I’m not going to waste your time by expounding at length on this but dude:
logistics are not measured against your oppositions logistics
One wonders why they would bother instead of conquering the rest of EU by themselves.
Of course in combat missions tankers need to hold back from the combat zone.
thus USN can deliver 90 Abrams if all ships with LCACs were part of an assault.
Needless to say Gulf era Iraqi SAM systems were not up to contemporary Soviet or European standards
Just… stop.
Looking stuff up on wikipedia (et al.) and drawing what are, to you, reasonable sounding conclusions works really well sometimes. But there’s painfully fundamental errors in there, many that don’t even make sense in context. This thread is old, and it’s just the two of us here, and it is really clear you’re learning this on the fly. Which, not to discourage you from doing that! Please do, it’s super important to be versed in the subject given the slant of modern geopolitics.
Seriously, you’ve hit the point in the subject where you can’t easily guess the right answer no matter how clever you may be. Your guesses are good, too! Like there are some reasonable extrapolations and a few that, for unreasonable reasons, just aren’t correct. Really, with a bit more exposure I think you’ll be very good at this. But I get that I’m annoying, and that you have sunk a whole bunch of your identity into this being an accurate representation, and that america does not have anything like monopoly on patriotism. I do.
From one idiot on the internet to another, blah blah blah heartfelt sentiment, patronizingly phrased in that uniquely american way, slightly smug tone, sincerity, blah.
The only thing I looked up in Wikipedia is the costs and the amount of Lcacs or whatever the US can deploy. Had I not provided numbers I am sure you would take issue with that and reject my reasoning as baseless.
That naval aviation is expensive and less cost effective if you do not require (or can’t afford) power projection is well known by anyone with even a passing interest in military aviation in Europe, not something I need to look up on Wikipedia. I also don’t need to look up Wikipedia that Lcacs didn’t play any significant role in major US deployments. Or about the level of 1990 Iraq air defenses vs modern EU. There are more in depth sources than that.
You should try looking stuff up instead of providing your own imaginary, and laughably wrong, examples of carrier benefits. Or spam drivel, call your opponents wrong, without of course correcting specific mistakes. I am sure it actually works at convincing people who also don’t know much about the subject matter.
I’m… not entirely sure how to respond to this one. First I guess I should clarify; are you actually asking me to break this down point by point? Because you complained about how long and “demoralizingly rambling” it was the last time I did that. These mixed signals, they’re difficult to decipher. Additionally: I mean, okay fair enough I suppose, claim I did whatever you need, I’m not going to blame/judge you for it. This isn’t a particular hardship for me, and I have no ill-will towards you because of this. I will say though, and only out of impish self-indulgence, that It’s A Little Weird how the only capabilities I have claimed an aircraft carrier bestows are things… you’ve also agreed they can do.
[…] they can use buddy transfer systems […]
Carriers are massive force multipliers, they allow you to project air power (and light land power) in areas where you could not at all […]
Add in that they can provide emergency power to shore based systems (no clue if they’ve ever done this, but it’s for sure in the design spec) and I think that’s actually it for things I have claimed about aircraft carriers. Did I miss something? Is all this vitriol really just predicated on a misunderstanding about naval aircraft that are fitted for mid-air refueling commonly being called ‘tankers’?
Errata:
I also don’t need to look up Wikipedia that Lcacs didn’t play any significant role in major US deployments.
Absolutely correct! Nobody does opposed landings, or even just regular naval landings. They’re an incredibly outdated concept, even russia hasn’t been desperate enough to try it in their Ukraine invasion (Edit: actually I think they might have used landing craft when they tried to take Mariupol in the very first days of the invasion). I can’t think of a situation where LCACs would be deployed for anything except disaster relief. I only mentioned them to serve as an example of how utterly ridiculous US military hardware can get, there is a reason I explicitly glossed over them.
Et al.
This is a shorthand for “and all the others”, I did not mean you literally looked this all up on wikipedia (though, I mean, it’s a very good source)
[You did not look up things] about the level of 1990 Iraq air defenses vs modern EU.
Yes, this is not hard to believe. There are actually two points here, the first is “What are the various EU countries holding in their anti-air inventory besides potentially US-corrupted defenses” and the second is “I really think you should, it’s actually quite fascinating! The Iraqi army was considered to be peer or near-peer to the US prior to the invasion, and their anti air capabilities were, on paper, extremely formidable.”
