|
How do modern military shipyards keep people employed? In countries where big ship contracts come every 20 years or so, what do those workers do in between the orders?
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Repair work and modernizing ships built decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I think you're correct in the context of GWOT/WMD/democratize the savages type of wars. That isn't really what the capability is being developed against, though. One of the DoD scenarios I mentioned above was a major conflict in the Baltic states, which is of immediate interest for a variety of reasons I'm sure we're all aware of. This has been the focus of DoD experimentation and wargaming for this FY. Most of the plans there require a forced entry operation versus a very powerful and well equipped opponent who enjoys...a lot of strategic advantages. I assumed this scenario and its results were classified but apparently at least some of it isn't, or otherwise it was leaked....whatever. I couldn't disagree more. Absent a direct attack against the US there's nothing in the Baltics that's going to get the American people to support thousands of US casualties invading there. And sending an MAGTF into that environment without full support from the Navy and land-based air is a guarantee of thousands of US casualties. The American people won't put up with that. For an invasion opposed by Russia to even stand a chance of working, you're going to need full support, you can't send a gator navy against that opposition without expecting crushing casualties. The thought of transporting troops by Osprey into a region swarming with Buks and S-400 with just a few F-35s for cover doesn't bear thinking about. You're not cracking that nut with a hammer that small. quote:I also think that you're probably overselling threat capabilities, or underselling the US/allies navies somewhat...there are a lot of very capable forces around to be sure, but they are plenty capable in their own right. It'd be...very difficult, to say the least, for a single D/E sub to cruise in and sink a significant portion of a MAGTF while they're embarked. Why? What's an embarked MEF all on its ownsome going to do to defend itself against submarines? It has no organic ASW at all. You could theoretically take some Navy Seahawks and fly them from Marine ships, but you couldn't do it for very long. And it doesn't have to sink a significant portion of the task force. It sinks one LHD, that's 2000 Marines gone and then it's time for everyone to go home because the President's approval rating just dropped to about 5%. Iran, since that was an example, has 3 Kilos, which are very capable assets, 4 more real D/Es, and upwards of 20 small subs which they'd *gladly* trade for blunting a seaborne invasion. Even with Iran, you'd support your task with fixed-wing recon and ASW aircraft. The capabilities the amphibs have to defend themselves against missile fire are RAM and CIWS, things that are a last-ditch defense, and one of those is useless against modern ASMs. We're not going to take a fleet that is as politically valuable as a CVBG, but which has none of the layered defensive and recon tools of a CVBG, and send it into an environment where it is faced with a credible threat. The concept resides within a Catch-22; if it's a significant enough threat that an opposed landing is what we need to execute, then the threat is significant enough that the MAGTF can't handle it all on its own and will need support from a full-sized flight deck and its escorts and if it's at all possible land-based air. And now I'll shut up, since this is getting pretty ahistorical. More of an Airpower/Cold War thread thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's a useful capacity. The part I don't quite buy is that we would ever use it in a case where a normal CV group couldn't support the landing, which gets me back to my original idea of throwing out the SVTOL bullshit and putting Marine air on Navy CVNs. All the close same-service integration, none of the being hamstrung by the engineering compromises SVTOL requires. I agree. Even with USAF bombers doing 26-hour sorties and a USAF fighter wing packed up and ready to go and be there in three days with enough supplies and mechanics to last a few weeks until full mobilization kicks in, Naval aviation still has its place; an aircraft carrier is still a hundred thousand tons of diplomacy/Roosevelt's proverbial big stick. But the Marines aren't going to be taking any beachheads without a carrier group (or, by lunchtime, the landlubbers from Bossier City) backing them up, so having their own jets is pointless. Or like you said, even have Marine squadrons on Navy carriers. Once the Marines secure their beachhead and dirt airstrip, the USMC squadron can transfer from the carrier to the FOB and the Navy can gently caress off back out to a safe distance. USMC did well enough without VTOL back in WWII when they were relevant, they can do without now, right? Really the Navy should have forced something similar to the Key West agreement like the USAF did to the Army.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:30
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
The USMC should've been eliminated after ww2 but Guadalcanal and a bunch of worthless officers stepped in to save it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
