Enough is enough

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.

Please keep your phoney un-education to yourself. You are clueless if you think ANY ship can outrun or out maneuver a missile. We are talking about cruise missiles not ICBMs, that is some other bizarre discussion that was started by someone else.

You really don't have much factual information on why surface ships, doesn't matter the type or speed, are so vulnerable in modern warfare. They were utterly vulnerable during WW2 as well.

The most ignorant thing I've heard here though is 'there is no amount that is too much for a ship'. So far away from reality there is no response. Any potential enemies we have are happy we would spend 13 billion dollars on a single asset that can be easily sunk. That is about 1/6 of Russia's entire defense budget. It is stupid beyond stupid.
 
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.

Please keep your phoney un-education to yourself. You are clueless if you think ANY ship can outrun or out maneuver a missile. We are talking about cruise missiles not ICBMs, that is some other bizarre discussion that was started by someone else.

You really don't have much factual information on why surface ships, doesn't matter the type or speed, are so vulnerable in modern warfare. They were utterly vulnerable during WW2 as well.

The most ignorant thing I've heard here though is 'there is no amount that is too much for a ship'. So far away from reality there is no response. Any potential enemies we have are happy we would spend 13 billion dollars on a single asset that can be easily sunk. That is about 1/6 of Russia's entire defense budget. It is stupid beyond stupid.
These aircraft carriers are being built to replace the aging fleet. Carriers like the Enterprise............In order to maintain the fleet you must retire older ships as they eventually get to a point where they are ready to be made into razor blades...............

I've served on old rust bucket ships and the hull, even though patched over time, has outlived it's usefulness..........................

To the point of easy to kill.........Your Naive.............These ships have been battle proven around the world..........Your scenarios of the main threat are against a country like China or Russia......And if that is the World is in Deep shit anyway...............But we have many layers of attack and defense capability...........The Carrier is only one of these aspects..........These launch pads can be taken out by other means...........and if attacked I've already shown that they can be hit by SM6 missiles........and as a last resort CWIS can take out these missiles as they near the ship with a wall of bullets.
 
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.


Ford class? Let's hope they don't explode if they bump into something. ;)
 
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.


$13 bn's a good price for a carrier compared to a single B-2 costing about $1 bn.

As to worries about missiles, I'm sure they've thought of that. In fact, as former Navy I can tell you they have. The multi-millionaire dollar missiles are also subject to itty bitty bullets costing a few bucks a piece. :)
 
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.


$13 bn's a good price for a carrier compared to a single B-2 costing about $1 bn.

As to worries about missiles, I'm sure they've thought of that. In fact, as former Navy I can tell you they have. The multi-millionaire dollar missiles are also subject to itty bitty bullets costing a few bucks a piece. :)

Naïve. For anyone to believe any ship is safe from missiles. They aren't. There are many books out regarding military assets. I mean this stuff is nearly common knowledge, except on a message board lol.

And points made in previous posts are ignored so I'll reiterate once and end this circular train to nowhere. It is very easy to overwhelm any defense array with many missiles.

Thus, one 13 billion dollar asset is worth 30 1-2 million dollar missiles by any math standard. Again, to military strategists, but not on an internet message board lol.

Feel warm and fuzzy if that is what you need.
 
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.


$13 bn's a good price for a carrier compared to a single B-2 costing about $1 bn.

As to worries about missiles, I'm sure they've thought of that. In fact, as former Navy I can tell you they have. The multi-millionaire dollar missiles are also subject to itty bitty bullets costing a few bucks a piece. :)

Naïve. For anyone to believe any ship is safe from missiles. They aren't. There are many books out regarding military assets. I mean this stuff is nearly common knowledge, except on a message board lol.

And points made in previous posts are ignored so I'll reiterate once and end this circular train to nowhere. It is very easy to overwhelm any defense array with many missiles.

Thus, one 13 billion dollar asset is worth 30 1-2 million dollar missiles by any math standard. Again, to military strategists, but not on an internet message board lol.

