https://youtu.be/-2ZC8wyp44w Your thoughts, /k/?

>>33759251
Losing a carrier would be pretty fucking bad, but keep in mind that there's 10 in service, with at least two more on the way

>>33759302
it's easy to destroy carrier

>x is vulnerable to y
>therefore obsolete

Tis' be a silly video

>>33759392
It's easy to destroy a tank, better get rid of those.
It's easy to shoot down a plane, better get rid of those.
It's easy to kill a soldier, better get rid of those.

>>33759302
Keep in mind that "only" having 10 nuclear carriers means that only two are active at any one time and every 8-16 months there is a carrier gap where only one is deployed.

Ideal US naval doctrine is for 16 carriers with a MINIMUM of 11, which was how it was until Enterprise was retired early before Ford was ready.

Of course this whole thing could be avoided if we could just use something like the America Class as a conventional powered strike carrier like the rest of the world to plug gaps.
But we don't because if they were successful some cockgobbler in congress might question why we even bother with Nuclear carriers because they are clueless morons.

>>33759251
I cam here to post the same. I'm wondering if it's accurate. I understand that the carrier represents force projection by allowing the air assets to strike inland targets, but couldn't the same be done with Tomahawk Destroyers and subs?

>>33759411
Great job not watching the video or understanding its points lol

>>33759896
Good job being a mongoloid.

File: 1313821567818.jpg (9KB, 285x249px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 285x249px

>>33759980
>destroy a tank, lose ~$6 million dollars and 5 men
>destroy F-14 lose ~$38 million and 1 pilot
>destroy Nimitz class lose $6.2 BILLION, over 6,000 sailors, and possibly additional hundreds of millions in planes

Totally the same thing

>>33759392
Maybe if it's all by itself, but we have ships specifically designed with the sole purpose of protecting carriers.

> df21 meme
> too expensive
> swarm boats meme

Jesus don't they know that carrier is in fact a CARRIER STRIKE GROUP, with multiple ships, operating very fucking far from the coast

And firing DF21D at carrier is begging for nuclear retaliation

>>33759251
>carriers are designed for an older era of warfare, between states of comparable power
>carriers wouldn't do well against Russia or China

Well, which is it? Seemed reasonable to me until he said that.

>>33760498
The scenario he references with the small boat swarm was a carrier strike group "17 ships sunk including one carrier"

File: Carriers VS SUW.png (72KB, 937x686px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 937x686px

>>33759888
>but couldn't the same be done with Tomahawk Destroyers and subs?
Orders of magnitude in difference of effectiveness. Pic related is some pasta from an old thread I wrote about replacing carriers with Zumwalts and Burkes.

>>33761374
Ah, that's actually a pretty good rebuttal. I wonder if this means smaller, perhaps more numerous carriers would be in order. Granted, I imagine the engineering required to build a proper landing strip on a boat requires a specific size but...

>>33763219
that's why the marines have amphibious assault ships, which will soon be able to launch F35Cs

we just don't call them carriers or congress would start getting cute

>>33763219
>I wonder if this means smaller, perhaps more numerous carriers would be in order.
It depends on what you need them for, but in general fixed wing aircraft carriers seem most efficient at the 70,000t plus displacement as far as endurance, magazine size, number and type of aircraft efficiently carried/operated and maximum advantage of workforce/O&M cost/refit economy of scale.

Aircraft carriers are one of the only exceptions to the rule that there is a sweet spot as far as size and displacement on SUW naval ships, and it is generally large enough to have all the necessary sensors and weapons systems but small enough and with as many hulls as possible to spread out damage risk and coverage area. For instance, one single arsenal ships with 480 VLS cells, 5 LAMPS choppers, etc. would be in almost every way operationall inferior to having the equivalent 5 Burke class destroyers with their collective 480 VLS cells, 5 choppers, etc. 5 ships may be spread out, detached, escort different groups, etc. The only possible metric where it would make sense is total build, manning and maintenance costs, though the fact that you would need MORE total arsenal ship hulls to cover the same responsibilities regardless of loadout further sinks that advantage.

CONT

>>33763219
>>33763423
In both cases, you make the judgement of the minimum force/sensor/armaments level each vessel in a class must possess (say 96 VLS cells, a LAMPS chopper with hangar, etc. for a Burke) to accomplish its stated missions plus a margin for unforeseen events and changes in the threat landscape. Then you build as many as possible to cover as much as possible. This is as opposed to designing the biggest, most badass ship possible but being able to cover much less overall.

