[AgentR11]

The Russian navy has proved more hazardous to their own seamen then has the US navy. It should probably be sunk as a hazard to navigation.

Half right, half wrong. When the Russian's took over the role of the soviets, they inherited a bunch of ships for which they had no mission; consequently, very little maintenance was done. Thus, there are a substantial number of ships on the list, that likely would sink of their own accord if given half the chance.

OTOH, modern Russia has invested heavily in smaller, coastal defense boats and ships, fast attack subs, and fast frigates; these are every bit up to modern standards, and it would be foolish to underestimate their capabilities.

The interesting part of this is that when Russia is doing some navy propaganda, they always trot out the big and old; the Kutzenov, a couple heavy cruisers; heck, the one they sent to take up station near Latakia got fresh paint and a cleaning that looked like it took a million hours with toothbrushes and soap it was so sparkly.

The Russians, do not want folks focusing on the corvettes and frigates; and the reason is simple; THOSE are where the RuNavy's teeth are.

BTW, Six, on the Kutzenov going to the Med. Its not a threat to anything other than AlQaeada/ISIS morons; they keep it around as a memento and to retain familiarity with carrier operations, launch, recovery, refueling, etc. As operating from the Kutzenov is undeniably more expensive than operating from Latakia, I think you can be fairly safe in just calling it a training rotation. Simple truth is, Russia has no mission for a carrier; they aren't dependent on maritime shipping for food or energy, and they are no longer in the ideology export and funding small annoying countries business.

[AgentR11]

AGAIN -- the United States NEVER does this same kind of thing to Russia. Never, never, never.

You have this weird idea that I'm taking the Russian's side. I am taking OUR side. YOU are the one suggesting we do exactly what the Russians WANT us to do.

The Russians WANT us to fire on that jet.

That's the whole dang point. Just like they set up Turkey with some chum in the air; and that gave Putin carte-blanch to ship the sensitive S400 system, plus a bajigaton of shorter range air and cruise missile defense systems to defend the S400 from being overwhelmed.

DO NOT BE PROUD OF TAKING BAIT.

Idiots take bait.
Morons take bait.
Competent professionals recognize bait for what it is, and pass on the opportunity.

The *US* is the one that defends and upholds the principle of free navigation for all, worldwide.

BS. Read our mission statement. We uphold the principle of free navigation for the US and its allies. We are all about denying freedom of navigation to anyone that challenges us.

Agent -- at various times, Russia has parked a spy ship RIGHT OFF the coast of Jacksonville. Spying on the boomer subs. It was in international waters. Did the Navy bother them?

We do, or at least used to do, our gig on the subtle side. It has always been so. And despite media hyperbole and stupidity, we remain relatively subtle in our response. It is perfectly effective. We shouldn't change our operations just to suit you cowboys and warmongers.

Russia worked things out with Turkey.

Erdogan completely caved, because he recognized at last, that shooting chum in the air was a dumb thing to do.

I'm objective.

No. You are not. You are asserting the most aggressive posture legally possible for the US; and are asserting the most passive response legally possible to our enemy. That is beyond irresponsible.

*I* am objective, in that I do not assume our enemy will respond to our violence with the most US beneficial action. I assume that when we shoot someone, they will take advantage of that act of violence either by a MASSIVE gain geopolitically (eg Latakia), or return fire.

Never assume your enemy will do what you want them to do when you punch them in the face. Be ready for the return hit and be willing to accept the cost of failing to block. Because off the coast of Kaliningrad, the return hit will be successful, and the cost will be a sunk vessel.

[Sixstrings]

Russian spy ship off the coast of Hawaii, doing signals intelligence:

Russian Spy Ship Now Off Hawaii, U.S. Navy Protecting ‘Critical Information’

Moscow has dispatched a specialized spy ship off the coast of Hawaii with the likely mission to monitor the U.S. Navy led Rim of the Pacific 2016 exercise, USNI News has learned.

A Russian Navy Bal’zam-class, “auxiliary general intelligence ship recently arrived in international waters off Hawaii where exercise Rim of the Pacific is taking place,” U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman Lt. Clint Ramsden told USNI News this week.
“The ship’s presence has not affected the conduct of the exercise and we’ve taken all precautions necessary to protect our critical information.”

While it wasn’t unusual at all in during the Cold War for Russian spy ships to linger off the coast of the U.S. to suck up signals intelligence information or monitor exercises like RIMPAC, the Russians have been lax in their surveillance until recently.

“It used to be that AGIs would deploy regularly off their ports and we would encounter them and they would operate very safely and professionally — mostly looking for signals intelligence,” Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and former aide to retired Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, told USNI News.

Following the March 2014 seizure of the Crimean region of the Ukraine, the Russian Navy has operated more aggressively returning to levels not seen since the Cold War.