(Buddy I am the entire box of markers. Crayons too, probably.)
In general fighters with buddy refueling are not called air tankers. You are going to cry semantics, it’s not. See you claimed that with one(!) carrier you can get 900 fighter aircraft able to launch missions from continental US to Europe. Also claimed that this is what allows strategic bombers to reach Russia from the US.
But that’s not possible, fighters do routinely travel across the Atlantic for repositioning. They are refueled multiple times along the way by purpose build tankers (based on airliners) that carry multiple times more fuel and are themselves not efficient. It’s obvious you can’t support hundreds worth of fighter missions with carrier borne fighters (that number less). The capability exist so the Navy can operate on it’s own if needed (cutting into it’s attack/defense capability). When the US conducts major operations Navy jets refuel from land based air tankers.
Obviously strategic bombers don’t refuel from F-18s, they also have much bigger range (without refueling) than fighters since they were actually designed to operate over oceans.
I unfortunately do not believe there was a misunderstanding on terms such as ‘tanker’ but a purposeful misrepresentation.
In regards to landings: I never said there was no use for them in the modern battlefield. I’ve argued that you cannot, having no previous foothold, successfully invade a continent that also has tanks and air force, artillery etc. Not all wars are against such opponents (after all the US never planned to invade Western Europe, it shouldn’t have to). In particular islands usually do not have heavy equipment (tank, artillery) because it is difficult to move them elsewhere if needed. Or in a scenario where you already have forces or allies fighting the enemy landing a force that can move quickly in a location that doesn’t have to be a port/airbase can be a huge advantage.
Russia certainly pondered the airlift into enemy airbase in Kiev the very first day. The takeover operation went well, the didn’t actually go through with the airlift because the main “blitz” push to Kiev trafficked jam into itself. I doubt even if the aircraft came, they could have a serious effect, maybe they could evacuate their initial force, they didn’t even do that.
In regards to EU air defenses vs Iraqi ones… Iraq used Soviet equipment, European forces used US and EU made equipment, I suppose some later EU countries have had Soviet/Russian equipment though most of it must have been given to Ukraine by now. I remember criticism of not employing tactics correctly (no shoot and scoot) compared to say Serbians later on. Also AAA was a big factor.
There is no way Iraq could be considered a peer to the US, it had a big army but was completely outclassed and outnumbered in the air offering no resistance.
The latest in long range EU SAM is Aster missile based systems, there are also smaller ranged new systems based on Mica, IrisT (those are derived from A2A missiles). And of course air defense is also a task of fighter jets.
I’m not going to waste your time by expounding at length on this but dude:
Just… stop.
Looking stuff up on wikipedia (et al.) and drawing what are, to you, reasonable sounding conclusions works really well sometimes. But there’s painfully fundamental errors in there, many that don’t even make sense in context. This thread is old, and it’s just the two of us here, and it is really clear you’re learning this on the fly. Which, not to discourage you from doing that! Please do, it’s super important to be versed in the subject given the slant of modern geopolitics.
Seriously, you’ve hit the point in the subject where you can’t easily guess the right answer no matter how clever you may be. Your guesses are good, too! Like there are some reasonable extrapolations and a few that, for unreasonable reasons, just aren’t correct. Really, with a bit more exposure I think you’ll be very good at this. But I get that I’m annoying, and that you have sunk a whole bunch of your identity into this being an accurate representation, and that america does not have anything like monopoly on patriotism. I do.
From one idiot on the internet to another, blah blah blah heartfelt sentiment, patronizingly phrased in that uniquely american way, slightly smug tone, sincerity, blah.
…
(divestment is a three letter word)
The only thing I looked up in Wikipedia is the costs and the amount of Lcacs or whatever the US can deploy. Had I not provided numbers I am sure you would take issue with that and reject my reasoning as baseless.
That naval aviation is expensive and less cost effective if you do not require (or can’t afford) power projection is well known by anyone with even a passing interest in military aviation in Europe, not something I need to look up on Wikipedia. I also don’t need to look up Wikipedia that Lcacs didn’t play any significant role in major US deployments. Or about the level of 1990 Iraq air defenses vs modern EU. There are more in depth sources than that.
You should try looking stuff up instead of providing your own imaginary, and laughably wrong, examples of carrier benefits. Or spam drivel, call your opponents wrong, without of course correcting specific mistakes. I am sure it actually works at convincing people who also don’t know much about the subject matter.
You are nothing remarkable.
