> then it becomes a duel between longer range assets
if you're fighting a war with a country that has long range assets, it's most likely a country with nukes

maybe but not necessarily, and not necessarily that many

if so, then it wouldn't be a conventional war

the chinese and russians have always planned to open up with nuke strikes at the carrier groups

since the 70s

CSGs are not meant to fight a war against the chinese or russians

not in today's world anyway

both countries are part of the nuclear triad

with 1st and 2nd strikes capabilities

their time is past, they are zombies

ARG same problem, within only a few hundred million in weaponry

and for some odd reason, we keep canceling airdroppable armor assets, which I think might be treaty related on the low

the marine version would be LSTs or similar, which we barely have

cus the quantity is too limited

not to mention it takes a long time to prepare the cargo for drop

well i mean that's why you buy them, we used to during pentomic army

that was Gavin's whole thing

perfect example are seaplanes, where are they lol

navy used to have thousands plus tenders

Look at what happens to us when 'friendly' countries don't allow us to overfly or use their facilities, etc. it's a mess

seaplanes are not aerodynamic enough to surpass standard jets in terms of dog fights

maybe hyroplanes

for certain mission profiles

not for dog fighting

gazillion other things, and they could do alright if built for it

win on quantity with fox3s and just pray if they get closer

but that's back to my earlier point, navy carrier wing now is mostly imitation of air force fighter wing, and we've lost the "Enabling assets" in navy terminology

Every ten years, somebody brings up idea of just building cargo plane with rotary launchers for fox3s, but it's too politically incorrect so they have to ignore it. just like EFOGM on land back in 70s

a strike group is basically a swiss army knife

it's meant to be the capable in most things

without having to invest in multiple assets that needs to be organized separately

yea but it's moving the other direction, and teh ships are getting bigger and costlier, which brings the Pentagon Paradox again

multi role is usually a scam unfortunately

how are the ships getting bigger

battleships are no longer in use

they are, look at what we call 'frigates' today

and destroyers

what we used to call cruisers are destroyers now, etc

down the line

but more so than size, is COST, which sets into motion the paradox

especially with PGMs being what they are today, it's the opposite way to build. you are going to lose ships, so you have to organize to expect 10-20% losses, cheap and capable as you can get them, saturate to counter pgm threat, plus decoys