Given the participation of 25 countries, almost 50 of ships, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel operating during the exercise, it would make sense for the Russians to listen in, Clark said.
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/06/russian-spy-ship-now-off-hawaii-u-s-navy-protecting-critical-information

Since it's staying within international waters, then no problem. The US Navy doesn't buzz other countries' ships, or impede them in international waters.

[AgentR11]

Since it's staying within international waters, then no problem. The US Navy doesn't buzz other countries' ships, or impede them in international waters.

Correct on first account; however, USN most certainly does impede (though is not currently engaged in any blockade) when the tactical situation calls for it; in fact, playing zig-zag nav games with a Russian frigate to keep it at a certain distance from the carrier is most certainly impeding. USN carriers hold no privileged position in international waters. Any safety zone they have is created by its support group, playing exactly these navigation games at speed, impeding other vessels that might want to get to close.

What I don't get is why you are obsessed with whether Russia does X then the USN does X. They are two VERY different forces, with completely different missions, vessel composition, capabilites etc. There is absolutely no way on Earth that Russia would employ the same confrontation tactics as the USN, and vice versa. That would be completely inappropriate.

I *DO* think some Russian commanders are being a bit too much on the show boat side with their aviation, they can force that fire/no-fire decision with a wider safety margin, accomplishing the same mission, with lower risk to the pilot and to the opposing navy vessel. Same with air intercepts; they can make their intercept and escorts, with the same effectiveness, without the acrobatic maneuvers; which belong in bad movies about incompetent teammates, and not in professional aviation.

That said:
SHOOTING THE JET IS THE DUMBEST POSSIBLE PERMUTATION OF THE ENCOUNTER.
LEGAL OR NOT, JUSTIFIED OR NOT, ONLY A MORON WOULD DO IT.

[penury]

one of these days someone will have to remind the U.S. that international waters means the U.S. does not own the Oceans. I hope we do not have to learn the hard way, but with U.S. attitudes I fear we will have to learn the hard way.

[AgentR11]

I don't think you need be as concerned as all that. US politicians and media of course want the cold war back badly, and they want to shoot and kill some Russians with a lust that is honestly quite creepy.

But commanders of USN vessels are very highly educated; they know the physics, they know what is out there, and they know that in the situations the pols are putting them in, pulling the trigger should be the last, absolute worst of all possible options; because it changes the countdown on the lifespan of their vessel, from decades and years, to a few minutes and seconds.

Surface warfare between major combatants in the modern world will start and end, faster than anyone can figure out how to write a newstory about it; and one thing is certain of the result, thousands of sailors and dozens of ships will be lost by both sides, without fail.

So trust the commander's judgement. They know much more than Six, or the Press, or apparently even the politicians that send them in harms way. They will make the wise decision; not the lust satisfying decision hoped for by the warmongers.

[sparky]

.
There is this massive Nato jerkfest in varsaw , with like everybody at the presidential level
as I mentioned before , plenty of signal of standing strong but sliding side way some
the European missile shield which got the Russian totally freaked out , has now a new badge
" NATO takes over U.S.-built missile shield, amid Russian suspicion"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato- ... SKCN0ZO1Q1

the French were blocking the deal , they didn't want to marry the girl if she was dating the pentagon.

that's of course a bit of a laugh ,
the main issue is not the shield missile per se ,but the real time data transfer to the Air Force Global Strike Command

allowing ,in Russia paranoid mind, a decapitating first strike on its nuclear assets.
of course it's not because you are paranoid that ....

Ps on the sanity of US Navy commander , there is a few notable exceptions ,
the USN Vincenne commander, nicknamed robotcop was entertaining some congresssmen while on station in the gulf and showed his resolve by shooting down a passenger plane on a scheduled flight ,
he had to be transferred but still got a medal

[AgentR11]

on Vincenne incident; I don't think that's a fair description.

CIWS was often set in an auto-shoot way; the idea being there really isn't enough time between initial detection of an incoming missile and impact for a human to be fiddling around trying to figure out what's what. If I recall correctly, it was set that way at the time, the thought being the Iranians would use their much bragged about Silkworms to kill a USN vessel or oil tanker.

A similar repeat is unlikely.

The "global strike" fear is overstated as well. Just the physics is wrong; Russia can do prohibitive damage, with or without use of nukes, from far too many locations within Russia for the required simultaneity to be possible. You can't kill ships in the Caspian and St. Petersburg at the same time; without alerting one or the other ahead of time with more than sufficient time to retaliate. In the end, the physical size of Russia makes the proposed threat unworkable.

Not that Putin won't run with it good and hard domestically; that alone should be sufficient for maintaining control of the government for at least the next decade or so.

Also, of note, Putin's already made this comment publicly. Nukes are no longer all that necessary in order to do prohibitive, strategic damage. You only have to ask yourself how much fun it would be to have a dozen or so fukushima's within the EU space to know that well placed conventional warheads delivered by cruise missile can leave vast tracks of land forever uninhabitable.

