Another example of supercarriers being needed.

[DudleySmith]

Sure they can be.

But to be effective in combat, they have to be essentially the size of a conventional fighter jet.

What, do you think you are going to strap on a ton of bombs onto a drone no larger than you are?

I do not hate drones, I have used them myself. I simply am not some mindless moron who thinks they are the best thing ever, and will win wars all by themselves.

You know, after the last War to end all wars", one famous wag even said the era of armies and ground combat was at an end, the wars of the future would be fought by bombers. Well, it is over 70 years later, and it still has not happened.

But I see your typical response. Somebody posts something you do not like, you immediately resort to insults, and do not actually talk about the context of what was said.

But fine, you are right. Now show me a comparison of a much smaller combat drone. You are the one that made the claim that there are many that are smaller, now it is up to you to prove it.

So go ahead, prove me wrong.

I don't have to, I already proved you wrong on FDR and the choices, which the rest of your filler attempts to avoid admitting, and so does the construction records; we had enough fleet carriers to hold on after Pearl, and the Japanese were too over-extended to do much except blockade Australia for a short time anyway, and we managed to prevent that anyway. Your typical response is to just insult people and through out long posts pretending to school everybody when you really don't know any more than the people you're insulting, and it's just lame, typical of low level non-coms who got to bully a few grunts around and now thinks they're legends in their own minds or something.

As for drones, the Iranians just landed two on a tanker deck and exploded them, dumbass, along with a third kamikaze drone; so where is all this 'ecm n stuff' you were babbling about in another thread, again? Isn't the Gulf like a major militarized region? Do you think the Iranians are more 'advanced' than the U.S. or something?

 

[DudleySmith]

I know that I don't have all the answers...


But I know that an aircraft carrier is an awfully big target hard to miss...

Drones do seem to be more fuel efficient than regular aircraft...

And aircraft carrier GROUPS do seem to use a LOT of fuel... which isn't exactly always easy to obtain in a theatre of operation.

Which Germany had much much better tanks but without the gas/diesel they made for nice lawn ornaments too far away from battle lines to do any good.

Fuel, munitions, mobility, communications and food...these things are needed to win wars. I'm not sure that a C1-30 can land on an aircraft carrier...or take off from one. But I am about sure that an aircraft carrier group needs a container ship load of supplies on a regular basis to operate. But a floating city is hard to miss just the same.

The super carriers can do a lot of missions besides carrying planes around, like humanitarian relief, mass evacuations, and other stuff; they're very useful, and one or two can control a whole lot of ocean and shoreline. The lighter carriers have those uses as well on a smaller scale and also very handy tactical uses where a big carrier is overkill. In any event, aircraft that don't have to carry pilots and the life support for them can carry a lot more; the pilots and their needs can take up over half the weight and costs of a fighter, and they can't even make use of over 20% of a modern fighter's capabilities without killing the pilot, and then there are the training costs and times on top of that. You can ignore the people who don't like them; they don't know much.

 

[DudleySmith]

What you're intentionally ignoring is the fact that we are now blind in the most violent, terrorist training grounds in the world. Without eyes and ears on the ground, we're as exposed and as much in danger as we were on September 10, 2001.

We're in deep doo doo.

That 'nation building' nonsense is going out of style now. We have all kinds of intel assets, and we have a CIA that is heavy into using drones to take out scumbags and getting better at it every day. The danger we face is continuing to let the vermin of the world into our country, and the military can't do a thing about that; politicians have to provide the leadership, and we don't have any. The Taliban could have been toast in a few weeks, but politicians were too timid and frankly many just didn't care, and now instead of a few hundred to a couple thousand casualties we are looking at millions; you can bet they won't stop with Afghanistan.

 

[DudleySmith]

DudleySmith what wars were those? in Korea, it was the Marines that saved the Army's ass---the NKs beat the Army all the way down to Pusan --the Marines saved the day there...then they landed at Inchon
.....AND THEN, the USMC was the only unit NOT to get their ass whipped when the Chinese came over,....the USMC decimated the 9th Army Group--AND saved some of the Doggies east of the Chosin..RCT-31 got decimated
..the Doggies got a big bloody nose all over when the Chinese came over......USMC Gen Smith '''''disobeyed''' Army Gen. Almond's STUPID order to race to the Yalu --and good thing he did

.....USMC air was critical in the Doggies--- east of Chosin ----not being totally wiped out--the Marine FO for air support took charge....brought in devastating air strikes during and after the Chinese attack ........read East of Chosin--a good book on it.....my dad was at the Chosin....I was in for 8 years

The Army divisions available in Japan and in the Pacific were way under-strength and under-supplied. The Marines faced an already exhausted Korean force that couldn't finish off a few weak Army units. The Army and air forces came in and held the place to the present day. There is nothing Marines do that the Army can't, including amphibious landings and FO for artillery and air strikes.

