I want to see Trump work on the navy next

Politics
1

The navy has many duplicate ship types, i would love to see Trump smash the tradition, and build a more unique fleet…

First take a commercial super oil tanker, make it end to end cruise missile launchers, imagine a ship capable of launching 500 to 1,200 cruise missiles roll up to a conflict zone. It would over whelm any anti air defense network. A nice bonus, if the enemy had a choice between a carrier kill or a oil tanker of mass destruction… They would kill the bigger threat and destroy the tanker, saving thousands of sailors. This ship would seldom move and have a massive escort, but could wipe out pretty much any cities and defenses it wants to. Uss Overkill?

A double hull super carrier, allowing for larger planes, particularly small bombers to be aboard. One side for launching fighters, the other side retrieving. Elevators in the middle of the ship, connecting the 2 hulls fighter bays.

Im of the belief battleships aren’t dead, that there miss used. Upgrade the primary weapon systems, let them bombard targets from 50 miles out at sea. With even deck gun advancements they should have a 60 mile range.

Obviously do more with battery powered submarines.

Obviously develop more anti aircraft and missile systems.

These are all achievable, wouldn’t need to develop much technology. And the ability it would bring to the fleet would be insane… Park the oil tanker of destruction off an enemies door step, lets say 800 cruise missiles aimed at them. Any sentient enemy will look at it with total terror. It single handedly can take out 4 out of 5 regimes of any country its pointed at?

1 Like
2

Jared should have Middle East peace just about wrapped up, maybe Donald can set him on this next.

2 Likes
3

Middle east peace? The only way for that to happen is for one group to kill all the others to extinction… The lions and bengals in the super bowl… Playing in it is more likely… Than middle east peace.

4

The pathetic thing is that Trump can’t **** up the Navy worse than the Navy is already ******* up itself.

4 Likes
5

Oh ye of little faith! How can it fail with Jared on point?

:us:

1 Like
6

While I like the “outside the box” thinking, there are problems with your ideas. But for the love of God don’t go on Fox and Friends and say all that cause that will be our next naval strategy.

Your super tanker cruise missile carrier gets sunk pretty quick by any enemy who has an air defense system we’re worried about. Give me ten SSGN cruise missile submarines with 100+ missiles.

Double hulled carriers don’t matter. If an enemy can hit it, it’s going down. Nothing changes that the aircraft carrier is an increasingly vulnerable airfield that can relatively easily be put out of action/sunk by near peers. Not saying get rid of them, but making them larger for bombers seems like a bad idea.

I’m all for developing something along the lines of what the Zumwalt destroyers were supposed to be like your battleship.

7

Here is a report on what the Navy needs to do.

8

“Hold my Big Mac”
Donnie

1 Like
9

I seen the corvette program… If thats what they believe will defeat china… Their morons… It was the Bush administration pet naval project… The ships are a joke… They use bradley apc turrets. Their horribly under armed, in any decent war every last one of them will be on the ocean floor within a week. They have no air defense of value. Their primary weapons wont damage an enemy warship. They have very limited range, now if they belonged to the marines for a world war 2 island hoping campaign reenactment there perfect. Its not to much to ask for some rocket launchers, an abrams tank turret, some 50 calibur machine guns, maybe toss on a torpedo or 2, ha ha a javelin missile or 2… Maybe ask ukraine for some, and ask the afghans for stingers. Their built to service drones and do trivial tasks. They don’t deserve the name warship as currently configured.

All ships are vulnerable and can sink… With a oil tanker type cruise missile flotilla, you dont send it out on patrols, its tucked in next to a carrier or in dock or a protected bay. It fires its missiles and at that point could even abandon ship. Its a mobil missile battery nothing more.

The report was interesting it employs the obama tactic of close your eyes, hum loudly and hope for the best. Radar is a beacon for enemies, it also alerts nearby bases and cities of enemy activity. Their solution turn radar off… It assumes falsely that by turning their radar off their invisible now… Satellites, enemy radar, hillarys server, drones, these ships can be easily tracked. What they should focus on is what happens when the ship is found, how do you destroy their ship, subs and fighters … Not… How do we hide? Make the enemy hide, for fear of what will happen to them when you find their ships.

Drone ships… Its a disaster waiting to happen… Drones can switch sides with the flip of a switch. Or if they are just average, they flood the drone with nonsense data directed at it, jamming its communication with the controllers, and destruction of the drone. Unless they wish to steal the drone. Our drones get shot down, along with spys and the rest their not as secure as they think. I would bet russia and china at minimum know the drones coding, know the components and developed technology to steal or disorentate a drone, which they wont use giving up their know how until its a pivitol point such as a war or incident to humiliate us. They probably had Chinese and Russian spys with h1b visas do the coding for the drones ability to receive orders. They said they weren’t spies though and tricked the visa interviewer. Probably Aoc’s cousin.

