| ▲ | nwatson a day ago |
| Did they airlift better supplies to a floating aircraft carrier somewhere in the northern Indian Ocean recently? No. |
|
| ▲ | nwallin a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Aircraft carriers are not particularly well suited to be supplied by cargo aircraft. The largest cargo aircraft with the strengthened landing gear, arresting hook, and catapult attachment used to be the C-2 Greyhound. It had a range of approximately 1,500 miles with a 10,000 pound cargo. It was retired on July 28th, 2026. The C-2 has been replaced by the CMV-22B Osprey. It has a range of only 1,150 miles and a more limited cargo capacity of only 6,000 pounds. 6,000 pounds isn't nothing, but it's not a lot either. There's not a lot of stuff within 1,150mi of the Arabian Sea. Your two options are one of the US bases in the southern Persian Gulf (Kuwait is too far) and Diego Garcia. Neither are ideal. In both cases you're doing a transfer out in the field. On the other hand, the C-5 Galaxy can carry 120,000 pounds to a range of 4,800 miles. You can fill it with food in the continental US, fly to Hickam AFB in Hawaii, refuel, and fly the rest of the way to Guam. On the return leg, an unladen C-5 can fly directly to the 22nd Airlift Squadron's home base California without a layover. The C-17B Globemaster is smaller than the C-5, although it's nearly as capable. With a 160,000 pound cargo, it has a range of 3,200 miles, (the C-17A has a shorter range) which is just short of the 3,800 miles to get from Hawaii to Guam. I don't know how much cargo it's capable of carrying 3,800 miles, but on the order of 100,000 pounds is a reasonable guess. It is also capable of an empty flight back to the US without a layover. |
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The relevant phrase is underway replenishment (aka UNREP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment It's been the basis for at-sea supply of long-endurance ships since ~1910 when refueling oil became a key blue sea naval requirement. Modern example: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/kzncvGBj-88 Mostly tensioned cables carrying hoses (liquids especially fuel being the highest volume / limiting factor), some palletized transfer over cables, and some helicopter lift (because the flight pads/decks are already sitting next to each other while everyone is waiting for fuel to finish). | | |
| ▲ | Tangurena2 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've watched some videos showing UNREP and they're fascinating. It takes a lot of skill to keep the ships parallel. There was a collision earlier this year between the resupply ship and the recipient. Analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSYl9y3e944 Also, the Navy is using Ospreys to resupply submarines at sea because they have the range and helicopters don't. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Also, the Navy is using Ospreys to resupply submarines at sea because they have the range and helicopters don't. Afaik, modern submarines handle terribly on the surface, so I imagine direct ship-to-ship UNREP is rare. Also, too much cost risk from a collision. Per YouTube, it's mostly vertical replenishment. Helicopter for short range. Osprey for longer. Floating pallets pushed out of the back of a C-17 at max range. I'm sure the packing is intricate for something that's going to be air dropped, then floating, then has to be broken down on an unstable floating platform and conveyed inside through small ports! |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Spot-on and thanks for sharing that video too. Aircraft carriers aren't really designed to be replenished by large aircraft which would instead be used to replenish sites like Guam with large enough runways and, frankly, the need if something went wrong due to the population size, remoteness, and inability of everyday residents to do anything about the situation. |
| |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It was retired on July 28th, 2026. Why does it seem like the US always retires useful hardware and replaces it with less useful hardware? The complete lack of frigates in the US navy is another example of this. | | |
| ▲ | nwallin an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Another pending example is the 2035 retirement of the E-3 AWACS and its replacement by the much less capable E-2D. There are/were other more capable options on the table, including the E-7 and the E-10, both of which have been canceled. | |
| ▲ | juvoly 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Minesweepers? |
| |
| ▲ | tgsovlerkhgsel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Osprey is air refuelable though, isn't it? Each flight is roughly one pound per person on board. It's also roughly 2800 nautical miles from Kuwait to Diego Garcia, so regardless of where the carrier group is, it should be at most a ~6 day round trip at 20 knots for a supply ship from the closest of the two. That assumes there is no way to airdrop watertight pallets of food (e.g. steel drums loaded with cans and MREs) into the water, then retrieve it with RHIBs or helicopters. | | |
| ▲ | mlyle a day ago | parent [-] | | Trying to do 4 Osprey flights per day, with refueling, for spartan resupply... is going to be tough. Sure, it's not impossible... In such a situation I expect you'd have a lot of other stuff competing with food for that lift, too, like spare parts. |
| |
| ▲ | skhr0680 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I thought it was well-known that unmodified C-130s (Look ma, no hook!) can land and take off from US-sized carriers successfully. Ergo, in a pinch, everyone will be getting their chicken nuggets and canned corn. | | |
| ▲ | mlyle a day ago | parent | next [-] | | When we had crews that had trained for it and recent operational experience with the capability, it was deemed not worth it. Trying to stand it up in an emergency now is asking for trouble. You'd have to be in a really dire situation to risk the carrier and aircraft this way. | |
