The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil

Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan - which are relatively near the ocean, the type of force projected from aircraft carriers has been of minimal use.

For long term use, yes, you want large ground bases, supplied by overland routes and sea ports with large freight handling capacity.

But for the first few weeks of a major operation or for smaller, temporary operations, it seems we make heavy use of our aircraft carriers.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil

The sudden, unexpected loss of a CVN, especially by unanticipated asymmetric means, would shock both the military establishment and the American psyche-perhaps being a military equivalent to the Twin Towers' collapse on 9/11.

Exactly ... though I read this claim rather differently than others posting here today. I'm a 9/11 truther.

If the sinking of an aircraft carrier was used to incite American outrage and justify a massive retaliation against some country, the question in my mind would be who sunk the carrier -- us (as a false flag operation) or them?

As I've noted, I view American "leadership" through a glass darkly.

[KGW]

Re: The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil

No. As has been said before, a swarm of supersonic sea-level sunburns will turn a carrier task force into a mass of useless metal and carbonized bone.... You don't think the Russians and Chinese have been resting on their laurels? And this is saying nothing of whose greed will cause it to happen...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil

No. As has been said before, a swarm of supersonic sea-level sunburns will turn a carrier task force into a mass of useless metal and carbonized bone

I presume that your response of "No" was in response to Master Shake's comment:

You don't think we've developed missile defense systems?

[wayiwalk]

Re: The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil

From c1ue's post....
"A quick note on the Shkval: The VA-111 Shkval's high speed is achieved via supercavitation, where a vacuum bubble forms in front of and around the body of the torpedo, greatly reducing water resistance (i.e. friction). Pretty cool, except for the fact that the Russian military has it, and ours (U.S.) doesn't. The good news is, word on the street is that the Shkval is "****", meaning it's not a guided fire-and-forget torpedo. At least that's what the public's being told. The bad news? The bad news is, that even if this is true, the Russians aren't stupid, militarily complacent, or devoid of ideas and plans, and their military technology is constantly marching forward for the motherland just like ours is--sometimes even faster. So, it's just a matter of time (probably not much, at that) before a successor to the Shkval series of supercavitating torpedoes is developed that's a "smart" guided fire-and-forget weapon that will home in on our very expensive ships and subs with the single-minded precision and obsession of a lion pack on a wounded water buffalo. "

Boy that vacuum bubble phrase gave me pause - not a good explanation - so I found in wiki -

"The speed of the VA-111 far exceeds that of any standard torpedo currently fielded by NATO. This speed is a result of supercavitation: the torpedo is, in effect, flying in a gas bubble created by outward deflection of water by its specially shaped nose cone and the expansion of gases from its engine. By keeping water from coming into contact with the surface of the body of the torpedo, drag is significantly reduced, allowing extremely high speeds. In effect, the Shkval is an underwater missile."

Makes a little more sense. A true vacuum may be hard to maintain - I'm guessing the expanding gases are also exited through the front of the front of the torpedo, to form the lower friction boundary layer.

Given that the shape isn't classified and there's plenty of knowledgeable engineers who could figure out out to duplicate or better the design since its basically the idea that made this advance so effective - I'm guessing that the U.S. is sticking with it's designs because they include features that are better or otherwise more reliable.

As far as a giant supercarrier - my money is on the UAVs and cheaper, more numerous missles being the power of the future. Getting the pilot out of the plane provides numerous advantages, and as computing power continues to increase, along with satellite technology, such systems only get better.

My experience with military intelligence is that it either overestimates the strength of the enemy in order to push the development of better homegrown technology, or completely misses the strength of the opposition due to blindness born of hubris.

Our military is powerful due to the long term advantages of a strong industrial base and wealth, this will diminish over the next 30 years as the present military hardware ages and much of it is not replaced, or the new technology is matched by our competitors.

That said - I occaisionally watch the military channel and the new technology weapons that are being developed for use in conventional warfare are downright scary.

[FRED]

Re: The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil

From c1ue's post....
"A quick note on the Shkval: The VA-111 Shkval's high speed is achieved via supercavitation, where a vacuum bubble forms in front of and around the body of the torpedo, greatly reducing water resistance (i.e. friction). Pretty cool, except for the fact that the Russian military has it, and ours (U.S.) doesn't. The good news is, word on the street is that the Shkval is "****", meaning it's not a guided fire-and-forget torpedo. At least that's what the public's being told. The bad news? The bad news is, that even if this is true, the Russians aren't stupid, militarily complacent, or devoid of ideas and plans, and their military technology is constantly marching forward for the motherland just like ours is--sometimes even faster. So, it's just a matter of time (probably not much, at that) before a successor to the Shkval series of supercavitating torpedoes is developed that's a "smart" guided fire-and-forget weapon that will home in on our very expensive ships and subs with the single-minded precision and obsession of a lion pack on a wounded water buffalo. "

Boy that vacuum bubble phrase gave me pause - not a good explanation - so I found in wiki -

"The speed of the VA-111 far exceeds that of any standard torpedo currently fielded by NATO. This speed is a result of supercavitation: the torpedo is, in effect, flying in a gas bubble created by outward deflection of water by its specially shaped nose cone and the expansion of gases from its engine. By keeping water from coming into contact with the surface of the body of the torpedo, drag is significantly reduced, allowing extremely high speeds. In effect, the Shkval is an underwater missile."

Makes a little more sense. A true vacuum may be hard to maintain - I'm guessing the expanding gases are also exited through the front of the front of the torpedo, to form the lower friction boundary layer.

Given that the shape isn't classified and there's plenty of knowledgeable engineers who could figure out out to duplicate or better the design since its basically the idea that made this advance so effective - I'm guessing that the U.S. is sticking with it's designs because they include features that are better or otherwise more reliable.

As far as a giant supercarrier - my money is on the UAVs and cheaper, more numerous missles being the power of the future. Getting the pilot out of the plane provides numerous advantages, and as computing power continues to increase, along with satellite technology, such systems only get better.

My experience with military intelligence is that it either overestimates the strength of the enemy in order to push the development of better homegrown technology, or completely misses the strength of the opposition due to blindness born of hubris.

Our military is powerful due to the long term advantages of a strong industrial base and wealth, this will diminish over the next 30 years as the present military hardware ages and much of it is not replaced, or the new technology is matched by our competitors.

That said - I occaisionally watch the military channel and the new technology weapons that are being developed for use in conventional warfare are downright scary.

Earlier discussion of the topic here.