China and their barrier islands… Will make liberals cry… But sink an oil tanker near a cluster of them… And let it burn, sink some container ships, with garbage floating all over the place. When they cant resupply by boat their screwed.

10

Zumwalt class… Reminds me of a world war 2 submarine with a deck gun on it. Still think a larger weapon system would be more effective against harbor fortifications.

The corvette program if reworked has potential, put 20 marines on board, load up with stingers, javelins, rockets, machine guns, torpedoes. Have them do tricky things, drop off some marines on an island with stingers, set your ship in middle of a bay as bait, their fighters come in, and fired upon from 3 or 4 locations with anti aircraft missiles. When a small enemy ship comes through a narrow pass hit it with rockets and machine guns. These tactics wouldn’t be effective for taking ground, merely holding ground.

11

The Navy needs some serious work but your first idea is a horrible one.

Concentrating your missiles on one massive ship would make it incredibly easy for an enemy to deny your missile capabilities completely by sinking or heavily damaging it.

Battery powered submarines? Really bad idea, taking us back to the pre nuclear era where our subs were highly vulnerable due to limited maneuvering and operating time under water due to short battery life.

12

That was the purchase of the LCS and Assault ships.

The LCS allowed for modular multi mission capabilities.

The program has so many flaws they cancelled the LCS.

We’re a blue water navy, not a coastal defense force so we really have no place for the corvettes unless we’re planning to build a whole lot of small bases to support them all across the western pacific.

13

For the inept of course its dangerous, but if they were smart… Big if… They would keep it tokyo or the UAE, and leave it there. Which if they are able to launch fighters and bombers over japan, unopposed… Bigger concerns then one ship.

Dont remember the war game, where an advanced electric sub took out the bulk of a carrier battle group.

14

That makes no sense at all. The bigger a target is the easier it is to hit and even the best defenses can be overwhelmed with a large salvo of fire.

You also have a very serious issue because of the limited range of the missiles. You’d have to move it to within striking range of any target you want to hit which then makes it vulnerable.

You’d have to build even more support craft like the DDG’s and Cruisers you want to eliminate to provide a protective screen around it as well as having to attack at least some small carriers to the group to provide an air umbrella.

Basically you’d have to replicate the carrier groups just swapping out your massive missile battleship for the super carriers.

I’f we’re going to build a future Navy around the idea of checkmating China in the western Pacific you’re going to need a very nimble fleet of fast attack and coastal defense craft capable of operating freely in very shallow water as well as the deep ocean or as I said, build a hell of a lot of bases throughout the region to operate those very small short range craft from.

The only alternative to that would be to build huge fleets of massive support ships that could act like a floating support base.

The small craft would still remain highly vulnerable to rough seas and big storms without protective harbors/bases.

15

The United States Navy, as it has during the 20th Century and into the 21st Century, has been well positioned to fight the last war. On December 7, 1941, the United States Navy was perfectly prepared to fight World War I.

13 days into 2020, it is perfectly prepared to fight the battles of 20 years ago.

China. Not so much.

16

With a cruise missile flotilla using mainland japan as a shield, can attack parts or north korea and Vladivostok russia… Sail around to seoul… And North korea is gone… It also puts you in range of dozens of major Chinese city’s, park one in Taiwan… Good night china… Cruise missiles have a range of 600 miles… Instead of fighting over their man made islands… Destroy them…

17

China is about 3,500 miles north to south and east to west.

Your flotilla would a have to remain several hundred miles off of the coast to operate with any margin of safety at all.

It would take literally hundreds of thousands of CM’s to do any major damage to those cities. CM’s are a precision weapon intended to be used on point targets, they have small payloads and are not designed to be used for carpet bombing, nor would they be effective as same.

Your carrier sized or larger missile carriers would require an entire battle group to defend each of them from the same threats our carriers face.

To destroy China, even to destroy their offensive capability would take an effort on the scale of the defeat of WWII German.

There’s nothing about your proposal that is practical, workable, sensible, or even possible.

18

Well it’s not going to happen with that attitude.

“We want to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We will get it done,” Trump said. “We will be working so hard to get it done. I think there is a very good chance and I think we will.”

At a lunch later on, he was even bolder: “It is something that I think is frankly, maybe, not as difficult as people have thought over the years.”

19

Not to mention that if any such major attack on China was made, China would launch their nuclear missiles, the United States would retaliate, Russia would counter-retaliate, Pakistan, India, Israel and anybody else with nuclear weapons would launch.

If any humans survived, they would be reduced, at best, to an Iron Age standard of living.

Since I would rather not blow up the Earth, I will pass on attacking China.

20

Not very likely. the more likely outcome is just a bilateral exchange with everyone else holding theirs to see what then follows after the smoke clears.

It was always theorized that if we ever went to a nuclear war with the Soviets, China would just sit back and let us decimate one another and then employ theirs to defeat the stronger of the two remaining if not both.

At least until the Jihadis get their hands on nukes they are generally controlled by very rational actors to prevent such a doomsday event from taking place.