Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
03-23-2012, 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commadore_Bob
Moving targets are harder to hit. Besides, we destroyed the Iranian navy in the early 80's. I'm sure we could do it again.
Well, the US Navy could do that, of course. The question is, how much would it cost. In war, there is risk.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
03-23-2012, 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Note the little world "real" in my statement. Carriers are great for beating up vastly inferior forces even if they are very remote from any allied bases. But that's it. In a war where both sides are at least in the same order of magnitude of force strenght and technology (such as in a hopefully-never-to-happen-US-Chinese war or something like that), carriers are big and vulnerable just like battleships of old ages
Yes I noticed the word "real". A real war between two superpowers will be devastating for both sides regardless. Though having a superior mobile air force is going to be a huge advantage. The US has the biggest mobile air force in the world with several layers of protection of not just the ships in that picture but as well as several different types of aircraft and several different types of antiaircraft, antimissile and antismallcraft protection.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Allow me to answer with another picture.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/pictu...ed_oct93_2.jpg

And this kind of pictures is extremely common from NATO maneuvers even in the last couple of years, or so I am told.
Yeah, and we are not at war with NATO or the Dutch. Several times when I was deployed we had other nations ships and subs around with us. We took pictures of them just as they did of us because, well, don't you check out your neighbors cool car in the driveway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Well, the US Navy could do that, of course. The question is, how much would it cost. In war, there is risk.
That answers the question as to why spend the lives and money. There is always risk involved in protecting ones nation and way of life. Would you not pick up a weapon to protect your family if a robber broke in? They may have a gun and shoot you but would you just lie down and wait for the attacker to come to you which would definitely lead to certain harm of you or your family? That is the risk, and saying why waist lives and money with trying to project the power of a nation if there is risk involved would be just like lying down and waiting for your certain demise.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
03-23-2012, 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Spade View Post
Yes I noticed the word "real". A real war between two superpowers will be devastating for both sides regardless. Though having a superior mobile air force is going to be a huge advantage. The US has the biggest mobile air force in the world with several layers of protection of not just the ships in that picture but as well as several different types of aircraft and several different types of antiaircraft, antimissile and antismallcraft protection.
Yes, but my argument is that all this is still too vulnerable for the cost of the ship, so that the US Navy would have about as much use for them in WW3 as it did for Battleships in WW2.

Quote:
Yeah, and we are not at war with NATO or the Dutch. Several times when I was deployed we had other nations ships and subs around with us. We took pictures of them just as they did of us because, well, don't you check out your neighbors cool car in the driveway?
These photos serve as proof in maneuvers that the opposing side in the maneuver has just lost a ship.

Quote:
That answers the question as to why spend the lives and money. [...]
As I wrote: For beating down vastly inferior powers (which Iran is, although not as inferior as previous... targets) they are good tools.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
03-23-2012, 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Yes, but my argument is that all this is still too vulnerable for the cost of the ship, so that the US Navy would have about as much use for them in WW3 as it did for Battleships in WW2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
As I wrote: For beating down vastly inferior powers (which Iran is, although not as inferior as previous... targets) they are good tools.
Well then what do you suggest that we use then? Right now the war is in long range attacks with aircraft or missiles. Whoever has the longest reach, wins. As I can see it the only way to get those aircraft to where they need to be is via aircraft carrier. Its either get out there and do something or just sit back and watch as you are conquered. Though, a handy transporter pad big enough to beam them over would be nice!


Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
These photos serve as proof in maneuvers that the opposing side in the maneuver has just lost a ship.
Not to mention a mock fight is way different than a real one. When you feel the true grip of and enemy on you, you tend to perform better. Also these are old pictures. Technology has advanced since.


I do see the validity of old tech versus new tech though. An example is when my old F-14A squadron VF-41 "Black Aces" back in 1981 was taken on by two Libyan Su-22 Fitter-Js. The two Su-22s were shot down in a matter of moments by the two F-14As after the two Libyan fighters shot at and failed to hit the two US fighters. Why? The F-14 was the new big bad toy on the block and had better tech.

Now, there are some examples of old tech being better in some respects to newer tech. For example, yes the F/A-18E&F "Super Hornets" have much better computer technology in it versus the F-14A "Tomcat" but the F-14A can out maneuver and out run the F/A-18E&F.

We can also examine mock fights (even though IMO the data is not as reliable due to the pilots not actually fighting for his or her life) that my squadron has done with its F/A-18Fs against older F-16Cs. In the several mock fights our squadrons F/A-18Fs lost most of them.

