Ukraine tanks and drones

There goes the turret

Putin: What's the matter with our tanks ?
Generals: Drones and anti tank weapons are blowing them up.
Putin: Are you saying they are sitting ducks ?
Generals: Yes.
Putin: Why didn't you tell me this before ?

They are re-working the curriculum at West Point and the War College right now.

The ATGMs and MANPADS have tipped the balance in favor of small infantry units.

Manned aircraft will be less numerous while controlling AI directed drones.

Aircraft carriers will never have the strategic advantage they had in the past.
Perhaps submarines will become ascendent at sea.

Whatever it all boils down to, it will be very different from anything that has come before.

Nothing is being reworked. These are weapons we produced being used against weak Russian technology . Their AA systems are respectable but they don’t have enough and not so hot when trying to invade. You have plenty of military people talking about drone swarms. Live combatants are being removed . Carriers are still viable to project force and still have viability if the US keeps up on drone swarm defense.

Nothing is being reworked. These are weapons we produced being used against weak Russian technology . Their AA systems are respectable but they don’t have enough and not so hot when trying to invade. You have plenty of military people talking about drone swarms. Live combatants are being removed . Carriers are still viable to project force and still have viability if the US keeps up on drone swarm defense. Originally Posted by Mplay

exactly. some people are claiming this is an issue for the US by giving too much military gear to Ukraine. we have plenty of gear. and we all know how the military industrial complex loves a good war so they can make more.


the carrier is not dead. it is still the pinnacle of current naval sea power. carriers are proven in battle. these so-called Chinese "carrier killer" ballistic missiles are vaporware until proven in actual battle as effective. and like Russia's junk weapons being exposed in Ukraine let's not put too much faith in them till they prove their effectiveness in real combat.


also US Carriers do not go out on combat patrols by themselves, from WWII on all carriers go out as a task force with with missile cruisers and destroyers and subs to provide a protective screen.


the US sub fleet alone is the best in the world. Russia and China don't have the numbers and Russia right now has the bulk of its Soviet era sub fleet rotting in port being a massive nuclear waste issue for them.


the second best sub fleet is the Royal Navy. actually their subs are equal to ours they lack the sheer numbers of the US Navy.


the current Nimitz class carrier is still the state of the art carrier. it does lack excess power for new advanced weapons systems which the new Ford class addresses allowing for such things as Rail guns and laser based weapons.


no other nation has a carrier that is superior to the Nimitz class, not even the latest British carrier the Queen Elizabeth which is an excellent new design but no match for a Nimitz class one on one. well i'm being a bit USN centrist here but the British carriers are not nuclear powered meaning they are limited in range without refueling and their air groups are not as large. the Queen Elizabeth class is a state of the art carrier and only the US carriers are superior in general.





the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth pictured at sea for the first time.Wednesday 19 May 2021. the Brits have two of this new class. rather interesting design with two towers. largely because the Royal Navy does not use catapult launching systems and don't need arresting gear.


so far this is the build of the class. planned two and two in service.


the new Ford class also underwent a new tower design with the tower moved farther back than the Nimitz class.





note the tower location compared to the Nimitz class






Russia has one old piece of shit carrier in service the other is in refit hell




this is what a modern carrier task force looks like. our carriers are a fleet battle group in and of itself.

Does anyone see that the picture posted above is reversed left-to-right?


Anyway: When I said everything is now open to re-evaluation by the military planners and educators at West Point and the War College, I had the Chinese in mind. They do seem to have the will and intention of becoming as-good to better-than any other developed nation in terms of projecting military, political and economic power across the Western Pacific. They have recently signed a treaty for a naval base with the Solomon Islands. Does that remind you of anything?

I just hope they have stepped on their own dick with the renewed lock-downs and all.

First, I find it interesting that Vita is trying to get us all to look at Ukraine again when there is so much other domestic stuff going on. Why?

I have to say that I don't love the Gerald Ford design. Too many gee whiz things on one platform. It's like the Freedom class design. They don't work and many are being decommissioned and others are being redesigned with less projected capabilities.

Barley continues to provide very strange comments.

First, I find it interesting that Vita is trying to get us all to look at Ukraine again when there is so much other domestic stuff going on. Why?

