Andy3536 wrote:

Well my appologies to the us army.

A recent american pilot who thought a british warrior apc in afghanistan was a russian made flat bed truck had no recognition training. In the in cockpit film he identifies the orange pannels (signify friendly vehicles) and then procedded to staffe them twice. I will admit i wrongly thought all your military forces would have the same training.

Mabee those that run your army should take a visit to the air force.

 

I've seen the video.  I think it was in Iraq, but I cannot be 100% sure.  I think the UK has mostly SF and Air Assets in Afganistan, most of the heavy stuff (Challengers/Warriors are in Iraq).  That was a case of pilot error.  The pilot asked the FAC if there were friendlies in the area...the FAC said no.  His wingman noticed the orange markers, but mistook them for missles.  Why I don't know, most missiles I've ever encountered are white, or OD green.  After the engagement, he commented that the orange panels WAS the friendly visual ID method.  HOW both pilots (O/A-10 pilots at that, who's job IS CAS and forward air control) mistook a Warrior for a truck I cannot say.  I am virtually positive that they SHOULD know the difference, but this is a ground pounder talking, so I don't know how things look at 10,000 feet.  They didn't seem like the ground targets were in any danger of getting away.  I don't know what the preflight briefing was and if included specific targets to look out for

Needless to say, it made the pilot nearly sick when he found out and I'm sure that reaction would be the same for most US military personel.  Blue and blue casualties are always the toughest to take.

---

VTX SPARTAN - COL
SpankTheMidget
220,000 Merit

x626x Gurkha - COL
5Ghosts
95,000 Merit

 Andy3536 wrote:

 ImGoinCommando wrote:

 Andy3536 wrote:

Well my appologies to the us army.

A recent american pilot who thought a british warrior apc in afghanistan was a russian made flat bed truck had no recognition training. In the in cockpit film he identifies the orange pannels (signify friendly vehicles) and then procedded to staffe them twice. I will admit i wrongly thought all your military forces would have the same training.

Mabee those that run your army should take a visit to the air force.

You tried to minimize British friendly fire incidents (in a earlier post) as just a few examples over many years.  The point has already been made (over your head no doubt) that when you consider the size of the forces involved  the US record is remarkable compared to your own.   As to the US Air Force training if you take a minute to get some facts you will easily find things like CAS - Close Air Support training.  This has emphasis on preventing friendly fire. 

In the Dallas Mavericks last game (that's American NBA basketball) Dirk Nowitzki shot 10-22 from the field, 1-2 from 3 point range and 10-10 from the free throw line.  By your analysis Dirk is a lousy shot and must not practice his shooting since he was less than 50% from the field.  Your post would be things like Nowitzki is a lousy shot and cite his 10 for 22 shooting and he has no basketball training.  Just so you know, Dirk (a German in the NBA) is one of the best basketball players in the world.  I apologize for not using a football (soccer) reference.  It would put everyone to sleep.

 

"Mabee those that run your army should take a visit to the air force."  Maybe (not Mabee) you should go to school.  By the way, what is staffe?  (strafe???)  You want to talk about serious stuff but you have few facts, wrong facts and can barely express yourself in a coherent manner.  Just say you are an anti-american brit and be done with it!

 

This has been brought up by someone else in this thread there is no reason for you to repeat it. And wow you spotted a typo (also brought up in a previos post that i cant' type) Do you have any opinions of you own or are you just trying to copy other people and jump on the band wagon.

And as for the netball (baskettball) explanation you were right to think i wouldn't know as nobody follows it over here and i would have no idea from what you said weather he was a lousy or not.

 

And please don't come back to moan about my spelling or that netball isn't basketball. I am fully aware that my spelling is bad and that basketball is netball in motion.

Everyone makes typos and I am not moaning about your spelling, just pointing out your education apparently sucks.  If you want to make posts about serious issues take some time and make it coherent!  Better still (as I said before) do some research to see if your viewpoints are justified!  If your justification is that you hate Americans then just state it.  It won't bother me or most Americans (in my opinion).

I repeated the point in my previous post (as I indicated in the post) because it is still relevant and it obviously hasn't been communicated to you yet. 

I guess you are intellectually incapable of understanding the simple basketball example.  Not because basketball isn't popular just because you obviously are not too bright.   How hard can it be to understand 10 goals scored out of 22 attempts? 

You state I have no opinions of my own but perhaps you should just accept you are not intelligent or open minded enough to understand other people's points.  Sorry about continuing to call out your incorrect and misinterpreted "facts", although I don't think it bothers you since your replies can't address those issues.  I know everyone else has called you out on this as well so I guess I'm still (in your mind) jumping on the bandwagon.  So be it! 

How does it feel knowing there is a "bandwagon" that knows your facts are usually in error and your interpretation of the facts as a whole shows more prejudicial anti-american sentiment than rational thinking?

