The battleship era came and went with only one major engagement

Those muzzle blasts must make being a crew member terrifying.

Is naval warfare dead?

Fuck no.

Nah it's just different. More missiles. Less cannons.

MORE MISSILES
VLS CELLS FOR EVERYBODY

How did we go from 'dreadnought', 'destroyer' etc. to 'ESG LCW LCS AFSB LOL WTF BBQ'? Modern militaries are so soulless.

Radio shorthand.
What's faster to say? "Aircaft Carrier Group" or "CVBG"?

You're stupid and wrong. Far from that, Jackie Fisher, First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, was the first known person to use the term, "O. M. G" in it's modern context. I think they still called dreadnoughts BBs and destroyers DDs even back in the old days.

I'm pretty sure dreadnoughts are called BBs in notation because B was already taken by predreadnoughts, suggests to me that the shorthand was in use for a while.

Nope. Check out "Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat" by Capt. Wayne P. Hughes Jr, "Anti-Access Warfare: Countering A2/AD Strategies" by Sam Tangredi, and "Understanding Naval Warfare" by Ian Speller.

It's like the proliferation of Soviet/Russian double-digit SAM systems. Pretty much everybody is buying S-300s, Buk launchers, tracked Strelas and so on. Likewise anybody with a coastline is getting themselves Russian anti-ship missiles, which are conveniently sold with a option to have the launchers hidden inside civilian cargo containers for maximum warcrimes.

(Meanwhile air defenses for the US Army/Marines have degraded to the point where it's just a Private sitting in dumpster on the back of a Humvee with 4 Stingers strapped onto it and a .50 cal. Presumably they'll set piles of old tires on fire to provide cover like insurgents in Somalia/Iraq.)

>(Meanwhile air defenses for the US Army/Marines have degraded to the point where it's just a Private sitting in dumpster on the back of a Humvee with 4 Stingers strapped onto it and a .50 cal. Presumably they'll set piles of old tires on fire to provide cover like insurgents in Somalia/Iraq.)
Shut up retard.
Our air defence is doing fine. We do have the largest, most well funded, most experienced airforce(s) in the world.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles_between_battleships

>The Second Battle of Guadalcanal

Wish they'd come up with a proper name for this.

It was the second battle in two days near Savo Island in Ironbottom Sound. They call it The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and distinguish the first two with the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Or sometimes First and Second Actions.

The problem is there had already been multiple battles in the Guadalcanal campaign for this. Including numerous naval battles. Including the Battle of Savo Island. So calling something "the Second Battle of Guadalcanal" is just needlessly confusing.

Which have not operated in a non-permissive environment since 1972 or maybe 1991. The stuff out there now is a entire generation beyond the best stuff the Iraqis and Serbians had.

And even back in the 80s SHORAD was shit. It was either a M113 or LAV-25 with a Vulcan on it, or a private in a dumpster with four Sidewinders on it. At least the Hawk was still in service. (We were going to adopt the Roland system but lol Reagan administration and mission creep led to it getting canceled)

Not gonna mention the Patriot for some reason?
>Which have not operated in a non-permissive environment since 1972 or maybe 1991
You forgot Serbia, aka the only time a stealth aircraft has been shot down by hostile activity.
I'd also like to know your sources for your claim that our air defences have lagged behind the Russians.

>Not gonna mention the Patriot for some reason?

Patriot is a long range system. The issue is, what happens when aircraft get past it or the CAP cover? Or helicopters/ground attack operating at real low level? And of course being a large system it's not exactly mobile.

>You forgot Serbia, aka the only time a stealth aircraft has been shot down by hostile activity.

Which happened because Air Force planners kept sending aircraft down the same route at the same time. Effectively they fired a bunch of missiles into the air when they expected a F-117 to be flying through that area, and one of them got close enough to trigger the proximity fuse.

>I'd also like to know your sources for your claim that our air defences have lagged behind the Russians.

