Carrier Strike Group 1

Now this has been center of attention for a few weeks now due to the rising tensions. However I doubt that if conflict actually does break out, this would not be the only American Naval group we would see conducting operations

Other than the Regan Carrier Group, what else should we expect to see come steaming towards Korea if things continue to Escalate? Can we expect to see a SAG or two, or possibly am Marine Amphibious Assault Group and its respectivd escorts as well?


I also think it is important to note that the USMC combat ready F-35B squadron is currently deployed in Southern Japan, and would no doubt be one of the assets that would take part in Day 1 attacks.

So /k/, what do you make of the assests being moved towards the pacific? How effective would they be?

File: 1479618047594m.jpg (77KB, 1024x479px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1024x479px

I'll continue to self bump with pictures and points of conversation until this thread gains traction

I always figured that a typical CSG has 2 Ticos and at least 3 Burke's, is this relative decrease in escorts because of the Vinson previously meant to head towards Australia, and not originally intended to *possibly* conduct combat operations?

Although there are now two Jap Destroyers accompanying the Vinson, I still feel that its somewhat more vulnerable than usual

That is not to say that NK has a chance of actually getting through the defensive screen, I'm well aware just how formidable this Flotilla is even in reduced capacity, just surprised is all.

Theres probably some pretty heavy sub escort or nearby
Plus, the real risk from the DPRK is...what, exactly? A minimally targeted and easily mitigated nuclear threat? Land based AShMs?

>>33763055
Let's say all diplomacy breaks down and the US is forced to act

I dont think that the Norks themselves would be any meaningful threat. I feel they will be made an example of by America for anyone who tries to directly challenge the US in today's day and age

I feel a lot of the resources would be invested into making sure no nosey Chinese or Russian Sub gets too close to the carrier or other valuable asset in hopes of getting well images acoustics, or something along that train of thought

File: 1485012771889.jpg (33KB, 988x599px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 988x599px

Also, are there any F-22 Squadrons based near Korea?

The thing about invading Korea is dealing with the refugees who will be immediately starving and going through amphetamine withdrawals because they rely heavily on the government for what little they get.
In this way the DPRK is essentially holding their own people hostage because there is no way we could get in enough aid in to save them while fighting is going on.
The war will generate more refugees than Syria with less infrastructure to support them.

ROK forces pushing North are going to be overwhelmed with people and the Chinese border probably will be as well and who knows how China will deal with that.
Either way it's going to be a field day for war reporters and finger pointers because shit loads of people are gonna die no matter how efficiently DPRK forces are dismantled.

The best time to invade would be while farmers fields are almost ready to harvest before the government takes it.

>>33763103
>I dont think that the Norks themselves would be any meaningful threat.

Except that they could kill tens of thousands of South Korean civilians per hour in the opening days of the war.

>>33762916
>I always figured that a typical CSG has 2 Ticos and at least 3 Burke's, is this relative decrease in escorts because of the Vinson previously meant to head towards Australia, and not originally intended to *possibly* conduct combat operations?

The size of the navy was drastically decreased under Obama, forcing the size of individual Carrier Strike Groups to decrease with it. In the 90s to the Bush-era, a CSG would include 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, a frigate, and 2 SSNs. Today, they usually consist of a cruiser, 2 destroyers, and an SSN. The USN lost its entire frigate fleet in the 2009-2015 period.

>>33763979

Why the fuck have we never come up with a rapidly expandable occupation force to deal with refugees/insurgencies?

They don't have to hike over mountains like human pack-mules, or face sustained combat, they just have to occupy populated areas and keep them pacified, so standards can be extremely low.

Use Civil Affairs as a cadre force, populate the ranks with peace corps types, discharged vets, unemployed, etc. They could form twenty divisions within months.

>>33762763
>It is safe to assume that another Ohio/Virgina/Seawolf is shadowing the group, or is enroute to join the flotilla in days time
At least. Most likely a VA and a 688I with one of the Seawolfs and another VA loitering on either side of the Nork half of the peninsula. That'd be minimum force levels for a surface group this size in that threat environment.

>>33766881
>The size of the navy was drastically decreased under Obama, forcing the size of individual Carrier Strike Groups to decrease with it. In the 90s to the Bush-era, a CSG would include 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, a frigate, and 2 SSNs. Today, they usually consist of a cruiser, 2 destroyers, and an SSN. The USN lost its entire frigate fleet in the 2009-2015 period.
This is flat incorrect, or at least the implication is incorrect (muh king nigger fucked it all up meme). Also, you're full of shit on CSG composition. For instance, for it's 2005-2006 deployment, CSG-2 had two Burkes, a Tico and an attached Spanish Álvaro de Bazán FFG.

The sub gap between retiring Sturgeons and now 688s and building VAs has been known about, worried about and planned for since the early 90's. The cancellation of the Seawolf boats set those plans back a decade. By the way, boats 4-12 were cancelled in 1992, under H. W. Bush.

