Yes, you are right, I'm an idiot. With 60 odd Arleigh Burkes and 20 odd Ticonderoga's and 10 CVs, how many carriers groups will you actually have that are 30-35 ships. Really. And no, adding a experitionary strike unit doesn't count. Nor does counting logistics train i.e. auxiliaries.
Here we go. I told you, I'd just stop at where I was at with this discussion. This is my last post on this subject as I don't get into a measuring contest with people, especially, the one's who don't know something all the way. Your posts are an example of that. So allow me to give you some details and then I won't respond to your post as you have that mentality (like our Indian friends on here), where instead of learning, you'll go to the last extent to defend your argument even if you were wrong. Anyway, here is some detail for you:
1) The USN doesn't reveal its true force unless it is at a war with a similar adversary. Many nations have missiles, don't you think the Soviets and the Chinese have been watching our CBG's for decades, to learn their size and numbers, etc, for a future war? So during peacetime (which the world's been at since the fall of Russia, referring to Russia as the "Cold War", when the entire USN used to be out with majority of the force, still not full). So the CBG "strength" you keep referring to, is for patrolling purposes only and it is not real and it changes too a lot.
2) There are over 230 commissioned ships in the USN with weapons. Then there are the reserve ships (combat one's, but not on missions and waiting to be added in case the reserve force is required). This number doesn't include support vessels (and non-commissioned one's) that are also roughly around 175 (some plus minus is allowed as I am not up to date on it for the past 1 year). But the grand total for the USN ships was over 450-ish if you include all of them.
And majority of these ships become a part of the 10 (11-12 expected CBG's, one to two can be make shift by using VTOL aircraft by re-purposing heli-carriers). So 30 ships * 10 = 300 ships, and 35*10 = 350 ships out of the 450. How cool is that number close to what I was trying to explain to you earlier?
. This number doesn't include the littoral defense ships like the US Coast Guards, etc, etc.
3) There are over 70 ships in various development or pre-development stages to join the force in the next 5-10 years. Majority of these ships are next gen combat ships. The number was going to grow, but a different doctrine is being adopted so the number might grow slightly or stay at 70 for new combat ships.
There is a bigger push to add hypersonic drones and missiles and Lasers through Satellites and various other means (aka, the Robots). So if you can strike a target and take it out with 100% precision in less than 5-10 minutes across the globe. Why do you need to mobilize a CBG which might take weeks or even a month.
I have indicate a carrier group has E2C Hawkeye. But your Burkes and Tico's AN/SPY-1 radar range is limited by earth curvature, just like any other radar. Trust me, our Dutch LCfs with Thales Smart-L can detect and track ballistic missiles as well at many many miles out, just not at sea level at that distance. There may be other radars in the group: you tell mie which ones are capable of looking around the bend of earth curvature. To the best of my knowledge the USN CSG doesn't employ floating OTH-B radars. Finally, if anyone here has been talking about CEC and NIFC-CA here, and how that enable ships and aircraft (E-2, F-35) as well as ships and ships to work together, it has been me. So, it is kind of silly for you to be barking about that to me, really.
So really, you have no idea about what radar's exist and how a CBG works in the USN missile defense shield (see the bold part above from your post). So, if I have to tell you, then what are you arguing about? Argument finished then right? I'll just tell you as you asked
. Why the back and forth?
There is a vast network of radars the US has, with many other classified and non-classified sensors, way beyond what you have listed here and can imagine. The Hawkeye's are to support their assigned CBG and so is the SPY series of radars in AEGIS. They do share data but their core focus is their area of responsibility and not beyond that primarily.
But again, this is where a total lack of your understanding comes in. You don't understand the basics of how the missile shield works. You think there is an SPY radar that tracks missiles and bam!! interceptors are fired. If this was that easy, the French, the Britts, the Australians, the Chinese, everyone would have their own missile shield. I'll stop at that. I am not here to educate you as you were sounding like an expert which clearly isn't the case.
Yes, the withdrawal from US service of SM1 missiles is also the reason why USNs Perry class ships lost their Mk13 firing arm in 2003. SM1 as such remains in use only by non-US Navies. Really. It is irrelevant whether or not US reused SM1 components to make other missiles.
If it is irrelevant that the US is using SM-1 with upgrades, then why did you bring this up? Trying to manipulate the readers heads by making "points" but yet extracting yourself out of further details from me? It won't work on me. The reason you ended this para with "its irrelevant" is because you brain knows you don't know much about this subject so its trying to protect you from getting called out again on the carpet. Man, I am in your head and I know how you think, without ever knowing you. How cool is that
Nice overview but irrelevant. And you got that from visiting this URL:
http://theinfolist.com/php/SummaryGet.php?FindGo=Rim_66 Standard
Another example of brain manipulation and to impress the readers without substance in your content. I don't even know this site and have never been to it. Even with the link provided above, I won't click it as I don't need to.
I have learned something in my life, you learn something every day. And when you do, you don't write these defensive posts, you thank that person. I think I'll give you that advise today. No more responses from me. Peace!
. Reading your post and seeing the diagram clearly tells me you visited some website vs. knowing actual details and read up on AEGIS without understanding the total complexity involved.. A CBG has many radars, both high powered and lower powered (LO-HI) for various purposes. It can detect stuff flying at 1 meter above the surface and as high as stuff in the space, supported by OTH radars capable to look deep into Russia from Alaska. Which gives an additional 1000+ miles coverage to the USN operating within that range. Like I said, you clearly don't understand the doctrine or the net-centric operations here. Now add the F-35's to it. Its super computer during flight can identify any missile launch from 800 miles away and can act like an air-born AWACS themselves, including providing a firing solution to any inbound missiles and commanding various US assets to take it out within a thousand miles./
. So much propaganda its sad.