For the USN, for instance, this minimum force level for a carrier is currently 4 strike squadrons, an EW squadron, 3-4 fixed wing AWACs birds plus UNREP and rotary aircraft, and the hull must have minimum 6 month deployment endurance. It also must be able to take on and operate at least two more squadrons of strike fighters during war time or emergency. This means the minimum acceptable tonnage for a CVN comes to 90-100,000 tons, with nuclear power and a CATOBAR flight operations system.

>>33763422
>which will soon be able to launch F35Cs
You mean F-35Bs. F-35Cs will never operate off LHD/LHAs.

>>33763436
my mistake

>>33761374
>>33763219
Oh, and excuse the combative tone of that pasta; it wasn't meant for you. It was written in the middle of a heated debate with an anon who remained unswayed by logic and fact, and thus is somewhat acerbic.

>>33759302
>there's 10 in service
We had over 100 at the end of WWII.

>>33763694
>We had over 100 at the end of WWII.
71 of those were slow, limited CVE (Escort Carriers). We only had 28 total Fleet and Light Carriers (only 24 of those were Essex class), at the height of the largest naval size and relative power level any country in the history of planet earth had arguably ever achieved. Also consider that a single Nimitz class is over three times the size of a WWII Essex class carrier.

In terms of area covered (strike, AA, ISR, etc.), capability and mission capability, a single Nimitz is a Death Star compared to a WWII Essex.

>>33763814
>at the height of the largest naval size and relative power level any country in the history of planet earth had arguably ever achieved
Got curious, looked this up. Holy shit.

USN force levels, 1945:
>28 CV, 9 CVL plus 62 CVE
>23 BB, 4 of which were arguably the best BB class ever built
>72 CA and CL
>738 DD, DE, FF and other escorts
>232 SSK
>586 MCM
>1,204 Patrol
>2,547 Amphibious
>1,267 Auxiliary

>833 total surface warfare ships
>1,164 total commissioned warships FF or larger, not including Amphib, MCM or patrol
>6,768 total active ships

The next largest was the RN (many of whose hulls were American built):
>55 total Carriers, only 7 Fleet Carriers (all smaller than Essex class), all the rest Seaplane carriers, Merchant Carriers or Escort carriers and all but the CVs mostly American built
>15 BB
>67 CA and CL
>308 DD, DE and other escorts (36 US built)
>142 SSK

>390 total surface warfare ships
>587 total warships

From 1939 to 1945, the USN gained a net (commissioned minus losses):
>8 BB
>23 CV
>71 CVL or CVE
>36 CA or CL
>611 DD, DE, FF, etc.
>178 SSK

From 1939 to 1945, the RN gained a net:
>0 BB
>48 carriers, almost all US built CVEs and Merchant Carriers
>one single Cruiser
>124 DD, DE, FF, etc.
>102 SSK

Jesus Christ, America.

>>33764184
>From 1939 to 1945, the RN gained a net:
>>0 BB
>>48 carriers, almost all US built CVEs and Merchant Carriers
>>one single Cruiser
>>124 DD, DE, FF, etc.
>>102 SSK
Oh, and of those 124, you can figure in the 42 Town Class DDs that were US built, 6 of which were lost. So net gain for DD, DE, FF, etc. without US hulls was 88 total.

>>33764184
Yeah we have a tendency to.....sperg out....when it comes to war. Im sorry I have to let this out...

FUCKING WAR NORMIES GET THE FUCK OFF THIS PLANET REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 1477684372801.png (228KB, 738x673px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 738x673px

>>33764232

>>33764232

do you think you're fitting in or something?

>>33759251
I'm not watching some youtube shit so you tell me your own opinion and then we'll talk.

>>33764258

Do you?

>>33759766
>Two active at any one time
Why

>>33764319
Ignore him. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

>>33759766
>Of course this whole thing could be avoided if we could just use something like the America Class as a conventional powered strike carrier like the rest of the world to plug gaps.

The marines are doing just that.

http://i.4cdn.org/k/1493135847558.png

>>33759251
I don't see the point he is making. Any country that can or has an actual chance of sinking a US carrier would already find itself in total war beforehand. A single carrier lost during a war with Russia or China is not the end of the world. No one can unironically compare Middle Eastern wars with Russia or China vs the US.

