isn't the navy a waste of money?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,842
893
126
The reason the navy seems "useless" is that recent wars have been against feeble nations. That may not always be the case. A war against a strong opponent with a navy of their own....you're going to need a damn navy.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
You need the navy for, ya know, naval superiority?

see if the world could come to a conclusion that all battleships and stuff are banned, then there would be no need for naval superiority

on another note, couldn't you just make more defenses on land to defend against other people's navys?

We tried that in the 20's -- see the "Washington naval treaty". Guess what? As soon as nobody had a good navy, a few rogue states (Japan, Germany) built a navy and the whole thing was a wash.

yea i was only being half serious about the first part
i was being serious about the 2nd part about the defenses though

couldn't you just get defenses ready for the shores in case of an attack? And if the ships do come close enough to attack, you could just send out planes to bomb it?

regardless, i do see the point of a ship navy, but i also think that something has to be done about ships being easily sunk for their cost (ie: 1 submarine hit could sink a ship)

One sidewinder missile can take out an F-22.

One bombing run can take out an entire land base (or ship, for that matter).

One nuke can take out NYC.

Such is life in the world of warfare.
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
You need the navy for, ya know, naval superiority?

see if the world could come to a conclusion that all battleships and stuff are banned, then there would be no need for naval superiority

on another note, couldn't you just make more defenses on land to defend against other people's navys?

We tried that in the 20's -- see the "Washington naval treaty". Guess what? As soon as nobody had a good navy, a few rogue states (Japan, Germany) built a navy and the whole thing was a wash.

yea i was only being half serious about the first part
i was being serious about the 2nd part about the defenses though

couldn't you just get defenses ready for the shores in case of an attack? And if the ships do come close enough to attack, you could just send out planes to bomb it?

regardless, i do see the point of a ship navy, but i also think that something has to be done about ships being easily sunk for their cost (ie: 1 submarine hit could sink a ship)

One sidewinder missile can take out an F-22.

One bombing run can take out an entire land base (or ship, for that matter).

One nuke can take out NYC.

Such is life in the world of warfare.

yea but ships are much more expensive
i'm just trying to show that usefulness:cost is really low with ships. in certain ways, this is true, but in other ways (such as what So pointed out), this is totally wrong
 

KLin

Lifer
Feb 29, 2000
29,501
126
106
Talk about a completely uninformed post. Go talk to a Navy Seal about your views of the Navy and see how long you live.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,921
14
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko
You need the navy for, ya know, naval superiority?

see if the world could come to a conclusion that all battleships and stuff are banned, then there would be no need for naval superiority

on another note, couldn't you just make more defenses on land to defend against other people's navys?

We tried that in the 20's -- see the "Washington naval treaty". Guess what? As soon as nobody had a good navy, a few rogue states (Japan, Germany) built a navy and the whole thing was a wash.

yea i was only being half serious about the first part
i was being serious about the 2nd part about the defenses though

couldn't you just get defenses ready for the shores in case of an attack? And if the ships do come close enough to attack, you could just send out planes to bomb it?

regardless, i do see the point of a ship navy, but i also think that something has to be done about ships being easily sunk for their cost (ie: 1 submarine hit could sink a ship)

I think, if you actually want to defend a country, you need both. It's a lot easier to kill a million troops on boats than it is to kill on beaches.
 

l0cke

Diamond Member
Dec 12, 2005
3,790
0
0
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Deeko


One sidewinder missile can take out an F-22.

One bombing run can take out an entire land base (or ship, for that matter).

One nuke can take out NYC.

Such is life in the world of warfare.

yea but ships are much more expensive
i'm just trying to show that usefulness:cost is really low with ships. in certain ways, this is true, but in other ways (such as what So pointed out), this is totally wrong

Ships > NYC ???????
 

Darkstar757

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2003
3,190
6
81
Originally posted by: So
Do you have ANY f-ing clue how useful having the "soft power" of the ability to put a humanitain hospital and food distribution center in any disaster zone in any port in the world in a few days is? How about the hard power of being able to land marines on any beach in the world in a few weeks? How about the deterrent value of submarines that can nuke any target on the planet even if the entire US was glassed? How about the ability to stop an enemy from doing the same thing? How about the ability to do an airstrike almost anywhere without needing friendly airbases nearby? How about the value of having cruisers and destroyers to partol the waters incase of an actual naval invasion.

What the fuck were you thinking. The navy may be the best value in the military.

So I could not have stated this any better!

:thumbsup:
 

novasatori

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
3,851
1
0
not only can they do what So said, but with current and ever progressing Standard Missiles they can serve the role of intercepting ballistic missiles and other high altitude vehicles/weapons.


So, floating anti low orbit interceptors that can go anywhere to do that and all the other mentioned tasks.

Yeah, useless
 

vshah

Lifer
Sep 20, 2003
19,003
24
81
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: CorCentral
It's not the US, but you guys have to see this! Pretty Decent!
Hood vs. Bismark

Here's the song sung by Johnny Horton Sink the Bismark!

that was an awesome fight :)
are there any other computer generated battles online?

i wish they showed the rest of the story, how britain got pissed and sent more ships to sink the bismark
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: CorCentral
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: CorCentral
It's not the US, but you guys have to see this! Pretty Decent!
Hood vs. Bismark

Here's the song sung by Johnny Horton Sink the Bismark!

that was an awesome fight :)
are there any other computer generated battles online?

