- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No nukes: Who wins if the Air Force and Navy were to fight each other?
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:13 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:13 pm to northshorebamaman
Lol
0
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:17 pm to weagle99
A lot will claim the Navy wins. They are wrong.
Air Force also controls space and communications. They can shut down the Navy’s ability to communicate, navigate, and basically blind them in a matter of minutes.
We all have seen how the Navy runs with those things without it they won’t find shore.
Add to that the Marines (aka Crayon eaters) getting decimated by A10s and the tide turns Blue pretty quick.
Air to air refueling gives the AF unlimited range, controlling the satellites gives them eyes.
The tomahawks mentioned by so many people aren’t worth a damn without guidance. So again AF in a landslide.
Air Force also controls space and communications. They can shut down the Navy’s ability to communicate, navigate, and basically blind them in a matter of minutes.
We all have seen how the Navy runs with those things without it they won’t find shore.
Add to that the Marines (aka Crayon eaters) getting decimated by A10s and the tide turns Blue pretty quick.
Air to air refueling gives the AF unlimited range, controlling the satellites gives them eyes.
The tomahawks mentioned by so many people aren’t worth a damn without guidance. So again AF in a landslide.
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:20 pm to Roaad
quote:
The entire Air Force would be expended trying to take down a single Battle Group.
Im more or less from your perspective but come on man.
Even if each attack platform got 100% efficiency, one shot, one kill, they’ll run out of damn ammo before downing 500 attacking birds.
And that’s also not using ammo in taking out vampires.
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:29 pm to weagle99
Air Force has better golf courses
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:31 pm to mcpotiger
Blue Angels > Thunderbirds
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:35 pm to BadAgg7
quote:
navy doesn't have any missiles?
Absolutely, but at sea they're a finite resource
quote:
no subs?
Yes, but since we're playing without nukes, again Tomahawks aboard a sub are a finite resource.
quote:
no anti-air capability at all?
USN has excellent surface to air capability, in fact the cruiser assigned to Carrier Strike Groups primary responsibility is anti-air protection, and the Captain of the cruiser is the Air Warfare Commander for the Strike Group. But again those defense resources are finite to a battle group. The fuel not only powers the aircraft, but also 80% of ships which are powered by gas turbines. In a MEU 100% of aircraft and ships are powered by fuel. Munitions, fuel, spares, and food are all supplied by Fleet Auxiliaries, and if you dont have complete control of your airspace and your water, your gonna die on the vine.
The USAF would have a distinct advantage in dispersal of aircraft and resupply. Any airport with at least a 9000 ft runway could be used. And Tomahawks dont crater runways. Those anti-runway perpetrators are all aircraft delivered, or at they used to be.
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:37 pm to weagle99
Navy wins sand volleyball. Air Force wins the golf tournament.
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:42 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
It’s a little heart warming how people take American prowess as a given.
You do realise that anti satellite activity is nothing new, and Soviets had kamikaze satellites up there before a depressing percentage of users here were born.
So.
Let’s take a look at your post again.
Do you really think they would have primary weapons systems be based on another network that would otherwise render them useless?
That I’m any real war scenario can be expected to be taken down in the first days?
Seriously?
Tomahawks don’t primarily rely on GPS. They get their general location via inertial navigation and lock it down closer to the target by firing active radar to get a terrain contour and placing them on a map.
GPS is just polish to the location fix.
I’m still chuckling at you thinking we would have so many ships equipped with a long strike weapon that becomes a million dollar paperweight if a handful of fragile and exposed satellites are damaged.
You do realise that anti satellite activity is nothing new, and Soviets had kamikaze satellites up there before a depressing percentage of users here were born.
So.
Let’s take a look at your post again.
Do you really think they would have primary weapons systems be based on another network that would otherwise render them useless?
That I’m any real war scenario can be expected to be taken down in the first days?
Seriously?
Tomahawks don’t primarily rely on GPS. They get their general location via inertial navigation and lock it down closer to the target by firing active radar to get a terrain contour and placing them on a map.
GPS is just polish to the location fix.
I’m still chuckling at you thinking we would have so many ships equipped with a long strike weapon that becomes a million dollar paperweight if a handful of fragile and exposed satellites are damaged.
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:49 pm to weagle99
Advantage AF.
Most arguments here came down to Navy besting AF fighters. However the AF has bombers, including stealth. They could take out everything except subs before they knew what hit them. So then it comes down to subs and SEALS vs the AF. Not including Marines here.