 

[harmonica]

DudleySmith hhahahhaahahbullshit .....the Army got their ass totally whooped by the NKs and the Chinese --plain and simple

 

[DudleySmith]

DudleySmith hhahahhaahahbullshit .....the Army got their ass totally whooped by the NKs and the Chinese --plain and simple

Have another drink, and mourn the fact that Marines have been completely obsolete since Guadacanal and Sicily.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Okay...I get that part...but I don't think that they are entirely electrical...that just wouldn't be right in a lot of ways. As an electrician I would be terrified if the nuclear reactor was the sole source of all power on the carrier. That's just not how things are done. For a laundry list of reasons.
They must burn a lot of diesel for generators...and jets still need jet fuel too.

Just saying...physics are telling me that they use diesel and jet fuel...a lot of it.

Why do they use diesel?

 

[JohnDB]

Why do they use diesel?

Because a nuclear power generation plant cannot operate solely on the power it generates itself.
Cooling pumps, control rods and sensors are all electrical.
On top of this power is generated by the electromagnets in coils of the alternators generating the power.
That power must come from another source.
Black starts for power generation are not exactly the easiest thing to do...and nuclear power plants got to have a LOT of green lights to start and keep generating. There are electromechanical safeties and electronic safeties to keep the thing from blowing up. Way too much power is needed to be run from a battery bank. (Although I'm sure that there is a battery bank used to filter the power used)

Things like the catapult compressor, screws for propulsion and guidance, and hydraulics can all be electrical...but the power generation still needs a separate source of power to operate. No getting around that. Even a nuclear submarine has to have power generation/supply from a separate source to operate. They can compress the gasses after cleaning the exhaust...but they both still have to have a tailpipe.

 

[harmonica]

DudleySmith you should mourn that you do not know military history

 

[Jarlaxle]

Once again, you are wrong. The USS Saipan served as a fleet carrier for 3 years, and was even the first US carrier to deploy with jets on board. She was the flagship for Carrier Division 17, and patrolled off the Korean cost during the early days of the armistice. And even flew Corsairs in support of the French at the close of the Indochina War.

So yes, she was indeed used as a carrier on active service. And the USS Wright was as well, but only as a training carrier for midshipmen and Naval Aviators learning to land and take off from carriers.

But they were "white elephants", because when they were designed and built, carriers were still new, and many were questioning still if having a few big carriers, or multiple small carriers would be the best solution. And the big carriers side won that argument. So all of the other ones were repurposed, sold, or scrapped.

No. They were built to make up for expected losses among the Independence-class CVLs. Those losses not actually happening (only one-Princeton-was lost in WW2), the ships were white elephants, obsolete the day they were launched.

But contrary to your claims, the Saipan class was indeed based on a Heavy Cruiser hull, and did actually serve as a carrier. They were not converted to their later purposes until after 3 years of service in their original rolls.

And the Lexington Class was built because they had 2 hulls under construction, that the Navy was forbidden by the Washington Naval Treaty to complete. The US was already at it's limit, but as the carrier was still considered "experimental", and any ships already under construction could be converted instead into carriers and still be within the guidelines of the treaty..


The UK also quickly did the same thing, as did Japan, Italy, and France. The IJN Akagi was supposed to be an Amagi class Battlecruiser (46k tons, ten 16" guns). The Amagi was also undergoing conversion when she was heavily damaged in the drydock during an earthquake and was scrapped.

Are you attempting to make some sort of POINT? Yet again: after 1930, beginning with CV-4, USS Ranger, all fleet carriers were designed and built, from the keel up, as carriers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because a nuclear power generation plant cannot operate solely on the power it generates itself.
Cooling pumps, control rods and sensors are all electrical.
On top of this power is generated by the electromagnets in coils of the alternators generating the power.
That power must come from another source.
Black starts for power generation are not exactly the easiest thing to do...and nuclear power plants got to have a LOT of green lights to start and keep generating. There are electromechanical safeties and electronic safeties to keep the thing from blowing up. Way too much power is needed to be run from a battery bank. (Although I'm sure that there is a battery bank used to filter the power used)

Things like the catapult compressor, screws for propulsion and guidance, and hydraulics can all be electrical...but the power generation still needs a separate source of power to operate. No getting around that. Even a nuclear submarine has to have power generation/supply from a separate source to operate. They can compress the gasses after cleaning the exhaust...but they both still have to have a tailpipe.

