-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Deployment of F/A-18F
- Thread starter JAC01
- Start date
Fewer ships in the present day CSG than previous CVBG. My battle group in early 90s had the boat, 1 Leahy CG, 1 Belknap CG (both were SM2-ER shooters), one Tico, 2 Spruance DDs, 2 Perry FFGs, 1 Sacramento AOE, and 2 LA SSNs. Rather than just power projection ashore, it was literally a battle group capable of going toe-to-toe w/ a Soviet SAG at sea.
and here I was certain that Talk Like a Pirate Day wasn't until 16 SEP 2006
B
Blutonski816
Guest
You don't have to talk like an idiot to be a pirate... take Guybrush Threepwood, Mighty Pirate, for example....
IHTFP
Terrorists Conspirators are EVERYWHERE
After the brainwashing and utterly worthless Strategy and Tactics course here at USNA, I'm still utterly unqualified to answer this question. But my understanding is that in the Global War on Terror, since the name of the game is no longer making the Russkies look horribly ill-prepared for a war at sea, the name change to STRIKE group is supposed to reflect the new mission of Carriers; putting lots and lots of warheads on bad guy foreheads. For whatever reason, Battle Groups sink other carriers, Strike Groups put bombs through windows.
It's also supposed to sound more aggressive. Whereas most assets in a Battle Group were sort of intended to defend the Carrier and it's air wing (destroyers hunting subs, cruisers firing SAMs), more of the assets of the Strike Group are also capable of joining in the strike missions. With Leahys and Belknaps gone (nobody else here at the Boat School knows what those are anymore, by the way), Ticos, Burkes, and the Improved Spruances (even if they're going away) can all carry TLAMs.
I guess it sort of makes sense. The old Carrier Battle Groups were meant to Battle their way to the Kola Pennisula. The new Carrier Strike Groups are meant to Strike a bunch of tents in the sandy parts of the world.
In summary: Battle Group + more Tomahawks - some Harpoons = Strike Group + NAMs for some staff LTs
Yes, I got an A on strategy and tactics. And I hate myself for it every night when I fall asleep in my rack.
It's also supposed to sound more aggressive. Whereas most assets in a Battle Group were sort of intended to defend the Carrier and it's air wing (destroyers hunting subs, cruisers firing SAMs), more of the assets of the Strike Group are also capable of joining in the strike missions. With Leahys and Belknaps gone (nobody else here at the Boat School knows what those are anymore, by the way), Ticos, Burkes, and the Improved Spruances (even if they're going away) can all carry TLAMs.
I guess it sort of makes sense. The old Carrier Battle Groups were meant to Battle their way to the Kola Pennisula. The new Carrier Strike Groups are meant to Strike a bunch of tents in the sandy parts of the world.
In summary: Battle Group + more Tomahawks - some Harpoons = Strike Group + NAMs for some staff LTs
Yes, I got an A on strategy and tactics. And I hate myself for it every night when I fall asleep in my rack.
Finally, soemone to say what I was thinking. This thread no longer makes any sense.:icon_roll
The battle group had just as many Tomahawks. The Spruance DDs (those that hadn't already been converted to VLS) carried armored box launchers on each side of the forward ASROC launcher. Those converted to VLS had a mix of Tomahawk and vertical launch ASROC instead (~45 Tomahawks per ship). W/ 2 Spruances per BG, that's ~90 TLAMs (if loaded without TASMs) not counting what the Tico was carrying. Essentially, you've got the same number of missiles available now with Ticos/Burkes vice Ticos/Heavy CG or CGNs/Spruances, just on fewer platforms is all.