I’m… not entirely sure how to respond to this one. First I guess I should clarify; are you actually asking me to break this down point by point? Because you complained about how long and “demoralizingly rambling” it was the last time I did that. These mixed signals, they’re difficult to decipher. Additionally: I mean, okay fair enough I suppose, claim I did whatever you need, I’m not going to blame/judge you for it. This isn’t a particular hardship for me, and I have no ill-will towards you because of this. I will say though, and only out of impish self-indulgence, that It’s A Little Weird how the only capabilities I have claimed an aircraft carrier bestows are things… you’ve also agreed they can do.
Add in that they can provide emergency power to shore based systems (no clue if they’ve ever done this, but it’s for sure in the design spec) and I think that’s actually it for things I have claimed about aircraft carriers. Did I miss something? Is all this vitriol really just predicated on a misunderstanding about naval aircraft that are fitted for mid-air refueling commonly being called ‘tankers’?
Errata:
Absolutely correct! Nobody does opposed landings, or even just regular naval landings. They’re an incredibly outdated concept, even russia hasn’t been desperate enough to try it in their Ukraine invasion (Edit: actually I think they might have used landing craft when they tried to take Mariupol in the very first days of the invasion). I can’t think of a situation where LCACs would be deployed for anything except disaster relief. I only mentioned them to serve as an example of how utterly ridiculous US military hardware can get, there is a reason I explicitly glossed over them.
This is a shorthand for “and all the others”, I did not mean you literally looked this all up on wikipedia (though, I mean, it’s a very good source)
Yes, this is not hard to believe. There are actually two points here, the first is “What are the various EU countries holding in their anti-air inventory besides potentially US-corrupted defenses” and the second is “I really think you should, it’s actually quite fascinating! The Iraqi army was considered to be peer or near-peer to the US prior to the invasion, and their anti air capabilities were, on paper, extremely formidable.”
(Buddy I am the entire box of markers. Crayons too, probably.)
Smoooooth.
In general fighters with buddy refueling are not called air tankers. You are going to cry semantics, it’s not. See you claimed that with one(!) carrier you can get 900 fighter aircraft able to launch missions from continental US to Europe. Also claimed that this is what allows strategic bombers to reach Russia from the US.
But that’s not possible, fighters do routinely travel across the Atlantic for repositioning. They are refueled multiple times along the way by purpose build tankers (based on airliners) that carry multiple times more fuel and are themselves not efficient. It’s obvious you can’t support hundreds worth of fighter missions with carrier borne fighters (that number less). The capability exist so the Navy can operate on it’s own if needed (cutting into it’s attack/defense capability). When the US conducts major operations Navy jets refuel from land based air tankers.
Obviously strategic bombers don’t refuel from F-18s, they also have much bigger range (without refueling) than fighters since they were actually designed to operate over oceans.
I unfortunately do not believe there was a misunderstanding on terms such as ‘tanker’ but a purposeful misrepresentation.
In regards to landings: I never said there was no use for them in the modern battlefield. I’ve argued that you cannot, having no previous foothold, successfully invade a continent that also has tanks and air force, artillery etc. Not all wars are against such opponents (after all the US never planned to invade Western Europe, it shouldn’t have to). In particular islands usually do not have heavy equipment (tank, artillery) because it is difficult to move them elsewhere if needed. Or in a scenario where you already have forces or allies fighting the enemy landing a force that can move quickly in a location that doesn’t have to be a port/airbase can be a huge advantage.
Russia certainly pondered the airlift into enemy airbase in Kiev the very first day. The takeover operation went well, the didn’t actually go through with the airlift because the main “blitz” push to Kiev trafficked jam into itself. I doubt even if the aircraft came, they could have a serious effect, maybe they could evacuate their initial force, they didn’t even do that.
In regards to EU air defenses vs Iraqi ones… Iraq used Soviet equipment, European forces used US and EU made equipment, I suppose some later EU countries have had Soviet/Russian equipment though most of it must have been given to Ukraine by now. I remember criticism of not employing tactics correctly (no shoot and scoot) compared to say Serbians later on. Also AAA was a big factor.
There is no way Iraq could be considered a peer to the US, it had a big army but was completely outclassed and outnumbered in the air offering no resistance.
The latest in long range EU SAM is Aster missile based systems, there are also smaller ranged new systems based on Mica, IrisT (those are derived from A2A missiles). And of course air defense is also a task of fighter jets.