---

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

R. Reagan

IMO, about this whole friendly fire thing,

at first after reading the transcript i thought it wasnt the pilot's fault, as they had asked several times if there were friendlies in the area and each time they were told "no".

you have to appreciate the psychological aspect also..i'm speculating, but if you were to believe 100% that no friendlies are in the area, you won't "see" them. tanks become trucks and orange panels become rocket launchers. the same applies to unit recognition.. i guess it's also a matter of how much you're open to suggestion..how many of us in that situation would challenge them when repeatedly told "no friendlies in the area"?

 

now i've been told that in that incident, the correct procedures were not adhered to. i have no idea what this is, but i'm guessing that in war, procedures are there to prevent things like this happening, but that's not to say they're always followed...this is all good until a mistake happens

 WelterWills wrote:

IMO, about this whole friendly fire thing,

at first after reading the transcript i thought it wasnt the pilot's fault, as they had asked several times if there were friendlies in the area and each time they were told "no".

you have to appreciate the psychological aspect also..i'm speculating, but if you were to believe 100% that no friendlies are in the area, you won't "see" them. tanks become trucks and orange panels become rocket launchers. the same applies to unit recognition.. i guess it's also a matter of how much you're open to suggestion..how many of us in that situation would challenge them when repeatedly told "no friendlies in the area"?

 

now i've been told that in that incident, the correct procedures were not adhered to. i have no idea what this is, but i'm guessing that in war, procedures are there to prevent things like this happening, but that's not to say they're always followed...this is all good until a mistake happens

your right, its better them than me, but better communication could solve this problem. The United Kingdom has had there mistakes two, like when you disabled a Canadian Leopered 1 in Afghanistan.

And i now understand why some of these people fail to relize that other countires are taking the same steps as The USA and have technologically advanced systems/ highly effective Armed Forces is becuase you only hear about the Americans cuase most of you live in the US. You only hear about how effective the American military rocks or is the best etc. some of you are so ignorant to think other countrys have insuperior systems and are nothing compared to your own.

and to a previous comment, those coward are sure taking a toll on the Coalition (mainly the 3 big players, Canada the UK and USA). There fighting with the only means they have to win

---

"Единственная смерть - трагедия, миллион смертельных случаев - статистическое" - Джозеф Сталин

uhm we sell our stuff to the world...i think we have an idea on how good u are...but we also know how good we are more... and id like u to give any country that cud defeat the us

IMO, it is not neccessarily the pilots fault but the forward air controllers who are supposed to be identifying targets and orienting the pilots towards the targets.  I saw the video as well and noticed that there were many shortcuts made on established procedures.  Even though friendly fire is a horrible event, it is accepted by military professionals as long as we can learn from those mistakes and try to correct them in the future.  War is an attempt to create order out of chaos and the "fog of war" is ever present.  I cannot imagine how difficult it would be as a pilot to identify a moving target at 10,000 feet while you are circling at 500-700 mph and then to be on the lookout for groundfire as well.  Next time you are landing at an airport, look out the window and try to identify makes of common automobiles and then realize you are 5 times closer to the ground than most pilots.  Then you have hundreds of units on the ground moving at 25-30 km/day with no front line trace per say which makes tracking locations of friendly units problematic at best.  Then on top of that you have the normal chain of command between the forward air controller on the ground or air talking to the pilots and ground units at the same time with a foreign unit in the mix.  It is all terribly complicated and confusing and then add on the pilots, forward air controller, and ground troops are probably working on about 3-4 hours of sleep.  It is regrettable but easy to see how mistakes are made.  I do not doubt the capabilities of our NATO allies as they are very professional and have excellent equipment but their power projection capabilties are weak at best.  In modern warfare, power projection is everything and only the US can get anywhere in the world with significant forces to do any kind of worthwhile mission.  Anyone American who underestimates the British, Germans, or any other European military is ignorant.  It is just as well that some of our uneducated European brothers are also deluding themselves to think they have anything close to the capabilities of the US military.  I agree thatThe Muj in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking a toll on our forces but it is more self-inflicted with our media than anything else.  This country seems to be agreeing that the war in Iraq is a horrible mistake but the professional military doesn't think that is they case.  Yes, it looks bad but coalition forces are killing the fundamentalists by the truckload.  I don't care what the reason for going into Iraq was, but I would rather be in Iraq hunting down fundamentalists than allowing them breathing space to launch further attacks on the West. 

Greets to VTX Spartan, a fellow Field Artilleryman!