In fact, I think if anything maybe the US ought to move away from "WE CAN NEVER LOSE A SINGLE SHIP" because it'll happen in a relevant war either way.

>>33764409
Also, I feel like this dude completely ignores any Strategic components. Why does he think Iran will even be given the chance of getting within range of a US carrier? Why does he think Iranian missiles will even be able to launch after the sites got bombed to shit beforehand?

>>33759302
Is true that all carrier strike groups must have at least one submarine; to protect against subsurface threats?

>>33764553
>must

There is no hard and fast when it comes to carrier groups.

That said, yes, then almost always have a sub assigned based on what we know.

>>33764473

Because "MUH SWARM BOAT TACTICS", which is what Iran champions constantly with speedboats. The problem is that we found out that attack helos are capable of disintegrating swarm tactics. Something that not many people are aware of, and a lot of those who push the swam boat narrative try to pretend isn't the case.

>>33764566
I get hard when I see joint combined carrier fleets in international exercises. Reminds me of the good ol days where carrier groups were 20+ ships.

>>33763494

DESU, I think we should move to building a shitload of America-class ships (or ships like them), and endeavor to replace the Burkes a safer alternative. The Zumwalt is a great technology testbed, but it has already been relegated to Seawolf status. What I want is the Navy to start bringing back the Battlecruiser. With the 1st Gen railgun trials set to go underway soon, by the time construction of a new battlecruiser started they would probably be on 2nd or 3rd Gen railgun (based off the Navy's planned timeline). Which would allow for the placement of many, extremely large guns that are supplanted by missile cells. Even better would be to start seeing more and more drones aboard carriers. They're perfect for each other.

>>33764595
Now that you say it, why isn't there a carrier based attack helicopter? All I can think of right now are ASW.
No need, I suppose?

>>33764670

The Wasp-class and America-class carry Vipers and SuperCobra's.

>>33764692
I see, never thought about it before.

File: tmp_512-220px-US_Navy_020304-N-0894C-002_USS_Kennedy_-_SH-601475306419.jpg (11KB, 220x157px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 220x157px

>>33764721
>>33764692
>>33764670
SH-60 carries 8 hellfires. That's plenty.

>>33764668
>I think we should move to building a shitload of America-class ships (or ships like them)
The lack of fixed-wing AWACS makes this a non-starter. No matter what you do, you need a platform for fixed wing AWACS in every AO. It's the lunchpin of the whole OTH sensor network.

File: 1937324736-.jpg (31KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1024x512px

>>33764739
>Using a $120k missile to do a job a $28k missile can do.

kek

>>33764892
You can make do with f-35 sensors.

See >>33764352

>>33764899
Hellfires have much longer range, are faster, don't need a laser lock, can launch multiple, fire and forget, fly faster, much larger payload.

APKWS is cool but it's not as nice as a Hellfire and there are more spam boats then just what Iran have.

>>33764905
No, you really can't. For one thing, AWACS operates as a high-bandwidth node for AEGIS, MADL and Link-16 datalink processing and distribution.

Even the USMC/USN are still flirting with an AEW&C V-22 variant to go with the future V-22 tanker variant for the Americas.

There's also the lack of dedicated EW aircraft without the Growlers.

From a pure combat power standpoint, you would need FOUR Americas to equal one Nimitz-worth of combat aircraft squadrons on a war footing, which, looking at prices, makes the overall capability over twice as expensive.

>>33764905
t. someone who has no clue how AO level AEW&C actually works

>>33764950
Oh, equal to a Nimitz for sure, but that's not how they intend to operate the CV-L

>>33764963
I am well aware of the E-2 capabilities, I just misunderstood the post in question.

>>33764964
Tells us how that is, then.

Protip: neither the CV-6 or CV-7 will ever operate in Lightning Carrier loadout anywhere outside of a Nimitz or Ford's E-2D or growler radius in a serious threat environment.

>>33764986
>CV-6 or CV-7
my bad. LHA-6 or LHA-7.

>>33764986
>>33765000
Don't take my word for it. Look at the linked pic, or read http://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portals/11/Documents/2017%20Marine%20Aviation%20Plan.pdf?ver=2017-03-23-102943-260

>>33764950

It isn't always just price though.

