# Does the US Navy make sense? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 14, 2015, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008 "2015-05-14T05:22:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/41 "2015-05-16T16:35:32Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Against larger countries tacair is the only thing that effectively degrades the enemy’s immediate war-fighting capability. It’s what takes out their airfields, ports, army rear areas, HQs, depots, etc. US will not successfully fight any near-peer enemy on more or less their own turf without being able to significantly attrit those enemy assets, and do it quickly; in days not months. By “tacair”, do you mean fighters armed with large air-to-ground ordnance? Would the best example of that be the F-15E? I would have thought that ground/surface-launched cruise missiles, stealth bombers and B-52-launched cruise missiles would be the main assets charged with taking out the enemy C4ISR, airfields, AA and logistics in the early part of a war. If that’s mainly the preserve of tacair, what are the bombers’ main roles in a big conventional war? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/42 "2015-05-16T16:50:00Z")
> [@bump](#): > > This is really the answer; we’re sort of the heir to the British role as policemen of the seas, now that we’re the world’s economic power. And as the last superpower standing, we’re sort of the world’s policemen, and that requires a power projection capability. > > And yeah, a lot of the Nimitz-class ships are getting long in the tooth- a new one was commissioned every 3.5 years on average from 1975 through 2009. So they’re going to be hitting their life expectancies at about that interval starting in another 10 years or so. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. We’re the world’s police force and the carrier is the service revolver. It’s really not a 1st world weapon as carriers are too easy to destroy by major powers. It’s to keep 3rd world countries in check. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/43 "2015-05-16T17:10:28Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > By “tacair”, do you mean fighters armed with large air-to-ground ordnance? Would the best example of that be the F-15E? > > I would have thought that ground/surface-launched cruise missiles, stealth bombers and B-52-launched cruise missiles would be the main assets charged with taking out the enemy C4ISR, airfields, AA and logistics in the early part of a war. > > If that’s mainly the preserve of tacair, what are the bombers’ main roles in a big conventional war? I’m guessing, but I imagine “tacair” means tactical aviation. There’s no reason that tactical aviation can’t include so-called “strategic” bombers like the B-52 and B-1, though. Since the Air Force dispensed with the nuclear role for those aircraft, they’ve become just very-long-ranged tactical assets - in fact, back in 1992 the Air Force switched its B-1s from being under the control of Strategic Air Command to Air Combat Command (which is what was once called “Tactical Air Command.”) > [@wikipedia](#): > > On 14 July 2007, the Associated Press reported on the growing USAF presence in Iraq as a result of “surge” in forces. Also mentioned is the reintroduction of B-1Bs to be a close-at-hand “platform” to support Coalition ground forces.[126] B-1s have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2008 B-1s have been used there in an “armed overwatch” role. They loiter over the region maintaining surveillance, ready to deliver guided bombs in support of ground troops if contacted.[127][128] > > … > > In August 2012, the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron returned from a six-month tour in Afghanistan. Their nine B-1Bs flew 770 sorties, the most of any B-1B squadron on a single deployment. The squadron spent 9,500 hours airborne, while having one of its bombers in the air at all times. They accounted for a quarter of the combat aircraft sorties over the country while there and averaged 2–3 requests for air support per day.[139] ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/44 "2015-05-16T17:56:10Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > I would have thought it tangental but I have no idea why, in any given circumstance, a military would prefer carrier-based aircraft to ship-based missiles, or vice versa? Some covered but a couple more reasons: - For close air support the two words “Danger Close” come to mind. Talking straight to the pilot the ground commander can authorize fires that come with risk to himself. The pilot can also pick targets and methods of engagements to minimize risk to friendly forces. - Lead time. The missile time of flight can be an eternity in a close fight especially if the fight is mechanized and mobile. Cruise missiles don’t let you refine targeting information or call off the mission up to the last moments. - Air superiority. We tend to forget because the US is so good at wresting away air superiority early, but air power also exists to neutralize the use of threat air power against our forces. Cruise missiles can degrade that capability on the ground but aren’t as effective against rotary wing assets that don’t need to be located around a big, fixed chunk of concrete. They don’t help against forces that survive and get in the air. - Loiter time. You can’t leave the plane up for long periods but you can get them up and close to reduce the lead time. Drone development is pushing towards replacing manned aircraft that are capable in more of the areas where missiles are weak. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/45 "2015-05-16T18:16:38Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > I would have thought that ground/surface-launched cruise missiles, stealth bombers and B-52-launched cruise missiles would be the main assets charged with taking out the enemy C4ISR, airfields, AA and logistics in the early part of a war. If you look at the air campaign to start the first Gulf War and more recently Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya) those assets do carry a bigger chunk of the load in early stages. Even there there’s a mix. Army Apaches got used in the opening night against during the First Gulf War for appropriate targets. They don’t fire a limited stock and extremely expensive Tomahawk at a target that doesn’t require it. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/46 "2015-05-16T18:28:19Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > If you look at the air campaign to start the first Gulf War and more recently Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya) those assets do carry a bigger chunk of the load in early stages. Even there there’s a mix. Army Apaches got used in the opening night against during the First Gulf War for appropriate targets. They don’t fire a limited stock and extremely expensive Tomahawk at a target that doesn’t require it. Sure, hence why I included stealth bombers. I don’t know if the B-1 should be included in that; It’s not as stealthy as the B-2 but it has much less RCS than bombers with similar payloads. What considerations govern whether a cruise missile, a stealth bomber, a strike fighter or an attack helicopter will be used? ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/47 "2015-05-16T20:36:36Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > What considerations govern whether a cruise missile, a stealth bomber, a strike fighter or an attack helicopter will be used? IWNAZ (I was not a zoomie) or joint qualified. I was a ground guy and at the level where planning might involve something like “how do we use the two CAS sorties we’ve been allocated?” I’ve got a little bit of experience with the targeting process from the ground side though even if the assets weren’t necessarily fixed wing air let alone cruise missiles. My minimallyy educated guesses of factors in the relevant targeting process: - Risk. The stupendously expensive Tomahawk, or only really expensive Harpoon, isn’t such a bad deal when you are looking at a real and big risk of losing airframes and pilots that are even more expensive and can’t be easily replaced. - Nature of the target. What effect are you hoping to achieve and does the weapon being used accomplish it. Aircraft tend to give you more options in payload to pick the right tool for the job. Stealth aircraft improve give you both but are limited in number. If you’ve got attack helos and SP ADA in a position where an Apache Longbows can engage them from cover there’s probably targets that really need the missile or stealth capability. There was a saying from my tactics instructions that dealt with a mechanized assault that I still remember. Part of it applies here “using all weapons, at appropriate ranges, and against appropriate targets.” - Timing. Combining all assets lets you create a period where you mass fires. While the enemy is still in a position to effectively contest air superiority you need to both deal with it and hit targets it’s protecting. Once you’ve got the air defense attrited and suppressed you can then exploit by very quickly following up with attacks by other systems to either hit non AD targets or continue the destruction of the AD network while it’s ineffective. I’ve actually been part of a training exercise in SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense). That mission involved suppressing known and suspected air defense position using a battalion of tube artillery. Right after those rounds landed two F16s made their bombing run. In a different situation that’s an example of some of the above concepts. The guns could engage with low risk (Assuming a survivability move after the mission) but with very low chance of producing the effect desired on he main target. The planes could destroy the target if they could get there but were at risk from the AD systems. Targeting them both appropriately with coordinated timing let risk be minimized and maximized target effects. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/48 "2015-05-16T20:50:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Navy is surely one of the biggest wastes of money in human history. We still maintain scores of submarines, even though they haven’t torpedoed a ship underwater since World War 2. > > Or to put it another way, the Navy is government at its most governmental. Strangely, we havent been invaded\* since WWII either. Not a coincidence. - and even then, they only got a few territories. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2015, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/49 "2015-05-17T00:02:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I _think_ all the first list are actual declared wars with Congressional approval and/or involvement in UN/NATO actions (that includes [Panama](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama#United_States.27_justification_for_the_invasion), which you seem unaware of) and the second list isn’t (although I’d think Somalia, at least, would qualify for the first list - it wasn’t functionally different from the Balkan stuff AFAICT, and did involve Navy troops) Not really a nitpick, but in the interest of fighting ignorance, our Congress last Declared War on successive days in December, 1941. Not that they are woosies, mind you. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2015, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/50 "2015-05-17T03:22:31Z")
> [@UncleBill](#): > > Not really a nitpick, but in the interest of fighting ignorance, our Congress last Declared War on successive days in December, 1941. Not that they are woosies, mind you. Not quite. They declared a War on Terrorism. And many of the Joint Resolutions are declarations of war for all practical purposes. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2015, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/51 "2015-05-17T08:26:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Not quite. They declared a War on Terrorism. And many of the Joint Resolutions are declarations of war for all practical purposes. I’d suggest promoting the notion it’s possible to declare war on a subjectively defined abstract concept is not fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/52 "2015-05-17T15:03:49Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Our economy and the world economy is dependent on the ability to move goods around the world in safety. Without our navy every ship at sea would be easy prey for pirates and unsavory foreign governments. We do it because if we don’t we’ll be dependent on other countries to do it and we don’t want those countries building up huge navies. This system sucks, but it’s better than the alternatives. Or perhaps the corporations who benefit from free Navy protection should instead bear the cost of overseas transportation. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/53 "2015-05-17T17:14:12Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Or perhaps the corporations who benefit from free Navy protection should instead bear the cost of overseas transportation. Are you suggesting the Navy constitutes a sort of import subsidy, like an anti-tariff? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008/54 "2015-05-18T15:23:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s really not a 1st world weapon as carriers are too easy to destroy by major powers. It’s to keep 3rd world countries in check. Probably harder than people think; most anti-ship missiles with any kind of range are typically some sort of cruise missile, and those that aren’t, typically have much shorter ranges. The USN carrier battle groups are highly optimized for shooting down swarms of incoming missiles- that’s what the Aegis system is designed to do, after all, and fighters can shoot down cruise missiles as well. Plus, with the newer Standard missiles, ballistic missile threats can be engaged also. It’s true theoretically, that lots of things can kill carriers, but in practice, it’s not that simple. If it was, the Chinese and the Russians wouldn’t have spent nearly the time, effort and money trying to devise ways to do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-us-navy-make-sense/720008.md?page=2)