 Chetta34 wrote:

uhm we sell our stuff to the world...i think we have an idea on how good u are...but we also know how good we are more... and id like u to give any country that cud defeat the us

Just becuase you sell some of your lower grade systems to countries in which have a low defense buget or an unprofessional force does not mean the big European super powers use American systems. Most modern European systems (especially some fo the newer ones) are vastly superior to there American counterparts ( for example the Leopered 2, T-90,BMP-3,Panhard VBL scout car, Puma APC, Fuchs,Patria or Boxer APC, BTR-90 and the Fennek Scout car).

ill tell you who would win if you give me a scenario

---

"Единственная смерть - трагедия, миллион смертельных случаев - статистическое" - Джозеф Сталин

 ghostt888 wrote:

 Chetta34 wrote:

uhm we sell our stuff to the world...i think we have an idea on how good u are...but we also know how good we are more... and id like u to give any country that cud defeat the us

Just becuase you sell some of your lower grade systems to countries in which have a low defense buget or an unprofessional force does not mean the big European super powers use American systems. Most modern European systems (especially some fo the newer ones) are vastly superior to there American counterparts ( for example the Leopered 2, T-90,BMP-3,Panhard VBL scout car, Puma APC, Fuchs,Patria or Boxer APC, BTR-90 and the Fennek Scout car).

ill tell you who would win if you give me a scenario

Vastly superior, no.  Very superior, no.  Remotely superior, no.  In most cases clearly inferior. 

 

The Leopard 2 - Only weapon system in the close to the equivelant US system.  L2 probably has superior armor over the frontal arc, is easier to support because it uses a diesel engine.  M1A2 SEP uses suprior imiging, C3I systems, and fires suprior ammunition.

T-90 - Not even in the same league.  It has nice countermeasure suite, but is still simply an upgraded T-72.  Ever been in a T-80U?  The commander is literally sitting on the ammuntion storage.  Turret is penetrated, game over.

BMP-3 - You've got to be kidding.  Yes, it has a 100mm main gun.  That's only to eliminate the need for a seperate ATGM missile launcher.  Since, ATGM warhead diameter is directly proportial to the power of the warhead, the missile fired is relatively small.  More modern duel warehead EFP make the system moderatley effective, but not against modern western MBTs.  Every been in a BMP3...the infantry dismounts by crawling OVER the engine....not to mention just a BIT cramped. 

Panhard VBL - The US does not use amoured cars.  Nearest comparison is the HUMVEE. 

PUMA IFV - System looks nice.  Talk to me when it enters the field in 2+ years.  The American FCS is due to begin production a year later in 2010.   

FUCHS - Nice design.  Not a world beater.  MOWAG LAV III/Stryker is a better design.

BOXER - A wheeled APC that weighs *33* TONS?!!?!  3 tons MORE than the M2 Bradley and almost TWICE the weight of the M1126/MOWAG LAV III.

BTR-90 - Umm...no.  Cool..they put a BMP2 turret on a BTR-80 chassis...yippe.  That isn't saying much.

Fennek - You like this one don't you.  Again, an armored car, which the US does not use.  Humvee fills that role and many others.

 

Honestly, there is only ONE superpower.  That aside, the reason the larger European militaries don't use many more American systems is not because those systems are inferior.  The decision is an economic/political one.  They do it to keep that particular industry running in their respective countries (example:  European airforces in the next 5 years will have Grippens, Typhoons, Rafaels, and F-35s)

 

 

---

VTX SPARTAN - COL
SpankTheMidget
220,000 Merit

x626x Gurkha - COL
5Ghosts
95,000 Merit

 VTX SPARTAN wrote:

 ghostt888 wrote:

 Chetta34 wrote:

uhm we sell our stuff to the world...i think we have an idea on how good u are...but we also know how good we are more... and id like u to give any country that cud defeat the us

Just becuase you sell some of your lower grade systems to countries in which have a low defense buget or an unprofessional force does not mean the big European super powers use American systems. Most modern European systems (especially some fo the newer ones) are vastly superior to there American counterparts ( for example the Leopered 2, T-90,BMP-3,Panhard VBL scout car, Puma APC, Fuchs,Patria or Boxer APC, BTR-90 and the Fennek Scout car).

ill tell you who would win if you give me a scenario

Vastly superior, no.  Very superior, no.  Remotely superior, no.  In most cases clearly inferior. 

 

The Leopard 2 - Only weapon system in the close to the equivelant US system.  L2 probably has superior armor over the frontal arc, is easier to support because it uses a diesel engine.  M1A2 SEP uses suprior imiging, C3I systems, and fires suprior ammunition.

T-90 - Not even in the same league.  It has nice countermeasure suite, but is still simply an upgraded T-72.  Ever been in a T-80U?  The commander is literally sitting on the ammuntion storage.  Turret is penetrated, game over.