McGee, off topic but I effortposted on your katana's signature a while back. Was it even vaguely helpful?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:How do modern military shipyards keep people employed? In countries where big ship contracts come every 20 years or so, what do those workers do in between the orders? They mostly don't keep people employed. What have we got left? Bath Ironworks and Groton for subs, Austal for LCS, NASSCO for sealift, Newport News for carriers, and Ingalls for the DDGS? The Navy has to spread procurement around just to keep people employed. Delivery McGee posted:Or like you said, even have Marine squadrons on Navy carriers. Once the Marines secure their beachhead and dirt airstrip, the USMC squadron can transfer from the carrier to the FOB and the Navy can gently caress off back out to a safe distance. And how are the Marines getting the fuel and bombs and parts it needs to keep their planes flying from their dirt airstrip? That's not happening, either, the logistical tail of an F-35 is much, much larger than that of a Corsair or SBD. Panzeh posted:The USMC should've been eliminated after ww2 but Guadalcanal and a bunch of worthless officers stepped in to save it. I *want* to disagree with this but it's really hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:McGee, off topic but I effortposted on your katana's signature a while back. Was it even vaguely helpful? Phanatic posted:And how are the Marines getting the fuel and bombs and parts it needs to keep their planes flying from their dirt airstrip? That's not happening, either, the logistical tail of an F-35 is much, much larger than that of a Corsair or SBD. Marines poo poo bullets and piss JP-8, to hear them tell it. If they want to run a self-sufficient dirt airstrip, let 'em try. That's the joke. Let them have their fun, leave them on their dirt airstrip with no logistics, then push a Key West-type ultimatum when they come back begging for kerosene and MREs. edit: the second part of the quote is the lesson the USMC apparently hasn't learned yet. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:In the sense of I said "huh, how 'bout that," yes. I'm not planning to sell it, trying to figure it out is just for my own curiosity's sake. You made more progress than the weaboo sword forum, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
What was the argument for keeping the marines independent from the navy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Tradition. Also, PR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:What was the argument for keeping the marines independent from the navy? ...Originally? Because they were slapped together as a couple infantry units that could also do boats. Now? Because Marines ain't no stinkin' navymen, especially after a century-plus of vicious interbranch funding squabbles. also tradition and PR, I suppose
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Oh boy, here we go with this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
No fighting in the war room, peeps
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Which makes it bizarre to consider in a scenario about war materials that have a fifty year? service life. May as well use aliens invading as the rational. It's useful as a random example of a mid-sized country where you could have another Iraq level showdown (need to use large-scale military forces, no risk of it going nuclear) and the geography is such that amphibious assaults would be a given. Actual politics played no role in it. No I don't think we're throwing down on Indonesia any time in the foreseeable future. Really I could have said Cuba, or Argentina, or Egypt, or any other regional power without WMDs as strategic assets. I'm not saying we're keeping the USMC in case we need to invade Jakarta.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Abolish Marine fixed wing, keep the Marines around as specialists in peacekeeping / three block war / State Department's Army situations, and let the Army focus on high intensity combat and peer threats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's useful as a random example of a mid-sized country where you could have another Iraq level showdown (need to use large-scale military forces, no risk of it going nuclear) and the geography is such that amphibious assaults would be a given. When was the last time a Marine unit was required to undertake an major amphibious landing? Grenada? Somalia? Seems like a lot of what they do is just working alongside the regular army, more airborne than amphibian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
FAUXTON posted:What was the argument for keeping the marines independent from the navy? They're not, and I have no idea where people are getting the idea that they are-the Marines are and always have been under the Department of the Navy.The problem with getting rid of them is that even if you don't see amphibious assaults happening anytime within the next fifty years, having a specialized force that can deploy almost anywhere in the world on short notice is still a pretty drat useful thing to have. The Army takes months to deploy anywhere, and are utterly unsuited for responding to things like disaster relief, short-term political unrest, situations that require the rapid evacuation of US citizens, or anything else that requires slightly more subtlety than blowing the gently caress out of something. An MEU in and of itself is a pretty useful tool to have-it's a relatively self-contained fighting force that can respond to any number of international incidents, even if they don't do any actual fighting. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
for god's sake, someone ask one of the napoleonic war people about silly hats or pom-poms or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:They're not, and I have no idea where people are getting the idea that they are-the Marines are and always have been under the Department of the Navy.  I misremembered "they got undersupported in WW2 because, well, the Navy could do that" as "they got undersupported in WW2 because interbranch rivalry".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:35
|
|
HEY GAL posted:for god's sake, someone ask one of the napoleonic war people about silly hats or pom-poms or some poo poo Stovepipe or Belgic style shako?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Stovepipe or Belgic style shako?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:for god's sake, someone ask one of the napoleonic war people about silly hats or pom-poms or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Zereth posted:What's the dumbest lawsuit you've seen in your research on your guys?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:my dudes specifically or the dumbest lawsuit a german has ever gotten into, in history Both, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:my dudes specifically or the dumbest lawsuit a german has ever gotten into, in history First things first, is this actually an or, or is it an and?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
JoeCL posted:Both, obviously.