[dissident]

I don't think you need be as concerned as all that. US politicians and media of course want the cold war back badly, and they want to shoot and kill some Russians with a lust that is honestly quite creepy.

But commanders of USN vessels are very highly educated; they know the physics, they know what is out there, and they know that in the situations the pols are putting them in, pulling the trigger should be the last, absolute worst of all possible options; because it changes the countdown on the lifespan of their vessel, from decades and years, to a few minutes and seconds.

Surface warfare between major combatants in the modern world will start and end, faster than anyone can figure out how to write a newstory about it; and one thing is certain of the result, thousands of sailors and dozens of ships will be lost by both sides, without fail.

So trust the commander's judgement. They know much more than Six, or the Press, or apparently even the politicians that send them in harms way. They will make the wise decision; not the lust satisfying decision hoped for by the warmongers.

Intelligent commanders mean Jack sh*t when their bosses are drooling retards. Sooner rather than later the retards issue the "correct" orders to set off the gunpowder. If the intelligent commanders resist, then they are removed from their posts and their jobs. As they say, the fish rots from the head.

[dissident]

.
There is this massive Nato jerkfest in varsaw , with like everybody at the presidential level
as I mentioned before , plenty of signal of standing strong but sliding side way some
the European missile shield which got the Russian totally freaked out , has now a new badge
" NATO takes over U.S.-built missile shield, amid Russian suspicion"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato- ... SKCN0ZO1Q1

the French were blocking the deal , they didn't want to marry the girl if she was dating the pentagon.

that's of course a bit of a laugh ,
the main issue is not the shield missile per se ,but the real time data transfer to the Air Force Global Strike Command

allowing ,in Russia paranoid mind, a decapitating first strike on its nuclear assets.
of course it's not because you are paranoid that ....

Ps on the sanity of US Navy commander , there is a few notable exceptions ,
the USN Vincenne commander, nicknamed robotcop was entertaining some congresssmen while on station in the gulf and showed his resolve by shooting down a passenger plane on a scheduled flight ,
he had to be transferred but still got a medal

You are the f*cking paranoiacs. Russia has 1000 years of history as exhibit A proving that the "west" has a genetic compulsion for "drang nach osten". For Russia, the west is composed of barbarian hordes who invade on a routine basis. The Orient was only a threat when the Mongols were on a rampage and never since. But the west is a broken record with its never ending crusade against Russia. You can start your selective clock of history whenever you want to make yourself feel squeaky clean (*). But that means exactly f*ck all.

(*) Some examples of the selective history that is rampant in the western mind:

1) Crimea. Russia did not invade and annex Crimea. Crimea was annexed by Ukraine in 1991. Ukraine had no legal claim to Crimea. Khruschev's illegal gift didn't even include the City of Sevastopol which was part of the Russian Federation in 1991. Yet somehow it became part of Ukraine. Gee, a whole port city for free! "International" recognition of Ukraine's 1991 borders means nothing. The ICJ at the Hague has ruled in 2008 that self-determination trumps national borders. Hence, Kosovo's secession was valid. Crimea is more than justified to rejoin Russia and the two thirds ethnic Russian majority and even most of the Ukrainian minority voted accordingly (three times higher salaries and pensions are a big incentive and they know that they will never be discriminated against). It should never have been part of Ukraine and has zero historical link to it. (Turkey would have an actual historical claim on it more worthy than Ukraine). But the NATO lie that Russia "annexed" Crimea in 2014 is used as the basis of the new cold war. How convenient for NATO.

2) Soviet and Nazi German "partition of Poland" in 1939. Poland seized western Ukraine and Belarus lands in 1920 after taking advantage of the Russian revolution and the ensuing civil war chaos. It was nothing more than a land grab and this land was not "Poland" in 1939 but occupied territory with indigenous population who were not Poles. The USSR did not split Poland down the middle with the Nazis, they recovered land not belonging to Poland. BTW, Poland had a Nonaggression Pact with the Nazis before the USSR did and Poland was an eager participant in the 1938 Munich Hitler fellatio-fest and grabbed a part of Czechoslovakia thanks to the Reich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2 ... _conflicts

[Sixstrings]

Six you have no clue how quickly a battle group with thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars worth of equipment would be erased in a shooting natch. Your ignorance of real world military capabilities is embarrassing.

Well, could you elaborate a bit? I somehow doubt a US Navy supercarrier battlegroup could be "erased in a shooting match."

Or if that were true, then someone is doing something seriously wrong, over at the Pentagon.

Could you be more specific, Subj, exactly how is a Navy supercarrier battlegroup so weak?

I know that after the Falklands War, that was a wakeup call as far as cruise missiles go and Brits found out how vulnerable ships are to that. And then that issue was addressed.

So give me specifics, here. How is the Navy unprepared, what would just sink it in a flash, in a shooting match?

