Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That is what Trump and fox say, but in actuality he is the worst businessman ever and China and Russia think he's an idiot also North Korea for that matter. His trade wars only screwed our farmers period and Hong Kong is gone. Great job real real tough guy LOL...We'll never bother attacking Russia or China with an aircraft carrier when we have thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aircraft carriers are for regular warfare. Time to go back to getting along and controlling our enemies with trade instead of ridiculous Trump beloviating that means nothing except more failure for him, the ridiculous clown. Change the channel
Thank you, good to know you agree that using our economic might is a strong incentive for other nations to "behave". President Donald Trump is probably the first President in our history to use our economy instead of bombs. It is a given that in order to use our economic might, we have to have the "stick" our military might, to back it up. Which he has done and done better than anyone else.
Unlike preceding administrations, especially the failed one of former President Barack Hussein Obama who somehow managed to start another seven wars.
As for aircraft carriers, they would be knocked out in the first few days of an all-out war. That is not their purpose. They are used today exactly as intended, for a massive show of might for explosive areas. Something for which they have been extremely effective.
One, if it's the right kind.How many sub-launched cruise missiles would it require?The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.
Yes, though getting them there would be the issue. I suspect two or three bunker-busters into the dam face would breach it.
Carriers control nothing from the bottom of the ocean. Furthermore communication is controlled from space, you might have heard about itCarriers control the SLOCs and project power by their very presence. They are the only things that can do that.Ok, then why have the carrier? Or you want more camel warsWe'll never bother attacking Russia or China with an aircraft carrier when we have thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aircraft carriers are for regular warfare. Time to go back to getting along and controlling our enemies with trade instead of ridiculous Trump beloviating that means nothing except more failure for him, the ridiculous clown. Change the channelHow do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attackFYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.Taiwan?
Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.www.theamericanconservative.com
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.taskandpurpose.com
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
I think America should be working out how to protect the eventual Communist offensive against Taiwan, Japan and Australia rather than just their own offensive measures.
If they don't take Taiwan by force, they will just swallow them by squeezing them economically, denying them travel in various critical areas they require for trade, bribing and buying politicians (as they do to the West) etc.
China is probably just in wait for the right opportunity. They just took H.K and they are working on squeezing the Aussies and NZ economically right now also, keeping them dependent on them. Once done with these irritants, they will turn their sights elsewhere.
By the time China decides to go on the offensive, they could be too advanced, or too rapid in their activities. Worse, a passive, docile America that decides "it's not worth the economic 'benefit' we enjoy from cheap labour in China, so, unfortunately, you're on your own Taiwan".
China will know when to move, it won't be until they are in a much superior position, economically, geo-politically (they are in a great spot based on the U.N and WTO fiascos) and otherwise. They have to choose to eventually expand though with a focus on economics, but we saw their swift and deliberate move into H.K. 1.4B people and weak Western leadership? Just a matter of time...
China has already taken over the USA, and they are training troops in Canada now
That's as stupid a claim as the one in this thread.
And carriers are not necessarily meant to attack China or Russia directly. They can and would perform a valuable function of keeping control of the SLOCs such as to the Persian Gulf.
Build 11 more and this will not change
..you obviously don't know shit about wars except what you play on your PC games...
..in REAL wars, you want to control the oceans/etc--AHHHHH!! that's what the carriers are for
Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you
Carriers are great for parking off Muslim countries to bomb the shit out of them.Again in an all out war the jets on the carriers can not defend against hypersonic missiles, and there will be zero enemy jets to dogfight with. The enemy will never even be seen.Well since the carrier is doomed by the hypersonic anti ship missile, then other ships launching these missiles and larger types of missiles against the enemy are the logical choice. That said since all are sitting ducks in a modern battle who says that surface ships are even needed. A carrier can not stand alone, it needs the entire carrier group to protect it's big bullseye. However all subs can travel alone and will still be there when to carrier sinks and noting that a boomer has millions of times more power than the fat carrier.And neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any weapon that could threaten an American carrier. The nations that do would sink a carrier that acted offensively before it's jets could land after the attack.How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistanBut they're really useful for picking on the little guys.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Well just off hand, the guy who grew up about half a mile from me lost both legs to a grenade attack in Iraq (Baghdad). He was later featured in a major article in Popular Mechanics about artificial limbs.