I have to say that I don't love the Gerald Ford design. Too many gee whiz things on one platform. It's like the Freedom class design. They don't work and many are being decommissioned and others are being redesigned with less projected capabilities. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The Navy finally admitted LCS were a mistake... the DDG-1000 are experimental freaks... the Ford is still unproven, and we've got the two others in the pipeline... USS Dorie Miller? I kind of doubt it will ever get built but WTF on the naming? They should have named the Constellation class for Miller and used Connie on the new CVN... but then that would be RAYCISS to actually have some fcuking tradition.

It just appalls me.. all the great CV names available from our history and they are naming them for mess cooks? If miller had been White, he MIGHT get a DDG named for him, but a CVN? smh

The Navy finally admitted LCS were a mistake... the DDG-1000 are experimental freaks... the Ford is still unproven, and we've got the two others in the pipeline... USS Dorie Miller? I kind of doubt it will ever get built but WTF on the naming? They should have named the Constellation class for Miller and used Connie on the new CVN... but then that would be RAYCISS to actually have some fcuking tradition.

It just appalls me.. all the great CV names available from our history and they are naming them for mess cooks? If miller had been White, he MIGHT get a DDG named for him, but a CVN? smh Originally Posted by texassapper

dorie miller is not an appropriate name for a CVN. its appropriate for a DDG or CG. the same goes for John Stennis and carl vinson.

It look like Russian slowly winning unless Ukraine start regaining ground, Russia wins.

Does anyone see that the picture posted above is reversed left-to-right?


Anyway: When I said everything is now open to re-evaluation by the military planners and educators at West Point and the War College, I had the Chinese in mind. They do seem to have the will and intention of becoming as-good to better-than any other developed nation in terms of projecting military, political and economic power across the Western Pacific. They have recently signed a treaty for a naval base with the Solomon Islands. Does that remind you of anything?

I just hope they have stepped on their own dick with the renewed lock-downs and all. Originally Posted by ICU 812

China wants to become the IJN of the 22nd century.

First, I find it interesting that Vita is trying to get us all to look at Ukraine again when there is so much other domestic stuff going on. Why?

I have to say that I don't love the Gerald Ford design. Too many gee whiz things on one platform. It's like the Freedom class design. They don't work and many are being decommissioned and others are being redesigned with less projected capabilities. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

there have been significant issues with the new systems such as electromagnetic launch and arresting gear. also the weapons elevators. it took longer to certify the Ford for active duty than expected even allowing for the electromagnetic based systems.


The US Navy's top admiral admits they crammed too much new tech onto their new aircraft carrier

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-...er-ford-2021-8


this article faults the Navy in part for not doing enough land based testing of these new systems.


https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/...many-problems/


Why the Navy’s Most Powerful Aircraft Carrier Has So Many Problems



excellent comparison of the Nimitz and Ford class. you can get a good view of how far back the tower is compared to the previous placement.


This month, the USS Gerald R. Ford, the US Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, successfully completed its shock trials. The third and final 40,000-pound explosive detonated near the Ford’s hull and caused no major injuries, flooding, or fires.


“We had zero catastrophic failures on the ship, zero situations where we had flooding or anything, and zero fires. All that is pretty significant,” Capt. Paul Lanzilotta, the Ford’s commanding officer, told reporters.


The shock trials are the latest milestone for a carrier that has struggled through years of delays and cost overruns — setbacks caused at least in part by the many brand-new systems the Navy chose to put on its newest class of carrier, the service’s top officer said in July.


In an interview at a Navy League event, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said the Navy had been too ambitious with the Ford’s new technologies.


“We had 23 new technologies on that ship, which quite frankly increased the risk … of delivery on time and cost right from the get-go.” Gilday said.


“We really shouldn’t introduce more than maybe one or two new technologies on any complex platform like that in order to make sure that we keep risk at a manageable level,” Gilday added.

New technologies

The Force class is meant to modernize carrier operations for a new era, and the 23 new technologies aboard the Ford give it a number of improvements over its Nimitz-class predecessors, including faster aircraft sorties and a smaller crew.


The most well-known additions are the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG).


While the four catapults on board Nimitz-class carriers are steam-powered, Ford’s EMALS uses linear induction motors. The new catapults are more efficient than their steam-powered counterparts and launch fixed-wing aircraft more smoothly and at much faster rates.


The AAG also has advantages over its predecessor, the Mark-7 hydraulic arresting gear.