BMP-3 - You've got to be kidding.  Yes, it has a 100mm main gun.  That's only to eliminate the need for a seperate ATGM missile launcher.  Since, ATGM warhead diameter is directly proportial to the power of the warhead, the missile fired is relatively small.  More modern duel warehead EFP make the system moderatley effective, but not against modern western MBTs.  Every been in a BMP3...the infantry dismounts by crawling OVER the engine....not to mention just a BIT cramped. 

Panhard VBL - The US does not use amoured cars.  Nearest comparison is the HUMVEE. 

PUMA IFV - System looks nice.  Talk to me when it enters the field in 2+ years.  The American FCS is due to begin production a year later in 2010.   

FUCHS - Nice design.  Not a world beater.  MOWAG LAV III/Stryker is a better design.

BOXER - A wheeled APC that weighs *33* TONS?!!?!  3 tons MORE than the M2 Bradley and almost TWICE the weight of the M1126/MOWAG LAV III.

BTR-90 - Umm...no.  Cool..they put a BMP2 turret on a BTR-80 chassis...yippe.  That isn't saying much.

Fennek - You like this one don't you.  Again, an armored car, which the US does not use.  Humvee fills that role and many others.

 

Honestly, there is only ONE superpower.  That aside, the reason the larger European militaries don't use many more American systems is not because those systems are inferior.  The decision is an economic/political one.  They do it to keep that particular industry running in their respective countries (example:  European airforces in the next 5 years will have Grippens, Typhoons, Rafaels, and F-35s)

 

 

 

It varys from Between each country. in genral the smaller armys in europe such as the british, most scandanavian, german and dutch armys keep thier quality amongst the best in the world by having smaller numbers, 

The european nations with larger armys  such as spain, russia and france stuggle on the technical front. No nation can match the finances of america and some countries choose to keep their army small with excelent weapons while others try to aspire to good numbers and a reasonably tachnical ability. The french air force is helped by buying many proven aircraft from the americans such as f16 and f15 and thus avoided development costs. And also britain france and germany all invested in the eurofighter (typhoon) Which is currently the best fighter serving with any military at the moment. The f22 will be the next best fighter but will not enter service for a few years yet.

Some european countries match and in a few cases beat america in the weaponry but do this by keeping thier numbers tiny.

It is the european nations with large forces that lag behind in the quality of the weapons they employ.

 

It is also worth noting that the american m1 the british challenger2 and the german leapoerd2 are all outstanding tanks with very little to choose between them.

I agree in principle with most of what you said.  Indeed the Challenger 2, Leo 2 and M1A2 are the worlds best MBTs.

 

Europe would be better off buying/developing their weapons systems as a unit.  That won't happen in the near future because of national pride.

 

The French will hardly help anyone unless it's in their best intrest.  The French do not use F-16s or F-15s.  They use Rafael/Mirage2000 series aircraft.  The F-22 is already in service with the USAF.

---

VTX SPARTAN - COL
SpankTheMidget
220,000 Merit

x626x Gurkha - COL
5Ghosts
95,000 Merit

yea so wheres all this european experience coming from i havnt seen most of Europe in war since ww2 with the exception of gb andcertain others but most were minor skirmishes...US stuff works...its been used...and it is effective...Europe can go sit around at home n play with their toys but when they start usin em then they can talk about how superior they are cause to me it seems there bark is worse than their bite here

 Chetta34 wrote:

yea so wheres all this european experience coming from i havnt seen most of Europe in war since ww2 with the exception of gb andcertain others but most were minor skirmishes...US stuff works...its been used...and it is effective...Europe can go sit around at home n play with their toys but when they start usin em then they can talk about how superior they are cause to me it seems there bark is worse than their bite here

Here's an example of a reason they hate the U.S. man...we HAVE used our weapons. They have been battle tested, and they are going to be time and time again.

In a perfect world, Europe is better off NOT knowing if their development teams have come up with something special. Even in our far from perfect World, I'm still going to say "Good for you" to them. While I still don't think any nation is going toe to toe with the U.S. (and I definitely don't want to find out), I still applaud them for not having to use what they have. We've taken over as the World's police force, but only because whether they like it or not, it's needed. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. The U.N. just isn't effective.

 

-US has 11 supercarriers, the rest of the world has 0.
-France has the only other nuclear powered carrier and its only 1/3 the size of the Nimitz class. 
-The French and the British are working together to build 3 supercarriers, 2 of which will be British and the other will be French (these wont be in service until the Ford Class Supercarriers are being built in the US).

You dominate the seas, you dominate the world.  Now which country in the world, or continent for that matter, has the ability to defeat the US Navy? 

---

OU SUCKS!

 Gosnork wrote:

-US has 11 supercarriers, the rest of the world has 0.
-France has the only other nuclear powered carrier and its only 1/3 the size of the Nimitz class. 
-The French and the British are working together to build 3 supercarriers, 2 of which will be British and the other will be French (these wont be in service until the Ford Class Supercarriers are being built in the US).