One of our most pressing concerns is the time it takes to replace ships/build new ships. 9 years for a carrier is pretty ridiculous. Even 5 years (lol) is still way too long.

>>33765058
Did you seriously just take a FIC ship and say it will always be built like this?

JFK was laid down in 05 and will be launched this year. 2-3 years for a 100k ton ship is not bad at all.

>>33765057
I have both seen that pic and read the link. The Flight I America hulls were NEVER meant to operate as independent CVLs. They still carry significant Amphibious and ground command facilities, not to mention a hospital after all.

They are meant to supplement CVN fixed wing strike numbers, especially during long duration conflicts like the last 15 years, and help fill gaps caused by deployment/refit/refuel cycles in the big flat tops. But primarily they are meant for AIR ASSAULT. That is, they're meant to perform low-support initial invasion and beachheading on inland countries (like, say, Afghanistan) and support those initial operations as flagship of an MEU.

There is NOWHERE in any literature which suggests either the USMC or USN considers them as replacements or stand-ins for CVNs. It's a totally different capability mix and mission. They will make excellent light carriers, especially when/if they get the V-22 tankers and AEW&C variants. But they will never replace CVNs in any real capacity.

>>33765092

The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetched that if you believe Huntingon can stick to this timeline, I've got a bridge to sell you. Expect two year delays.

>>33765058
>9 years for a carrier is pretty ridiculous.
First in class. Also, if you'll pay attention, the build schedule is designed to accomodate Nimitz class ships as they finish their service lives and retire. Go look at the Nimitz class wiki page, and look to see how long it took each to commission. You'll find a 4-5 year gap between each. There are reasons for that, everything from spacing out the refit/refuel/deployment schedule properly to keeping proper shipbuilding skills and facilities working and staffed.

>>33765147

And yet, as pointed out in this very thread, we don't have enough carriers.

>>33765134
Uhhh, when I said the JFK was launching this year, I meant it. It's nearly done in drydock. They are set to do the final superlift.

>>33765134
Nimitz took 8 years from laid down to commissioned.
Eisenhower less than seven. All the rest a bit more than six.

Virginia took 5 years.
Texas just over 4.
The most recent VA took just over 2 years.

Seawolf took 8 years.
Connecticut only 6.

Etc, etc.

>>33765182
We are a single hull behind on the Congressional minimum. Blame the fall of the Soviet Union and the dumbass "Peace Dividend". We're back on schedule now. By 2022 we'll have the minimum 11 again.

Building at a slow and steady pace is by far the best thing for sustainable O&M and shipbuilding industry for large, very high cost ships.

>BREAKING: Chinese state media say China has launched its 2nd aircraft carrier and 1st domestically built.


Why is China building more if they're obsolete?

>>33765119
My original post was in response to a post earlier that said "Of course this whole thing could be avoided if we could just use something like the America Class as a conventional powered strike carrier like the rest of the world to plug gaps", which the marines are 100% doing.

I never said, nor meant to imply, that the America could be a direct replacement. Just a stopgap, a strike carrier.

They do intend to use them without CVN cover though, and as apart of the arg, along with joint CVN ops.

Look at the mission set in the flight order. It has every big deck carrier Op assigned to an F-35...oca, dca, dead, oas, isr, the works.

>>33765185
>>33765196
>>33765216

Alright, listen, I am going to boil down why I don't like the length of time it takes and relatively small number of carriers we have (despite their effectiveness): China.

China is literally shitting carriers left and right now. I don't give a fuck if they are technically inferior to ours, what matters is the volume of them. If they can produce a lot of them, and can threaten us with their own - while we can only produce one every few years, it's a problem guys.

Either this necessitates a step-change in our naval strategy (coming up with a way to trump carriers) or building even more carriers. Those are more or less the only two avenues available to us.

>>33765271
>China is literally shitting carriers left and right now. I don't give a fuck if they are technically inferior to ours, what matters is the volume of them. If they can produce a lot of them, and can threaten us with their own - while we can only produce one every few years, it's a problem guys.
You're missing the fact that we still commission more surface warship tonnage every year than the PLAN. Also the fact that for current Chinese carriers to equal a Nimitz, they'd need to build 3 for every one of ours, and they'd still be lacking fixed wing AEW&C. Furthermore, if you think they'll still be able to build at the same rate once they move on to their clean sheet CVN CATOBAR designs, you're completely off your head.