A turbo-electric system, the AAG has digital controls capable of self-diagnosis and of sending maintenance alerts, requiring less manpower and time to maintain.


The new arresting gear can also handle the weight of a wider variety of aircraft, meaning that the AAG, along with EMALS, will enable Navy carriers to reliably launch and land both manned and unmanned aircraft.


The Ford also features a new elevator system that is designed with larger and more complex smart munitions in mind. The Ford’s 11 elevators are specifically built and positioned within the carrier to decrease the time it takes to move weapons from the ship’s magazines to the flight deck.


Its new Dual Band Radar (DBR) system is capable of simultaneously operating over two frequency ranges. Unlike the system on the Nimitz class, the DBR has no rotating antennas, which increases its reliability and makes maintenance easier.


To top it all off, Ford powers its new systems with two newly designed A1B nuclear reactors that can generate almost three times more power than the A4W reactors used on Nimitz-class carriers.

New problems


The new systems increase the Ford’s capabilities and decrease the number of crew members needed to operate it — about 4,500 compared with the roughly 5,000 sailors and aviators needed aboard Nimitz-class carriers.


But the new technologies have had more than a few problems. The EMALS, for instance, has repeatedly failed, and the AAG has also broken down numerous times.


One AAG breakdown required seven days to fix, while two separate failures once forced individual EMALS catapults offline for three days, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.


Perhaps the most troublesome system is the elevators, which have plagued the carrier since 2018.


Breakdowns and missed deadlines on the elevators delayed Ford’s first planned deployment, and the carrier had to conduct shock trials without all of them being operational. The Navy now says all 11 elevators will be ready by the end of 2021.


The Ford’s DBR system has also had reliability problems, and plans to include it on the other Ford-class carriers were scrapped in 2015 after its upkeep costs were found to be higher than that of other options.


Some of the problems may have been easier to fix if the Navy had tested the new technologies on land first, Gilday said last month.


“One of the things you learned from the Ford program was the importance of land-based testing on new systems before you introduce them to the fleet,” he said, citing the elevators as a prime example.


Other systems on the Ford have hit milestones during testing on land, and Gilday said the Navy was already dedicating money for land-based testing on its new Constellation-class frigates.


The Ford is also the victim of delays on the F-35C, the carrier variant of the stealth fighter. F-35Cs can operate only on one of the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers, the USS Carl Vinson.

A capable carrier

Despite the setbacks, the USS Gerald R. Ford is shaping up to be a capable carrier.


Rear Adm. James Downey, the Navy’s program executive officer for aircraft carriers, said the Ford’s development was “well within the projected scope,” and Navy officials are hoping to deploy it in 2022.


In addition to progress on the elevators, the EMALS and AAG systems have improved, with over 8,000 catapult shots and arrested landings conducted on Ford so far.


F-35Cs also deployed for the first time last week aboard the USS Carl Vinson, and the Marine Corps has said its first F-35C squadron is ready for combat. The Navy now plans to reduce the number of F-35C squadrons in each air wing from two to one and increase the number of aircraft in a squadron from 10 to 14.


The issues with the Ford’s development are also lessons for the next three Ford-class carriers: the USS John F. Kennedy, the USS Enterprise, and the USS Doris Miller, which are expected to be delivered in 2024, 2028, and 2032, respectively.


Ford has spent about 50% of the past year at sea, Gilday said last month.

ATLANTIC OCEAN (Oct. 29, 2019) The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) conducts high-speed turns in the Atlantic Ocean, Oct. 29, 2019. Gerald R. Ford is at sea conducting sea trials following the in port portion of its 15-month post-shakedown availability.


“So she has more operational time over the past year than nearly any other ship in the fleet, and she’s been performing very, very well,” Gilday said. “We’ve been providing or trying to put her in an environment where she can rigorously test all those systems, and they’ve gone very, very well.”


In this article:Aircraft Carrier, Navy, US Navy, USS Gerald R. Ford, USS Gerald R. Ford Aircraft Carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier


the Freedom class littoral ships do have a role modern asymmetrical warfare. somewhat like oversized PT boats. the concept overall was sound however they should have not rushed to build more until the lead ships had been proven. same as noted above with the Ford class.


overall the issues with the Ford's new designs should be resolved. the John F. Kennedy is already completed and being fitted out. presumably what was learned in real life operations of the Ford will make the next carriers faster to complete trials and go on active duty.