Enough is enough

[eagle1462010]

'Yeah, Amuhrca we can't lose, our ships can never sink, our planes can not be shot down, our tanks cannot be destroyed, yada yada yada.

The defense industry, if you went to visit any one of them, would kiss you straight on the mouth.

Who the hell said they can't be hit...................I didn't..............What I'm saying you'd have a hell of a time doing so....................Again you give too much credit to cheap weapons systems..........

As another poster has already stated...........only China and Russia are really a threat to these groups.

You mistake 'cheap' with poor quality. The opposite is the case. Cheap as compared to 13 billion dollars for one asset. But neither the Chinese nor the Russians have inferior missiles.

Its the same scenario as in WW2 with tanks. The German Tiger outclassed everything it faced. The Sherman was crap and the T-34, which was better than the Sherman, was still outclassed as the Tiger was built in response to the T-34.

But the Germans built 1800 of them. The US built 50,000 tanks as did the Russians. It didn't matter how good the Tiger was.

Tell that to the iraqi's ..................

You make no sense.

We park our battle groups right in the Persian Gulf..............and take them on............How many ships have these cheap missiles taken out...............

 

[Meathead]

The US Navy is about to launch its newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, the first of the new Ford class.

Cost: $ 13 billion dollars!

Even a layman could see that all ships are now vulnerable to surface to ship missiles. And when those missiles cost a few million dollars, compard to 13 billion dollars, the cost/benefit ratio is gigantic. And this ship won't be invulnerable to missiles, just like every other ship. Especially if 10 missiles or more are shot at them at once. Which, if someone is trying to sink a US carrier then the horse is out of the gate and its full on war so they won't hold back.

The US military wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on crap like this that is meant to fight a war 50 years ago, just because they want to spend the money.

$13 billion for one ship. Ridiculous.

America has not lost any kind of carrier in battle since 1945, and that was a tiny escort carrier.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The US Navy is about to launch its newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, the first of the new Ford class.

Cost: $ 13 billion dollars!

Even a layman could see that all ships are now vulnerable to surface to ship missiles. And when those missiles cost a few million dollars, compard to 13 billion dollars, the cost/benefit ratio is gigantic. And this ship won't be invulnerable to missiles, just like every other ship. Especially if 10 missiles or more are shot at them at once. Which, if someone is trying to sink a US carrier then the horse is out of the gate and its full on war so they won't hold back.

The US military wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on crap like this that is meant to fight a war 50 years ago, just because they want to spend the money.

$13 billion for one ship. Ridiculous.

America has not lost any kind of carrier in battle since 1945, and that was a tiny escort carrier.

We haven't fought a real war against a mortal enemy since WW2 so anything after that is a fallacious argument.

And I can see there is no adult discussion here re the military, only "yay we're great, everything we do is perfect and fuzzy like kitten fur so it doesn't matter what facts are all we need are good 'ol feelings and false bravado".

And no one answered the question. How much would be too much for one ship. All too busy cackling at the other chickens about how great the chicken coop is. LOL

The honest discussion about such things cannot be had here, which is fine, one learns by doing.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[ABikerSailor]

The US Navy is about to launch its newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, the first of the new Ford class.

Cost: $ 13 billion dollars!

Even a layman could see that all ships are now vulnerable to surface to ship missiles. And when those missiles cost a few million dollars, compard to 13 billion dollars, the cost/benefit ratio is gigantic. And this ship won't be invulnerable to missiles, just like every other ship. Especially if 10 missiles or more are shot at them at once. Which, if someone is trying to sink a US carrier then the horse is out of the gate and its full on war so they won't hold back.

The US military wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on crap like this that is meant to fight a war 50 years ago, just because they want to spend the money.

$13 billion for one ship. Ridiculous.

I guess you have never been on a carrier, nor have you studied the kind of defenses that they have, because otherwise you wouldn't have brought up missiles.

Carriers have a missile defense system, it's called CWIS (Close In Weapons System) and is usually a gatling gun that is capable of firing over 3,000 rounds per min. Sailors have nicknamed that particular little system "R2D2 with a hard on", because that is exactly what it looks like. And, there is one mounted on the 4 corners of the ship, as well as 2 others on either side, midships.