You dominate the seas, you dominate the world.  Now which country in the world, or continent for that matter, has the ability to defeat the US Navy? 

No offense, but having a carrier or a super carrier means jack ***. Having a carrier battle group is what you need. Oh, and the U.S. has 12 I beleive. So, rock on for us.

The carrier groups are also weak against certain attacks, so I wouldn't throw out the "dominate the seas..." line so quickly. I've never stayed away from the U.S. dominate Navy argument, but I still say the point is moot because we don't fight ship to ship like that anymore.

I'm not quite sure you can call the future british carriers "super carriers"  They will hold around 70 aircraft which from what i understand is less than the number held buy the current american fleet carriers. And there is some debate as to wether the 3 we have now will be scrapped or re-used (looks like scrapped though)

It is also worth noting that the british army has not gone a year without looseing men to enemy action and has fought many wars since WW2 although many were limited actions. a primary example would be those in indonesia and yemen. And also the falklands against argentina (who at the time had many modern supersonic jets such as the Skyhawk and the mirage)

In the majoroty though when the US goes to war they don't often do it without the british.

In another piont it is also worth noting that with all the members of nato there are only 3 willing to commit troops in afghanastan in the south where the fighting is US Britain and canada. There was also trouble with others commiting in the balkans.

We might aswell form an alliance between the 3

Someone also mentioned that europe should work together to create thier equipment and although we have to some extent with the eurofighter and the milan antitank rocket (and it's replacement) It has been mentioned many times before in the european parliment but the United Kingdom and it's strong alliance with the US has always been the stumbling block, having a stronger econemy than much of europe many things we make on our own and what is not, is normally bought from the americans, like the apache gunships and the new joint stike fighters.

 

 MrSplendido wrote:

 Gosnork wrote:

-US has 11 supercarriers, the rest of the world has 0.
-France has the only other nuclear powered carrier and its only 1/3 the size of the Nimitz class. 
-The French and the British are working together to build 3 supercarriers, 2 of which will be British and the other will be French (these wont be in service until the Ford Class Supercarriers are being built in the US).

You dominate the seas, you dominate the world.  Now which country in the world, or continent for that matter, has the ability to defeat the US Navy? 

No offense, but having a carrier or a super carrier means jack ***. Having a carrier battle group is what you need. Oh, and the U.S. has 12 I beleive. So, rock on for us.

The carrier groups are also weak against certain attacks, so I wouldn't throw out the "dominate the seas..." line so quickly. I've never stayed away from the U.S. dominate Navy argument, but I still say the point is moot because we don't fight ship to ship like that anymore.

You can't have a carrier battle group without a carrier so having one does mean jack.  You are right we have 12 carriers.  I believe 2 are conventional, with one being retired this year.  We will quickly return to 12 with the last of the Nimitz class coming out soon.  The other conventional carrier will be retired (I believe) in 2008, which will leave us with 11 until the new class of nuclear carrier (CVN-21 ...21 is for 21st century) comes out (2011?).  I'm not familiar with the "Ford class" naming!

Carriers have had documented weak points for decades, that doesn't change the fact that they are a very powerful force, but I'm happy with you being uneasy with the phrase "dominate the seas".

---

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

R. Reagan

 VTX SPARTAN wrote:

I agree in principle with most of what you said.  Indeed the Challenger 2, Leo 2 and M1A2 are the worlds best MBTs.

 

Europe would be better off buying/developing their weapons systems as a unit.  That won't happen in the near future because of national pride.

 

The French will hardly help anyone unless it's in their best intrest.  The French do not use F-16s or F-15s.  They use Rafael/Mirage2000 series aircraft.  The F-22 is already in service with the USAF.

Spartan you know you stuff

also you would need to add the Merkava A3/4 to your list of best MBT's

---

"Единственная смерть - трагедия, миллион смертельных случаев - статистическое" - Джозеф Сталин

During the Cold War, the best the Soviets could come up with against US carrier groups was to launch numerous supersonic backfire bomber regiments launching half a dozen AS-16 Kickback Anti-ship missles flooding the Americans anti-air defenses.  It was hoped that out of several hundred missles, that perhaps 10% of the missles would get through the anti-air defense screen and knock out the carriers.  The Backfires were expected to take horrendous casualties from USN combat air patrols.  The Soviets would launch a land campaign against Norway to turn it into one big anti-shipping bomber base to stop US convoys from coming across the Atlantic.  I wouldn't say modern naval warfare is dead as it was a very strong possibility 15-20 years ago.  Times change.  I remember one of my favorite board games was 7th Fleet from VG Games where NATO forces faced off against the Soviets in the Med.  I loved launching air strike groups to hit Soviet fleets trying to break through the Dardanelles. 