The AF also has the X-37b which we can only assume is doing shenanigans in space with satellites, as it’s runored to have a robotic arm. Why else would an arm be needed on a secret spacecraft that has flown multiple missions. Whatever it has, use it to knock out the Navy satellites amd communications which will hamper SEAL and sub efforts.
Patrol the waters with the stealth bombers and wait for the subs to surface and take them out.
Most arguments here came down to Navy besting AF fighters. However the AF has bombers, including stealth. They could take out everything except subs before they knew what hit them. So then it comes down to subs and SEALS vs the AF. Not including Marines here.
The AF also has the X-37b which we can only assume is doing shenanigans in space with satellites, as it’s runored to have a robotic arm. Why else would an arm be needed on a secret spacecraft that has flown multiple missions. Whatever it has, use it to knock out the Navy satellites amd communications which will hamper SEAL and sub efforts.
Patrol the waters with the stealth bombers and wait for the subs to surface and take them out.
This post was edited on 7/22/18 at 12:00 am
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:52 pm to Bushmaster
What about it?
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:54 pm to weagle99
From what I have seen fairly recently, the Navy would lose a good number of it's ships running into each other trying to "maneuver". Apparently, you could give a hundred airmen bassboats full of dynamite and take out a destroyer or six as well. Exactly how many anti-ship cruise missiles can one Spirit or Buff carry?.. A lot maybe?
Posted on 7/21/18 at 11:58 pm to meeple
quote:
What wasn’t mentioned (may be on subsequent pages) is that the AF has bombers, including stealth. They could take out everything except subs before they knew what hit them.
How does that B2 get from Missouri to the middle of the Pacific ocean without the KC-135 that is decidedly not stealthy and relatively easy to blow out of the sky? That tanker's going to have to set up on station and wait for the B2 just being all shiny and screaming "SHOOT ME" on radar.
Also, the F-117A has been retired for 10 years.
This post was edited on 7/22/18 at 12:02 am
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:00 am to mulletproof
quote:
From what I have seen fairly recently, the Navy would lose a good number of it's ships running into each other trying to "maneuver".
I'm frankly shocked it took 5 pages for this.
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:02 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
How does that B2 get from Missouri to the middle of the Pacific ocean without the KC-135 that is decidedly not stealth and easy to blow out of the sky?
Take out communications with the X-37b.
No refuel is needed to go 4,000 miles. How does the B-2 currently get anywhere it needs to go without being detected then?
quote:
Also, the F-117A has been retired for 10 years
Meh, it’s not needed with the B-2s
This post was edited on 7/22/18 at 12:21 am
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:05 am to BigAppleTiger
quote:
My brother is a fighter pilot with the Air Force. He went to Miramar for exercises. I still enjoy looking at his cockpit tape of his 3-0 engagements.
Well, this is bullsht
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:06 am to meeple
quote:
Take out communications with the X-37b.
The Navy still has VHF and longer wavelength radio sets. They can communicate ship to ship over hundreds or thousands of miles without satellites and can relay messages even farther. You can pick up encrypted military radio transmissions at any time using any cheap shortwave set and scanning the low frequencies.
Of course, you can't decrypt what the frick they're saying and can't even figure out if it's a voice or a data link, but you can hear it all the time all over the low frequency radio bands. The military absolutely isn't crippled if you shoot a satellite.
This post was edited on 7/22/18 at 12:13 am
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:08 am to weagle99
Air Force because they have a stargate....but seriously wouldn’t the better question be which group would emerge top dog out of all the countries special forces
Special forces units of all countries
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:10 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
The Navy still has VHF and longer wavelength radio sets. They can communicate ship to ship over hundreds or thousands of miles without satellites and can relay messages even farther.
Yeah but it will still slow them down. Besides the ships will be toast from the B2s. They can fly almost halfway around the world on a refuel. Set the refuel in a likely safe zone.
Just saying it’s not a slam dunk for the Navy.
This post was edited on 7/22/18 at 12:13 am
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:21 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
send the Marines in to hop from AFB to AFB. They wait until the Air Force takes its ice cream break, and then kill anyone to death that the Tomahawks didn't get.
I laughed until I couldn't breathe.
Posted on 7/22/18 at 12:30 am to IceTiger
quote:
Navy can't hit Minot...
Seattle to Minot about 700mi + Carrier 100mi = 800mi
F18 range 1000mi + tomahawk range 700mi = Minot destroyed
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News