| ▲ | psunavy03 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, in a pinch, you're just beclowning yourself with your utter ignorance of carrier air operations. They're not striking the entire air wing below just so one C-130 can land and take off, and that's assuming a stunt pulled by one elite test pilot was replicable by a bog-standard junior C-130 pilot. |
| |
| ▲ | CobaltFire a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not really relevant but a fun anecdote: I can't speak to how much cargo was on board, but I did a Hawai'i to Guam leg on a C-17B that was carrying palletized cargo. One of my better Space-A experiences. Crew was great, flight was smooth. I preferred it over the KC-135 leg, despite the more spartan conditions. The aircrew let us toss out sleeping bags and packs in the aisles between cargo and get some sleep. | |
| ▲ | fifilura 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Use a ship. | | |
| ▲ | trhway 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | better the best of both worlds - flying boat like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper Giving how static bases (including airstrips) have become vulnerable, i think we may yet to see those flying boats coming back as a way to support Navy fleets which historically were relying on the static bases. | | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | That could be a different navy concept if surface carriers go extinct. You could have submarines and (possibly submersible) seaplanes, and submarine-launched UAVs. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nkrisc a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Surely airlifting supplies to a carrier in a war zone is not totally comparable to airlifting supplies to a base in a US territory? |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There was supposed to be a base there. The Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain got flattened. | | |
| ▲ | wongarsu a day ago | parent [-] | | That explains why resupply doesn't work as well as in peace time But at the same time, it's not like that came out of nowhere. If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist | | |
| ▲ | solid_fuel a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist Have you seen the people responsible for planning right now? They're more concerned with posting AI generated memes on twitter and scoring bigotry points than managing a foreign conflict. | |
| ▲ | mulmen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist. Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it because the costs would have been obvious. In other words the only way to start a war with Iran is to have no plan for it. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it Not only that, but it was already that way for ~40 years, where past presidencies all knew and documented why it was a stupid idea, didn't press the stupidity-button, and mostly worked towards better options. | |
| ▲ | Gollapalli a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Idk, current president and general staff seemed to be very against it as well. Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > current president and general staff seemed to be very against it as well Gosh, if only they could've stopped it! > Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor. The only head of state assassinated in this conflict was Iran's. | |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mega copium. All Trump needs is a little dangling of glory and publicity and he'd oink like a pig if he thought it'd earn it. Pathetic creature. Netanyahu tried the same schtick he's done for 30 years of POTUS's, just now we have someone retarded enough to fall for it and a party that allowed him to be surrounded by sycophants. You should just admit you voted for a retard and pay your penance to your countrymen and species. |
|
| |
| ▲ | vkou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Americans make war on other people, other people don't make war on Americans. It's one of the reasons why they are so eager to do so. 'The other guys might hit back' doesn't even register in the cultural psyche. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf a day ago | parent [-] | | They hit back on 9/11 and it caused a panic that is still ongoing. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm no shill for the US, but that's a hot take that's too simplistic by far. Eg who armed the Mujahideen? | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | The USA, to fight the democratically elected government of afghanistan. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wbl a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You'll notice that the aircraft carrier continues sortie generation. What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed not the enemy constraining our freedom of action through force. Not to say it's great: it sucks to be on the ship for this, but if Hezbollah murdered 3,000 Americans the shortage wouldn't make the news amid our invading Iran. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > You'll notice that the aircraft carrier continues sortie generation. No, it doesn't. It's now in Thailand for R&R, then back to base in the US, because of this issue. https://apnews.com/article/thailand-singapore-us-aircraft-ca... > What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed… Right. We're being too restrained. That's some Vietnam War era cope you're huffing. | | |
| ▲ | wbl a day ago | parent [-] | | In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing: we can't depose the Iranian government without a land invasion (which is too costly) and nothing else keeps them from having control of the strait. | | |
| ▲ | lazyasciiart a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing Yes, that is the point everyone has been trying to make. | |
| ▲ | Tangurena2 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US was fighting the wrong war in Vietnam. The Vietnamese wanted independence since the 1920s. The US didn't. The French didn't (the second time). The Japanese didn't. The French didn't (the first time). | |
