1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Our carriers= dinosaurs

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by 635 G, Aug 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 635 G

    635 G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,236
    I don't know if you heard this, but China is developing Carrier Killing Missiles, looks like our carriers may be going the way of the battleship. We can thank Clinton for letting our missile technology get into our enemies hands.

    Phil Berkowitz
     
  2. southjblue

    southjblue Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,646
    Ya and I hrard they have a contract to build our tanks---Good Luck America---sjb---
     
  3. Landshark

    Landshark Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    445
    I will go out on a limb and say that if ever one of our carriers is sunk, there will be a big arse missle come flyling out of the water by one of our subs.

    I wouldn't bet against us. Just say'n.
     
  4. Auctioneer

    Auctioneer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,965
    China was suppose to by Hummer but backed out.
     
  5. Gross Man

    Gross Man Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Virginia
    We have AEGIS Cruisers and Destroyers that can shoot these down, always with the Carriers. Billy
     
  6. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Gross Man - Aegis can't deal with the new Chinese missile. The aren't cruise missiles, but ballistic missiles with mach 10 reentry speed, and a maneuverable warhead.

    Question is how maneuverable is a warhead at Mach 10?
     
  7. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Zero said there would be no nuclear response on his watch. So he's just bow and apologize for our carrier getting in the way of their missile.

    BTW, these missiles were one reason why laser or particle beam weapons were being developed. I wonder what the status of those projects are?
     
  8. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    Their technology wouldn't work if we blinded their targeting satellites.
     
  9. Bentley998

    Bentley998 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    67
    It's early to count us out

    First - in 1982 there was an answer to Exocet - the Vulcan/Phalanx system -unfortunately the Brits didn't buy it- USS Stark was hit by two Exocets- didn't have the system turned on - end of career for the CO

    I had dinner with Joe Mussee the GD project manager at about that time - he showed some very impressive pictures including shooting and hitting a 175MM artillery projectile in flight with several hits. Every US Navy has this system- usually several of them

    Directed energy weapons- been in development at least since the 1970's -saw a film while I was in the navel War College of a laser shooting down a drone -we have come a long way since then

    As for Aegis - succe4ssful testing has been done on shooting down ballistic missiles - there arre always Aegis cruisers and destroyers in the mid-East against the possibility that the Iranians might cause trouble

    Don't count us out yet
     
  10. 635 G

    635 G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,236
    If their subs have torpedoes similar to ours. If their subs are quiet the carriers can be sunk at will. Carriers in a old fashioned naval slugfest will go the way of the battleship. Hate to say, but all of the suface fleet will be dinosaurs. Stealth, Satellites & Subs will rule the seas in an all out war. I admit I'm a retired submariner. We could have sunk almost any surface ship at will 45 years ago, today its no contest.

    Phil Berkowitz
     
  11. 221

    221 Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,736
    Why is it everyone thinks it is all about "us"....the USA? They or their customers do not have to even fire a shot at "OUR" ships to start a global war. Were so vain, we think it's all about us.

    The whole premise that our counter measures will prevent it from being fired is NUTS......once the decision is made to attack "us"......it won't matter whether that carrier survives or not.

    The Chinese manufacture most of our technology......they may know more than we think about taking over our satellites.
     
  12. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    The aerial platform missile killing lasers will accompany the fleet, and can kill at 20 miles or greater.

    And there's more and better in the pipe.

    HM
     
  13. Shipbuilder

    Shipbuilder TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    Bet on the carriers !

    Jim
     
  14. smoking357

    smoking357 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    It's long past time to park the carriers. Here's a great article from the inimitable Fred Reed.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed179.html

    I wonder whether Americans realize that they have a Vienna-sausage military at filet-mignon prices. The sorry performance in recent wars is just one example of the ongoing rot, but the whole enterprise has become unbalanced, aimed at fighting the kinds of enemies we don’t have instead of the ones we have recently chosen to make.

    The Navy is a fine example. The carrier battle group, the heart of the Navy, is a hugely expensive way to get relatively few combat aircraft to a remote place. It is a relic of World War II, for which it was well suited. Since it was then fighting similar battle groups, the strengths and weaknesses were more or less matched.

    But the Navy has not fought a war for sixty years, certainly not one it needed to win, and it shows. Today’s battle groups, CVBGs as we say, are almost indistinguishable from those of 1945, except for the upgrading of weapons. Instead of five-inch-thirty-eights, we have Standard missiles. Instead of F4F Hellcats, the F-18 Hornet. Yet the carrier is still the Mother Ship, protected by screens of cruisers and destroyers, with interceptors flying CAP. The problem is that the enemy has changed.

    Bear in mind that a great many countries fear attack by the United States, among them such trivial nations as Russia, China, and Iran. None of these has the money to build carrier groups to oppose those of the Navy.

    All of these have thought about cheap ways to overcome the US behemoth. Four solutions soon came to hand:

    1. Very fast sea-skimming cruise missiles, such as the Brahmos and Brahmos II (Mach 5+).
    2. Supercavitating torpedoes, reaching speeds of over 200 miles an hour.
    3. Very quiet submarines, diesel-electrics in the case of poor countries.
    4. Anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the one attributed to the Chinese.

    Any military buff knows that the Navy cannot defend itself against these. It says it can. It has to say it can. In fleet exercises against submarines, the subs always win – easily. The Pentagon has been trying to invent defenses against ballistic missiles since the days of Reagan (remember Star Wars?) with miserable results. If you have close friends in the Navy, ask them over a few beers what scares the bejesus out of them. Easy: Swarms of fast, stealthy, sea-skimming cruise missiles with multi-mode terminal guidance.

