No Navy officer today has any idea how to operate a multi-carrier

This is based on what exactly...?

>>31075037

What situation would actually require multiple carrier strike groups?

>>31075037
I'm sure you would do much better anon

>>31075037
>USN is a meme.

It's a welfare organisation, men and women who work in giant floating hotels, you think the average USN sailor would fare well in a modern day battle of Midway? USN ships are packed full of welfare queens who maintain and operate untried and untested technology.

>>31075067
When was the last time the Navy practiced multi carrier operations in anything but a zero threat hilux plinking environment?

>>31075138

Each carrier has its own crew.

File: large.png (256KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 976x549px

>>31075114
A war, anon. A war will require that.

>>31075150

What war would require multiple carrier strike groups operating together?

File: 1469334618060.jpg (128KB, 420x532px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 420x532px

>>31075149
Each tank has its own crew, that's why we only ever need one tank at a time

>>31075037


Russian and Chinese cant even manage a single carrier battle group because they dont have them

>>31075138
>No Navy officer today has any idea how to operate a multi-carrier group because we never practice it
is different to
>practiced multi carrier operations in anything but a zero threat hilux plinking environment

But practised or actual? Make your mind up.

>>31075186

A carrier is a fuckload bigger than a tank.

Futhermore, every carrier has an entourage of Ticos, Burkes, submarines, and replenishment vessels.

>>31075198
Whhooooosh

>>31075138
>When was the last time the Navy practiced multi carrier operations in anything but a zero threat hilux plinking environment?

Why would anyone practice in a warzone

Fucking retard

>>31075245
Not an argument

>>31075138
>When was the last time the Navy practiced multi carrier operations in anything but a zero threat hilux plinking environment?
It's all digital now and can be simulated. You don't need to use real carriers to train officers to do that sort of things.

>>31075537
>Vidya games is just like real life

File: Midway.jpg (628KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1920x1200px

>>31075245
>When was the last time the Navy practiced multi carrier operations in anything but a zero threat hilux plinking environment?
When was the last time they practised single carrier operations in anything but a zero threat etc...

>>31075037
He he. He thinks the US Navy still uses WWII tactics. Let me guess. You're either a Vatnik (lol concrete fake radars on Commie cruiser kej) or a let's bring back battleships because they look cool and I'm 14 fag. The US Navy can be crewed entirely by retards like you and still win against any comers. I'm saying this as a non-American.

>>31075037

The solution is to just make the carriers bigger so you don't need as many.

File: 1471303351348.jpg (124KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1001x1001px

>mfw I've had TACON of an AOE, CVN, and CG, while conducting RAS, FAS, and VERTREP.

>>31075130
Now as then the crisis would see people rise to heroism and fall to cowardice

If the crisis comes the people will sort themselves out, none of us knows how we will rise to meet a challenge until it is presented to us

If you think there weren't useless sacks of shit in the ww2 military you are hopelessly deluded

>No Navy officer today has any idea how to operate a multi-carrier group because we never practice it and yet, when war comes, we’ll attempt to operate multi-carrier groups and we’ll have relearn all this shit
>No Navy officer today has any idea how to operate a multi-carrier group
>we’ll have relearn all this shit

Well I'm sure the US Navy has a whole ton of documentation of how to do this that they kept. They don't just throw war plans away and other old documentation away.

They also conducted multi-ship war games during the Cold War. So I doubt they're completely unprepared.

>>31075130
Would you rather they keep using equipment that was current as of the last global conflict? After all, it's tried and tested.

>>31075704
>not doing HIFR

Stay pleb

File: Dune-box-of-pain-597x480.jpg (40KB, 597x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 597x480px

>>31075037
There's no such thing as a multi-carrier group in the USN anymore, anon. There's multiple carrier groups with overlapping coverage, coordinating ops between them. And I guarantee you every carrier officer has a pretty good idea of how to do that.

>>31075301

> readiness is lowest during an exercise.
> Weapon systems put in "practice" or "simulated" mode to prevent ND
> Planes are flying with dummy rounds and ACMI pods to record data
> There are simulated targets and contacts on radar/sonar. The radar may be off, or spoof some contacts.
> Lets put this multi billion dollar asset when it's most vulnerable where the enemy can hit it instead of a few hundred miles from Pearl/Norfolk

Anon you are literally retarded.

