So after lurking some time in this board I’ve noticed the trend of streloks saying modern navies are flawed, weak, easy to take out etc. Is this true?
What are the weaknesses of a modern navy?
How could a foreign nation quickly disable an enemy’s navy?
What’s the future of ocean warfare?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
There is no future for ocean warfare. Much like German and Jap megaships were taken out with swarms of airplanes, any sea vessel can be takes out by a bunch of modern jet fighters.
Aircraft carriers are outdated just like megaships, their concept just does not work anymore.
Submarines will probably have some future for recon, but as soon as someone invents (and they sure as hell have not made it public knowledge) underwater sub-to-sub weapons, it's pretty much over for the large ones. Small and zippy ships/subs will probably live forever.
mom
look
i
posted
in
the
dark
web
!
They're too expensive and too easy to take out, with equipment that costs a tiny fraction of the cost of the destroyed hardware. It's not economically viable to field large surface vessels in a real shooting war. They work well enough as secure offshore aircraft/missile launch platforms when your multi billion dollar navy is part of an attempt to police foreign hadji who don't have antiship capabilities but that's not much use against even a massively smaller naval force. Remember that the (4 billion dollar) USS Ronald Reagan was sunk repeatedly by a single Swedish Gotland class submarine in NATO exercises in 2005.
Subs (outside of the bombers) have a bit of a future left, but they're likely to turn into incredibly slow and expensive cruise missile trucks. If aircraft gain much more range they'll lose even that role though and be limited to just carrying nukes as a stealthy missile silo.
Western navies are fucked because we've been resting on our laurels since the 70s while Russia and China continued to improve at a steady pace. Now our enemies have a ~40 year lead on us in standoff missile tech and are rapidly catching up in all the areas where we used to have superiority. Our navies are only just now noticing how fucked things are and are currently scrambling to modernize, but we won't actually catch up to Russia until around 2030 so we're basically just praying we won't get into any big naval battles until then.
The most damaging threats to surface fleet now is missiles.
Still, the way to counter missile is missile, when you are out of missile, you are dead. If anyone thinks of better way, more accurate, long range CWIS, modern flak cannon, it can change warfare.
Has a sub ever sank another sub underwater?
Only one that we know of, HMS Venturer vs U-864.
They're expensive as fuck, practically defenseless in the age of precise long-range missiles and modern jets, and don't even serve much of a purpose – the bulk of what they did can now be done better by aircraft. Only thing that comes to mind is logistics - transporting large quantities of men and material - but you don't need massive battleships for that as much as air and sub escorts to make sure they don't get fucked along the way, something that a surface fleet wouldn't be able to ensure anyway.
The future of naval warfare rests in long range naval bombers that could fuck these transports from the air (along with accompanying escorts, or course) and subs that can strike them from below.
Really, this train of thought, that the only purpose of the navy is to protect the logistics, is nothing new and had always been used. There was a time that shore bombardments were a thing (can now be done better by planes) as well as extending plane range via air carriers (planes can now easily fly across the pacific and back, so that's a non-issue. A carrier would make repeat bombardment much faster, but that's not nearly worth the cost of building one and risking a deck full of planes should it get sunk), but those are not relevant anymore and so the purpose goes back to handling troop and material transport.
It sounds like transport submarines are the future. Not that they are a new idea:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>inb4 "CVs are gonna be useless, just look at what happened to battleships"
Flawed argument. Battleships existed because the bigger the gun, the bigger the ship has to be. Battleships became obsolete the moment people realized they no longer need big guns. So long as mobile airfields are needed, all you have is speculations about capability of weapons many aspects of which are often classified and defense measures against which are also classified.
The Surface navy is pretty much finished; even the Zumwalt class is obsolete. As for subs, what can be seen from earth orbit? I don't know. it wouldn't surprise me if they can see through the ocean to a certain depth.
First of all, this
No shit, pretty much anything can be taken out by a bunch of modern jet fighters, why do you think our Airforce is so fucking huge?
You're wrong dude, being able to move an entire FOB to pretty much anywhere in the world quickly will always be needed.
subs are and always have been terrible for recon since the invention of radar and even more to this day. If a sub can see anything, everything can see it back and it's dead.
Torpedos? Depth charges? Missles? Mines? Lots of sub to sub weapons and arguably the most dangerous thing for a sub is another sub these days.
Same thing could be said with tanks/ATGMs Planes/AA infantry/artillery
Navys still have a place you fucking arm chair fudds
Yeah Russia and China with their 50 year old rusting Navys are really such a threat that they are 40 years ahead of us.
Just stay out of range and let aircraft SEAD and destroy missile emplacements
Short range transport subs launched from fleets sound pretty viable, especially if they had some sort of naval invasion characteristic
yup
>As for subs, what can be seen from earth orbit? I don't know. it wouldn't surprise me if they can see through the ocean to a certain depth.