New technology is not always better than old but there is validity that new technology has an upper hand overall. Now if you go back in time far enough then yes, the old tech does not stand a chance.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
03-23-2012, 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Spade View Post
Well then what do you suggest that we use then? Right now the war is in long range attacks with aircraft or missiles. Whoever has the longest reach, wins. As I can see it the only way to get those aircraft to where they need to be is via aircraft carrier. Its either get out there and do something or just sit back and watch as you are conquered. Though, a handy transporter pad big enough to beam them over would be nice!
[...]
I suggest to not make war against anyone in the first place. :p

Should that not be possible (i.e., when attacked), build air bases where you need them, when you need them, and have the means to do so quickly. Air bases will be cheaper and unsinkable, meaning it takes much more effort to make them unusable.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
03-23-2012, 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
I suggest to not make war against anyone in the first place. :p
Ideally, yeah I would love that, but that will never happen. Humanity is greedy. Where there is a person in power that wants more power there will always be a war started to grab more power. Humanity can be ruthless. When there is a person in power that is adamant about wiping out a people (eg Hitler, Pol Pot, ect) they will strive to wipe them out and in turn (at least I hope) there will be someone there to stop said genocide.

Another thing to point out is that lots of people tend to make the assumption that the absence of war means the presence of peace. This is not true. A prime example is Salothhe Sar (better known as Pol Pot). We pulled out of Vietnam and people thought, "Finally! Peace!". Pulling out left Pol Pot unchecked and the result was anywhere from 800,000 to 3 million Cambodians slaughtered during his regime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Should that not be possible (i.e., when attacked), build air bases where you need them, when you need them, and have the means to do so quickly. Air bases will be cheaper and unsinkable, meaning it takes much more effort to make them unusable.
Not really. The US Air Force can only be built where they are allowed to by foreign countries overseas. The US Air Force cannot currently cover the globe, they don't have the range, hence the need for a mobile air force.


edit: Boy this sort of went off topic! lol! Sorry!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
03-23-2012, 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Spade View Post
Ideally, yeah I would love that, but that will never happen.
Of course it will! This is a Star Trek game forum, so we know that earth will be united no later than 2150, and our space fleet will have its high command in San Francisco. :p

Quote:
Humanity is greedy. Where there is a person in power that wants more power there will always be a war started to grab more power. Humanity can be ruthless. When there is a person in power that is adamant about wiping out a people (eg Hitler, Pol Pot, ect) they will strive to wipe them out and in turn (at least I hope) there will be someone there to stop said genocide.
Note, however, that in both cases you mention, no one did. Hitler wasn't stopped because of his atrocities, he was stopped because he started a war against, essentially, the rest of the world. Had he remained within Germany's borders, my home country wouldn't be as pleasant a place as it is today. Luckily, he was incredibly stupid on many levels. Sadly, not on all levels.

The point being that in the world of sovereign countries, one cannot simply start a war because one disagrees with the internal policies there, however cruel they may be. Unless we have a world government with only one standing military. Which then would have uses for some kind of aircraft-carrier-related concept, I guess.

Quote:
Another thing to point out is that lots of people tend to make the assumption that the absence of war means the presence of peace. This is not true. [...]
I agree. However: Such conflicts like the ones you mention in that paragraph can certainly not be called "a real war with two forces of a strength in the same order of magnitude", so my warnings regarding carriers don't apply there.

Quote:
Not really. The US Air Force can only be built where they are allowed to by foreign countries overseas. The US Air Force cannot currently cover the globe, they don't have the range, hence the need for a mobile air force.
Now, one might ask the question how a country that is confined to one continent and a few pacific islands needs to defend itself from attacks "around the globe" in places without any allies, but that would probably become too political, so let's leave it at that.

Quote:
edit: Boy this sort of went off topic! lol! Sorry!
The topic is loosely defined anyway.

The interesting tangent to STO now is: Why should/do they have carriers in a universe with shields and the cube-square-law? Do carriers make sense at all under STO's assumptions about space combat?

I mean, removing the assumption that carried craft can apparently be replicated on the fly and losses of fighters, drones and small birds of prey (and their crews...) are irrelevant, which is probably something that the game simplifies too much.

Is "the bigger the better" in STO kept in check by anything but the need to be present at more than one place at the same time?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
03-24-2012, 07:49 PM
Big ships make sense in an environment where it is possible to take at least one hit and survive with achievable defenses, and where increasing those defenses increases the ability to survive hits. However, when one-hit-kill weapons (e.g. post-WWII torpedoes and guided missiles) are abundant and thus surviving even a single hit is not possible without having a ship that is either unaffordably expensive or sacrifices too much firepower and mobility, the best defense is to avoid being hit in the first place (active defenses, high mobility, small target, avoiding detection, striking first).

In Star Trek, as long as defensive power is based on having the most powerful shields, and as long as energy weapons are the preferred attack method over torpedoes (thus giving higher attack power to the ship with the most energy to spend on weapons), the incentive will be to build ever-larger battle cruisers. Sure, the Defiant's warp core is unmatched in its size class, but a larger ship with a warp core that is just as large a fraction of its own size would have proportionally more power--an Odyssey-sized ship could theoretically mount more firepower and shields than a Borg cube if all internal space was sacrificed for more engine, shield, and weapon power.

On the other hand, if for example the Federation and Klingon Empire invented chronometric shields whose strength depended on being "out of phase" with normal space and thus did not grow stronger with increased power input, then this trend would reverse. Bigger would no longer be better, and being able to deliver the most hits would take priority. This would result in a shift to a "carrier" type setup with lots of small craft trying to deliver torpedoes that each have some small chance of piercing such shields.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:22 AM.