The OHPs were retired because they were well beyond shelf life, lacked VLS cells and AEGIS, lacked even missiles for their launchers (which were removed under W. Bush) and were pretty much useless except as an ASW platform (though with dated hardware and processing) and a hanger for a LAMPS III chopper. By the time Obama took office, 2/3 of all OHPs had been decommissioned and sold off, scrapped or used in SinkEx drills.

If the USN lost total number of ships during Obama, it was because of choices made primarily during the dumbassery of the "Peace Dividend" years under Clinton, but also both Bushes. Nuclear submarines, for instance, retire when their fuel is up. You can't just slap a bandaid on it, tweak some gear and send it back out. No, you have to spend about a third the price of a new boat to refuel it and you have to ask yourself if that's worth it for a 30+ year old 688 class boat when you're building a new Virginia class every 10 months.

>>33767649
A part of me really want to see this cluster of ships responding to inbound vampires. Fucking missile madness would be epic

File: amuse.png (134KB, 323x241px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 323x241px

>>33762763
>giant 69 on the deck

>>33767684
>were cancelled in 1992, under H. W. Bush.
Just checked that. It was later in the year, not in H W's outgoing business but in the budget review later under Clinton.

>>33767684
>Also, you're full of shit on CSG composition. For instance, for it's 2005-2006 deployment, CSG-2 had two Burkes, a Tico and an attached Spanish Álvaro de Bazán FFG.
This. Stennis deployed with CSG3 in 2005 with two Burkes and a Tico with a single 688I. In 2007 it lost the 688I and picked up a Burke.

For Valiant Shield in 2006, Roosevelt only had two Burkes and a Tico.

In 2004-2005, Eisenhower (CSG-10) had, you guessed it, two Burkes, a Tico and a 688I.

For the 2005 deployment, Nimitz and CSG-11 had the same - two Burkes, a Tico and a 688I.

And so on and so forth. Sometimes they get an extra Burke, and sometimes (like Eisenhower in 2007-2008), they get seriously beefed up and might have 3 Burkes, 2 Ticos, a 688I plus an attached foreign major combatant.

Kind off topic but I read recently that EMALS was supposed to be installed on USS Bush but wasn't ready. Any truth to this?

>>33767754
No

File: F-35 absolution.jpg (52KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x360px

>>33762860
>I also think it is important to note that the USMC combat ready F-35B squadron is currently deployed in Southern Japan, and would no doubt be one of the assets that would take part in Day 1 attacks.
Can't fucking wait

>>33766881
Obama is such a worthless fucking nigger

>>33767883

>>/pol/

>>33762763
The thumbnail made me think he was pissing on it from a helicopter.

>>33763257
>Also, are there any F-22 Squadrons based near Korea?
There are F35s in Japan.

dont 404
This thread has so much potential

File: 1480474438751m.jpg (93KB, 1024x855px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1024x855px

Live damnit
LIVE!

>>33763257
Last I heard, there are 4 F-22s in Japan

>>33763979
Not sure why we didn't JDAM the military parade the other week. All leaders in one basket

>>33762763

so he has sent the armarda?

but dont u need troops to clear thier troops?

and dont they have a million soldiers or something daft?

so as a show of force-- is this likely to worry NK? not likely i would assume

>>33769958
As much as the Norks deserve it, things would be a lot simpler if they give us a proper excuse. I'm kinda hoping for a repeat of the 2015-shelling just so we can go in and steamroll the whole fucking place with a good excuse

>>33770068
There are around 29,000 US troops on the peninsula that are permanently mobilized and 50,000 stationed in Japan that are on alert to deploy to the peninsula in less than 2 days. On top of the 500,000 ROK troops already there.

That's more than enough to hold Best Korea at Bay untill more reinforcements arrive

bumparino

This is an interesting thread

If shit goes down I wouldn't be surprised if the Lincoln went to join them, even though the current crew is lacking in any kind of sea experience.

File: 1477751218425.jpg (39KB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x390px

Bump again

>>33762763
Thought the guy was pissing on the carrier in OPs pic

>>33771954
I actually don't understand the physics behind carriers.

How in the fuck is it that they don't capsize? They must have insane amounts of weight aloft. Can someone educate me? What do these things have in their keels that keep them from capsizing, a million years of service worth of reactor fuel or something?

File: fish.jpg (443KB, 1008x756px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1008x756px

>>33762763
>It is safe to assume that another Ohio/Virgina/Seawolf is shadowing the group, or is enroute to join the flotilla in days time
It'll be either a Virginia or 688. BNs and GNs(Ohios) are too loud, they maintain a pretty good distance. Seawolfs consist of the Carter, which would never be involved in this sort of mission, and the Seawolf and Connecticut, which don't do a whole lot except cannibalize parts to keep the carter operational.

Pic related.

>>33763979
Chinma would welcome the breeding age women and girls: it would help with the demographic timebomb they face. The males would be put in camp and probably end up being used as dirtcheap labour. China could absorb part of North korea as a buffer zone and turn the rest over to SK or form anew puppet regime. There's still a sister who could be used as a figurehead if they want continuity.

