America's Incredible Shrinking Navy

[JakeStarkey]

Russia and China, six times over, cannot compete equally with our naval and air forces.

Those who argue for expanded military forces are those who want your children harmed and dead in future unnecessary conflicts.

Congress is considering legislation to ban Jake Starkey from posting. Something about incitement to riot.

You have never liked being righteously rebuked for your stupidity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mushroom, the USA is not going to move massive numbers of vehicles, munitions, resources, and personnel in the future. Vietnam and Gulf II have taught us that we cannot gain our political goals in the ME or SEA through military action.

 

[Mushroom]

Russia and China, six times over, cannot compete equally with our naval and air forces.

Those who argue for expanded military forces are those who want your children harmed and dead in future unnecessary conflicts.

Actually, I am not arguing for "expanded", as much as replacing these ships which are going out of service without replacements. I have said nothing at all about "expanding", simply trying to keep the status quo as it has been.

JakeStarkey has a point. Making a personal comment shows you are stumped by it. He is correct. The US has the most dominant navy in the world by a longshot. We have what we need to protect our shores.

And will that still be the same when the last of our Cruisers retires in around 10 years? At the same time the first of the Burkes are retired?

You are missing the point, that our ships are rapidly approaching the end of their lifespan, with little to no replacements being made.

Are you in favor of putting our Sailors in harms way without ships to replace those being retired?

 

[mamooth]

And their replacements are the Burke class destroyers. But the older ships in that class are reaching their midlife, and they are not as capable as the Cruisers are.

But a flight IIA Burke can do anything a Tico could. It carries less missiles (80 vs. 96), but that's not meaningful, given that 100-plane Soviet attacks aren't a threat any more. The flight III's coming to replace the retiring Ticos will be superior in every way. The older Burkes lack the helos, but are just as capable missile shooters.

And the US Navy now has more AA missile capable ships active now than it's had at any time in history. Pretty much every surface combatant (except the littorals) in the navy is now AA-missile capable. They've been retiring Spruances, which were good for ASW and not much else, and replacing them with multi-mission ships.

Oh, it's been a damn long time since any carrier went out with 10 surface combatants. That's WWII style. It sure as hell was not the case in the 1980s, when the carrier would have gone out with a Spruance, a frigate and a missile cruiser. The nuke cruiser would have been sent out way ahead as radar picket, since it didn't have to come back and refuel.

 

[longknife]

And, one thing I didn't see in the article was referral to some of the littoral ships that were designed to be multi-tasking and can't even perform ONE correctly!

And, the navy has ships that are being kept in service by brave efforts of sailors who spend the vast majority of their time taping things together and applying temporary fixes to keep them from sinking.

Does King Barry or his sycophant Hagel care? No. The important things are drones so they can sit in the War Rooms and play video games for real!

 

[Mushroom]

Mushroom, the USA is not going to move massive numbers of vehicles, munitions, resources, and personnel in the future. Vietnam and Gulf II have taught us that we cannot gain our political goals in the ME or SEA through military action.

Inaccurate and silly political blather, givin the amount of attention it deserves.

If you want to talk military, tactics and logistics to me, I will listen and respond. If you only want to blather political banalities, talk to somebody else.

 

[Mushroom]

But a flight IIA Burke can do anything a Tico could. It carries less missiles (80 vs. 96), but that's not meaningful, given that 100-plane Soviet attacks aren't a threat any more. The flight III's coming to replace the retiring Ticos will be superior in every way.

And the US Navy now has more AA missile capable ships active now than it's had at any time in history. Pretty much every surface combatant in the navy is now AA-missile capable. They've been retiring spruances, which were good for ASW and not much else, and replacing them with multi-mission ships.

No, they can not. You are missing the very fact that they are ships of different classes.

To make it simple, Cruisers are designed to attack, Destroyers are designed to defend.

And a Tico does not carry "96 missiles", it carries 130 missiles! You are purposefully trying to compare the Type 26 (which have all been retired), and ignoring the majority of the Tico fleet, which are Type 41 Ticos.

The Arleigh Burke is all about defense. Air defense and ASW. The Ticonderogas are both defensive, but with a large offensive capability as well.

They are nowhere near the same, and the Tico has capabilities which far exceed the Burkes.

And the newest Burkes are of little difference then those built 15 years ago. But please, if I am wrong, tell me what has made the "newest" Burkes a suitable replacement for the Cruisers that are being retired.

 

[bluesman]

Russia and China, six times over, cannot compete equally with our naval and air forces.

Those who argue for expanded military forces are those who want your children harmed and dead in future unnecessary conflicts.

Actually, I am not arguing for "expanded", as much as replacing these ships which are going out of service without replacements. I have said nothing at all about "expanding", simply trying to keep the status quo as it has been.

JakeStarkey has a point. Making a personal comment shows you are stumped by it. He is correct. The US has the most dominant navy in the world by a longshot. We have what we need to protect our shores.

And will that still be the same when the last of our Cruisers retires in around 10 years? At the same time the first of the Burkes are retired?

You are missing the point, that our ships are rapidly approaching the end of their lifespan, with little to no replacements being made.

Are you in favor of putting our Sailors in harms way without ships to replace those being retired?

Our aircraft carriers are not going to "wear out" or become outdated. Even if you built an aircraft carrier right now, it would have essentially the same design. The support ships are used to protect the carrier. With technological advancements, the carrier itself can be used as a platform to deliver guided anti aircraft missiles etc. The fact remains. The US has the most dominant navy by a long stretch. We have enough to protect our shores. If other countries want to protect their vital interests, then they can spend the money. Right now we don't have the cash to be picking up the bill for everybody else.

 

[Mushroom]

Our aircraft carriers are not going to "wear out" or become outdated. Even if you built an aircraft carrier right now, it would have essentially the same design. The support ships are used to protect the carrier. With technological advancements, the carrier itself can be used as a platform to deliver guided anti aircraft missiles etc. The fact remains. The US has the most dominant navy by a long stretch. We have enough to protect our shores. If other countries want to protect their vital interests, then they can spend the money. Right now we don't have the cash to be picking up the bill for everybody else.

And let me say this one more time, loud and clear.

I am not talking about the carriers!

Although that also is incorrect. 3 of our carriers are set to retire within the next 15 years, the upcoming USS JFK (CVN-79) which is scheduled to be launched in 2020 is due to come online at the same time the USS Nimitz leaves service.

But I have been talking about the ships that escort the carriers, the cruisers and destroyers. Without defensive ships, a carrier is a great big sitting duck, a giant day-glow red ship with TARGET painted in great big letters on her flight deck.

And technology is not a solution for everything. Carriers with anti-ship missiles? Are you kidding me? Hey, let's take a $9 billion dollar ship with over 4,000 sailors on board, and try to use it like an oversized PT boat.

Yea, real brilliant. We are talking real world with real lives, not a game of Battleship (tm).

 

[bluesman]

Our aircraft carriers are not going to "wear out" or become outdated. Even if you built an aircraft carrier right now, it would have essentially the same design. The support ships are used to protect the carrier. With technological advancements, the carrier itself can be used as a platform to deliver guided anti aircraft missiles etc. The fact remains. The US has the most dominant navy by a long stretch. We have enough to protect our shores. If other countries want to protect their vital interests, then they can spend the money. Right now we don't have the cash to be picking up the bill for everybody else.

And let me say this one more time, loud and clear.

I am not talking about the carriers!

Although that also is incorrect. 3 of our carriers are set to retire within the next 15 years, the upcoming USS JFK (CVN-79) which is scheduled to be launched in 2020 is due to come online at the same time the USS Nimitz leaves service.

But I have been talking about the ships that escort the carriers, the cruisers and destroyers. Without defensive ships, a carrier is a great big sitting duck, a giant day-glow red ship with TARGET painted in great big letters on her flight deck.

And technology is not a solution for everything. Carriers with anti-ship missiles? Are you kidding me? Hey, let's take a $9 billion dollar ship with over 4,000 sailors on board, and try to use it like an oversized PT boat.

Yea, real brilliant. We are talking real world with real lives, not a game of Battleship (tm).

I poste a link in post number 52 that addresses that question.

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

[begin quote]

The answer to that question, it appears, is “no,” for at least four reasons. First, whatever weapons China may be buying, it lacks the sensors and command system to track and promptly target a carrier. Second, U.S. forces have multiple options for actively and passively impeding the effectiveness of any attack, including targeting forces ashore. Third, if a carrier actually were hit by anything less powerful than a nuclear weapon, it could absorb the damage and continue operating in some diminished capacity; it almost certainly would not be sunk. Finally, the U.S. Navy is taking numerous steps to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of its aircraft carriers, enabling them to cope with whatever new capabilities the Chinese field.

[end quote]

 

[RandomVariable]

The whole set of military hardware is out of date, out of era. We need rapidly deployable, highly armored, very flexible platforms. We also need the service members trained in such combat situations. Something like sending in a hundred of these platforms to secure an area and work with the locals to ward of aggressions of a hostile adversary. While many places of the world have gone through some of their transitional changes most have not. Such times are going to call upon America's capabilities to intervene and stabilize. Where and when that might be will be with very little warning and with potential for significant escalation in a matter of months, or weeks. The faster we can get in with a show of force the less costly the situation will be in the long run. I have seen some of the prototypes of this type of equipment so I believe the armed forces are on the right path.

The problem here is the contradiction in terms you are mentioning.

"Rapidly deployable" and "highly armored" do not go together, unless you are talking about amphibious assets that are carried by ships. You can't airlift anything without a secure air space and suitable runways. And when you are talking about armor, then it is all about logistics.

The only aircraft we have that can carry the Abrams are the C-5 and C-17, and we have less then 400 of these. And each can carry only a single tank. That is hardly "rapid", since we have to have a lot of other logistical pieces in place before the tanks ever arrive (fuel, ammo dumps, parts and mechanics, crews, and everything else).

By far it has been shown that the only way to move armored assets with everything the need to operate is by sea, via RORO ships. There are 3 of them dating to the mid 1970's stationed in San Francisco at all times for this reason (I drive by 2 of them every day on my way to work).

[img removed - RV]

In fact, our 48 ship RORO rapid deployment fleet predominantly dates to the Nixon and Carter administrations. And these are the ships we depend on to move our armor and other heavy assets in the event that they are needed.

And until the Clinton era, we typically had at least 3-4 fleets of such ships deployed at all times, with enough equipment to supply an entire armor and infantry brigade in combat for 90 days. Fly in the personnel, dock the ships and roll off the equipment.

This was designed for use primarily in Europe for a NATO-Warsaw conflict, but it was shown to work in 1990 for the Gulf War as well.

Yes, I guess I am talking about something like the RORO, updated of course. As far as the land vehicle I can't remember where I was it, I think it was in a article from the Army War College. It would not be able take heavier IED's but it would make a good squad transport. As far as the Abrams I don't know. Israel had the pride of the world, the Merkava, and one can see how effective that was in the Israel/Hezbollah War of 2006. The fundamental question is always, how does one get boots on the ground? Then what kind of equipment should they have? Support? It would be easy enough to say the world has changed and we can start scaling back the military until it finally just fades away quietly. Some power structures, either now or what will development in the future, are not going to go so quietly into that night and will take out as much as they can in the process. Even if it is the most illogical choice they could possibly make, they will make it. Organizations will flounder while the balance quickly moves past the 'easy answers' point. You can blame RandomVariable if it never happens but take my word for it, something will go wrong. (I still can't edit but it is less important that it used to be. )

 

[Mushroom]

I poste a link in post number 52 that addresses that question.

If you think that means that a carrier is safe by itself, you are delusional.

I guess the lives of the 4,000+ sailors on board mean nothing to you, as long as the ship does not sink.

Yes, I guess I am talking about something like the RORO, updated of course. As far as the land vehicle I can't remember where I was it, I think it was in a article from the Army War College. It would not be able take heavier IED's but it would make a good squad transport. As far as the Abrams I don't know. Israel had the pride of the world, the Merkava, and one can see how effective that was in the Israel/Hezbollah War of 2006. The fundamental question is always, how does one get boots on the ground? Then what kind of equipment should they have? Support? It would be easy enough to say the world has changed and we can start scaling back the military until it finally just fades away quietly. Some power structures, either now or what will development in the future, are not going to go so quietly into that night and will take out as much as they can in the process. Even if it is the most illogical choice they could possibly make, they will make it. Organizations will flounder while the balance quickly moves past the 'easy answers' point. You can blame RandomVariable if it never happens but take my word for it, something will go wrong. (I still can't edit but it is less important that it used to be. )

Well, the RORO is a ship, and there is really not much they can do to "modernize" it, other then make new ones. Even the USNS Bob Hope is little changed from similar ships made 30 years prior.

As for the vehicles, that is not "heavy armor". We already have vehicles like you describe, like the MRAP. But these are simply armored personnel carriers, no weapons heavier then a 40mm grenade launcher. Think of them as IED protective jeeps.

Good for use against irregulars, but not against a real military force.

 

[bluesman]

I poste a link in post number 52 that addresses that question.

If you think that means that a carrier is safe by itself, you are delusional.

I guess the lives of the 4,000+ sailors on board mean nothing to you, as long as the ship does not sink.

Why are you editing out the part that contains a link and addresses what you said? Are you wanting to dumb it down?

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

[begin quote]

The answer to that question, it appears, is “no,” for at least four reasons. First, whatever weapons China may be buying, it lacks the sensors and command system to track and promptly target a carrier. Second, U.S. forces have multiple options for actively and passively impeding the effectiveness of any attack, including targeting forces ashore. Third, if a carrier actually were hit by anything less powerful than a nuclear weapon, it could absorb the damage and continue operating in some diminished capacity; it almost certainly would not be sunk. Finally, the U.S. Navy is taking numerous steps to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of its aircraft carriers, enabling them to cope with whatever new capabilities the Chinese field.


Above is the part you edited out but here is more from the link:


....For instance, the carrier version of the F-35 joint strike fighter will be able to fly 200-300 nautical miles farther with a heavier bomb load than the plane it replaces, and in a straighter line because it is stealthy; that means the carriers can operate at much greater distances from Chinese shores while still accomplishing missions. The latest version of the carrier-based Hawkeye radar plane will provide improved sensitivity against threats like cruise missiles, and a new electronic jamming aircraft called the Growler will degrade the effectiveness of enemy radars and communications. The Navy has literally dozens of such programs under way, complemented by a training system that far exceeds the rigor achieved in competing maritime forces...


I...f military commanders avoid taking unnecessary risks, U.S. aircraft carriers should retain their relevance to the balance of power in the Western Pacific through mid-century...





That is what I was talking about when I mentioned advances in technology. The aircraft carrier doesn't have to be situated in the middle of the battle.

 

[Mushroom]

I poste a link in post number 52 that addresses that question.

If you think that means that a carrier is safe by itself, you are delusional.

I guess the lives of the 4,000+ sailors on board mean nothing to you, as long as the ship does not sink.

Why are you editing out the part that contains a link and addresses what you said? Are you wanting to dumb it down?

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

[begin quote]

The answer to that question, it appears, is “no,” for at least four reasons. First, whatever weapons China may be buying, it lacks the sensors and command system to track and promptly target a carrier. Second, U.S. forces have multiple options for actively and passively impeding the effectiveness of any attack, including targeting forces ashore. Third, if a carrier actually were hit by anything less powerful than a nuclear weapon, it could absorb the damage and continue operating in some diminished capacity; it almost certainly would not be sunk. Finally, the U.S. Navy is taking numerous steps to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of its aircraft carriers, enabling them to cope with whatever new capabilities the Chinese field.

SO I can only assume that the answer is yes, you believe a carrier all by itself, and that the loss of life is acceptable.

Notice, the article concentrated on sinking, and it clearly stated about the fact it is not hard to disable one. And it also talks about the "defenses in place", which is the other ships in the force.

Comprehension fail.

 

[bluesman]

If you think that means that a carrier is safe by itself, you are delusional.

I guess the lives of the 4,000+ sailors on board mean nothing to you, as long as the ship does not sink.

Why are you editing out the part that contains a link and addresses what you said? Are you wanting to dumb it down?

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

[begin quote]

The answer to that question, it appears, is “no,” for at least four reasons. First, whatever weapons China may be buying, it lacks the sensors and command system to track and promptly target a carrier. Second, U.S. forces have multiple options for actively and passively impeding the effectiveness of any attack, including targeting forces ashore. Third, if a carrier actually were hit by anything less powerful than a nuclear weapon, it could absorb the damage and continue operating in some diminished capacity; it almost certainly would not be sunk. Finally, the U.S. Navy is taking numerous steps to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of its aircraft carriers, enabling them to cope with whatever new capabilities the Chinese field.

SO I can only assume that the answer is yes, you believe a carrier all by itself, and that the loss of life is acceptable.

Notice, the article concentrated on sinking, and it clearly stated about the fact it is not hard to disable one. And it also talks about the "defenses in place", which is the other ships in the force.

Comprehension fail.

Oh cut the shit. I heard all the "support the troops" bullshit during the Iraq invasion. The article doesn't concentrate on sinking. It simply points out that it is hard to sink an aircraft carrier without using a nuke. If you took a moment to read the article I linked you would see that it talks about advances in stealth technology that will allow the Aircraft carriers to operate from safer distances.


....For instance, the carrier version of the F-35 joint strike fighter will be able to fly 200-300 nautical miles farther with a heavier bomb load than the plane it replaces, and in a straighter line because it is stealthy; that means the carriers can operate at much greater distances from Chinese shores while still accomplishing missions. The latest version of the carrier-based Hawkeye radar plane will provide improved sensitivity against threats like cruise missiles, and a new electronic jamming aircraft called the Growler will degrade the effectiveness of enemy radars and communications. The Navy has literally dozens of such programs under way, complemented by a training system that far exceeds the rigor achieved in competing maritime forces...


...If military commanders avoid taking unnecessary risks, U.S. aircraft carriers should retain their relevance to the balance of power in the Western Pacific through mid-century...

 

[SteadyMercury]

No, they can not. You are missing the very fact that they are ships of different classes.

To make it simple, Cruisers are designed to attack, Destroyers are designed to defend.

They are just labels man. Burkes are almost he same size, in fact Flight IIIs will probably be bigger than ticos, approaching 10,000 tons.

I've heard it more often claimed the ticos are used more for air defense closer to the carrier, while the destroyers are the picket. I'm not sure either are considered primarily offensive weapons, the USN has been designed around carrier air wings being the primary offensive weapon for decades.

And a Tico does not carry "96 missiles", it carries 130 missiles! You are purposefully trying to compare the Type 26 (which have all been retired), and ignoring the majority of the Tico fleet, which are Type 41 Ticos.

The Arleigh Burke is all about defense. Air defense and ASW. The Ticonderogas are both defensive, but with a large offensive capability as well.

They are nowhere near the same, and the Tico has capabilities which far exceed the Burkes.

Tico has 122, Burkes either 90 or 96. I think the bigger advantage to the Tico here is 4 illuminators versus 3 on Burke.

What are you thinking gives the Tico offensive capabilities that the Burkes don't have? Tico has an extra 5" gun bu they can both carry pretty much the same mix of missiles in the vertical launch systems. Burkes can carry both TLAM and RIM-166, which is fair to see are primarily offensive weapons.

And the newest Burkes are of little difference then those built 15 years ago. But please, if I am wrong, tell me what has made the "newest" Burkes a suitable replacement for the Cruisers that are being retired.

The biggest difference in Flight III is the radar, the new AMDR system on the Burke III is supposed to be far more capable than SPY-1 on Ticos and older Burkes, albeit at twice the power draw and needing more space. It is the radar they were going to build the CG(X) around, not sure if scaled down for a Burke hull or same same.

I've seen it speculated that Burke's lower radar signature and all steel (as opposed to steel + aluminum in Tico) makes it more survivable, but who knows I'd guess the Tico's height is an advantage for the radar coverage.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Cruisers are designed to attack, Destroyers are designed to defend.

Also, how can this claim be rationalized given the roles of Zumwalt and the canceled CG(X).

Zumwalt Destoyer = with the Advanced Gun System is taking the role of the US Navy's primary (only?) dedicated long range high volume shore bombardment artillery system.

CG(X) = To replace Tico, with primary role being ballistic missile defense and air defense for a carrier group.

 

[Crystalclear]

Yeah! Is is so smart to decrease military spending with the US-Russia tensions. Putin and China will take us very seriously now, but maybe we can use diplomacy now!

(Hahah, ***** please)

 

[Mushroom]

Oh cut the shit. I heard all the "support the troops" bullshit during the Iraq invasion. The article doesn't concentrate on sinking. It simply points out that it is hard to sink an aircraft carrier without using a nuke. If you took a moment to read the article I linked you would see that it talks about advances in stealth technology that will allow the Aircraft carriers to operate from safer distances.


....For instance, the carrier version of the F-35 joint strike fighter will be able to fly 200-300 nautical miles farther with a heavier bomb load than the plane it replaces, and in a straighter line because it is stealthy; that means the carriers can operate at much greater distances from Chinese shores while still accomplishing missions. The latest version of the carrier-based Hawkeye radar plane will provide improved sensitivity against threats like cruise missiles, and a new electronic jamming aircraft called the Growler will degrade the effectiveness of enemy radars and communications. The Navy has literally dozens of such programs under way, complemented by a training system that far exceeds the rigor achieved in competing maritime forces...


...If military commanders avoid taking unnecessary risks, U.S. aircraft carriers should retain their relevance to the balance of power in the Western Pacific through mid-century...

OK, now I give you facts, not crap. That article gives some interesting information, if you know how to put it in context!

Now kindly let me give you that context.

Yes, the F-35C will have more range, when it comes online. But it's range is still only 1,600 miles.

The range of an Su-27 is over 2,000 miles.

This is because aircraft that take off from the ground are lighter, have more fuel, and are more efficient. So pretty much all aircraft that would go against this ship from shore has a far greater range then the aircraft on the carrier.

And carriers have a hard time gaining air superiority.

I could give you many scenarios where this would be used to tear a carrier and it's fleet apart. Simply send wave after wave of aircraft against the carrier fleet, including waves of aircraft going for the fleet and sending volleys of anti-ship missiles then turning for home.

They can keep that up for much longer then a carrier fleet can withstand. And they could fly in, engage in combat with the carrier air wing, and simply wait for the aircraft to run low on fuel and hit them as they try to return to the carrier.

The problem is that you are not looking at this strategically or logistically. You are taking a few lines from an article, and ignoring the facts that are not said at all.

Now let me throw in a few other things the article does not mention.

The Chinese have the H-6, a Tu-16 clone. This in itself is an upgraded B-29 Superfortress, and has many roles.

With a range of over 3,500 miles, it can operate as either a tanker supporting other aircraft, or as a bomber with 4 anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles. China has over 120 of these.

And Russia has over 100 Tu-22s, range of over 4,300 miles, with 6 Kh-15 anti-ship missiles.

Now stop trying to refer back to the same article over and over again, it is not addressing any of the points I am bringing up. As I said, think tactically, strategically and logistically, or do not even bother.

 

[Mushroom]

They are just labels man. Burkes are almost he same size, in fact Flight IIIs will probably be bigger than ticos, approaching 10,000 tons.

Tico has 122, Burkes either 90 or 96. I think the bigger advantage to the Tico here is 4 illuminators versus 3 on Burke.

It is not "just labels". Otherwise you could call the USS America an "Aircraft carrier" because it can carry aircraft.

You are the one ignoring the labels and what they mean. They mean a lot. Now let me get specific since you continue to look at simply superficial information and not look into what it actually means.

The Ticonderoga 41 has 2 61 cell launch platforms, for a total of 122 missiles.
The Burke Flight II have a single 96 cell launch platform.

OK, see the difference yet? Not only does the Ticonderoga carry more missiles, it has double the number of launchers! It can fire twice as many missiles then the Burkes can.

OK, now let's look at the rest, ok?

The Ticonderoga also carries 20 RUR5 anti-submarine missiles.
The Burke carries none.

The Ticonderoga in addition to the VLS has 8 Harpoon missiles.
The Burke Flight II has 0.

That is because the Destroyer is designed primarily as air defense, it is not designed to attack other ships. That is the purpose of the cruisers.

In a traditional fleet arrangement, a Cruiser would primarily be carrying offensive weapons. Tomahawks, Harpoons, ASW missiles, and the like. Generally they only have enough defensive missiles to defend themselves. Their role is to attack, not defend.

The Burkes are an outstanding defensive platform, one of the best ever designed. But it is not a very powerful or effective offensive platform.

Want to continue playing? Then get off of the numbers and look at what the missiles actually are.