Aircraft carriers are as useless as battleships in an all out war with China or Russia

[esalla]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

They didn't fight that one properly. They should have sent in Seal teams to get Osama. Fuck Afghanistan as a whole, it's a shithole.

Osama was not there

 

[esalla]

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

Okay...

I'm all for spending less money on them because we don't need a bloated Military Industrial complex, but if we get into a war with Russia or China, it would be our own stupidity.

Yes, you would be the leader.

Mike you really need a facial

 

[Taz]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

They didn't fight that one properly. They should have sent in Seal teams to get Osama. Fuck Afghanistan as a whole, it's a shithole.

Osama was not there

Well, wherever Sammy was, lol. Afghanistan had nothing to do with anything. Neither did Iraq. Both were a waste of brave soldiers.

 

[Dayton3]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

 

[esalla]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

So how many more useless ships do we need?

 

[Picaro]

Carriers are well suited for a variety of missions, but no point in repeating the obvious and wasting more time on stupid morons who think isolationism is a grand idea, never mind it never has in the past; they just think it will give them more cash to blow on trash and gambling and dope.

lol@ Oh Noes!!!! Missiles N Stuff!!!! Wah!!!

 

[Dayton3]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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?

 

[esalla]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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 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.

Well there you go, each 3 billion dollar sub is a bargain when compared to a doomed 100 billion dollar carrier group

 

[Dayton3]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

 

[esalla]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

 

[esalla]

Carriers are well suited for a variety of missions, but no point in repeating the obvious and wasting more time on stupid morons who think isolationism is a grand idea, never mind it never has in the past; they just think it will give them more cash to blow on trash and gambling and dope.

lol@ Oh Noes!!!! Missiles N Stuff!!!! Wah!!!

Bravo bravo. Now can you translate to English

 

[Dayton3]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[esalla]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

There are no flight deck operations after hypersonic missiles are launched.

Did you study up on why missiles come in low yet?

Sheesh

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

How many sub-launched cruise missiles would it require?

Well, IIRC, U.S. Tomahawk sub launched cruise missiles only have a conventional warhead of about 1,000 lbs. (450 kilograms) which is fairly small all things considered. I think the U.S. air launched cruise missiles though have warheads of around 3,000 lbs. (1,350 kilograms give or take). So the air launched ones are much more powerful.

But these figures are from the early 1990s so I'm sure other variants could be designed and deployed.

I wonder if the old kiloton level warheads for the ASROC would fit on a cruise missile. One of those detonated in the water upstream of the dam would probably destroy the dam and kill millions of civilians. I doubt we would destroy the dam except in a general war.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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...

Taiwan?

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.

Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change

FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..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

How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you

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

Ok, then why have the carrier? Or you want more camel wars

Carriers control the SLOCs and project power by their very presence. They are the only things that can do that.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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...

Taiwan?

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.

Exactly so carriers can only attack camel equipped nations that do not have modern anti ship missiles.

Build 11 more and this will not change

FYI = the water covers over 70% of the the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand the point????
..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

How do you launch an air attack on China or Russia with a carrier without that carrier sinking by the following missile attack

Haven't played a PC game in twenty years as I prefer playing with numbskulls like you

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

Ok, then why have the carrier? Or you want more camel wars

I'm in favor of no more aircraft carriers and probably do away with a few of the oldest. We should cut defense spending by 10%, so we are no longer bigger than the next 10 countries or the rest of the world basically. Time to get back to business instead of bloviation....

The newest junk carrier does not have fully working elevators

It’s a test bed of new innovations. The bugs will be worked out eventually.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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 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.

Well there you go, each 3 billion dollar sub is a bargain when compared to a doomed 100 billion dollar carrier group

The only problem with that stupid idea is the subs survive by stealth. By design they are incapable of projecting power. Against a peer opponent subs are even more vulnerable than carriers and their sensors are limited to less than a hundred miles. As soon as a sub radiates or launches a weapon It advertises it’s position to peer opponents for destruction.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

But they're really useful for picking on the little guys.

How many american arms and legs were blown off in afghanistan

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

There are no flight deck operations after hypersonic missiles are launched.

Did you study up on why missiles come in low yet?

Sheesh

Missiles 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.

 

[Markle]

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.

 

[Camp]

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.

Which seven wars are you blaming Obama for? I think you are making stuff up.