P.S. And this is all a philosophic discussion, *nobody wants a shooting match with Russia or China or darn Iranian hezbollah or anyone else*, but neither is the Navy ever going to be pushed off the high seas, so if somebody takes a shot then they take a shot.

US Navy is actually the ONLY global blue-water navy.

It's effectively the navy for the entire global western allied bloc -- even China depends on the USA, ultimately, to ensure global stability, keeping sea lanes open, etc.

There IS NO other global navy, other than the US Navy.

World Naval Hierarchy

Rank Designation Capabilities Examples

Blue-water 1
Global-reach
power projection Multiple and sustained power projection missions globally
United States

2 Limited global-reach
power projection At least one major power projection operation globally
France, United Kingdom

3 Multi-regional
power projection Power projection to regions adjacent its own
India, Russia, Italy, Spain, Brazil

4 Regional
power projection Limited range power projection beyond exclusive economic zone (EEZ) China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy

Forging a Global Network of Navies

The United States of America maintains the largest maritime force in the world. The U.S. Navy is uniquely postured to operate forward and be ready to respond to any threat globally. This enables us to have naval forces present where it matters and when it matters. Throughout history, however, we have learned that it is almost always in the best interest of nations to act together when responding to crises, whether it involves deterrence or combat or providing humanitarian support. Accordingly, the U.S. Navy has rarely operated alone in a crisis. One of our advantages, as a nation and as a Navy, has been our extensive network of alliances, partnerships, and coalitions.

In 2007, Admiral Mike Mullen addressed more than 100 leaders of the world’s navies gathered at the 18th International Seapower Symposium in Newport, Rhode Island. He challenged the international community to act in concert when responding to threats to the global maritime domain, and he shared his vision of a “1,000-Ship Navy” fueled by the common interest of global stability and economic prosperity.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-05/forging-global-network-navies

USS Abraham Lincoln leads a formation of ships from eight countries during the RIMPAC exercise in 2006.

100% on Watch U.S. Navy TV Commercial - Navy PSA.
https://youtu.be/ZqpJ5kDgKec

Subjectivist, what's so bad about the Navy? Far as I know, the aegis is top notch. And the Japanese Navy is all top notch and they've got the best aegis too, and they just designed a good new submarine (probably will be sold to Australia too).. and all those Pacific navies are all allied to ours (except China), AND the British and European navies.

The Virginia class submarines are pretty good, no?

Largest & Deadlyest Submarines EVER - USS Virginia
https://youtu.be/6En9UjLJelM

Heck, the US Navy and just Japan and South Korea could sail around, and that's a heck of a force. Japanese aegis is very good.

[AgentR11]

China's Navy, and Russia's Navy and GB's Navy, and France's Navy, and India's Navy, are all Blue Water navies.

Blue Water refers to the operational ability to carry out missions on the open ocean; as opposed to coastal defense Navies, which do not need oilers and tenders and tugs and nuclear engines; as they are rarely more than a few days from a friendly port. In this particular instance, Russia has many nuclear powered vessels easily capable of circumnavigation unassisted. (though meal rations might get terribly boring!) That would be a quintessential proof that Russia's Navy is a "Blue Water" force. However, as I've noted in other messages, Russia doesn't really have much of a mission for its Blue Water ships, and is moving its investment towards coastal concerns. EG, nothing all that interesting happens if someone cuts off Russia's access to maritime trade; "oh no, we won't have tangerines, surely we'll all die now!". lol. So defending shipping lanes between South America and the Med or North Sea just isn't all that valuable to them.

The US Navy, given that it costs many times what anyone else's Navy costs, is of course able to operate simultaneously and substantially in several theatres across the globe.

OTOH, and this is where you are perhaps missing piece of the puzzle; if the US Navy were sent to do battle with Russia or China; the picture is of a very different sort of scenario; there won't be one cruise missile, or a dozen cruise missiles coming at the battlegroup; there will be hundreds. Interceptors and close in weapons systems will take out some; but the battle, if one were to call it that, would look more like random tapping of a delete key; not much maneuvering, not much strategy, just massive volley, massive automated defense, and x-odd ships just gone. very very quickly.

Extrapolating from the Falklands encounter is stupid btw. Completely inapplicable to anything other than your typical "USN destroys pathetic third world country for amusement and profit."

[Sixstrings]

Extrapolating from the Falklands encounter is stupid btw. Completely inapplicable to anything other than your typical "USN destroys pathetic third world country for amusement and profit."

Well that was a bit of naval history there, just that the Brits lost a ship to an Argentine missile, and yes that was a lesson for all the world's navies, to take cruise missiles more seriously (this was the 80s).

I was thinking about it -- and I think maybe what Subjectivist was referring to, is swarm missile attacks.

I'm not a total expert on this stuff -- if someone else is, then explain it.

Far as I know, the swarm missile thing is not a reality yet. It was a big deal for Russia to just launch that stuff from the Caspian, over to Syria. Hypersonic missile swarms are a future threat yes, but it's not a reality right now.