And that is before we start talking about the countermeasures that the picket ships guarding the carrier are deployed. Aegis and Arleigh Burke class ships that are also able to take out missiles.

Guess you have not heard about China's New supersonic carrier killer missile. Nothing the navy has can stop that.

ICBM and Ballistic missiles for cruise missile applications aren't new.............and that would mean a War with China............we have attack drone on stand by that open only in case of War with China or Russia......................Not to mention the version launched from a sub would be facing some of these...................

I said Super sonic

Well should of said Hypersonic

China's New Hypersonic Missile Can Scream Past US Air Defenses


The missile test itself was not broadcast among any public channels but was detected, an anonymous Pentagon officialconfirmed with the Washington Free Beacon, flying at extremely high speeds over mainland China on January 9. And while details of the HGV are very slim at this point, analysts believe it works much like the HGV's developed by other nations including the US, India and Russia.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

Might wanna read your article again, and you should also look up the difference between anti ship missiles and ICBM's.

Your article is talking about the latter.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The US Navy is about to launch its newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, the first of the new Ford class.

Cost: $ 13 billion dollars!

Even a layman could see that all ships are now vulnerable to surface to ship missiles. And when those missiles cost a few million dollars, compard to 13 billion dollars, the cost/benefit ratio is gigantic. And this ship won't be invulnerable to missiles, just like every other ship. Especially if 10 missiles or more are shot at them at once. Which, if someone is trying to sink a US carrier then the horse is out of the gate and its full on war so they won't hold back.

The US military wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on crap like this that is meant to fight a war 50 years ago, just because they want to spend the money.

$13 billion for one ship. Ridiculous.

I guess you have never been on a carrier, nor have you studied the kind of defenses that they have, because otherwise you wouldn't have brought up missiles.

Carriers have a missile defense system, it's called CWIS (Close In Weapons System) and is usually a gatling gun that is capable of firing over 3,000 rounds per min. Sailors have nicknamed that particular little system "R2D2 with a hard on", because that is exactly what it looks like. And, there is one mounted on the 4 corners of the ship, as well as 2 others on either side, midships.

And that is before we start talking about the countermeasures that the picket ships guarding the carrier are deployed. Aegis and Arleigh Burke class ships that are also able to take out missiles.

Guess you have not heard about China's New supersonic carrier killer missile. Nothing the navy has can stop that.

ICBM and Ballistic missiles for cruise missile applications aren't new.............and that would mean a War with China............we have attack drone on stand by that open only in case of War with China or Russia......................Not to mention the version launched from a sub would be facing some of these...................

I said Super sonic

Well should of said Hypersonic

China's New Hypersonic Missile Can Scream Past US Air Defenses


The missile test itself was not broadcast among any public channels but was detected, an anonymous Pentagon officialconfirmed with the Washington Free Beacon, flying at extremely high speeds over mainland China on January 9. And while details of the HGV are very slim at this point, analysts believe it works much like the HGV's developed by other nations including the US, India and Russia.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

Might wanna read your article again, and you should also look up the difference between anti ship missiles and ICBM's.

Your article is talking about the latter.

It was a quick example...if you followed it you would know...

But since you didn't bother to research it further... I don't have time for ignorance on types like you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The US Navy is about to launch its newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, the first of the new Ford class.

Cost: $ 13 billion dollars!

Even a layman could see that all ships are now vulnerable to surface to ship missiles. And when those missiles cost a few million dollars, compard to 13 billion dollars, the cost/benefit ratio is gigantic. And this ship won't be invulnerable to missiles, just like every other ship. Especially if 10 missiles or more are shot at them at once. Which, if someone is trying to sink a US carrier then the horse is out of the gate and its full on war so they won't hold back.

The US military wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on crap like this that is meant to fight a war 50 years ago, just because they want to spend the money.

$13 billion for one ship. Ridiculous.

I guess you have never been on a carrier, nor have you studied the kind of defenses that they have, because otherwise you wouldn't have brought up missiles.