Our Nimitz class ships alone out-displace the ENTIRE current PLAN. The Ticos and Burkes by themselves actually come close to doing the same. Think about that a moment. The Chinese not only have to build carriers at a rate 3 times ours, but they also have to make up a huge starting disadvantage.

>>33765271
>what matters is the volume of them

Spoilers: you can't have a large volume of ships if you have unsustainable O&M costs.

Sticker price means nothing.

>>33765271
The US is still putting out more tonnage than the PLAN per year. Calm down.

There is an entire thread explaining why the nu loaning is shit in the catalog, BTW.

>>33765271
>China is literally shitting carriers left and right now
Lolno.

>>33763694
one modern carrier can wipe out all of them

>>33759888
Tomahawks can't crater runways.

>>33759392
It is incredibly difficult to sink an aircraft carrier. You'd pretty much have to fucking break it in half.

>>33766909
They STILL haven't released footage and detailed results from the USS America SinkEx in 2005. Shit makes me curious as all hell. They pounded her for 30 days with simulated torpedoes, cruise missiles, suicide VBIEDs, bombs, etc. all to evaluate and test hull design ideas for the USS Ford class. Really makes me wonder what they learned.

>>33764184
>Jesus Christ, America.

Yeah. We don't know what the upper limit is, either. We were still spooling up for maximum effort when the war ended.

>>33764258
He's doing a splendid job, too.

You strike me as the kind of person who tells people to act like an adult.

>>33767078
From what I can tell, in a six years plus two months we commissioned or built for the RN over four times the tonnage of the largest standing navy in the world in 1939 (the RN) in warship hulls. That's not even counting the even more insane auxiliary, civie merchant hull, patrol boat and amphibious/troop transport hull/tonnage numbers.

Apparently, during the very worst month of the war for Allied shipping in the Atlantic, the U-Boats didn't even overcome the production rate of new hulls, and sunk just under 5% of total shipping. Fucking. Insane.

File: neSXo5L.jpg (743KB, 2048x1339px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 2048x1339px

>>33764184
Royal Navy world war losses visualized

>>33767034
Don't get your hopes up. That's one topic that really needs to remain secret for a few decades.

>>33767078
That's not exactly true--we actually started canceling future production towards the end of the war, particularly for ships and aircraft, because we were expected to have more than enough to last us the rest of the way.

Note that we also trained 100,000 pilots in ~3 years, at which point trainees started getting transferred to other branches.

>>33764184
>23 BB, 4 of which were arguably the best BB class ever built

There's no "arguably" about it, the Iowas were hands-down the best battleships ever made. You have to go back to the South Dakotas to find a battleship that other countries could match up against.

>>33767360
I don't doubt it. The curiosity still tickles my balls worse than my last bout with the crabs, though. Almost as bad as waiting to learn what the F-19/F-117 looked like.

>>33761374
>Zumwalt only carriers SM-6
What did he mean by this

File: [DeadFish] Hitsugi no Chaika - 01 [720p][AAC].mp4_snapshot_02.04_[2014.05.12_22.47.51].jpg (62KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1280x720px

>>33759251
>mfw China is building hundreds of autonomous underwater drones that will be able to hunt these down and sink them anywhere in the Pacific
>mfw the rule of the US in the Pacific is over

>>33767434
Where does it say that anywhere in that pasta? I only used the SM-6 for AA coverage comparison because it is the longest ranged SAM we currently deploy or will in the near future. SM-2ER range is only 100nmi, as opposed to 250nmi for the SM-6.

>>33765332
>nu loaning
is that what we're calling it now?

>>33767445
>>mfw China is building hundreds of autonomous underwater drones that will be able to hunt these down and sink them anywhere in the Pacific
How?

File: tmp_30863-images(4)2008117845.jpg (10KB, 299x169px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 299x169px

Even with all the bullshit that the US and USSR pulled during the Cold War how many times did either side shoot an anti ship missile at the other side's capital ships?

Didn't happen, because that would trigger nuclear armageddon and no one wants that. The rules of MAD still haven't changed and China isn't going to sink a carrier, not because they can't but because they don't want to start a nuclear war.