And there's certainly none of that in the mediterannean. This thread is about the Baltics, and the med. So if you guys are saying the US Navy could be taken out in a flash, then explain how.

REGARDING the swarm missiles of the future -- the Navy is working on the electromagnetic railgun, a swarm munition to handle missile swarms.

Also, about carrier groups -- it's a MESH network of layers of defense, satellite assets too.

Anyhow -- carrier groups are a bit vulnerable, and they include multiple assets including two submarines underneath.. and the picket line ships out at the edge have to keep any unauthorized boats / ships from coming into the group. Which is what this thread is about.

So surely everyone understands that, they cannot let other nations' frigates come inside the group toward the carrier.

P.S. -- there's never gonna be a darn war with Russia or China, so everyone relax.

[Tanada]

Extrapolating from the Falklands encounter is stupid btw. Completely inapplicable to anything other than your typical "USN destroys pathetic third world country for amusement and profit."

Well that was a bit of naval history there, just that the Brits lost a ship to an Argentine missile, and yes that was a lesson for all the world's navies, to take cruise missiles more seriously (this was the 80s).

I was thinking about it -- and I think maybe what Subjectivist was referring to, is swarm missile attacks.

I'm not a total expert on this stuff -- if someone else is, then explain it.

Far as I know, the swarm missile thing is not a reality yet. It was a big deal for Russia to just launch that stuff from the Caspian, over to Syria. Hypersonic missile swarms are a future threat yes, but it's not a reality right now.

And there's certainly none of that in the mediterannean. This thread is about the Baltics, and the med. So if you guys are saying the US Navy could be taken out in a flash, then explain how.

REGARDING the swarm missiles of the future -- the Navy is working on the electromagnetic railgun, a swarm munition to handle missile swarms.

Also, about carrier groups -- it's a MESH network of layers of defense, satellite assets too.

Anyhow -- carrier groups are a bit vulnerable, and they include multiple assets including two submarines underneath.. and the picket line ships out at the edge have to keep any unauthorized boats / ships from coming into the group. Which is what this thread is about.

So surely everyone understands that, they cannot let other nations' frigates come inside the group toward the carrier.

P.S. -- there's never gonna be a darn war with Russia or China, so everyone relax.

Nobody needs a swarm of hypersonic missiles Six, that is where you are getting mixed up. Look, I come from a family with a strong naval tradition, my father and two of my three brothers all served in the US Navy. You have this Hollywood image that if your battle group of say 30 ships is sailing along and someone shoots off a dozen missiles at them they will shoot down all the missiles and then retaliate.

Well the real world does not remotely work like that, because the bad guys know just as well as you do that a dozen missiles even fired all at once is a threat that can be effectively dealt with. So in a real shooting war the bad guys do not send a dozen missiles, they send a thousand as in 1,000. The SAM systems on the USN ships are great, but they only have about 100 SAM missiles each even on the big cruisers, and most task forces have just two or three cruisers, a few SAM equipped Destroyers and Frigates with 50 or 25 SAM each, and a dozen other ships with nothing but CIWS cannon. So Vampire warning (enemy missile) first wave of 100 all shot down, second wave of 100 all shot down, third wave of 100 all shot down. CRUD we are out of SAM missiles! Fourth wave of 100; 70 shot down by CIWS 20 hit targeted ships 10 miss or malfunction. Fifth wave of 100; 40 shot down 15 miss or malfunction 35 hit targets. At this time half of your ships are burning and unable to fight back. Sixth wave of 100, 25 shot down, 20 miss or malfunction, 65 hit targets. By the time the seventh wave of 100 arrives there is no capability to fight off the incoming missiles.

The nasty little fact is you don't even have to do it with 700 high tech missiles. With a modern computer iPhone for an autopilot you can send in 100 Cessna private planes with bombs on board and simple homing circuits, the USN still has to shoot them all down or get hit. Heck you can go even lower tech than that, so long as the craft will fly in the right direction and potentially hit the ship the task force has to either shoot it down or hope it misses. A swarm of cheap one time use drones each with 10 kg of explosive requires being shot down. So if someone like say Iran wanted to destroy a USN task force in the Persian gulf the best strategy would be to send off a couple hundred drones to use up all the high tech SAM defense missiles, then send in their high tech Silkworm Anti-ship missiles right behind them. Heck if they can't get the iPhones they can give kamikaze pilot training to a bunch of fanatical jihadist's and send them in first to Die for the faith.

In World War II the USN sent THOUSANDS of ships to Japan because the Kamikaze pilots were willing and able to fly straight into the ships and sink them. Missiles are just high tech Kamikaze's with a computer chip pilot guiding the missile instead of a human. They sent thousands of ships because against those kind of attacks you need layers of ships deep enough that you don't run out of defensive ammunition. Even so they lost a great many ships fighting against the Kamikaze threat.