Feel warm and fuzzy if that is what you need.

And yet, in the history of US naval operations, no ship's been lost to this dread array of missiles.

Your reasoning in fact was echoed back when the atom bomb was invented. Old school admirals figured big naval vessels were now obsolete since 1 nuke could take out an entire battlegroup. True, but you have to actually use the nuke to do that. Same with 'vampires.'

Every weapon has a countermeasure for it.
 
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.


$13 bn's a good price for a carrier compared to a single B-2 costing about $1 bn.

As to worries about missiles, I'm sure they've thought of that. In fact, as former Navy I can tell you they have. The multi-millionaire dollar missiles are also subject to itty bitty bullets costing a few bucks a piece. :)

Naïve. For anyone to believe any ship is safe from missiles. They aren't. There are many books out regarding military assets. I mean this stuff is nearly common knowledge, except on a message board lol.

And points made in previous posts are ignored so I'll reiterate once and end this circular train to nowhere. It is very easy to overwhelm any defense array with many missiles.

Thus, one 13 billion dollar asset is worth 30 1-2 million dollar missiles by any math standard. Again, to military strategists, but not on an internet message board lol.

Feel warm and fuzzy if that is what you need.

And yet, in the history of US naval operations, no ship's been lost to this dread array of missiles.

Your reasoning in fact was echoed back when the atom bomb was invented. Old school admirals figured big naval vessels were now obsolete since 1 nuke could take out an entire battlegroup. True, but you have to actually use the nuke to do that. Same with 'vampires.'

Every weapon has a countermeasure for it.

Where did anyone say something was 'obsolete'.

The only premise in this thread is 13 billion for one ship is too much because it is vulnerable to relatively lowcost weapons that can sink it.

And every post has been about everything but that, except the whack idea that 'no amount is too high for one ship'.

Feel free to 'believe' what you like. End of line.
 
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.


$13 bn's a good price for a carrier compared to a single B-2 costing about $1 bn.

As to worries about missiles, I'm sure they've thought of that. In fact, as former Navy I can tell you they have. The multi-millionaire dollar missiles are also subject to itty bitty bullets costing a few bucks a piece. :)

Naïve. For anyone to believe any ship is safe from missiles. They aren't. There are many books out regarding military assets. I mean this stuff is nearly common knowledge, except on a message board lol.

And points made in previous posts are ignored so I'll reiterate once and end this circular train to nowhere. It is very easy to overwhelm any defense array with many missiles.

Thus, one 13 billion dollar asset is worth 30 1-2 million dollar missiles by any math standard. Again, to military strategists, but not on an internet message board lol.

Feel warm and fuzzy if that is what you need.

And yet, in the history of US naval operations, no ship's been lost to this dread array of missiles.

Your reasoning in fact was echoed back when the atom bomb was invented. Old school admirals figured big naval vessels were now obsolete since 1 nuke could take out an entire battlegroup. True, but you have to actually use the nuke to do that. Same with 'vampires.'

Every weapon has a countermeasure for it.

Where did anyone say something was 'obsolete'.

The only premise in this thread is 13 billion for one ship is too much because it is vulnerable to relatively lowcost weapons that can sink it.

And every post has been about everything but that, except the whack idea that 'no amount is too high for one ship'.

Feel free to 'believe' what you like. End of line.



What is your expertise in naval strategy and technology?
 
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.


$13 bn's a good price for a carrier compared to a single B-2 costing about $1 bn.

As to worries about missiles, I'm sure they've thought of that. In fact, as former Navy I can tell you they have. The multi-millionaire dollar missiles are also subject to itty bitty bullets costing a few bucks a piece. :)

Naïve. For anyone to believe any ship is safe from missiles. They aren't. There are many books out regarding military assets. I mean this stuff is nearly common knowledge, except on a message board lol.

And points made in previous posts are ignored so I'll reiterate once and end this circular train to nowhere. It is very easy to overwhelm any defense array with many missiles.