>>33767447
>SM-6 longest ranged SAM we currently deploy
What is SM-3

>>33767581
>What is SM-3
A ballistic missile intercept SAM, not a standard long-range fleet air defense SAM, you retard. It's not designed or used for intercepting aircraft or cruise missiles and it has a kinetic kill payload instead of a 140lbs blast fragmentation warhead, like on the SM-6. Two completely different roles.

You fire an SM-3 at a jet, you might punch a mighty big hole in it, but your chances of an outright kill are much lower than blowing up an SM-6 warhead right next to it.

>>33767621
Adding a clause to your statement after you've said it doesn't make you any less wrong friend

SM-6 is not the longest range USN deployed SAM by far

>>33767904
Oi. Dumbfuck. For the air defense equivalent of what CAP for a carrier air wing does, it most certainly is.

SM-3 intercepts ONE type of thing, and only one, and it's the only thing in the fleet that does.

But fine. Say we go with your autism and use the SM-3 instead for some completely dipshit reason. You know what it changes in the overall evaluation? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. Carrier-based fixed wing CAP STILL kicks the shit out of it in range and coverage.

In short, kindly go fuck yourself.

>>33767904
>Tomahawks aren't the longest range strike missiles in the USN
>because Trident II SLBM
>hurr durr

Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound right now?

>>33766909
I also like how somehow the assumption is that if the carrier does get sunk everyone on board will die.

>>33767917
lol that salt

Do your research nex time buddy

>>33768374
And all of the embarked aircraft go down with it, too.

>>33759251
I honestly think people overlook the fact that carriers carry aircraft with ranges longer than the missiles that may hit the carrier. The first line of defense the carrier group has is at the edge of the range of its aircraft, if the enemy gets closer there is something wrong anyway and that's why the carrier is escorted by a lot of other ships.

Also anything that can hit the carrier beyond the range of its aircraft is usually subsonic cruise missiles that can be detected. It's not like US sends their strike groups without expecting any attack against them. In the end it's all about who's better at pointing things from long range.

>>33764184
I believe there 36 Essex class carriers planned too.

File: Happy_FDR.gif (287KB, 465x664px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 465x664px

>>33764184

ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY

>>33760753
Wasn't this the same scenario in which the OPFOR commander totally cheated and mounted missiles to ships that couldn't even carry them and simulated more Exocets than even exist?

>>33772082
The bigger issue was instantaneous travel times and magical ISR (intelligence, surveillance and recon) for his side; he had units moved around and knew things about his opponent that would be impossible in a real scenario.

You can argue that he was just making a point about the threat environment having significantly changed, trying to make the DoD sit up and take notice of threats we've traditionally more or less ignored by showing that in the right conditions they could wreck house. However, it's been blown so far out of proportion and misreported over the years that everyone with perspective on the matter is sick of hearing about it.

>>33772143
I disagree.

The biggest issue was the blufor being completely unable to fire on the grey ships. As in, they knew they had missles but the software would not allow them to fire on non red ships.

>>33760158
>if something CAN be killed, it shouldn't exist

>>33772082
>>33772143
Oh, and there's also the small issue that even though Van Ripper was absolutely right to criticize the scripted nature of the exercises and fuck with them to shake things up and try to get real training value out of it, he also used MC2002 as some sort of calling card to enhance his career and beat the dead horse through death and continue beating the shambling zombie that resulted.

>>33772168
ISR is always the biggest problem against the USN for an OPFOR. Getting close enough to get continuous, good tracking on US assets while getting it communicated back to dispersed asymmetrical assets is a huge bitch. If you can't get your ships in range without getting pinked from 100nmi beyond your range by aircraft, you're not going to get anywhere with your missile boats.

Actionable and timely ISR is the first and largest hurdle. It was for the Soviets, it is for the Russians and Chinese, and it definitely is for any asymmetrical force looking to go big game hunting.

>>33772214
>Van Ripper was absolutely right to criticize the scripted nature of the exercises and fuck with them to shake things up and try to get real training value out of it
>exercise to test if a computer system worked

Stop being an apologist for his bullshit.

>>33772280
>Stop being an apologist for his bullshit.
Someone couldn't be fucked to read the entire post.

Also, you don't drop $250 million on a live exercise with tens of thousands of people involved just to test whether or not a computer system works. Not even the military wouldn't want to also get some training value out of it.