Here's one that's cool, but not real.

Here's Part 1

Part 2

how do you find all these cg fights?
i can't seem to find any

btw so far, that video is cool :)
 

CorCentral

Banned
Feb 11, 2001
6,415
1
0
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: CorCentral
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: CorCentral
It's not the US, but you guys have to see this! Pretty Decent!
Hood vs. Bismark

Here's the song sung by Johnny Horton Sink the Bismark!

that was an awesome fight :)
are there any other computer generated battles online?

Here's one that's cool, but not real.

Here's Part 1

Part 2

how do you find all these cg fights?
i can't seem to find any

btw so far, that video is cool :)

I got lucky I suppose, looking for Transformer stuff. I saved it.

 
Aug 25, 2004
11,166
1
81
Originally posted by: So
Do you have ANY f-ing clue how useful having the "soft power" of the ability to put a humanitain hospital and food distribution center in any disaster zone in any port in the world in a few days is? How about the hard power of being able to land marines on any beach in the world in a few weeks? How about the deterrent value of submarines that can nuke any target on the planet even if the entire US was glassed? How about the ability to stop an enemy from doing the same thing? How about the ability to do an airstrike almost anywhere without needing friendly airbases nearby? How about the value of having cruisers and destroyers to partol the waters incase of an actual naval invasion.

What the fuck were you thinking. The navy may be the best value in the military.

Haha, sucker took the troll bait.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Do you have ANY f-ing clue how useful having the "soft power" of the ability to put a humanitain hospital and food distribution center in any disaster zone in any port in the world in a few days is? How about the hard power of being able to land marines on any beach in the world in a few weeks? How about the deterrent value of submarines that can nuke any target on the planet even if the entire US was glassed? How about the ability to stop an enemy from doing the same thing? How about the ability to do an airstrike almost anywhere without needing friendly airbases nearby? How about the value of having cruisers and destroyers to partol the waters incase of an actual naval invasion.

What the fuck were you thinking. The navy may be the best value in the military.

what he said...
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,247
207
106
Originally posted by: Xylitol
okay to be honest - i see So's point
still though... those ships are so expensive, i still think it'd be a better deal to put that money into other defense groups

Does the phrase "penny-wise and dollar-foolish" mean anything to you?
 

sash1

Diamond Member
Jul 20, 2001
8,897
1
0
Originally posted by: Xylitol
I don't know much about the military / how battles work

you call out some coordinates - i.e. F7 - and your opponent responds with either hit or miss, then you proceed from there. really, battles in the navy are all about ship placement, and placing your destroyer in a hard-to-guess place.
 

TipsyMcStagger

Senior member
Sep 19, 2003
661
0
0
Originally posted by: Xylitol
besides carriers, I find that the navy is a big waste of money (the ships - not the marines / troops / submarines). the ships are so dang expensive and can get sunk relatively easily for their cost.

I don't know much about the military / how battles work, but ships just look so big, conspicuous, and bulky. If the ship gets hit and starts sinking, the whole ship of thousands has to evacuate.

The only ship that I can see as useful is the carrier, but besides that...
can someone here defend ships and their usefulness in modern wars?

I would think the other ships defend the carriers
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Name the country that has one a major conflict without dominance of the oceans.

Um, Japan, Italy, Korea, Vietnam, China, Russia, England, the Romans, etc etc. I could go on and on. It's easy to have a major conflict without dominance of the oceans. Might not be easy to win... ;)

Beside, what role a navy plays depends solely on the countries at war. Germany and France go to war. Navy? Who the fuck needs one? If America and Germany go to war then it's a slightly different story.
 

chusteczka

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2006
3,400
1
71
A carrier's greatest function is to provide an intimidating visual show of strength and superiority to foreign nations. Yes, submarines defend the carrier and the rest of the battle group. I served on a submarine during Operation Desert Storm in 1991-92 and we did a lot more than just defend the battle group. My boat was the USS Atlanta SSN-712. You can get an idea of some of the things we did by reading the provided description.

Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan introduced the novel idea in the late 1800's that control of the seas is key to a nation's economic success. He gave such lectures at the Naval War College and compiled his lecture notes into the book The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783.

Mahan believed controlling seaborne commerce was critical to domination in war. If one combatant could deny the sea to the other, the economy of the second inevitably would collapse, leading to victory. Such a fleet was not composed of commerce raiders, because raiders could not establish command of the sea, but a fleet of warships and battleships could.

Mahan's objective was a fleet capable of destroying the enemy's main force in a single, decisive battle. Afterwards, reinforcing a blockade against enemy merchant ships and hunting their remaining lighter ships would be feasible, because, with their heavy ships sunk, the enemy would be incapable of rebuilding.
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
The ships are there to keep the carrier afloat. ;)

The ASW systems are all mounted in destroyers, cruisers, and frigates.