Carriers have a missile defense system, it's called CWIS (Close In Weapons System) and is usually a gatling gun that is capable of firing over 3,000 rounds per min. Sailors have nicknamed that particular little system "R2D2 with a hard on", because that is exactly what it looks like. And, there is one mounted on the 4 corners of the ship, as well as 2 others on either side, midships.

And that is before we start talking about the countermeasures that the picket ships guarding the carrier are deployed. Aegis and Arleigh Burke class ships that are also able to take out missiles.

Guess you have not heard about China's New supersonic carrier killer missile. Nothing the navy has can stop that.

ICBM and Ballistic missiles for cruise missile applications aren't new.............and that would mean a War with China............we have attack drone on stand by that open only in case of War with China or Russia......................Not to mention the version launched from a sub would be facing some of these...................

I said Super sonic

Well should of said Hypersonic

China's New Hypersonic Missile Can Scream Past US Air Defenses


The missile test itself was not broadcast among any public channels but was detected, an anonymous Pentagon officialconfirmed with the Washington Free Beacon, flying at extremely high speeds over mainland China on January 9. And while details of the HGV are very slim at this point, analysts believe it works much like the HGV's developed by other nations including the US, India and Russia.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

Might wanna read your article again, and you should also look up the difference between anti ship missiles and ICBM's.

Your article is talking about the latter.

Here just for you...it took 3 seconds to back up my claim


Did China’s New Assassin Mace Missile Just Make Aircraft Carriers As Obsolete As Battleships?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I guess you have never been on a carrier, nor have you studied the kind of defenses that they have, because otherwise you wouldn't have brought up missiles.

Carriers have a missile defense system, it's called CWIS (Close In Weapons System) and is usually a gatling gun that is capable of firing over 3,000 rounds per min. Sailors have nicknamed that particular little system "R2D2 with a hard on", because that is exactly what it looks like. And, there is one mounted on the 4 corners of the ship, as well as 2 others on either side, midships.

And that is before we start talking about the countermeasures that the picket ships guarding the carrier are deployed. Aegis and Arleigh Burke class ships that are also able to take out missiles.

Guess you have not heard about China's New supersonic carrier killer missile. Nothing the navy has can stop that.

ICBM and Ballistic missiles for cruise missile applications aren't new.............and that would mean a War with China............we have attack drone on stand by that open only in case of War with China or Russia......................Not to mention the version launched from a sub would be facing some of these...................

I said Super sonic

Well should of said Hypersonic

China's New Hypersonic Missile Can Scream Past US Air Defenses


The missile test itself was not broadcast among any public channels but was detected, an anonymous Pentagon officialconfirmed with the Washington Free Beacon, flying at extremely high speeds over mainland China on January 9. And while details of the HGV are very slim at this point, analysts believe it works much like the HGV's developed by other nations including the US, India and Russia.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

Might wanna read your article again, and you should also look up the difference between anti ship missiles and ICBM's.

Your article is talking about the latter.

It was a quick example...if you followed it you would know...

But since you didn't bother to research it further... I don't have time for ignorance on types like you.

Regular anti ship missiles don't have the same range or firepower as ICBM's. ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, which are used to deliver nuclear warheads to take out cities.

And, I don't need to research it further, I understand it because I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy and was involved in working with some of that stuff.

No, an anti ship missile is not the same as an ICBM.

Oh yeah.............forgot to tell you................ICBM's are much more expensive than anti ship missiles.

 

[eagle1462010]

I guess you have never been on a carrier, nor have you studied the kind of defenses that they have, because otherwise you wouldn't have brought up missiles.

Carriers have a missile defense system, it's called CWIS (Close In Weapons System) and is usually a gatling gun that is capable of firing over 3,000 rounds per min. Sailors have nicknamed that particular little system "R2D2 with a hard on", because that is exactly what it looks like. And, there is one mounted on the 4 corners of the ship, as well as 2 others on either side, midships.

And that is before we start talking about the countermeasures that the picket ships guarding the carrier are deployed. Aegis and Arleigh Burke class ships that are also able to take out missiles.