 Andy3536 wrote:

In another piont it is also worth noting that with all the members of nato there are only 3 willing to commit troops in afghanastan in the south where the fighting is US Britain and canada. There was also trouble with others commiting in the balkans.

I am a UH-60 Blackhawk pilot and was deployed to Kandahar, Afghanistan (in the south) for a year (OEF IV, 03-04) and I never saw a British or Canadian Soldier until I went up north to Bagram.  I flew a number of missions for the French, however, and the Romanian Army was responsible for our perimeter defense and patrolling the local area.

---

MAJ B SAYS FLY ARMY!!!

 ImGoinCommando wrote:

 MrSplendido wrote:

 Gosnork wrote:

-US has 11 supercarriers, the rest of the world has 0.
-France has the only other nuclear powered carrier and its only 1/3 the size of the Nimitz class. 
-The French and the British are working together to build 3 supercarriers, 2 of which will be British and the other will be French (these wont be in service until the Ford Class Supercarriers are being built in the US).

You dominate the seas, you dominate the world.  Now which country in the world, or continent for that matter, has the ability to defeat the US Navy? 

No offense, but having a carrier or a super carrier means jack ***. Having a carrier battle group is what you need. Oh, and the U.S. has 12 I beleive. So, rock on for us.

The carrier groups are also weak against certain attacks, so I wouldn't throw out the "dominate the seas..." line so quickly. I've never stayed away from the U.S. dominate Navy argument, but I still say the point is moot because we don't fight ship to ship like that anymore.

You can't have a carrier battle group without a carrier so having one does mean jack.  You are right we have 12 carriers.  I believe 2 are conventional, with one being retired this year.  We will quickly return to 12 with the last of the Nimitz class coming out soon.  The other conventional carrier will be retired (I believe) in 2008, which will leave us with 11 until the new class of nuclear carrier (CVN-21 ...21 is for 21st century) comes out (2011?).  I'm not familiar with the "Ford class" naming!

Carriers have had documented weak points for decades, that doesn't change the fact that they are a very powerful force, but I'm happy with you being uneasy with the phrase "dominate the seas".

That's my point though. Just correcting his statement. Imagine having 12 carriers and no other ships to form the much feared battle group. Again, it wouldn't mean jack ***.

I still don't think that if you dominate the seas, in today's wars, you dominate the World. There are just too many ways to cause havok and avoid naval warfare all together. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm also glad I live in the Midwest, because when they figure out how to knock that chunk of rock off La Palma, Cumbre Vieja's western side I beleive, the whole East Coast is theoretically wiped out . A carrier battle group can't do a damn thing to stop that.

 MrSplendido wrote:

 ImGoinCommando wrote:

 MrSplendido wrote:

 Gosnork wrote:

-US has 11 supercarriers, the rest of the world has 0.
-France has the only other nuclear powered carrier and its only 1/3 the size of the Nimitz class. 
-The French and the British are working together to build 3 supercarriers, 2 of which will be British and the other will be French (these wont be in service until the Ford Class Supercarriers are being built in the US).

You dominate the seas, you dominate the world.  Now which country in the world, or continent for that matter, has the ability to defeat the US Navy? 

No offense, but having a carrier or a super carrier means jack ***. Having a carrier battle group is what you need. Oh, and the U.S. has 12 I beleive. So, rock on for us.

The carrier groups are also weak against certain attacks, so I wouldn't throw out the "dominate the seas..." line so quickly. I've never stayed away from the U.S. dominate Navy argument, but I still say the point is moot because we don't fight ship to ship like that anymore.

You can't have a carrier battle group without a carrier so having one does mean jack.  You are right we have 12 carriers.  I believe 2 are conventional, with one being retired this year.  We will quickly return to 12 with the last of the Nimitz class coming out soon.  The other conventional carrier will be retired (I believe) in 2008, which will leave us with 11 until the new class of nuclear carrier (CVN-21 ...21 is for 21st century) comes out (2011?).  I'm not familiar with the "Ford class" naming!

Carriers have had documented weak points for decades, that doesn't change the fact that they are a very powerful force, but I'm happy with you being uneasy with the phrase "dominate the seas".

That's my point though. Just correcting his statement. Imagine having 12 carriers and no other ships to form the much feared battle group. Again, it wouldn't mean jack ***.

I still don't think that if you dominate the seas, in today's wars, you dominate the World. There are just too many ways to cause havok and avoid naval warfare all together. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm also glad I live in the Midwest, because when they figure out how to knock that chunk of rock off La Palma, Cumbre Vieja's western side I beleive, the whole East Coast is theoretically wiped out . A carrier battle group can't do a damn thing to stop that.

I happen to live on an aircraft carrier (sometimes), a carrier alone is vulnerable, but by NO means defensless. In addition to its own substantial armament, it has a well balanced air wing that can perform any mission needed.