>>31075704
>thinking having TACON of two warships and a USNS while UNREPing is impressive

I bet you're the type who tries to get enlisted to clean up your throw up when you get sea sick.

>>31076233
>HIFR During an UNREP

bitch, HIFR is unnecessarily dangerous to begin with, it's pretty much guaranteed to result in damage to equipment and death when 2 other ships are that close by.

File: stennis_reagan_1.jpg (448KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1600x800px

Fascinating thread.

File: stennis_reagan_2.jpg (524KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1600x800px

>>31076921
Very fascinating.

>>31076754
Uh, this. We practice how to coordinate operations with other assets all the time, from land based aircraft to other ships to allied assets that don't speak English to working with other ships that aren't Navy, like Army and Sealift ships.

>>31075700
At the Size Carriers are now we don't need as many as we do. We have as many as we do because fuck you we're America that's why.

>>31075138
>When was the last time the Navy practiced multi carrier operations in anything but a zero threat hilux plinking environment?

By the same token, nobody has any fucking clue how to actually deal with a carrier strike group.

>>31075899
We've got plans on how to use LHD as the world's meanest ASW platform, so yeah, we've got plans on every conceivable combination of assets, threat and combat envroment.

>>31075228
>every carrier has an entourage of Ticos, Burkes, submarines, and replenishment vessels.

given the U.S's poor naval defense, this is a non issue for any attacker.

why are you all replying to the retard

sage

>>31076986
That's bullshit. People practice evacuation drills and swimming all the time.

>>31076986

>sneak past escorts with sub, sink carrier, disappear.

already happened in 2006 with a chinese sub.

>>31075037
Any war where we need more than one carrier strike group would just end in nukes being fired

File: brahmos-647_061915020425.jpg (63KB, 647x404px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 647x404px

>>31076986
Kys

>>31077043
>USN
>Poor defense

I'm guessing you probably believe the USN just has CIWS and 5 inch, doncha?

OP do you even RIMPAC? Also, there is very little need to operate mass fleet movements when one DDG has the CAPACITY AND ABILITY to engage multiple targets both land, air and sea AT ONCE, so why take more ships than necessary when an aircraft carrier can consist of a guided missile platform and a submarine as an effective escort when each vessel has its own set responsibilities in transiting from a to b???

Navyfag here (non American)

>>31077070
there's one major issue with that. the indians don't know how to target it. having ballistic missiles is all fine and dandy, but it's pretty much fucking worthless if you don't know what you're shooting at.

>>31077089
>Brahmos
>ballistic missile
DUUUUUUDEEEE.

>>31077112
It's purely ballistic when the engine fails to activate after the initial booster fires.

>>31077112
my bad. I was thinking of the Agnis. not the brahmos. point still stands with cruise missiles. if you don't know where your target is, you can't use it

Read books about US navy ops during ww2. Learn things!

>>31077112

>this minor mistake somehow invalids his entire point

Way to focus on trivial bullshit you faggot

>>31077059
Chinese sub tracked and recorded the entire way. Don't confuse "did not shoot it" with "did not see it".

>>31077070
Theoretical bullshit that has never actually been tested against a CSG.

>>31077246
>Theoretical bullshit that has never actually been tested against a CSG.
Ah well, I guess we'll never have anything to worry about then.

>>31077293
It's the OP's scenario. You tell me.

Am I the only one who is perfectly ok with this level of complete lack of knowledge on how shit actually works any operates?

Seriously though basic shit like Kill Chains and how they work completely escape the grasp of normal people doing these discussions.

File: 1469917217786.jpg (513KB, 1600x983px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1600x983px

>>31076968

Fascinating indeed.

File: B-2_leading_Valiant_Shield.jpg (1MB, 3000x1995px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1995px

>>31077970

So fascinating...

>>31075037
Wtf i hate the navy now

File: Flickr_-_Official_U.S._Navy_Imagery_-_CVN_75_and_CVN_77_conduct_ordnance_transfer..jpg (3MB, 3084x2467px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3084x2467px

>>31077989

It's almost like...

>>31077246

U.S naval officials reported they had no idea it was there, it was a huge deal back in 2006.


but your fanboyism is funny, guess you know more then the officers operating the group.

>>31075180
Russian, China, or Iran. For the last one it is more a matter of a fast take down then before there is to much damage to 3rd parties.

>>31078156
>Publicly admitting your way more advanced than your enemy.

1) things the military doesn't do.