Currently the US possesses no self-propelled gun/missile system, both the M6 Linebacker (Bradley with the Avenger's stinger launcher instead of TOWs) and LAV-AD have been taken out of service. VADS was itself a stopgap to counter attack helicopters, and we all know what happened to the Sgt. York. Comparatively the Russians produce the Tunguska and Pantsir, which have 30mm guns and fire-and-forget radar missiles, and radar and IR targeting systems. (And are typically advertised with CGI videos of them blowing A-10s out of the sky)

As previously indicated the only SHORAD we have is the Avenger, 4 Stingers on a Humvee. Chaparral was again a stopgap to cover the failure of the Mauler program and was pretty much just four Sidewinders on a tracked platform. The Russians have multiple different systems, the SA-13 is the newest one which is a armored tracked launcher with current-generation Strela missiles and a onboard radar/IR targeting. There's also the SA-8 which is a longer-range radar missile.

HIMAD. Hawk has been retired so the Patriot handles this. The Russians have the SA-15 which is a short to medium range system, and the SA-11 which is medium range. Both are tracked and capable of moving with ground forces.

Additionally there's the SA-10 (S-300) which is a true long-ranged system like the Patriot that will be handling theater defenses.

I also forgot that the US has a small number of NASAMS, which are AIM-120s in a box launcher, but these are only used to defend Washington DC. However like the Patriot this is a system that needs to be set up on the ground with separate radar and control trucks. SLAMRAAM, 4 AIM-120s on a Humvee, was canceled about a decade ago but would have been pretty much the same thing.

...

It was the nuclear weapon of the 19 century.

>Private sitting in dumpster on the back of a Humvee with 4 Stingers strapped onto it and a .50 cal

I like your descriptions of our military tactics and equipment, keep it up lad.

>Which have not operated in a non-permissive environment since 1972 or maybe 1991
Can Russian SAM's detect, and shoot down stealth airrcaft like the B2, F-35, etc?

...

Supposedly a Colonel nearly died in a MIM-72 in the 80s at Fort Irwin, because he got in the turret/dumpster to check it out and the latch broke, it was like 100 degrees that day and it took them several hours to get him out.
youtube.com/watch?v=mhknHIp40NI

Maybe, but it's unlikely. I don't know anything that's not publicly available, and if I did I wouldn't talk about it.

You seem pretty knowledgeable.
Are DEW's really going to be the new missile killer?

>built to fight a war of intimidation and not a real war.

Nonsense, that the war they were built for didn't happen, doesn't change the fact that they were perfectly suited for the planned for war.

> naming a warship for a ding-bat who was too stupid to duck...

The current stuff I've seen for solid-state lasers looks promising. 10-15 years and we'll probably see the Navy start deploying lasers as part of their CIWS systems.

>Meanwhile air defenses for the US Army/Marines have degraded

The best air defense is air superiority and nobody comes even close to the U.S.

is this a troll?

Aicrap carriers are even worse at that.

>muh chaiforce REEEEEEE

lol

hello sascha ivanovitch

>Mahan was a hack.
Mahan didn't say "lol BB's are teh best everr"
he just said that sea power is vital to a nation's economic and political position.

wassup jamal jefferson )))

If your ground forces are trying to shoot down enemy aircraft, you're already fucked.

...

You are retarded.

90% of Iraqi casualties during 1st Gulf War were done by land forces. Chairforce brags about miracles they performed yet it boiled down as usual to land forces and more precisely - artillery - blowing everything up while chairforce though they've "achieved" something.

cyka blyad to you too)))))

lol, go to /k/ and post that. See what happens

ok you are troll thank you for posting

oh yes, I'm sure crippling Baghdad's command and control infrastructure during the first days of the offensive weren't any help at all to the ground forces

yeehaw

/k/ agrees with me.
They've tried to cripple it for over a month before the offensive itself. At first they've bragged that they will bring Iraq down on their own, the reality proved different though.

>only producing 10 aircraft
>indians now trying to figure out how to leave the program now that they realized they got ripped off

...

is this supposed to scare my grandpa?

I've been maining /k/ since 2011.

Air support is in fact just support, but that support can mean a lot as far as enemy logistics and communication.