Guess you have not heard about China's New supersonic carrier killer missile. Nothing the navy has can stop that.

ICBM and Ballistic missiles for cruise missile applications aren't new.............and that would mean a War with China............we have attack drone on stand by that open only in case of War with China or Russia......................Not to mention the version launched from a sub would be facing some of these...................

I said Super sonic

Well should of said Hypersonic

China's New Hypersonic Missile Can Scream Past US Air Defenses


The missile test itself was not broadcast among any public channels but was detected, an anonymous Pentagon officialconfirmed with the Washington Free Beacon, flying at extremely high speeds over mainland China on January 9. And while details of the HGV are very slim at this point, analysts believe it works much like the HGV's developed by other nations including the US, India and Russia.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

Might wanna read your article again, and you should also look up the difference between anti ship missiles and ICBM's.

Your article is talking about the latter.

Here just for you...it took 3 seconds to back up my claim


Did China’s New Assassin Mace Missile Just Make Aircraft Carriers As Obsolete As Battleships?

And can be countered by the SM-6, via vert launch systems...........

Hit to kill surface to air missiles, including hypersonic........

SM-6 Can Now Kill Both Cruise AND Ballistic Missiles

As the potential enemies adapt to our abilities and strategies..............we adapt to theirs........................Which is not a reason to say fuck it and not build our Fleet.....................The Ocean is a vast expanse...........and our forces must move over it........and most of the World's trade is via the Sea............which means a strong Navy is necessary....................

The fact that some of the big boys like China have some bad assed weapons as well is not reason to say they are obsolete..............We can put in killer drones and take out these launch sites.............If they are destroyed before being fired at our Fleet..............then our ships are out of danger from that threat..................

Tit for Tat.

 

[eagle1462010]

Guess you have not heard about China's New supersonic carrier killer missile. Nothing the navy has can stop that.

ICBM and Ballistic missiles for cruise missile applications aren't new.............and that would mean a War with China............we have attack drone on stand by that open only in case of War with China or Russia......................Not to mention the version launched from a sub would be facing some of these...................

I said Super sonic

Well should of said Hypersonic

China's New Hypersonic Missile Can Scream Past US Air Defenses


The missile test itself was not broadcast among any public channels but was detected, an anonymous Pentagon officialconfirmed with the Washington Free Beacon, flying at extremely high speeds over mainland China on January 9. And while details of the HGV are very slim at this point, analysts believe it works much like the HGV's developed by other nations including the US, India and Russia.

It's assumed that the HGV is launched aboard an ICBM, separates from the missile's final stage while still in space, some 62 miles above the planet's surface, and then zooms back into the atmosphere at more than ten times the speed of sound—around mach 10 or 7,680 miles per hour. That's fast enough to enter American airspace before we even react. By comparison, today's cruise missile technology tops out at around 500 to 600 mph.

Might wanna read your article again, and you should also look up the difference between anti ship missiles and ICBM's.

Your article is talking about the latter.

It was a quick example...if you followed it you would know...

But since you didn't bother to research it further... I don't have time for ignorance on types like you.

Regular anti ship missiles don't have the same range or firepower as ICBM's. ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, which are used to deliver nuclear warheads to take out cities.

And, I don't need to research it further, I understand it because I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy and was involved in working with some of that stuff.

No, an anti ship missile is not the same as an ICBM.

Oh yeah.............forgot to tell you................ICBM's are much more expensive than anti ship missiles.

The one he's showing works like an ICBM............it goes out of the atmosphere and then re-enters and then hits the ship.

 

[shadow355]

The one he's showing works like an ICBM............it goes out of the atmosphere and then re-enters and then hits the ship.

Yeah, like that would not set bells and whistles off in the C.I.C ( Combat Informaiton Center )

But those super duper hypersonic missles that travel at 10 million miles an hour can in no way be shot downby a US Navy Ship.

Intelligence assessments and informaiton on weapons are also always true.

Love those armchair warriors.

