 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Military - Naval Forum » US Navy of 2009 vs 1990... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Charles Talleyrand... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
-Charles Talleyrand |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 7:28 am, "Allen W. McD." <tan... at (no spam) peakoil.com> wrote:
[quote]"Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179 at (no spam) k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
-Charles Talleyrand
In a straight up 1:1 without the USAF or Army helping out?
1990 wins, the technology has not changed that much after all and numbers do
count. Just the larger number of submarines on active duty would tip the
balance, the USN itself has a hard time finding its own subs when they are
being stealthy.
[/quote]
Of course Command and Control (and all the other Cs) would determine
whether they even meet.
This is interesting, if only to see what Jack Bauer has to say about
the Navy.
Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants
Book by K. Jack Bauer, Stephen S. Roberts; Greenwood Press, 1991. 354
pgs.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97590274 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mike... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 10:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
[/quote]
In an all out fight?
Easy: 1990
Tac nukes were still afloat then.
Old Kilotons still trump new Smart Weapons
**
mike
** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 11:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
[/quote]
The USN of 2009 really has very few significant improvements for a
blue-water all-out war over 1990. (SSN-21/SSN-774 would be about it.)
The Navy's focus over the last 20 years has been land attack, letting
key skills for blue water atrophy: Harpoon had minor improvements to
the seeker, TASM has been withdrawn and changed over to TLAM, Hoovers
have been retired so long range carrier based ASW is gone, P-3's spend
more time in Afghanistan than the GUIK Gap. The Navy of 1990 was
designed to fight enemy SAG's, CVBG's, and submarines over the entire
ocean, the Navy of 2009 was designed to fight land based powers with
minimal naval threats.
So if the technology really hasn't improved that much, then go with
the numbers.
Chris Manteuffel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Allen W. McD.... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Charles Talleyrand" <kitplane01 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179 at (no spam) k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
-Charles Talleyrand
[/quote]
In a straight up 1:1 without the USAF or Army helping out?
1990 wins, the technology has not changed that much after all and numbers do
count. Just the larger number of submarines on active duty would tip the
balance, the USN itself has a hard time finding its own subs when they are
being stealthy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dean... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:00 pm, "scott s." <75270_37... at (no spam) csi.xcom> wrote:
[quote]Chris <cmant... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in news:115fa04c-064b-4d49-a52d-
fa2fd8626... at (no spam) p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Chris Manteuffel
And need we mention, BB SAGs?
scott s.
.
[/quote]
Oh of course, just imagine a 16 inch shell plunging through a Nimitz's
flightdeck...... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| scott s.... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris <cmanteuf at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in news:115fa04c-064b-4d49-a52d-
fa2fd8626cd3 at (no spam) p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
[quote]
Chris Manteuffel
[/quote]
And need we mention, BB SAGs?
scott s.
.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| nik Simpson... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dean wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:00 pm, "scott s." <75270_37... at (no spam) csi.xcom> wrote:
Chris <cmant... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in news:115fa04c-064b-4d49-a52d-
fa2fd8626... at (no spam) p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Chris Manteuffel
And need we mention, BB SAGs?
scott s.
.
Oh of course, just imagine a 16 inch shell plunging through a Nimitz's
flightdeck......
[/quote]
Which Nimitz, the 1990 version,in which case it would be spectacular own
goal, or the 2009 version, in which case the commander of the Nimitz
battlegroup should be shot for ever letting it get in range ;-)
--
Nik Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul J. Adam... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message
<9e8f4018-a72b-4b0f-9657-45bdab284dc9 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Dean <damarkley at (no spam) gmail.com> writes
[quote]Oh of course, just imagine a 16 inch shell plunging through a Nimitz's
flightdeck......
[/quote]
More likely is a battleship getting a GBU-27 through each turret roof in
turn while still ~300nm from the carrier.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| damarkley... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul J. Adam wrote:
[quote]In message
9e8f4018-a72b-4b0f-9657-45bdab284dc9 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Dean <damarkley at (no spam) gmail.com> writes
Oh of course, just imagine a 16 inch shell plunging through a Nimitz's
flightdeck......
More likely is a battleship getting a GBU-27 through each turret roof in
turn while still ~300nm from the carrier.
Agreed Paul, I was actually being sarcastic but had trouble expressing[/quote]
it clearly. As much as I think battleships are amazing technology,
their time passed some 80 years ago or so. I am always amazed at the
people who think we MUST have these sort of ships.
Dean |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D_M... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 11:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
-Charles Talleyrand
[/quote]
Well, the numbers thing is significant. There were a LOT more ships
afloat in the USN in 1990, the 1990 fleet has a bunch of F14 Tomcats
carrying Phoenix missiles, the 2009 fleet doesn't have any, of either.
This is potentially significant. Combine that with the numerical
superiority and add in the A6 intruders etc, carrying all that heavy,
guided but not modern armaments, was it the walleye? or Penguin? Heavy
guided anti-ship missile, the sort of thing that will be significant
once the fighters and point defense have been worn down by all the
initial action.
I can't really imagine the guns of the BBs being significant, but if
they were largely loaded with SLAM tomahawk, then they could make a
big difference. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D_M... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 11:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
-Charles Talleyrand
[/quote]
What I intended in including in my first reply.
In a USN then VS now scenario I don't know how you figure the value
and utility of the space assets, satellites etc, I guess you have to
call all that a push, ditto for USAF involvement, I have no doubt the
2009 USAF would do very well against the 1990 USAF, but again the
numbers thing might be significant. If the '09 version can't score a
knockout of command and control, it could lose simply due to
attrition.
Although I realize these sort of scenarios can't be treated very
seriously. I do think in this case it's worth noting that, unless I'm
mistaken, no military force on earth has ever faced an opponent as
formidable as either the 1990 USAF or 1990 USN, and won the war have
they? For the sake of argument toss out '03 Iraq and '01 Afghanistan,
they're examples of "resisting" a modern military not actually trying
to defeat it in a strategic battle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| scott s.... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
damarkley <deanmarkley at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in
news:3YfJm.1941$cd7.31 at (no spam) newsfe04.iad:
[quote]Agreed Paul, I was actually being sarcastic but had trouble
expressing it clearly. As much as I think battleships are amazing
technology, their time passed some 80 years ago or so. I am always
amazed at the people who think we MUST have these sort of ships.
[/quote]
Though having 32 TASMs would be of some help. By 1990 there were enough
VLS shooters out there that the BBs weren't that significant any more.
scott s.
.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| damarkley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
scott s. wrote:
[quote]damarkley <deanmarkley at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in
news:3YfJm.1941$cd7.31 at (no spam) newsfe04.iad:
Agreed Paul, I was actually being sarcastic but had trouble
expressing it clearly. As much as I think battleships are amazing
technology, their time passed some 80 years ago or so. I am always
amazed at the people who think we MUST have these sort of ships.
Though having 32 TASMs would be of some help. By 1990 there were enough
VLS shooters out there that the BBs weren't that significant any more.
scott s.
.
A Burke class destroyer would be a better bargain. Much fewer crew,[/quote]
less maintenance and more missiles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David E. Powell... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 20, 10:09 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]In article <hd14p1$dr... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>, tan... at (no spam) peakoil.com
says...
"Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179 at (no spam) k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com....
The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has
better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out
blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy
of 2009, which would win?
-Charles Talleyrand
In a straight up 1:1 without the USAF or Army helping out?
I'm curious how the US Army might help out in such a fight ?
[/quote]
Apache attacks on ships? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:57 am
|
|