    Add to the brew that today’s ships are fragile, based on the assumption that they will never be hit. Go aboard a WWII battleship like the Iowa, BB-61 (I have) and you will find sixteen-inch belt armor and turrets designed to withstand an asteroid strike. Now go aboard a Tico-class Aegis boat (I have). You will find an electronic marvel with big screens in a darkened CIC and an amazing SPY-1 phased-array radar that one burst of shrapnel would take out of commission for many months.

    Now note that cruise missiles have ranges in the hundreds of miles. Think: Persian Gulf. A cruise missile can be boxed and mounted on a truck, a fast launch, or a tramp steamer. The Chinese ballistic missile has a range of 1200 miles, enough to keep carriers out of aircraft range of Taiwan. I wonder whether the Chinese have thought of that?

    In short the day of surface navies seems to be coming to a close, at least as strategically decisive forces. So does the day of the manned fighter as Predator-style “drones” improve.

    What happens now? Nothing – for the moment.

    To understand the problem, assume for the moment that the Navy knew beyond doubt, and openly admitted in internal discussion, that it could not protect its surface ships from modern anti-ship missiles. What would it do? What could it do?

    Nothing. Why? Because, apart from the missile submarines, which have no role in combat, the Navy is the surface fleet. Many, many billions of dollars are invested in carriers and careers, in escorts for carriers, in countless men trained to run them. Mothball the carriers, and the Navy becomes a few troop ships useful for unopposed landings. Maintaining a large fleet only to support the Pentagon’s preferred role of massacring half-armed peasants would just be too costly.

    So: Does the Navy say to Congress, “We really aren’t of much use any longer. We suggest that you scrap the ships and put the money into something else”? Mankind doesn’t work that way. The appeals of tradition, ego, and just plain fun run high. (Never underestimate the importance of ego and fun in military policy.) A CVBG is a magnificent thing, just not very useful. The glamor of night flight ops, planes trapping ker-whang!, engines howling at full mil, thirty knots of wind over the flight deck, cat shots throwing fighters into the air – this stuff appeals powerfully to something deep in the male head. The Navy isn’t going to give this up.

    Thus it can’t admit that its day comes to a close, whether it knows it, suspects it, or refuses to think about it. The carrier is forever. Unless one gets sunk.

    Which (I suspect) is unlikely, because the admirals won’t risk the test. I don’t know what Iran has but, if a shoot-out came, and half a dozen ships appeared on international television smoking and listing with large holes in them, that would be the end of the Navy’s credibility. Remember what happened when an Iraqi fighter hit the USS Stark with two French Exocet missiles: The missiles worked perfectly, and the Stark’s multitudinous and sophisticated defenses failed utterly. The Navy produced all manner of face-saving explanations.

    Predictably, the military contractors will offer sure-fire extremely expensive defenses, things like directed-energy, that will develop more slowly than missiles and experience massive cost overruns, which is what weapons are for. John Paul Jones, slave-trader turned naval hero, once said that he meant to go in harm’s way. Today’s Navy will stay farther and farther out of harm’s way, which will be wise of it, and become an immensely pricey collection of symbolic iron yachts.

    So what is the cavalry doing as it eyes machine guns and barbed wire? Buying a better horse. The Navy wants the Ford class (CVN 78) super-carrier, which I think might better be named the USS Thundertrinket. What will it do that the current Nimitz-class carriers don’t? Cost more (eight billion for the first copy, plus five billion R&D. A bargain.) To the uninitiated, that may seem a lot for a high-tech crossbow, but it will put lots of jobs in Norfolk, Virginia, and send money to military contractors. Good thing the US has a robust economy.

    You can put mayonnaise on a Vienna sausage and eat it, but not on an aircraft carrier.

    April 24, 2010
     
  15. Trappy12

    Trappy12 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,467
    Don't be worried. A family friend who works in the defense industry said "trying thinking about what weapons will be like as far forward as you can possibly think, and we are already 50 years past that."
    There's all kinds of classified weapons systems out there that are probably in use and ready to go for things like that if necessary. The real question is why is China developing anti-carrier missiles?
    -Trappy
     
  16. mx2k33

    mx2k33 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,435
    In the late 60's the Soviets were secretly building the MiG 25 Foxbat to take out our long range strategic bombers. The US overestimated its capabilities, scared the defense community, and built the F-15 Eagle to counter (the most successful air superiority fighter ever built). Rest assured that whatever political party or philosophy is in power they will want to stay in power.

    Right now our most potent extension of conventional force and power is the carrier group. We have anticipated this threat for years and already have an effective countermeasure in place.

    What we need is a scared population to help fund the next generation of countermeasures we are developing.
     
  17. smoking357

    smoking357 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    So much of this is groundless optimism and chest-beating. Of all the posters above, only 635G has correctly assessed the state of naval combat.
     
  18. smoking357

    smoking357 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Trappy, you had a hang fire at 9:52.
     
  19. mx2k33

    mx2k33 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,435
    Smoking, talk to some environmental microbiologists and they will tell you that "stealth" submarines are essentially obsolete as well. They leave a "biological trail" like a slug on pavement...you just want to be the only guys with the technology to spot the other's guy's trail right now.

    Optimism...not really, more like human nature. In the US there is still a tremendous amount of money (and incentive) for individuals, corporations, politicians, etc. in finding ways to stay on top and "legally" kill any of those who would challenge that position.
     
  20. smoking357

    smoking357 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    MX,

    Is the trail somewhat analogous to when a surface ship cuts through the sea gooseberries and leaves a bioluminescent trail? I get the concept of which you speak. How deep can the trail be detected?

    And you are very correct in observing that the military-industrial complex does not want to be unemployed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.