You brought up the Falklands war. The Royal Navy was barely able to defeat a third rate power armed with cruise missiles and iron bombs. An iron bomb has no guidance system, you drop it and hope it hits the target. The Argentinians only had a few Exocet missiles but they had dozens of brave pilots and thousands of iron bombs. everyone talks about the Exocet missiles, but the Argentinians actually sunk or damaged more ships with WW II era iron bombs than they did with missiles. Do you think the bad guys are not brave enough to do the same thing to the USN? If you think guys willing to fly into buildings are not willing to fly into ships knowing they will die in advance then you need to rethink your theory.

[vtsnowedin]

In World War II the USN sent THOUSANDS of ships to Japan because the Kamikaze pilots were willing and able to fly straight into the ships and sink them. Missiles are just high tech Kamikaze's with a computer chip pilot guiding the missile instead of a human. They sent thousands of ships because against those kind of attacks you need layers of ships deep enough that you don't run out of defensive ammunition. Even so they lost a great many ships fighting against the Kamikaze threat.

.

Where did you get that factoid? The highest ship count I can find in WW2 was the Marianas turkey shoot at 500 and the same task force moved on to Okinawa with the addition of a British task group 4 carriers and 36 support ships and certainly more troop and supply transports but nowhere near even 1000 ships let alone making the thousand plural.
Note: a task group- TG was four air craft carriers, 8 battle ships or cruisers and 24 destroyers. Four or five Task groups plus thier supply train formed a task force TF . Multiple task forces with different jobs such as troop transport and landing craft were numbered as a fleet and the number it carried changed every time they changed commanding admirals to make the Japanese think we had twice the ships we had. So the battle of Okinawa started under Spruance as the fifth fleet and ended under Halsey as the third fleet even though the ships were the same.

[Subjectivist]

In World War II the USN sent THOUSANDS of ships to Japan because the Kamikaze pilots were willing and able to fly straight into the ships and sink them. Missiles are just high tech Kamikaze's with a computer chip pilot guiding the missile instead of a human. They sent thousands of ships because against those kind of attacks you need layers of ships deep enough that you don't run out of defensive ammunition. Even so they lost a great many ships fighting against the Kamikaze threat.

.

Where did you get that factoid? The highest ship count I can find in WW2 was the Marianas turkey shoot at 500 and the same task force moved on to Okinawa with the addition of a British task group 4 carriers and 36 support ships and certainly more troop and supply transports but nowhere near even 1000 ships let alone making the thousand plural.
Note: a task group- TG was four air craft carriers, 8 battle ships or cruisers and 24 destroyers. Four or five Task groups plus thier supply train formed a task force TF . Multiple task forces with different jobs such as troop transport and landing craft were numbered as a fleet and the number it carried changed every time they changed commanding admirals to make the Japanese think we had twice the ships we had. So the battle of Okinawa started under Spruance as the fifth fleet and ended under Halsey as the third fleet even though the ships were the same.

Try this, the invasion force for Okinawa.

The operations for the capture of Okinawa were under the command of Admiral R. A. Spruance, Commander Fifth Fleet. Major forces participating under him were: the Joint Expeditionary Force (all elements engaged directly in the landings), Vice Admiral (now Admiral) R. K. Turner; the Expeditionary Troops (all ground forces engaged), the late Lieutenant General S. B. Buckner, USA; the Fast Carrier Force, Vice Admiral M. A. Mitscher, (including the battleships and other fire support vessels of the late Vice Admiral W. A. Lee's Striking Force); the British Carrier Force, Vice Admiral H. B. Rawlings; the Logistic Supply Group (tankers and cargo vessels which serviced the fleet under way close to the combat areas), Rear Admiral D. B. Beary; Service Squadron Ten (the repair, supply and service vessels of all kinds, based on Leyte Gulf, the Marianas, etc.), Commodore W. R. Carter; the Amphibious Support Force (comprising escort carriers, minesweepers, underwater demolition teams, gun-boats, and the gunnery ships assigned to bombardment missions), Rear Admiral (now Vice Admiral) W. H. P. Blandy; and the Gunfire and Covering Force (the battleships and other gunnery vessels not with the fast carriers), Rear Admiral M. L. Deyo. Numerous other participating task groups and units and their commanders are not mentioned herein. About 548,000 men of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps took part, with 318 combatant vessels and 1139 auxiliary vessels, exclusive of personnel landing craft of all types.

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Compac45.html

Note, that is 1457 ships not counting the swarms of landing craft involved in the landing operation itself. The plan for Novembers invasion of Japan itself was more than twice as big, my dad was one of the landing craft pilots trained for that invasion. In the navy of WW II most if not all auxiliary vessels were armed with anti aircraft cannon and often with 3" (76mm) dual purpose canon that doubled for purposes of fighting off submarines. When the Kamikaze pilots dove out of the sky all those guns made a wall of shrapnel and they still got through and sunk at least 47 while damaging another 300.
http://kamikazeimages.net/background/sh ... /index.htm

It is hard to even imagine the metal thrown up by thousands of 20mm, hundreds of 40mm, scores of 76mm, dozens more 104mm(4") 127mm(5") and 152mm(6") guns on all the actual war ships. I wonder if anyone has ever surveyed all the brass shell casings and shrapnel fragments on the sea floor around where these battles took place? With so many sunken ships I think someone would, sooner or later.