>exposed engine nozzles
>not even sawtoothed
>big circular jew nose of an EOS
>no s-bands
>pretty much just a Flanker with a bodykit

yuor memes are stale

Personally I'm a fan of all the exposed rivets and grilles all over it. "the speed holes are very stealthy mr. simpson"

Also didn't one of the prototypes get partially destroyed when a stray dog was running around on the airfield and got sucked into the engine when it landed?

At least we can produce an aircraft that isn't just another derivative of the Flanker/Fulcrum

whatever gaylord

Fuck big boats
>RIP cavalry

f o r c e p r o j e c t i o n

>over-expensive pieces of crap
AND THEY NEVER GOT USED
THATS THE POINT!!!

So the USA's plan is to invent a billion ways to kill, wait for the next symmetric war, and then see what sticks? Is it really that hard to figure out the ideal way to fight BEFORE the war starts?

Considering just how many tank doctrines and types existed prior to WW2, no.

>/k/ agrees with me.
then prove it.

And exactly what kind of war would that be? One where everyone masses their fleets into one big group which collide with each other head on? A war that never happened and never would?

Aircraft carriers won wars that actually happened. Ever hear of the PTO?

Yes, but he also said on the military side of things that the best way to ensure domination of the sea was to build a large, battleship centric fleet, defeat your opponents fleet, and then rule the sealanes since you have seapower and he doesn't.

It ignores the fact that not all shipping requirements are equal (Think of a hypothetical naval war between the U.S. and the UK around 1914 instead of WW1.), the person defending his own sealines is fighting at a massive disadvantage due to the fact that you're shackled to a bunch of slow, fragile, essentially unarmed vessels, blockades are hard to do for any country that has more than a few hundred kilometers of coastline, exacerbated by the fact that coastal defenses usually beat warships, and that a single massed fleet is too slow and too small to actually rule the waves, it needs to split up to actually hit targets or defend your own.

He didn't just say that seapower is vital. He said that the best way to secure said control of the sea was to prepare for and win a Cannae style decisive battle at sea against the main fleet of the opposing polity, and THAT's why the battleship had its heyday; because they are a good tool for that. The problem is that sea war doesn't really work like land war does. You don't take and hold territory with your vessels, you sortie out and hit what you can. Sea wars are almost always raid and counter-raid, where you try to avoid your enemy's battle fleet and hit the soft targets instead of going through it to hit them later, and Mahan somehow missed that entirely.

In large part because they were such an investment of national resources, that they could rarely be deployed as the risk of something happening to them was often greater than the potential rewards for their usage.

USA military doctrine = air superiority

Soviet/Russian doctrine = armor rush

Go figure, different militaries have different needs and wants.

>Also didn't one of the prototypes get partially destroyed when a stray dog was running around on the airfield and got sucked into the engine when it landed?

Lolwhat?

The Wikipedophiles alone list many.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles_between_battleships

Hell that's nothing special. Many modern naval vessels nowadays have never fought each other in a surface to surface capacity (well, outside third worlders' fast boats fighting pirates, each other). I think Falklands saw the last surface to surface engagement of recent times.

Mahan's central point is that commerce raiding is retarded and that history proves it. Read before you form am opinion.
Or, rather, stop posting.

When exactly has history proven it? Commerce raiding allowed a Germany with less than 1/10th the tonnage of the Royal Navy to put them on the back foot for years. Commerce raiding broke Japan. Commerce raiding was the go-to strategy for the entirety of the Age of Sail.

You know what's never happened? A single decsive fleet battle where you wipe out EVERYTHING they've got, and go on to dominate the seas, a la Mahanian advocacy.

>You know what's never happened? A single decsive fleet battle..
>What was Tshushima?

Trafalgar?

>What was Tshushima?

A battle whose primary loss outside the fleet was to Russian prestige, not to material factors. The sea-lanes in and around Korea had already been under control by Japan for months, and the siege of Port Arthur continued as planned.

Again, did not lead to control of sea-lanes, but rather an abandonment of an invasion plan of England. It also did not put paid to French naval power.

Funny how you mention Japan and completely disregard Midway and Leyte Gulf.