>>33772308
>What do these things have in their keels that keep them from capsizing
Well, for a nuclear carrier:
>a few thousand tons of AVGAS
>a few thousand tons of stored fresh water
>several thousand tons of seawater ballast in tanks which can be pumped fore and aft, starboard and port to trim the ship
>several thousand tons of reactor shielding alone, much less the weight of the reactors, heat exchangers and turbines themselves
>several thousand tons of propulsion gearing, shafts, screws plus ditto for each rudder
>several thousand tons of munitions in magazines
>other miscellaneous stores
>also the densest part of the ship in weight structurally

You'll also not that the ship is very carefully balanced port to starboard as far as structure - the starboard island is offset by the angled ramp overhang and deck park to the port, for instance.

>>33762763
Why are there no non-American Western assets with them?

>>33763055
Nork subs are probably their best defense in this situation. They may be shit but they have alot of experience with them. They even took out a SK warship a few years back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

>>33772677
>Why are there no non-American Western assets with them?
Because it's the Pacific and the Aussies can't be fucked to show up for much more than RIMPAC? I can't remember the last time a British, French, German, Spanish or Italian major warship was that far east outside of RIMPAC. Probably before the GWOT.

>>33772753

Aussieland probably doesn't want to paint a target on their ass. Why do you think lil Kimmy was threatening to missile at Australia the other day? Because that's one of the only US-allied nations in the area that isn't already protected by BMD systems, see? And it'd be swell if we didn't have to scramble yet another THAAD or multiple Patriot batteries to Aussieland, just to be safe, you know?

Besides, the Aussies have their own SAS, and those are the lads that pitch in most of the contributions Rooland contributes.

>>33772446
>>a few thousand tons of AVGAS
For their Skyhawks? You're thinking JP-8.
>>a few thousand tons of stored fresh water
They have reverse osmosis desalination plants, one of the perks of a reactor, so they can save the space for other shit.
>>several thousand tons of reactor shielding alone
I'm pretty sure they don't have meter thick depleted uranium walls for shielding. Remember there's always an acceptable level of radiation exposure, especially in the work spaces.

File: ccnoice.png (55KB, 789x680px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 789x680px

>>33772753
no point sending one of our shit frigates, they're weak as piss and would do nothing but trigger the chinks over some SCS bullshit

File: Ijn_cv_kaga.png (36KB, 840x370px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 840x370px

>>33772308
>How in the fuck is it that they don't capsize? They must have insane amounts of weight aloft. Can someone educate me? What do these things have in their keels that keep them from capsizing, a million years of service worth of reactor fuel or something?

This has always been a problem since the first carriers were built. Every nation solved the problem differently, with differing results. The Brits armored the flight deck of their carriers for protection, but all that weight high on the ship really limited the possible hangar size/capacity because of that very issue. America's carriers made the floor of the hangar the strength deck (the deck reinforced to hold the ship's sides together) and made the deck light superstructure. That kept the topside weight down and let them carry many more planes, at the expense of armor protection. Japan also dealt with this issue - see attached picture. Note where the AA gun tubs are on each side of the flight deck? Now look at the side profile, and you can see that they've got big "posts" that anchor on the lower decks to support them - that's because the hangar walls aren't thick/strong enough to do it, because they were doing everything possible to keep topside weight down.

Modern super-carriers can fit more weight up top (in an absolute sense) largely because they're a hell of a lot wider, which gives them more stability, but even modern carriers are carefully engineered to keep topside weight down, and make sure all the really heavy shit is deep in the bowels of the ship, which also grants them more protection.

>>33767582

Sounds like a job for UN peacekeepers

File: 1432168539232.jpg (70KB, 344x364px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 344x364px

>>33772969

Hmm. I wonder where your submarines are.

You know, those rather large, capable diesel boats of yours that keep giving us conniption fits in every joint exercise?

>>33772933
>For their Skyhawks? You're thinking JP-8.
Been listening to Pop saw too long about his days in. Sue me.

>>33772933
>They have reverse osmosis desalination plants, one of the perks of a reactor, so they can save the space for other shit.
There are significant reserves in case of reactor incident both to keep 5,000 people alive and for direct cooling injection if necessary.

>I'm pretty sure they don't have meter thick depleted uranium walls for shielding.
It's lead, water and steel. And the shielding alone for the two A4Ws masses more than most 4-story buildings.

>>33773001

DEFINITELY not recording acoustic signatures in the scs again :^)

File: whofarted.jpg (169KB, 991x657px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 991x657px

>>33773001
i have no idea how far out they go but they're too slow to keep up with a carrier group

>>33770314
it's really not. There are videos of the units stationed in korea talking about how they would be dead long before any forces arrive simply because the norks have too many people stationed on the boarder for them to stop no matter the skill and technology.

>>33773295
While probably true in some cases, it's also worth noting that what is said for public consumption and what surprises are laid out for visitors come calling might be two very different things when considering the tactical realities of something as public as the 38th.