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?
> 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.
> > 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.
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.
On Nov 5, 10:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
On Nov 5, 11:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
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.
Dean wrote: > On Nov 6, 2:00 pm, "scott s." <75270_37...@csi.xcom> wrote: >> Chris <cmant...@gmail.com> wrote in news:115fa04c-064b-4d49-a52d- >> fa2fd8626...@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......
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 ;-)
Paul J. Adam wrote: > In message > <9e8f4018-a72b-4b0f-9657-45bdab284...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > Dean <damark...@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 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.
On Nov 5, 11:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
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.
On Nov 5, 11:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
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.
> 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. wrote: > damarkley <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote in > news:3YfJm.1941$cd7.31@newsfe04.iad: >> Agreed Paul, I was actually being sarcastic but had trouble >> expressing it clearly. As much as I think battleships are amazing >> technology, their time passed some 80 years ago or so. I am always >> amazed at the people who think we MUST have these sort of ships.
> Though having 32 TASMs would be of some help. By 1990 there were enough > VLS shooters out there that the BBs weren't that significant any more.
> scott s. > .
A Burke class destroyer would be a better bargain. Much fewer crew, less maintenance and more missiles.
In article <hd14p1$dr...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com says...
> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
> 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.
> In article <hd14p1$dr...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com > says...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has > > > better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out > > > blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy > > > of 2009, which would win?
> > > -Charles Talleyrand
> > In a straight up 1:1 without the USAF or Army helping out?
> I'm curious how the US Army might help out in such a fight ?
> On Nov 20, 10:09 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <hd14p1$dr...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com > > says...
> > > "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
> Apache attacks on ships?
If they are close enough inshore... Still I'm not sure I'd want to close to Hellfire range on a Burke DDG...
> In article <hd14p1$dr...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com > says...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > The United States Navy of 1990 was larger, but the US Navy of 2009 has > > > better technology. Which is the better fighting force in an all out > > > blue-water scenario? If the US Navy of 1990 had to fight the US Navy > > > of 2009, which would win?
> > > -Charles Talleyrand
> > In a straight up 1:1 without the USAF or Army helping out?
> I'm curious how the US Army might help out in such a fight ?
> > 1990 wins, the technology has not changed that much after all and numbers do > > count. Just the larger number of submarines on active duty would tip the > > balance, the USN itself has a hard time finding its own subs when they are > > being stealthy.
IIRC ships need ports, places like San Diego, Pearl and Norfolk all have a mix of Army, Air Force and Navy. The Marines would have to choose and so would the port authorities. Hard to imagine both fleets in the same port. Or, maybe the famous Wolf and Sheepdog analogy.
> In article <hd14p1$dr...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com > says...
>> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
I was thinking along the lines of the Army using man portable SAM's to take out USN 1990 helo's, using their air assets or rotary wing aircraft and Predator drones to spy on them and/or soak up a lot of their ammunition. In my mind when I saw this scenario proposed it was the USN of 1990 transposed to the current world and fighting to eliminate the USN already in this world. In that case the other branches of the USA would be helping to fight off the 'invaders'
In a neutral scenario where the two navies are transposed to say a 1500 AD world and duke it out for world domination the scenario is a clear and quick loss for the 2009 navy.
On Nov 5, 11:28 pm, Charles Talleyrand <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
19 responses so far, and it's amazing that *no one* has thought of the massive improvement in PGMs carried by USN aircraft, which let a modern air wing, with fewer planes, be able to delver LOTS more ordinance right on target.
"Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs) were consumed at a much greater rate than antlcipated in pre-hostilitles planning. LGBs quickly became the weapon of choice for a variety of missions against relatively low- value, non-hardened targets. MK-83 LGBs were particularly useful..." -- Vice Admiral S.R. Arthur, USN, Commander U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, Quick Look --First Impressions Report, 22 March 1991
"DESERT STORM demonstrated the necessity for precision guided munitions. Laser guided bombs (and their advanced successors such as inertially aided munitions), SLAM, and TLAM have all proven their worth, both militarily and politically. We need to maintain the technological edge these weapons give, both through continued research and development, preplanned product improvement (P31), and in maintenance of sufficient munitions in our arsenal to cope with likely future contingencies." --Admiral J. T. Howe, USN, Commander-in-Chief U.S. Naval Forces Europe, Quick Look First Impressions Report, 20 March 1991
"About 90,000 tonnes of ordnance was dropped by US planes on Iraq and occupied Kuwait, of which precision-guided weapons amounted to 7%; of these, 90% hit their targets whereas only 25% of the conventional bombs did so."
The posed question is also silly; The USN of 1990 and the present USN have fairly different missions, in fairly different enough worlds at sea. Neither ever needed to consider being able to "fight" the other, because that's, well, fantasy.