 MrSplendido wrote:

 ImGoinCommando wrote:

 MrSplendido wrote:

 Gosnork wrote:

-US has 11 supercarriers, the rest of the world has 0.
-France has the only other nuclear powered carrier and its only 1/3 the size of the Nimitz class. 
-The French and the British are working together to build 3 supercarriers, 2 of which will be British and the other will be French (these wont be in service until the Ford Class Supercarriers are being built in the US).

You dominate the seas, you dominate the world.  Now which country in the world, or continent for that matter, has the ability to defeat the US Navy? 

No offense, but having a carrier or a super carrier means jack ***. Having a carrier battle group is what you need. Oh, and the U.S. has 12 I beleive. So, rock on for us.

The carrier groups are also weak against certain attacks, so I wouldn't throw out the "dominate the seas..." line so quickly. I've never stayed away from the U.S. dominate Navy argument, but I still say the point is moot because we don't fight ship to ship like that anymore.

You can't have a carrier battle group without a carrier so having one does mean jack.  You are right we have 12 carriers.  I believe 2 are conventional, with one being retired this year.  We will quickly return to 12 with the last of the Nimitz class coming out soon.  The other conventional carrier will be retired (I believe) in 2008, which will leave us with 11 until the new class of nuclear carrier (CVN-21 ...21 is for 21st century) comes out (2011?).  I'm not familiar with the "Ford class" naming!

Carriers have had documented weak points for decades, that doesn't change the fact that they are a very powerful force, but I'm happy with you being uneasy with the phrase "dominate the seas".

That's my point though. Just correcting his statement. Imagine having 12 carriers and no other ships to form the much feared battle group. Again, it wouldn't mean jack ***.

I still don't think that if you dominate the seas, in today's wars, you dominate the World. There are just too many ways to cause havok and avoid naval warfare all together. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm also glad I live in the Midwest, because when they figure out how to knock that chunk of rock off La Palma, Cumbre Vieja's western side I beleive, the whole East Coast is theoretically wiped out . A carrier battle group can't do a damn thing to stop that.

Sounds like someone needs to get a grip on reality.

 CPTBrown48 wrote:

 Andy3536 wrote:

In another piont it is also worth noting that with all the members of nato there are only 3 willing to commit troops in afghanastan in the south where the fighting is US Britain and canada. There was also trouble with others commiting in the balkans.

I am a UH-60 Blackhawk pilot and was deployed to Kandahar, Afghanistan (in the south) for a year (OEF IV, 03-04) and I never saw a British or Canadian Soldier until I went up north to Bagram.  I flew a number of missions for the French, however, and the Romanian Army was responsible for our perimeter defense and patrolling the local area.

 

Britain has 6000 men were the fighting is, in the south. With another 1000 on the way.

Each ground force is responcible for a different area so you may not see them but it doesn't mean there there.

We are getting news pictures every day of the british fighting and some of the bases are under attack every day.

Can only assume you wasn't given the oportunity to go to the british sector and you won't see our troops on CNN

Just cause you don't see them doesn't mean thier not there.

 Cryo84R wrote:

 MrSplendido wrote:

 ImGoinCommando wrote:

 MrSplendido wrote:

 Gosnork wrote:

-US has 11 supercarriers, the rest of the world has 0.
-France has the only other nuclear powered carrier and its only 1/3 the size of the Nimitz class. 
-The French and the British are working together to build 3 supercarriers, 2 of which will be British and the other will be French (these wont be in service until the Ford Class Supercarriers are being built in the US).

You dominate the seas, you dominate the world.  Now which country in the world, or continent for that matter, has the ability to defeat the US Navy? 

No offense, but having a carrier or a super carrier means jack ***. Having a carrier battle group is what you need. Oh, and the U.S. has 12 I beleive. So, rock on for us.

The carrier groups are also weak against certain attacks, so I wouldn't throw out the "dominate the seas..." line so quickly. I've never stayed away from the U.S. dominate Navy argument, but I still say the point is moot because we don't fight ship to ship like that anymore.

You can't have a carrier battle group without a carrier so having one does mean jack.  You are right we have 12 carriers.  I believe 2 are conventional, with one being retired this year.  We will quickly return to 12 with the last of the Nimitz class coming out soon.  The other conventional carrier will be retired (I believe) in 2008, which will leave us with 11 until the new class of nuclear carrier (CVN-21 ...21 is for 21st century) comes out (2011?).  I'm not familiar with the "Ford class" naming!

Carriers have had documented weak points for decades, that doesn't change the fact that they are a very powerful force, but I'm happy with you being uneasy with the phrase "dominate the seas".

That's my point though. Just correcting his statement. Imagine having 12 carriers and no other ships to form the much feared battle group. Again, it wouldn't mean jack ***.

