6 ms·

Did they airlift better supplies to a floating aircraft carrier somewhere in the northern Indian Ocean recently? No.

by nwatson 18d ago

ericmay 18d ago
[flagged]
nkrisc 18d ago
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 18d ago
  There was supposed to be a base there. The Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain got flattened.
  - wongarsu 18d ago
    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
    - mulmen 18d ago
      > 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_ 18d ago
        > 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 18d ago
        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.
        estearum 18d ago
        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.
        ceejayoz 18d ago
        > 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.
    - solid_fuel 18d ago
      > 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.
    - wbl 18d ago
      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 18d ago
        > 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-carrier-lincoln-port-visit-79d29834422823c3a5b52f3c01f5d050 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 18d ago
        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 18d ago
        > 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.
        sofixa 18d ago
        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.
    - vkou 18d ago
      > 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 18d ago
        They hit back on 9/11 and it caused a panic that is still ongoing.
        lostlogin 18d ago
        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 18d ago
        The USA, to fight the democratically elected government of afghanistan.
- lostlogin 18d ago
  > war zone But the US won and have and have a peace agreement. Several times.
nwallin 18d ago
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.
- CobaltFire 18d ago
  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.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 18d ago
  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.
psunavy03 18d ago
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.
mapt 18d ago
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.

Did they airlift better supplies to a floating aircraft carrier somewhere in the northern Indian Ocean recently? No.

by nwatson 18d ago

Did they airlift better supplies to a floating aircraft carrier somewhere in the northern Indian Ocean recently? No.

ericmay 18d ago

[flagged]

nkrisc 18d ago

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 18d ago
There was supposed to be a base there. The Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain got flattened.
- wongarsu 18d ago
  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
  - mulmen 18d ago
    > 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_ 18d ago
      > 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 18d ago
      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.
      - estearum 18d ago
        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.
      - ceejayoz 18d ago
        > 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.
  - solid_fuel 18d ago
    > 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.
  - wbl 18d ago
    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 18d ago
      > 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-carrier-lincoln-port-visit-79d29834422823c3a5b52f3c01f5d050 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 18d ago
        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 18d ago
        > 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.
        sofixa 18d ago
        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.
  - vkou 18d ago
    > 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 18d ago
      They hit back on 9/11 and it caused a panic that is still ongoing.
      - lostlogin 18d ago
        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 18d ago
        The USA, to fight the democratically elected government of afghanistan.
lostlogin 18d ago
> war zone But the US won and have and have a peace agreement. Several times.

nwallin 18d ago

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.

CobaltFire 18d ago
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.
tgsovlerkhgsel 18d ago
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.

psunavy03 18d ago

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.

mapt 18d ago

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.