Some time later, one of my former students lost both legs in Afghanistan just weeks after he arrived there. He survived too.
So how many more useless ships do we need?
What surface ships would you consider useful in a modern day military conflict against a competent opponent?
Well there you go, each 3 billion dollar sub is a bargain when compared to a doomed 100 billion dollar carrier group
You do know I hope that submarines can be detected and sunk.? And percentage wise far more of a submarines crew dies when it absorbs enemy fire than a surface warship.
Also you ignore the symbolic significance of surface ships. Carriers in particular. While no doubt submarines are great in a wide range of roles, they really cannot "show the flag" like a carrier. Also I defy you to show me how useful a submarine can be in humanitarian operations.
LOL, no carrier even exist without sub escort as the big slow fat useless pig has no method of self defense. The carrier is a dinosaur of the past
Then we invade and this happensCarriers are great for parking off Muslim countries to bomb the shit out of them.Again in an all out war the jets on the carriers can not defend against hypersonic missiles, and there will be zero enemy jets to dogfight with. The enemy will never even be seen.Well since the carrier is doomed by the hypersonic anti ship missile, then other ships launching these missiles and larger types of missiles against the enemy are the logical choice. That said since all are sitting ducks in a modern battle who says that surface ships are even needed. A carrier can not stand alone, it needs the entire carrier group to protect it's big bullseye. However all subs can travel alone and will still be there when to carrier sinks and noting that a boomer has millions of times more power than the fat carrier.And neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any weapon that could threaten an American carrier. The nations that do would sink a carrier that acted offensively before it's jets could land after the attack.How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistanBut they're really useful for picking on the little guys.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Well just off hand, the guy who grew up about half a mile from me lost both legs to a grenade attack in Iraq (Baghdad). He was later featured in a major article in Popular Mechanics about artificial limbs.
Some time later, one of my former students lost both legs in Afghanistan just weeks after he arrived there. He survived too.
So how many more useless ships do we need?
What surface ships would you consider useful in a modern day military conflict against a competent opponent?
Well there you go, each 3 billion dollar sub is a bargain when compared to a doomed 100 billion dollar carrier group
You do know I hope that submarines can be detected and sunk.? And percentage wise far more of a submarines crew dies when it absorbs enemy fire than a surface warship.
Also you ignore the symbolic significance of surface ships. Carriers in particular. While no doubt submarines are great in a wide range of roles, they really cannot "show the flag" like a carrier. Also I defy you to show me how useful a submarine can be in humanitarian operations.
LOL, no carrier even exist without sub escort as the big slow fat useless pig has no method of self defense. The carrier is a dinosaur of the past
Agreed, but that's why the aircraft carrier is useful, we can bomb them from the air without any casualties.Then we invade and this happensCarriers are great for parking off Muslim countries to bomb the shit out of them.Again in an all out war the jets on the carriers can not defend against hypersonic missiles, and there will be zero enemy jets to dogfight with. The enemy will never even be seen.Well since the carrier is doomed by the hypersonic anti ship missile, then other ships launching these missiles and larger types of missiles against the enemy are the logical choice. That said since all are sitting ducks in a modern battle who says that surface ships are even needed. A carrier can not stand alone, it needs the entire carrier group to protect it's big bullseye. However all subs can travel alone and will still be there when to carrier sinks and noting that a boomer has millions of times more power than the fat carrier.And neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any weapon that could threaten an American carrier. The nations that do would sink a carrier that acted offensively before it's jets could land after the attack.How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistanBut they're really useful for picking on the little guys.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Well just off hand, the guy who grew up about half a mile from me lost both legs to a grenade attack in Iraq (Baghdad). He was later featured in a major article in Popular Mechanics about artificial limbs.
Some time later, one of my former students lost both legs in Afghanistan just weeks after he arrived there. He survived too.