| ▲ | ericmay 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not really the same thing. I really do not at all understand why folks see any sort of military intervention that isn't over in 5 minutes as "the next Vietnam". Venezuela was going to be the next Vietnam too. It's like "the next 2008" all over again espoused as a traumatic, quasi-religious point of view. Rather interesting from a cultural evolution standpoint - seems to be that some folks can't shake a trauma so they just keep going back to it even when it's no longer important or relevant for current decision making or situations. The public being against the war is just about where the comparison between the war in Iran and Vietnam loses meaning. The United States doesn't need to depose the current Iranian government on its own. An economic blockade could do that, or at worst simply deprive the Iranian government of the means to financially carry out war. As Iran is now finding out, the Strait wasn't quite the leverage that they, and pundits and internet commentators thought it was, and now the US isn't even interested in negotiating which is causing Iran to lash out. It'll be a slow, but certain death to the economy and such an event and blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those in charge of Iran and their idiotic and undemocratic beliefs. The world can't be held hostage and won't be. Though of course the fact that the United States yet again has to go police the world is a bit like a reservoir that slowly refills. There's only so much we're going to be able to do and we're seeing ongoing populist MAGA and DSA backlash against the war. The next crises the US may not be able to respond to politically and then we're in relationship trouble. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > An economic blockade could do that, or at worst simply deprive the Iranian government of the means to financially carry out war. This sounds like the sort of "quasi-religious point of view" you're slamming, considering it's been tried repeatedly already without great success. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it doesn't sound like that. We haven't ever tried this level of economic isolation with Iran. The closest would be North Korea. If you wanted to attempt to make it sound as though I was parroting a quasi-religious point of view, you would want to argue (which I haven't because it's incorrect) that I'm looking at what happened with North Korea (a regime that exists to terrorize the world thanks to communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union) and that I'm saying all blockades or economic sanctions will work just like that, which is, of course, nonsense, just as comparing Iran to Vietnam today is. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The closest would be North Korea. This is your best example? The now nuclear power that's resisted the approach you advocate since the 1950s? See? Quasi-religious. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | No that's incorrect - what would be quasi religious and similar to this obsession with Vietnam would be for me or someone else to use North Korea's economic isolation as an example in the same strong fashion. I'd encourage you to re-read my comment to see how I drew that distinction. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How’s that working against Russia? | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pretty well I think? Are you up to date with the Russian economic situation? Or are you suggesting the EU and US stop sanctions since they aren't effective? |
|
| |
| ▲ | sofixa 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly, which makes this a stupid war to start in the first place. Also, to be clear, a land invasion isn't "too costly". It's suicidal because we're talking about a massive country that has been preparing for decades, has a terrain advantage and literally more than a million fanatics ready to die for the regime. You'd need millions of soldiers deployed, and are looking at some Operation Downfall level expected losses. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not suggesting we should even consider invading Iran - mostly because we don't need to, but these numbers you are throwing around seem a bit off the mark without either a time horizon or some other qualifier. Also... a million fanatics ready to die for the regime? Maybe. Maybe some of them value their lives. We've dealt with fanatics multiple times whether that's Japanese willing to die for the emperor or Muslim extremists throughout the Middle East trying to get their 72 virgins. Nobody in the US is scared of dealing with fanatics. Been there, done that. Iran is more mountainous and the terrain is a challenge but the major population centers aren't hidden in bunkers in the hills. Iran is also not landlocked, and unlike, for example, Afghanistan, we would be dealing with a population that has familiarity with the modern world and has at times even protested en masse against the current government of Iran. Again, none of that is to suggest we should or politically could "invade Iran", and of course I don't think it's necessary to achieve any of our goals, but let's not put Iran on a pedestal either. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed We can all agree on your opening. | |
| ▲ | fn-mote a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > if Hezbollah murdered 3,000 Americans the shortage wouldn't make the news ?? What does this even mean? It seems to come out of nowhere. Is it a reference to some event?? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > war zone But the US won and have and have a peace agreement. Several times. |
|
|
| ▲ | mapt 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Carrier resupply while underway is primarily by a sort of temporary cable tramway erected between the carrier and the resupply ship. Supercarriers came into existence at ~70,000t and transitioned to ~100,000t. You'd need to scale another step up or three, to 140,000t, 200,000t, or 280,000t, in order to see something capable of landing and taking off a cargo-laden C-130 in regular operations. |
|
| ▲ | psunavy03 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're just revealing your ignorance of Navy supply chains with this comment, and I say that as a veteran who has no support for the ongoing shitshow, only sympathy for my former colleagues trapped underway. |
|
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
