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Hammer
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ullungdo 37.5 N, 130.9 E, altitude : 223 m
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Hammer wrote: |
Next question:
How many carrier strike groups does it take to win the war in Iraq? |
Can't answer. |
I knew that was coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lol US is almost 1 qradrillion dollars in debt... and yes of course we need more debt and new carriers to spread our tyranny ... yayyayaya |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