So how many more useless ships do we need?
What surface ships would you consider useful in a modern day military conflict against a competent opponent?
Well there you go, each 3 billion dollar sub is a bargain when compared to a doomed 100 billion dollar carrier group
You do know I hope that submarines can be detected and sunk.? And percentage wise far more of a submarines crew dies when it absorbs enemy fire than a surface warship.
Also you ignore the symbolic significance of surface ships. Carriers in particular. While no doubt submarines are great in a wide range of roles, they really cannot "show the flag" like a carrier. Also I defy you to show me how useful a submarine can be in humanitarian operations.
LOL, no carrier even exist without sub escort as the big slow fat useless pig has no method of self defense. The carrier is a dinosaur of the past
Now explain that to the Pentagon because they do not know, the fact that the Pentagon even takes this question while building hundreds of billions of dollars of ships is hystericalMissiles come in low to reduce the radar horizon of the defenders, a carrier group’s radar horizon can easily be a thousand miles or more away thanks to AEW warning aircraft which are data linked to the carrier group. Sea skimmers doN’t work against a modern Carrier task force.There are no flight deck operations after hypersonic missiles are launched.Again in an all out war the jets on the carriers can not defend against hypersonic missiles, and there will be zero enemy jets to dogfight with. The enemy will never even be seen.Well since the carrier is doomed by the hypersonic anti ship missile, then other ships launching these missiles and larger types of missiles against the enemy are the logical choice. That said since all are sitting ducks in a modern battle who says that surface ships are even needed. A carrier can not stand alone, it needs the entire carrier group to protect it's big bullseye. However all subs can travel alone and will still be there when to carrier sinks and noting that a boomer has millions of times more power than the fat carrier.And neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any weapon that could threaten an American carrier. The nations that do would sink a carrier that acted offensively before it's jets could land after the attack.How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistanBut they're really useful for picking on the little guys.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Well just off hand, the guy who grew up about half a mile from me lost both legs to a grenade attack in Iraq (Baghdad). He was later featured in a major article in Popular Mechanics about artificial limbs.
Some time later, one of my former students lost both legs in Afghanistan just weeks after he arrived there. He survived too.
So how many more useless ships do we need?
What surface ships would you consider useful in a modern day military conflict against a competent opponent?
Well there you go, each 3 billion dollar sub is a bargain when compared to a doomed 100 billion dollar carrier group
You do know I hope that submarines can be detected and sunk.? And percentage wise far more of a submarines crew dies when it absorbs enemy fire than a surface warship.
Also you ignore the symbolic significance of surface ships. Carriers in particular. While no doubt submarines are great in a wide range of roles, they really cannot "show the flag" like a carrier. Also I defy you to show me how useful a submarine can be in humanitarian operations.
LOL, no carrier even exist without sub escort as the big slow fat useless pig has no method of self defense. The carrier is a dinosaur of the past
I would hope you know that supercarriers are not supposed to fire the weapons they do have (like RAM) if possible because of the chance the exhaust from the weapons will disrupt flight deck operations.
Did you study up on why missiles come in low yet?
Sheesh
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/SILGZ6MNB5H6FMXNQRVQ4XT4VE.jpg)
www.defensenews.com
As long as the carrier is bombing a third world country without hypersonic anti ship missilesAgreed, but that's why the aircraft carrier is useful, we can bomb them from the air without any casualties.Then we invade and this happensCarriers are great for parking off Muslim countries to bomb the shit out of them.Again in an all out war the jets on the carriers can not defend against hypersonic missiles, and there will be zero enemy jets to dogfight with. The enemy will never even be seen.Well since the carrier is doomed by the hypersonic anti ship missile, then other ships launching these missiles and larger types of missiles against the enemy are the logical choice. That said since all are sitting ducks in a modern battle who says that surface ships are even needed. A carrier can not stand alone, it needs the entire carrier group to protect it's big bullseye. However all subs can travel alone and will still be there when to carrier sinks and noting that a boomer has millions of times more power than the fat carrier.And neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any weapon that could threaten an American carrier. The nations that do would sink a carrier that acted offensively before it's jets could land after the attack.How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistanBut they're really useful for picking on the little guys.Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
Well just off hand, the guy who grew up about half a mile from me lost both legs to a grenade attack in Iraq (Baghdad). He was later featured in a major article in Popular Mechanics about artificial limbs.