Andre Far too many silly people concentrate on platforms, and fail to see what the sensors and what the abilities of the munitions thus carried are.
> >> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
> I was thinking along the lines of the Army using man portable SAM's to take > out USN 1990 helo's, using their air assets or rotary wing aircraft and > Predator drones to spy on them and/or soak up a lot of their ammunition. In > my mind when I saw this scenario proposed it was the USN of 1990 transposed > to the current world and fighting to eliminate the USN already in this > world. In that case the other branches of the USA would be helping to fight > off the 'invaders'
The Army's surveillance platforms might be helpful in keeping tabs on a hostile fleet. But most of them are not very long ranged nor have much loiter time.
> In a neutral scenario where the two navies are transposed to say a 1500 AD > world and duke it out for world domination the scenario is a clear and quick > loss for the 2009 navy.
> > >> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
> > I was thinking along the lines of the Army using man portable SAM's to take > > out USN 1990 helo's, using their air assets or rotary wing aircraft and > > Predator drones to spy on them and/or soak up a lot of their ammunition. In > > my mind when I saw this scenario proposed it was the USN of 1990 transposed > > to the current world and fighting to eliminate the USN already in this > > world. In that case the other branches of the USA would be helping to fight > > off the 'invaders'
> The Army's surveillance platforms might be helpful in keeping tabs on a > hostile fleet. But most of them are not very long ranged nor have much > loiter time.
> > In a neutral scenario where the two navies are transposed to say a 1500 AD > > world and duke it out for world domination the scenario is a clear and quick > > loss for the 2009 navy.
tankfixer wrote: > In article <he8s8i$r...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com > says... >> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.2570f996c4c3e2fda22@news.bytemine.net... >>> In article <hd14p1$dr...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com >>> says... >>>> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
>> I was thinking along the lines of the Army using man portable SAM's to take >> out USN 1990 helo's, using their air assets or rotary wing aircraft and >> Predator drones to spy on them and/or soak up a lot of their ammunition. In >> my mind when I saw this scenario proposed it was the USN of 1990 transposed >> to the current world and fighting to eliminate the USN already in this >> world. In that case the other branches of the USA would be helping to fight >> off the 'invaders'
> The Army's surveillance platforms might be helpful in keeping tabs on a > hostile fleet. But most of them are not very long ranged nor have much > loiter time.
You mean like the Predator drones with their 2,000 nm range? (Note: that's the publicly admitted range. Actual range is almost certainly much greater.) At their cruise speed of ~100 mph that would be a 20 hour flight time.
-- 7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths Myths - Will - Fall!
> tankfixer wrote: > > In article <he8s8i$r...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com > > says... > >> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:MPG.2570f996c4c3e2fda22@news.bytemine.net... > >>> In article <hd14p1$dr...@news.eternal-september.org>, tan...@peakoil.com > >>> says... > >>>> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
> >> I was thinking along the lines of the Army using man portable SAM's to take > >> out USN 1990 helo's, using their air assets or rotary wing aircraft and > >> Predator drones to spy on them and/or soak up a lot of their ammunition. In > >> my mind when I saw this scenario proposed it was the USN of 1990 transposed > >> to the current world and fighting to eliminate the USN already in this > >> world. In that case the other branches of the USA would be helping to fight > >> off the 'invaders'
> > The Army's surveillance platforms might be helpful in keeping tabs on a > > hostile fleet. But most of them are not very long ranged nor have much > > loiter time.
> You mean like the Predator drones with their 2,000 nm range? (Note: > that's the publicly admitted range. Actual range is almost certainly > much greater.) At their cruise speed of ~100 mph that would be a 20 > hour flight time.
> -- > 7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths > Myths - Will - Fall!
Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk = Air Force, Raven = Army
> > > >> "Charles Talleyrand" <kitplan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:35377b21-8780-48ad-b09f-7680520ca179@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 ?
> > > I was thinking along the lines of the Army using man portable SAM's to take > > > out USN 1990 helo's, using their air assets or rotary wing aircraft and > > > Predator drones to spy on them and/or soak up a lot of their ammunition. In > > > my mind when I saw this scenario proposed it was the USN of 1990 transposed > > > to the current world and fighting to eliminate the USN already in this > > > world. In that case the other branches of the USA would be helping to fight > > > off the 'invaders'
> > The Army's surveillance platforms might be helpful in keeping tabs on a > > hostile fleet. But most of them are not very long ranged nor have much > > loiter time.
> > > In a neutral scenario where the two navies are transposed to say a 1500 AD > > > world and duke it out for world domination the scenario is a clear and quick > > > loss for the 2009 navy.
|