Sonar can detect things deeper than satellites could ever see, even then you could just go deeper until you hit the thermal layer
So this is what the goodest of goys looks like, hm.
Refute him then.
He would have to make some arguments first instead of opinions.
They have the same weaknesses that made the Navies obsolete during WW1 plus a shittone of new weaknesses nobody can really determine, because they are to technologies that nobody really has seen in action used against a Navy.
That being said, they still have the advantage of basically being troop transporter and moving attack base in one, moving around the biggest place on this planet.
All around its in a similar dilemma, than the use of land forces in our contemporary time.
In theory they are helpless against all the shit you can throw at them from the air, but if you want to occupy and hold territory, they cannot be replaced.
Equally if you want to rule the sea you still need to put a ship in it.
But they aren't. Modern planes have long enough range to fly all the way across the Pacific no problem and moving the airfield for enemy evasion does not work as the carrier is easily detected and modern missiles can easily correct their course. The only benefit would be making the airfield closer to target, thus reducing the time between the runs, but it's hardly worth the investment when you could just get a shitload more planes instead. Another matter is also a carrier's vulnerability – if it gets hit, you lose your airfield and all the planes on it.
The problem with modern NATO navies is their weaponry, which are basically pop guns that can't scratch the paint on enemy warships. And the fact that they aren't built to take damage… compartmentalization is a myth, being able to float and await rescue after being hit by an autocannon is not the same as being able to take missile damage and still be mission capable.
The problem with modern RF navy is that it doesn't have enough manpower or ships or money, but their designs are routinely thirty to forty years ahead of NATO.
The problem with modern Chink navy is quality control, since they're trying to achieve Russian-level performance and NATO-level numbers, which is not really possible, so they manage to achieve shit numbers and shit quality that looks real dangerous.
What do you think about putting land artillery on ship?
india's navy is a good example, they are building a third aircraft carrier which in their own plans the fleet is to be used as a secondary force to "mop up" after the other branches do 99% of the fighting
The future is american power projection and that is all imo
Floating airbases
American carriers can carry what 77 f/a planes?
Modern weakness of modern navy=hyper sonic land based missiles, answer to second question as well. Future of oceanic warfare is a variation upon it's current mission just with increasing automation.
The centerpiece of American naval theory is the aircraft carrier group. With the combination of satcom and the 70+ fighters that are on board this equals most nations total air-forces. Destroyers etc are there to interdict incoming missiles and counter fighter aircraft.
Subs aren't as weak as many here purpose and if you think there hasn't been any work there you are wrong. Subs perform several functions but think of parking off the coast of a country and if you want launch nukes or cruise missiles with over 12 warheads a missile and the time to react is in seconds. That won't change anytime soon. Add total automation to it and with a nuke reactor then they can park off the coast for 20 years or longer no problem.
Missiles have more range, are lighter, more accurate and flexible.
How about combining missles and arty.
Which also means that if one such carrier gets sunk, you just lost a nation's worth amount of airforce AND an air carrier that cost billions. The benefits gained form having a mobile airfield do not offset the risks. Air carriers should only be used against shitholes that do not have the means to sink them
This used to mean it was disadvantageous to attack land forces from the sea unless overwhelming force was on their side. The new dynamic of naval warfare is to use missiles and air strikes, with ships developing weapons to attack each other before being attacked themselves, instead of fighting force-on-force where the survivor was the one with more people of better built ships that could take hits (modern weapons can sink ships rapidly), wood boats tended to survive until either most of the crew was dead, or the ship was torn to shreds.
For more reading, look at the falkland islands conflicts, or at the USS liberty (US intel ship was attacked by Israeli forces, and the crew has done a lot of presentations on what happened).
the tl:dr
The ship almost sank with all souls onboard were it not for a radioman who ran through aircraft strafing and machine gun fire to hook up an antenna and get a mayday out. As a case study of surviving modern naval warfare, this case is really informative.
Missiles cost more and have lesser volume of fire.
Self-loading howitzler can be used to fire missiles as well.
Regardless of the current state of any given modern navy, having naval supremacy = world supremacy, at least until orbital craft become commonplace. The US Navy, as pozzed, out of date, and shitty as it is, is arguably the most important branch
And much, much more. You have the biggest navy, you have a lockdown, militarily speaking, on most of the world. Of course, being that the US Navy is super fucked, all of that ability is completely wasted, because negress women will just crash all the ships into each other.
Thanks to kikery and corruption. What would happen if countries started going right-wing? One by one they would leave NATO and get rid of your bases
Again, thanks to kikery.
The only thing allowing usa to go around the globe is countries not telling you to fuck off, because their politicians are all Israel's puppets.
This thread is filled with people that seemed to come out of the woodwork just to one up each other for the most retarded post on Zig Forums