American needs the US Navy and their ships. They project power, are used for intelligence gathering, surveillance of distant shores, and for liason. They can also change the poltics....and decisions of another nation.

They can be used as platforms to deploy Special Operations Units, as well as aircraft.

An aircraft carrier projects power and strength. Audacity on the sea. Muscle on the water.

Shadow 355

The Navy is needed, as well as all of the might it can muster.

 

[IsaacNewton]

This is not a thread about needing a 'navy'. Jesus H Christ how does commenting on a steep price for one ship turn into 'We need the navy, don't get rid of it'.

There is an OP, can anyone address it or my specific question, how much is too much for one ship.

 

[shadow355]

This is not a thread about needing a 'navy'. Jesus H Christ how does commenting on a steep price for one ship turn into 'We need the navy, don't get rid of it'.

There is an OP, can anyone address it or my specific question, how much is too much for one ship.

If you do not buy new ships, the old ones will just get scrapped - then you have no ships, hence you have no Navy.

You can never spend too much on defense --> You can never spend too much for a Military.

The Ship, Crew, Electronics, nuclear power...ect....ect...ect.

13 Billion I would say, is a good price.

Our Sailors - and Servicemen and women.....deserve the best.


Shadow 355

 

[IsaacNewton]

This is not a thread about needing a 'navy'. Jesus H Christ how does commenting on a steep price for one ship turn into 'We need the navy, don't get rid of it'.

There is an OP, can anyone address it or my specific question, how much is too much for one ship.

If you do not buy new ships, the old ones will just get scrapped - then you have no ships, hence you have no Navy.

You can never spend too much on defense --> You can never spend too much for a Military.

The Ship, Crew, Electronics, nuclear power...ect....ect...ect.

13 Billion I would say, is a good price.

Our Sailors - and Servicemen and women.....deserve the best.


Shadow 355

"You can never spend too much on defense." To be so scared of the world that you utter this statement is just sad. Honestly. Every nation in history including this one DOES limit its spending and it DOES decide what and what not to spend money on. It is a budget spending item like any other.

Your opinion is it would be ok if the government came out tomorrow and said this new battleship will cost a trillion dollars, but we need it to keep you safe. When you are scared of your own shadow this statement sounds reasonable. When you live in adult reality it is insanity.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." - Dwight D Eisenhower -

Conservatives are always looking at others as possibly 'bringing the country down'. You don't have to, its you and your abject fear.

How did we ever remain safe up until we built the first aircraft carrier. Oh how did we do it? And how were we safe the last 70 years with carriers that cost 2-4 billion dollars, but now we have to spend 13 billion on each.

We have 10 active carrier groups (not including Helicopter carriers), France is second with 3-4, then China with 1. How exactly are we so vulnerable that we need 11? Why stop there? Why not 15, or 20?

2015 Aircraft Carrier Strength by Country

Eisenhower was right. But he didn't count on the fear of the American people to make the Military-Industrial-Complex so powerful.

 

[ABikerSailor]

One of the other things that some on this thread seem to keep forgetting (or else they don't know).

ICBM's are fired at FIXED targets, meaning they can't be redirected after launch.

Carriers are mobile, meaning that they can go from place to place. Top speed on a US carrier (as listed in Jane's Fighting Ships), at the last I checked while on my last sea tour was listed at 40 plus knots. The top speed is classified, but it is more than 40 knots.

Figuring that the average time in the air for the missile is going to be 20 to 30 min, that gives the carrier lead time to get out of the area when a missile launch is detected.

And, figuring the average blast of a really large missile, the shock wave would only have a range of 2 or 3 miles, much less than what a carrier could cover at flank speed.

 

[eagle1462010]

The one he's showing works like an ICBM............it goes out of the atmosphere and then re-enters and then hits the ship.

Yeah, like that would not set bells and whistles off in the C.I.C ( Combat Informaiton Center )

But those super duper hypersonic missles that travel at 10 million miles an hour can in no way be shot downby a US Navy Ship.

Intelligence assessments and informaiton on weapons are also always true.

Love those armchair warriors.

