Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Frankly, I am in agreement with the nay-sayers on tis one.
The Navy's over arching strategy for the Indo-Pacific in general and Cnina in particular is called "Distributed Lethality". The general Idea is to spread out our ability to deliver firepower across many vehicles traveling under, on and over the ocean.
Nuclear powered aircraft carriers are important to that, but they are large, high value targets. Recognizing that, the Navy has re-purposed their "amphibious Warfare Sips" ,to supplement the big carriers by emphasizing their ability to carry and launch the vititcsal take off versions of the F-35. This doubles. our number of aircraft carrier targets from the eleven big ones, by adding another ten or so smaller ones. Now the Chinese have that many more floating bomber bases to deal with.
Aditionsllyt, the Navy is adding the capability to carry and launch long range strike missiles to smaller ships. There is a version that comes packed in a standard looking shipping container that can be launched from about any ship that can deck load one or transferred ashore with the Marines or Army to man it.
This strategy would be short circuited by the proposed big beautiful Trump class of whatever hit will be called. The money and ships building resources and effort would be much better spent in furthering the Navy's current strategy of Distributed zLeathality.
The Air Force has b ought into the Distributed Lethality concept as well by perusing the development of autonomous strike craft. One concept is called the Trusted Wingman that would fly along with manned fighters and bombers. But that is an expensive path.
They have also developed a method of turning about any large cargo aircraft into a delivery vehicle for strike missed. This is called "Rapid Dragen". Any cargo plane that can parachute drop a pallet of supplies can now launch as pallet lod of cruse missiles. A C-130 can hold 18 or so. A c-17 can deliver 45.
is means any C-130 or C-17 operated by jhe USAF . . .or any of our allies . . .can deliver a B-1 bomber's load of hurt from well over the horizon.
you wanna know what the next big war is gonna look like, look to Ukraine. big weapons like tanks and "Trump" battleships have big targets on their backs..
you want to be small, flexible, cheap, and invisible. that's where warfare is headed.
carriers can still play some tricks and operate at a decent distance. they'll be players for quite some time.
my brother flew the MH-60 Seahawk off amphibious assault ships. those floating fortresses are some baddies in their own right. you are correct that they expand the carrier power projection effect substantially..
now can we get the Ford the hell outta the Caribbean please. it's like having a battleship in a bathtub..
they can hang "Mission Accomplished" on their flight deck island without any irony or objection from me.
The Air Force has b ought into the Distributed Lethality concept as well by perusing the development of autonomous strike craft. One concept is called the Trusted Wingman that would fly along with manned fighters and bombers. But that is an expensive path.
They have also developed a method of turning about any large cargo aircraft into a delivery vehicle for strike missed. This is called "Rapid Dragen". Any cargo plane that can parachute drop a pallet of supplies can now launch as pallet lod of cruse missiles. A C-130 can hold 18 or so. A c-17 can deliver 45.
is means any C-130 or C-17 operated by jhe USAF . . .or any of our allies . . .can deliver a B-1 bomber's load of hurt from well over the horizon.
Saw this on some program on Discovery or somewhere. Example was of a B1 bomber that could control a bench of automanous (sp) F-16s. The B1 because of its speed and ability to have operators to control the lot of drone fighter/bombers. A good combo of using old tech with a new punch. (The F-16 is being outclassed but it is made so cheaply compared to other aircraft and is viable since the G limits of human flyers, and weight of life support, can be increased to make it truly as it was designed: so nimble that it can fly up its own asshole.)
... Aditionsllyt, the Navy is adding the capability to carry and launch long range strike missiles to smaller ships. There is a version that comes packed in a standard looking shipping container that can be launched from about any ship that can deck load one or transferred ashore with the Marines or Army to man it.
Look at the Ticonderoga class Cruisers. Of which only 9 are still in service. They carry 7 or 8 types of missiles including Tomahawks and ASROCs which are both nuke capable. Currently, at least one Tico accompanies any Aircraft Carrier for both Air Defense and heavy throw offence.
So how many new Ticos could be built instead of a battle wagon?
Alternatively, note the newer heavier class of the Arleigh Burke Destroyer. The Model III (previously models I, II & IIa) is 40 feet longer and is designed to, and will, replace the Tico class cruisers. The model III can also launch heavy Tomahawks. And their nose gun, the 5 inch Mark 45, has a range of 13 nautical. This version also loads those container things fore and aft.
So how many of the ABIIIs can be built instead of a battle wagon?
Someone, colored orange, needs to let professional war machine designers simply do their work.
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by pxmcc
... now can we get the Ford the hell outta the Caribbean please ...
As for the Caribbean Sea, the US needs an airbase there to keep an eye on things.
That location is now a permanent rotating assignment for the various Atlantic ocean fleet carriers.
Note that the Venezuelan oil reserves are the largest in the world. It's "heavy" oil (expensive to process) but it's clear that the US now controls it.
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Precious_b
... Example was of a B1 bomber that could control a bench of automanous (sp) F-16s. The B1 because of its speed and ability to have operators to control the lot of drone fighter/bombers ...
Actually, the B1 would be a radio relay point for numerous operators further back. The B1 only carries a crew of four. Note that an AWACS E-3 has a crew of 4 and between 13 to 19 mission specialists, and has extensive command and control systems.
How many of you are computer game enthusiasts that like the fly this or that games?
The Air Force has a job class of "RPA" that they are running employment ads for (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Sensor Operator).
Here's the link: https://www.airforce.com/search?q=rpa
However, there is also an AI version of drones under development.
Here's an Air Force promo from their research labs that was posted out in late 2024:
