If this doesn't prove to you Trump is a dangerous idiot

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex, May 12, 2017.

  1. COTiger

    COTiger 2010 Bowl Pick 'Em Champ

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    11,082
    Likes Received:
    2,967
    In today's world, with today's threats, do we really need 10 new aircraft carriers? Particularly 10 that cost 13 BILLION dollars each.
     
  2. lsutiga

    lsutiga TF Pubic Relations

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    26,401
    Likes Received:
    6,149
    You keeping the fight off of out soil is a plus.
     
    Winston1 likes this.
  3. Winston1

    Winston1 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    You're right several years ago the -35 lost to just about every 3rd & 4th generation plane in the US arsenal. However I've read a recent article in Business Insider that was taken from a professional publication. A F-35 took on 15 -22s, -15s & -16s and smoked them. There have been serveral articles talking about how the -35 has revolutionized air combat. In fact from a simple performance measure, speed, turning ability, wing loading etc it isn't much better or even poorer than the -22 & -16. However using stealth and it's suite of battlefield controls it's been killing our best before they know they're in a fight.
     
  4. Winston1

    Winston1 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    First off they're the best way to project power there is. They're protected by the best defensive systems on the planet. They're the best way to prevent war or from a regional issue from spreading.
     
  5. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Freshman

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    473
    Give me one Klenon Bird of Prey in place of the carriers

    klingon-bird-of-prey.jpg
     
  6. GiantDuckFan

    GiantDuckFan O the Joy

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    K-l-i-n-g-o-n,.. Klingon
     
    xlnsports, Bengal B and HalloweenRun like this.
  7. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Freshman

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    473
    Where do you get the time to spell check me when you are so busy looking for a Trump conspiracy? Anyway hard to spell it when I dont speak K-l-i-n-g-o-n.

    Here you go;
    "Duck season"
    images-51_resized.jpeg
     
  8. HalloweenRun

    HalloweenRun I'll try to be nicer, if you try to be smarter!

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Aircraft Carriers.
    As long as the US sees its role as "World Policeman" and Nation Builder, the aircraft carrier will be an integral part of the arsenal. It represents US presence, and enables the US to project power, without permission or concession, to most of the worlds countries, and to the vast majority of the worlds population. It provides not only a tactical but also a strategic platform.

    The aircraft carrier, IMHO, is MUCH LESS of an asset in a big war. While the US Navy has tremendous defense in depth, an adversary such as Russia, China, or probably even North Korea can flood the area of operations with relatively inexpensive cruise missiles and other weapons that would or at least could overwhelm the carrier task force's defenses. The US Cruise missile is clearly the weapon on choice for offensive strikes not the piloted attach craft in a high threat environment.

    Back in the day, the Rooskies planned on flying multiple squadrons of Backfire bombers out of the SW USSR over Turkey, and into the Med to attack any and all US Carriers operating there with long range cruise missiles. Additionally, surface launched missiles, and to much greater extent, submarine launched missiles would have targeted the Carrier and its battle group. Again, defense in depth has to be 100% perfect to protect the carrier, and I just don't see 100% of anything, anywhere.

    In a big war, I expect the aircraft carriers would be very carefully utilized with more emphasis paid on protecting them, than on using them to strike. At least tactically. If we get into Nucs, then its basically over, anyway, and I expect strategic strikes, stemming from surviving carriers would occur.

    In regard to technology, it is a double edged sword. While the benefits are great, the requirement to always move forward is absolute. As far as those catapults go, the guys that design ships and the engineers that construct them know a lot more than Mr Trump on marine design. If the new catapults are pulled, there would be enormous weight and moment affects, even on a CV (N) not to mention a nightmare of running piping where none exists in the design. The fact that the newest technology is having growing pains, is immaterial. You have the leading edge of technology and then the bleeding edge.

    The Russians took a decade or so "off" in their navy due to economics, and they are scrambling, and failing, to catch up.
     
    BAY0U BENGAL, watson1880 and Winston1 like this.
  9. el005639

    el005639 Err on the side of freedom

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    606
    I read somewhere years ago that a carrier could sustain 6 convential cruse missile impacts at the water line and remain afloat. If true, it is hard to imagine nk could send enough accurately fired missIles to sink one of our carriers. Russia and China could for certain but I doubt nk could.
     
  10. HalloweenRun

    HalloweenRun I'll try to be nicer, if you try to be smarter!

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Remaining afloat is not a big deal. Damage the flight deck and to a lessor extent the electronics on the island, and all you have is a big, gray cruise ship.
     

Share This Page