Thus, one 13 billion dollar asset is worth 30 1-2 million dollar missiles by any math standard. Again, to military strategists, but not on an internet message board lol.

Feel warm and fuzzy if that is what you need.

And yet, in the history of US naval operations, no ship's been lost to this dread array of missiles.

Your reasoning in fact was echoed back when the atom bomb was invented. Old school admirals figured big naval vessels were now obsolete since 1 nuke could take out an entire battlegroup. True, but you have to actually use the nuke to do that. Same with 'vampires.'

Every weapon has a countermeasure for it.

Where did anyone say something was 'obsolete'.

The only premise in this thread is 13 billion for one ship is too much because it is vulnerable to relatively lowcost weapons that can sink it.

And every post has been about everything but that, except the whack idea that 'no amount is too high for one ship'.

Feel free to 'believe' what you like. End of line.



What is your expertise in naval strategy and technology?

See OP for original question. Thanks for calling.
 
$13 bn's a good price for a carrier compared to a single B-2 costing about $1 bn.

As to worries about missiles, I'm sure they've thought of that. In fact, as former Navy I can tell you they have. The multi-millionaire dollar missiles are also subject to itty bitty bullets costing a few bucks a piece. :)

Naïve. For anyone to believe any ship is safe from missiles. They aren't. There are many books out regarding military assets. I mean this stuff is nearly common knowledge, except on a message board lol.

And points made in previous posts are ignored so I'll reiterate once and end this circular train to nowhere. It is very easy to overwhelm any defense array with many missiles.

Thus, one 13 billion dollar asset is worth 30 1-2 million dollar missiles by any math standard. Again, to military strategists, but not on an internet message board lol.

Feel warm and fuzzy if that is what you need.

And yet, in the history of US naval operations, no ship's been lost to this dread array of missiles.

Your reasoning in fact was echoed back when the atom bomb was invented. Old school admirals figured big naval vessels were now obsolete since 1 nuke could take out an entire battlegroup. True, but you have to actually use the nuke to do that. Same with 'vampires.'

Every weapon has a countermeasure for it.

Where did anyone say something was 'obsolete'.

The only premise in this thread is 13 billion for one ship is too much because it is vulnerable to relatively lowcost weapons that can sink it.

And every post has been about everything but that, except the whack idea that 'no amount is too high for one ship'.

Feel free to 'believe' what you like. End of line.



What is your expertise in naval strategy and technology?

See OP for original question. Thanks for calling.



The OP doesn't answer my question. Why won't you?
 
I kind of agree that the days of a war on the high seas are over and most of the U.S. Navy ships are nothing but gas guzzling diesel tubs that might as well be scrapped. The strategy of screening Carriers with destroyers and cruisers was obsolete when the first missile was built. We have enough high tech Carriers on the high seas to obliterate the freaking world and even countries with primitive technology have the missile technology to hit a big flattop. Subs are probably the future of naval warfare. On the other hand I would hope that the 13 billion dollars spent building a war ship would stimulate the economy as much as another 13 billion dollar sky scraper.
 
I kind of agree that the days of a war on the high seas are over and most of the U.S. Navy ships are nothing but gas guzzling diesel tubs that might as well be scrapped. The strategy of screening Carriers with destroyers and cruisers was obsolete when the first missile was built. We have enough high tech Carriers on the high seas to obliterate the freaking world and even countries with primitive technology have the missile technology to hit a big flattop. Subs are probably the future of naval warfare. On the other hand I would hope that the 13 billion dollars spent building a war ship would stimulate the economy as much as another 13 billion dollar sky scraper.

I guess that you don't know that the designation "CVN" means carrier, fixed wing, nuclear powered.

No, they are not gas guzzling diesel tubs. Matter of fact, if you actually paid attention to what you type and what is true, you would understand that diesel engines and gasoline engines work much differently.

Put diesel in your gas engine sometime................I dare you.................
 

Forum List

Back
Top