American needs the US Navy and their ships. They project power, are used for intelligence gathering, surveillance of distant shores, and for liason. They can also change the poltics....and decisions of another nation.

They can be used as platforms to deploy Special Operations Units, as well as aircraft.

An aircraft carrier projects power and strength. Audacity on the sea. Muscle on the water.

Shadow 355

The Navy is needed, as well as all of the might it can muster.

I never said that it couldn't be taken out or that we don't need a Navy.........I was replying to other questions regarding it..........and the information I read.........

I also posted that a SM6 could take it out.....................It's there if you read back into the thread.

 

[Unkotare]

All old news and irrelevant.

If a missile costs a couple million dollars, how many can the enemy afford to deploy against this asset. That is how the math works. The answer, they will deploy enough to overwhelm the defenses because the missiles are infinitely cheaper than this one ship.

In peacetime it looks great. In a real war it is terribly vulnerable to very cheap weapons.

Carriers seem to have worked pretty damn well in "real war"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not only do carriers work well Unkotare, but they also have a really good intimidation factor.

I remember coming through the Straits of Hormuz in the early 90's once, and I had just gotten to bed (worked the midnight to 8 shift) when General Quarters was called because we had 2 Iranian gunboats coming out after us.

Well, we launched the alert aircraft, and they buzzed the boats at around 200 ft. off the deck. They were then told that if they didn't go back, we would fire at them on the next pass.

They turned around rather quickly after being told that.

 

[IsaacNewton]

One of the other things that some on this thread seem to keep forgetting (or else they don't know).

ICBM's are fired at FIXED targets, meaning they can't be redirected after launch.

Carriers are mobile, meaning that they can go from place to place. Top speed on a US carrier (as listed in Jane's Fighting Ships), at the last I checked while on my last sea tour was listed at 40 plus knots. The top speed is classified, but it is more than 40 knots.

Figuring that the average time in the air for the missile is going to be 20 to 30 min, that gives the carrier lead time to get out of the area when a missile launch is detected.

And, figuring the average blast of a really large missile, the shock wave would only have a range of 2 or 3 miles, much less than what a carrier could cover at flank speed.

Pure fantasy.

A ship travelling at 40 kts cannot outrun or outmaneuver a cruise missile travelling at 500 mph in anyone's imagination. And 500 mph is for Subsonic missiles. Supersonic missiles travel more than 700mph (Mach 1), Hypersonic missiles travel up to 5 times the speed of sound (Mach 5).

FANTASY.

 

[ABikerSailor]

One of the other things that some on this thread seem to keep forgetting (or else they don't know).

ICBM's are fired at FIXED targets, meaning they can't be redirected after launch.

Carriers are mobile, meaning that they can go from place to place. Top speed on a US carrier (as listed in Jane's Fighting Ships), at the last I checked while on my last sea tour was listed at 40 plus knots. The top speed is classified, but it is more than 40 knots.

Figuring that the average time in the air for the missile is going to be 20 to 30 min, that gives the carrier lead time to get out of the area when a missile launch is detected.

And, figuring the average blast of a really large missile, the shock wave would only have a range of 2 or 3 miles, much less than what a carrier could cover at flank speed.

Pure fantasy.

A ship travelling at 40 kts cannot outrun or outmaneuver a cruise missile travelling at 500 mph in anyone's imagination. And 500 mph is for Subsonic missiles. Supersonic missiles travel more than 700mph (Mach 1), Hypersonic missiles travel up to 5 times the speed of sound (Mach 5).

FANTASY.

Guess you missed out on basic physics. A missile traveling at roughly Mach 10 (which those missiles are supposed to be capable of) can't be steered by radio waves after it's launched.

Carriers can move. And ballistic missiles (of which they are) can only hit a FIXED (meaning it doesn't move) target.

Carriers can get out of range of the danger if they have to.

Sorry, but ICBM's are much different than Tomohawks.

 

[Care4all]

13 billion is

13 thousand million dollars....

13 thousand million dollars...

holy smokes....
13 THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.....

I guess that is a small amount considering we spend around

700 THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS a YEAR on our defense budget.