Compared to a kamikazee plane of World War II even a jet powered cruise missile both moves a lot faster and makes a much smaller target to hit. If someone wants to destroy a modern task force they can, we just don't want to admit it even to ourselves.

[vtsnowedin]

In World War II the USN sent THOUSANDS of ships to Japan because the Kamikaze pilots were willing and able to fly straight into the ships and sink them. Missiles are just high tech Kamikaze's with a computer chip pilot guiding the missile instead of a human. They sent thousands of ships because against those kind of attacks you need layers of ships deep enough that you don't run out of defensive ammunition. Even so they lost a great many ships fighting against the Kamikaze threat.

.

Where did you get that factoid? The highest ship count I can find in WW2 was the Marianas turkey shoot at 500 and the same task force moved on to Okinawa with the addition of a British task group 4 carriers and 36 support ships and certainly more troop and supply transports but nowhere near even 1000 ships let alone making the thousand plural.
Note: a task group- TG was four air craft carriers, 8 battle ships or cruisers and 24 destroyers. Four or five Task groups plus thier supply train formed a task force TF . Multiple task forces with different jobs such as troop transport and landing craft were numbered as a fleet and the number it carried changed every time they changed commanding admirals to make the Japanese think we had twice the ships we had. So the battle of Okinawa started under Spruance as the fifth fleet and ended under Halsey as the third fleet even though the ships were the same.

Try this, the invasion force for Okinawa.

The operations for the capture of Okinawa were under the command of Admiral R. A. Spruance, Commander Fifth Fleet. Major forces participating under him were: the Joint Expeditionary Force (all elements engaged directly in the landings), Vice Admiral (now Admiral) R. K. Turner; the Expeditionary Troops (all ground forces engaged), the late Lieutenant General S. B. Buckner, USA; the Fast Carrier Force, Vice Admiral M. A. Mitscher, (including the battleships and other fire support vessels of the late Vice Admiral W. A. Lee's Striking Force); the British Carrier Force, Vice Admiral H. B. Rawlings; the Logistic Supply Group (tankers and cargo vessels which serviced the fleet under way close to the combat areas), Rear Admiral D. B. Beary; Service Squadron Ten (the repair, supply and service vessels of all kinds, based on Leyte Gulf, the Marianas, etc.), Commodore W. R. Carter; the Amphibious Support Force (comprising escort carriers, minesweepers, underwater demolition teams, gun-boats, and the gunnery ships assigned to bombardment missions), Rear Admiral (now Vice Admiral) W. H. P. Blandy; and the Gunfire and Covering Force (the battleships and other gunnery vessels not with the fast carriers), Rear Admiral M. L. Deyo. Numerous other participating task groups and units and their commanders are not mentioned herein. About 548,000 men of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps took part, with 318 combatant vessels and 1139 auxiliary vessels, exclusive of personnel landing craft of all types.

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Compac45.html

Note, that is 1457 ships not counting the swarms of landing craft involved in the landing operation itself. The plan for Novembers invasion of Japan itself was more than twice as big, my dad was one of the landing craft pilots trained for that invasion. In the navy of WW II most if not all auxiliary vessels were armed with anti aircraft cannon and often with 3" (76mm) dual purpose canon that doubled for purposes of fighting off submarines. When the Kamikaze pilots dove out of the sky all those guns made a wall of shrapnel and they still got through and sunk at least 47 while damaging another 300.
http://kamikazeimages.net/background/sh ... /index.htm

It is hard to even imagine the metal thrown up by thousands of 20mm, hundreds of 40mm, scores of 76mm, dozens more 104mm(4") 127mm(5") and 152mm(6") guns on all the actual war ships. I wonder if anyone has ever surveyed all the brass shell casings and shrapnel fragments on the sea floor around where these battles took place? With so many sunken ships I think someone would, sooner or later.

Compared to a kamikazee plane of World War II even a jet powered cruise missile both moves a lot faster and makes a much smaller target to hit. If someone wants to destroy a modern task force they can, we just don't want to admit it even to ourselves.

Well 1457 ships does not round up to thousands. And the landing craft carried aboard amphibious assault ships are not ships. And many of those ships were nothing more then cargo ships carrying supplies or oil tankers carrying fuel.
But many were armed for anti aircraft defense and indeed they put up a rain of steel for the Kamikazes to fly through. A typical Haskell class victory ship like the Rutland mounted one 5inch gun 1 40mm quad mount , 4 40 mm twins and 10 20 mm singles. This while carrying 1500 men and their equipment and 24 landing craft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Rutland_(APA-192)
As to the vulnerability of our current task forces I would not be so quick to count then out. A while back a Navy pilot interviewed stated that "He would hate to be the one sent to attack a USN carrier group" Why is that asked the reporter? "Because I'm going to die!".