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:When was the last time a Marine unit was required to undertake an major amphibious landing? Grenada? Somalia? They set up for a big landing in the Gulf during GW1. Lots of support vessels, all sorts of transports steaming back and forth. It was really just a feint to draw a shitload of Iraqis over to defend against what they thought was going to be Overlord 2.0. Still, that's probably the last time they pulled out all the toys and put them on the board. HEY GAL posted:Eventually, a semiotician was brought onto the stand to testify what that sign where you touch your finger and thumb together in an O shape and spread out the other three fingers means in Bavaria. I I'm going to guess that it's supposed to be an anus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm going to guess that it's supposed to be an anus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:They're not, and I have no idea where people are getting the idea that they are-the Marines are and always have been under the Department of the Navy. I was under the impression that they were because they're their own Uniformed Branch of Service. But the Marines and Navy (and Coast Guard) being administered together under the Department of the Navy does make a tremendous amount of sense, and I probably should have assumed that existed really. HEY GAL posted:In the 1960s--my advisor heard about this one--a Dutch guy was on vacation in Bavaria, and asked someone for directions. Having received them, the Dutch guy made the "OK" sign with his thumb and forefinger. The Bavarian took this as an insult, and sued to reclaim his honor. Eventually, a semiotician was brought onto the stand to testify what that sign where you touch your finger and thumb together in an O shape and spread out the other three fingers means in Bavaria. I don't know which is more German, the litigiousness about honor or the fact that when given the opportunity to be pedantic, they took it. Impugning the litigious virtue of noble Bavarians ITT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:They set up for a big landing in the Gulf during GW1. Lots of support vessels, all sorts of transports steaming back and forth. It was really just a feint to draw a shitload of Iraqis over to defend against what they thought was going to be Overlord 2.0. Still, that's probably the last time they pulled out all the toys and put them on the board. How did it go? Like, I've heard about the landings but they happened when I was like three so I don't remember anything specific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How did it go? Like, I've heard about the landings but they happened when I was like three so I don't remember anything specific. They didn't do anything. THey just sat there and looked like they were going to kick something off so everyone was facing the wrong way when Schwartzkopf kicked the door in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I was under the impression that they were because they're their own Uniformed Branch of Service. But the Marines and Navy (and Coast Guard) being administered together under the Department of the Navy does make a tremendous amount of sense, and I probably should have assumed that existed really. The Coast Guard is actually under the Department of Homeland Security, and before that was under the Department of Transportation  (Though they were put under Navy control during both World Wars). The Coast Guard does work pretty closely with the Navy, however-during World War II, for instance, many Coast Guard ships were deeply involved in sub chasing and convoy escort, several were deployed in the Pacific, and Coast Guard sailors were often used to pilot landing craft during amphibious operations, most famously on D-Day. There was also this more recent collaboration, though it was (Fortunately) short-lived. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The Coast Guard is actually under the Department of Homeland Security, and before that was under the Department of Transportation My Coast Guardsman grandfather almost got killed by a kamakazie off the Philippines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
So reading some field manuals, and I have a question, so far the smallest unit discussed seems to be the squad (two or more fire teams) or the platoon (two or more squads?) and all battle drills so far mentioned mention some sort of maneuver element; i.e have a squad/fireteam move to some position to perform some task or action. What if I only have a single fire team (four dudes), do I just split it in half of two teams of two? What's that called?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:16
|
|
HEY GAL posted:what are the pros and cons of each Well, the Belgic I think was much more sturdy than the Stovepipe and lasted a little longer on campaign. Plus, I guess you got less wind resistance from the top due to it not being as tall as the Stovepipe. But I like the Stovepipe better personally as you can have more plate on the front. Who doesn't love more shako plate?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:In the 1960s--my advisor heard about this one--a Dutch guy was on vacation in Bavaria, and asked someone for directions. Having received them, the Dutch guy made the "OK" sign with his thumb and forefinger. The Bavarian took this as an insult, and sued to reclaim his honor. Eventually, a semiotician was brought onto the stand to testify what that sign where you touch your finger and thumb together in an O shape and spread out the other three fingers means in Bavaria. I don't know which is more German, the litigiousness about honor or the fact that when given the opportunity to be pedantic, they took it. Raenir Salazar posted:What if I only have a single fire team (four dudes), do I just split it in half of two teams of two? What's that called?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What if I only have a single fire team (four dudes), do I just split it in half of two teams of two? What's that called? A Canadian Fireteam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Off hand I could imagine a situation where you're short handed so you send the only spare guys you got on a patrol. But the reason is it's for my final class project and as a programmer it's easier to start with a simple situation and the steering behaviours and pathfinding for four units, then add additional fireteams after the bugs are worked out. So my thinking is I have two choices; try to split the fire team to apply doctrine from the FM's as best I can with four people or just have them try to find cover and return fire; keeping things super basic until additional fire teams can be added.FAUXTON posted:A Canadian Fireteam. Ironic as I am in fact Canadian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Can we talk about Napoleon now? Please?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:59
|
|