I still don't think that if you dominate the seas, in today's wars, you dominate the World. There are just too many ways to cause havok and avoid naval warfare all together. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm also glad I live in the Midwest, because when they figure out how to knock that chunk of rock off La Palma, Cumbre Vieja's western side I beleive, the whole East Coast is theoretically wiped out . A carrier battle group can't do a damn thing to stop that.

I happen to live on an aircraft carrier (sometimes), a carrier alone is vulnerable, but by NO means defensless. In addition to its own substantial armament, it has a well balanced air wing that can perform any mission needed.

Never said they were defenseless. A sub gets in close to a carrier and it's over.

You've peaked my interest though. Why do you live on a carrier sometimes?

 RagaMuffin wrote:

Sounds like someone needs to get a grip on reality.

What part of what I said is not reality? Please point it out.

Do you really think that the La Palma issue is false? This isn't some conspiracy theory, you *** tool. This is a real problem. There is a very strong chance of a landslide over there creating a tsunami big enough to take out a good portion of the eastern coast of the United States. A very strong explosion could do it, or it could happen on it's own.

Now, I ask you again, what part of that isn't reality?

I'm an avionics technician. We rotate with the air wing. When it goes out, we go out, when we aren't on rotation, we are on shore.

 Cryo84R wrote:

I'm an avionics technician. We rotate with the air wing. When it goes out, we go out, when we aren't on rotation, we are on shore.

Sounds like a interesting job. Thanks for the info.

Anyway, back to the orginal derailment of the topic...

 MrSplendido wrote:

 Cryo84R wrote:

I'm an avionics technician. We rotate with the air wing. When it goes out, we go out, when we aren't on rotation, we are on shore.

Sounds like a interesting job. Thanks for the info.

Anyway, back to the orginal derailment of the topic...

Heh, being the creator of this thread I liked that comment.

Oh, and by the way... i´m a mobile crane operator. So when the crane is going to a job, i go with it.

---

Now they see what will be, blinded eyes to see.

 CPTBrown48 wrote:

 Andy3536 wrote:

In another piont it is also worth noting that with all the members of nato there are only 3 willing to commit troops in afghanastan in the south where the fighting is US Britain and canada. There was also trouble with others commiting in the balkans.

I am a UH-60 Blackhawk pilot and was deployed to Kandahar, Afghanistan (in the south) for a year (OEF IV, 03-04) and I never saw a British or Canadian Soldier until I went up north to Bagram.  I flew a number of missions for the French, however, and the Romanian Army was responsible for our perimeter defense and patrolling the local area.

The Romanians work very closely with us Canadians, im suprised you didnt see us sooner becuase were the biggest force in the area. You must of seen at least vehicles on the ground but didnt know who they belonged to cuase the CF's look so professional now!

---

"Единственная смерть - трагедия, миллион смертельных случаев - статистическое" - Джозеф Сталин

 ghostt888 wrote:

And i now understand why some of these people fail to relize that other countires are taking the same steps as The USA and have technologically advanced systems/ highly effective Armed Forces is becuase you only hear about the Americans cuase most of you live in the US. You only hear about how effective the American military rocks or is the best etc. some of you are so ignorant to think other countrys have insuperior systems and are nothing compared to your own.

and to a previous comment, those coward are sure taking a toll on the Coalition (mainly the 3 big players, Canada the UK and USA). There fighting with the only means they have to win

Why do you keep asuming stuff like that? Every one of your post has been about how we think this, or think that, but most every one has posted proving other wise. No one thinks that every country had insuperior stuff then the US. Every countrie just has there owne way of doing stuff, and it may work for them but not for us, that's just a fact of life.When I'm work and the British show up in there stuff, not me nor my coworks every say "hey that looks nice, but it pals in comparison to our *insert what ever* " If any thing we, ask how it works, and how it works for them, and then tell or show what we use by comparison, and talk about our pros and cons.

And as far as the pilot up at 10,000 feet, i'v flow on our planes many times while we were doing manuvers up and down the cost, and while flying relitivly low, you are still high enough up to make out certian shapes. Large thing are easy like Semi trucks and things around that size, but when you start talking about something like a tank, it looks like a troop carrier from that high untill you are low enough to see the gun, if you can see it.

When I flew in to Bagruam  Afganastand we circaled over head first, and we were at:30,000 20,000 and 8,000ft  up, and there all you could make out was tent city, the runway and taxi ways, and a bunch of land veichals, it was not untill we were way closer that we found out they were tanks on the outer defence, buy that time we were already cleared to land after the IFF was verified.  So from my owne expreince, it is hard to pick out stuff at certian altitudes.


And when you hide in familys houses waiting to ambush troops, and threaten to kill the residents if they say you are there, that is pretty cowerdly.

---

Enzo owners fear one car on the track....Saleen S7. 437/315th AW