[Tanada]

Well 1457 ships does not round up to thousands. And the landing craft carried aboard amphibious assault ships are not ships. And many of those ships were nothing more then cargo ships carrying supplies or oil tankers carrying fuel.
But many were armed for anti aircraft defense and indeed they put up a rain of steel for the Kamikazes to fly through. A typical Haskell class victory ship like the Rutland mounted one 5inch gun 1 40mm quad mount , 4 40 mm twins and 10 20 mm singles. This while carrying 1500 men and their equipment and 24 landing craft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Rutland_(APA-192)
As to the vulnerability of our current task forces I would not be so quick to count then out. A while back a Navy pilot interviewed stated that "He would hate to be the one sent to attack a USN carrier group" Why is that asked the reporter? "Because I'm going to die!".

I never said the bad guys would come through the attack without taking losses, far from it. What I said is, if anyone wants to put in the effort they can absolutely sink a battle group or a task force or heck a whole fleet. It all boils down to just how much blood and treasure they are willing and able to spend in the process.

As for the Thousands remark, I was not thinking of a specific battle, though the numbers of armed ship are north of 1,000 at Okinawa. I was thinking in terms of the entire set of forces deployed in the western Pacific specifically to attack Japan and/or the islands it was holding. The operational plan for Coronet November 1, 1945 was to land the entire US 6th Army on Kyushu over just a few days. Included in that number for the first day of the invasion were 3 Marine divisions 6 Army infantry divisions and 1 Army Armored division with another 3 infantry divisions in reserve to be landed wherever the first 10 divisions had the most trouble advancing. All told that adds up to about 160,000 men plus the armor division equipment, trucks, jeeps all that logistical material like food and bullets. In comparison the USMC invaded Iwo Jima with 45,000 men and the US Army invaded Okinawa with 90,000, so you can take the Kyushu invasion force to be around 1.5 and 1.9 times the size of the Okinawa invasion with its 1,400 ships.

The USA Navy today couldn't scrape together 1,400 ships if the existence of the USA depended on it in a period of less than years. We have gone in for small numbers of highly capable ships and we forgot that losing one small highly capable ship today hurts us worse than losing 20 small not so advanced ships in World War II did. During the war we were turning out large ships, 30,000 ton size ships, in 17-24 months. At the same time we were turning out small ships like destroyers, frigates and those liberty ships in 6-9 months each. You would be lucky to get one of those every 3 to 5 years today. We simply no longer have the ship building capacity we used to have, much of it was sold off to developers who made it into wealthy gated communities. The rest was converted into cargo handling facilities for big container ships and no longer has the ability to do work building much of anything. Not to mention we do not have a generation of workers who even know how to build ships other than the few remaining construction and repair yards that have stayed in Business.

BTW my figures above come from my library of WW II reference books, not the internet. In this specific case the number of military for Iwo Kima, Okinawa and Kyushu comes from War Maps by Simon Goodenough and the building times come from looking them up in Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II.

[dissident]

Talking about the interception of 100% of incoming Onyx missiles is simply delusional. Americans are truly trapped in a bubble reality. As if CIWS is something only the USA has and those Russian untermenschen have not taken it into account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tpRzNLjTLI

In the real world the advantage goes to the side that shoots first with sufficient scale. None of the sides has any significant gap in defense and offense. So secondary and tertiary factors start to matter.

Americans are dangerous because they have been worked over by their oligarch controlled media to believe that they are invincible. They are exactly like the Germans during the 1930s. Puffed up with hubris and fake moral authority to impose their will on the world. In this regard there is zero symmetry between Russia and the USA. Russia is not interested in dictating to the planet how to live. The Russian people don't have pathological delusions about invincibility and video game wars. They still remember WWII and the cost which nearly every family has paid. Americans think that any war is somewhere "over there" and that American cities will never be reduced to rubble.

[onlooker]

I believe this is true what Dissident says. All empires begin to suffer from this perception of invincibility. It serves an Empire well at first but then becomes a liability. As American who has looked into US actions and policies it is not an exaggeration to say that since WWII, the US has been hell bent on a mission of world dominance. It is documented and recorded in affairs and entities such as the Bretton Woods just after WWII and then the Bildenberg group , Council of Foreign relations etc. In all the actions such as the wars and the black operations or Black Ops and other clandestine activities. More recently in the Project for a New American Century. The whole thrust has been one of taking advantage of the American Preeminence after WWII when the US comprised one half the world economy and had no rival militarily. So, the imperialistic tendencies of the US are well documented and chronicled. See the many writings and speeches of Noam Chomsky