Some time later, one of my former students lost both legs in Afghanistan just weeks after he arrived there. He survived too.
So how many more useless ships do we need?
What surface ships would you consider useful in a modern day military conflict against a competent opponent?
Well there you go, each 3 billion dollar sub is a bargain when compared to a doomed 100 billion dollar carrier group
You do know I hope that submarines can be detected and sunk.? And percentage wise far more of a submarines crew dies when it absorbs enemy fire than a surface warship.
Also you ignore the symbolic significance of surface ships. Carriers in particular. While no doubt submarines are great in a wide range of roles, they really cannot "show the flag" like a carrier. Also I defy you to show me how useful a submarine can be in humanitarian operations.
LOL, no carrier even exist without sub escort as the big slow fat useless pig has no method of self defense. The carrier is a dinosaur of the past
Though I’m not gleeful about it as you are, I agree that our carriers are vulnerable to new technologyFace It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
I am not gleeful, explaining modern technology to elected officials that are afraid of their sink is actually quite frustratingThough I’m not gleeful about it as you are, I agree that our carriers are vulnerable to new technologyFace It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
they still have their uses as you so bitterly point out, but limitations also
The challenge is for us to develope newer technology to defeat the new anti ship missles that biden’s benefactors are planning to launch against our carriersI am not gleeful, explaining modern technology to elected officials that are afraid of their sink is actually quite frustrating
I am not gleeful, explaining modern technology to elected officials that are afraid of their sink is actually quite frustratingThough I’m not gleeful about it as you are, I agree that our carriers are vulnerable to new technologyFace It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
they still have their uses as you so bitterly point out, but limitations also
The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.
In a rare revelation, Beijing has admitted that its 2.4-kilometer Three Gorges Dam spanning the Yangtze River in Hubei province “deformed slightly” after record flooding.
The official Xinhua News Agency quoted the operator of the the world’s largest hydroelectric gravity dam as saying that some nonstructural, peripheral parts of the dam had buckled.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
China has a small number of nukes and a very limited delivery ability. The US has over five thousand nukes and delivery systems that range from uninterceptable ICBMs accurate within tens of meters that carry multiple independently targeted warheads, to Ohio Class submarines that can’t be tracked and can nearly hit every Chinese target while tied to their docks.
Actually kid a carrier could appear out of no where in WW2 because radar and satellite tech did not exist.I am not gleeful, explaining modern technology to elected officials that are afraid of their sink is actually quite frustratingThough I’m not gleeful about it as you are, I agree that our carriers are vulnerable to new technologyFace It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)
Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.
However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands
they still have their uses as you so bitterly point out, but limitations also
Explaining something you have no clue about yourself Mr. "first responder" (although that might mean you are an ambulance chaser).
Don't know why you are so obsessed with soldiers losing limbs. You do know they actually ASKED for the job knowing full well the risks don't you?
And why do you think a carrier battle group is simply going to go sailing to within anti ship missile range? Even in World War Two I'm pretty sure carriers never simply cruised up to within range of unsuppressed land based air power.
www.anti-empire.com
Actually kid a carrier could appear out of no where in WW2 because radar and satellite tech did not exist.
Did the Japs have radar at Leyte GulfActually kid a carrier could appear out of no where in WW2 because radar and satellite tech did not exist.
Rudimentary radar existed and saved England. It was new and many in charge did not trust the results, what they were seeing on their own screens.
Satellites you are right about.
Did the Japs have radar at Leyte GulfActually kid a carrier could appear out of no where in WW2 because radar and satellite tech did not exist.
Rudimentary radar existed and saved England. It was new and many in charge did not trust the results, what they were seeing on their own screens.
Satellites you are right about.