Maybe because those victories were used to support an island hopping campaign, and it was control of those islands and the airplanes you could base off of them which controlled sea lanes, not the ships itself.

Maybe because the disruption of Japanese shipping was primarily accomplished by submarine, not carrier or battleship, and began almost as soon as the war started.

Or the Soviet military planners realized that stuff was still going to get through air cover. And the US realized this too I think. VADS and Chaparral were stopgaps but they did exist and would have been capable of protecting ground units from helicopters and attack aircraft, likewise Hawk was widely deployed in Europe. (And as the US was primarily going to be fighting a defensive war in Europe rather than an imperialist war of aggression and conquest, the lack of mobility due to separate radar and control units was less of a issue)

It's just in the 80s things started to stumble with the failure of the Roland adoption and the Sgt. York program, and with the end of the Cold War stuff like SLAMRAAM/NASAMS and the M6 Linebacker gets cut to save money because "we're only bombing goat herders why would we need to worry about air defenses?"

Think of air superiority like a prisoner's dilemma style problem. If one side has a advantage, they get air superiority. But if both sides are equal, neither can achieve superiority and fully protect their ground forces. (again even with "fully" there's still the potential for stuff to get through)

>did not put paid to French naval power.

Except that France NEVER successfully contested the seas again. Seems pretty decisive to me.

How was the island hopping campaign accomplished? By gaining naval supremacy. How was naval supremacy accomplished? Midway and Leyte Gulf. You can fuck off.

>the supersonic fighter era came and went without one major engagement

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_campaign_of_1806

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roquebert's_expedition_to_the_Caribbean

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troude's_expedition_to_the_Caribbean

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1811)

Now, the British kept winning, but the French kept having ships around, kept trying to do stuff on the water. Not to mention Napoleon's rather ambitious shipbuilding efforts that would have been very interesting had he not lost at Leipzig and had to have abandoned them.

And the French weren't exactly "Successfully contesting the seas" before Trafalgar either; so I'm not really sure how you can point to it being THE DECISIVE MAHANIAN MOMENT!

>Midway
June 1942

>First invasion of a Japanese held pr-war island
>February of 1944.

I guess the entire USN was just sitting around with its thumbs up its asses the entire time before heading on over to Tarawa, huh? Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, it had to do with the construction of land-based aircraft that could project force far enough, the construction of landing craft that could transport troops, and the freeing up of troops with the proper beach storming training for such operations.

It has only the most casual connection to what Mahan advocated, which was

1) Win the naval battle
2) Use that newfound naval supremacy to promote your own shipping and deny it to other countries
3) Control the world economically due to your shipping advantages.

THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE PACIFIC THEATER. Pressure was put on Japanese shipping, almost entirely concentrated through the Sea of Japan and the China seas, from (useless!) commerce raiding submarines from the get-go. Lines were only definitively cut, a la the breaking of the route to the NEI, when land troops had taken islands, land based planes had been set up, and aerial mining operations begun. You didn't use that fleet to deny Japanese shipping, I can't think of any carrier or battleship operation that the USN did towards that effect.

Was there the use of sea power? Of course. But it wasn't a Mahanian style war, not by a long shot.

almost the same thing

lol what.

I mean I suppose you could say "4th generation" but Ethiopia and Eritrea respectively deployed Su-27s and MiG-29s with Russian/Ukrainian/German mercenary pilots.

Holy shit there were mercenary jet fighter pilots IRL? I thought this only happened in my Japanese animus.

Don't supersonic jets cost way too much for freelancers?

The merc's didn't own the jets, the government did. The government just hired ex-Soviet pilots to fly the jets for them.

The best doctrine also isn't obvious because it's heavily dependent on which method the enemy is most poorly equipped to fight.

I know wikipedia isn't really a good source, but if this is accurate then there were at least 20 separate engagements in which battleships played a major role.

>the battleship era came and went
until the next big war

Modern anti-ship missiles have absolutely massive penetration. A Silkworm missile for example is essentially a 1000lb shaped charge that would burn through a Iowa's belt armor with no problem.