You could not be more wrong. The generators on nuclear powered ships are for emergency use. I was a qualified submariner on a nuclear powered ship. I later served as a conventional propulsion engineer on two classes of ships, a guided missile cruiser and amphibious assault carrier, Steam power plants, nuclear included, have what are are called ship's service turbine generators that convert the steam energy into electrical power.

I underlined and highlighted all of your incorrect information. I really would like to know where you compiled all of this erroneous information? Did you read it in some science fiction text or make it up on your own?

This is one of the worst posts I have ever seen to contain information that is completely wrong.

 

[JohnDB]

You could not be more wrong. The generators on nuclear powered ships are for emergency use. I was a qualified submariner on a nuclear powered ship. I later served as a conventional propulsion engineer on two classes of ships, a guided missile cruiser and amphibious assault carrier, Steam power plants, nuclear included, have what are are called ship's service turbine generators that convert the steam energy into electrical power.

I underlined and highlighted all of your incorrect information. I really would like to know where you compiled all of this erroneous information? Did you read it in some science fiction text or make it up on your own?

This is one of the worst posts I have ever seen to contain information that is completely wrong.

Ok...so if I'm so wrong....
How do they have a black start?

They have to have power from somewhere to have one.

And fixed magnets... even your "rare earth" magnets wear out over time. Electromagnets are the only way to control the amount of electricity generated.

Sure you can have multiple separate systems derived from one nuclear reactor...one for "people use" and one for industrial purposes but that still has nothing to do with the nuclear power generation plant. It can't.

 

[Mushroom]

Without eyes and ears on the ground, we're as exposed and as much in danger as we were on September 10, 2001.

Well, more like 9 September 2001.

That is when the leader of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by al-Qaeda at the request of the Taliban. And he had been warning the US and Europe since April that he knew of an attack planned in the US, but had been unable to learn any details other than al-Qaeda agents were in the US preparing for it. Which is why as soon as the attacks happened, all the Intelligence agencies focused immediately on AQ. Especially as just 2 days previously they had assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, and on 9-11 the Taliban also launched a major assault on the Northern Alliance.

 

[Mushroom]

we had enough fleet carriers to hold on after Pearl, and the Japanese were too over-extended to do much except blockade Australia for a short time anyway

As for drones, the Iranians just landed two on a tanker deck and exploded them, dumbass, along with a third kamikaze drone; so where is all this 'ecm n stuff' you were babbling about in another thread, again?

Really, we had enough? We had eight in the entire Navy. Entering into a two front war with the battlefields across entire oceans. You think 8 fleet carriers was enough?

Japan already outnumbered us with 12 fleet carriers. If we had not driven them off of Guadalcanal and started to push on New Guinea, where do you think the force that had just conquered the Philippines was going next?

Well, apparently you think they should have just hunkered down in place, and not gone out trying to drive the Japanese back. Just keep their carriers near Pearl, and not push for the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway. Which by the way is exactly why Japan never did invade Australia. We took out enough of their carriers (and lost some of our own), they lost 5 fleet carriers to the 2 the US lost. And by the end of 1942 the invasion was put on hold until "the front stabilized in their favor".

And really, your argument is tankers? Tell me, tankers were struck by the dozens during the "Tanker War" of the 1980's, and are still attacked regularly by pirates. Where are the air defense systems and armed fighters on board to drive off the pirates?

You really are just shooting blindly, trying to say anything that you somehow think proves your point. "If this technology exists, why was it not on tankers!" Well, why is there no kind of defensive systems at all on any tankers or freighters, anywhere?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ok...so if I'm so wrong....
How do they have a black start?

They have to have power from somewhere to have one.

And fixed magnets... even your "rare earth" magnets wear out over time. Electromagnets are the only way to control the amount of electricity generated.

Sure you can have multiple separate systems derived from one nuclear reactor...one for "people use" and one for industrial purposes but that still has nothing to do with the nuclear power generation plant. It can't.

I guess you never heard of shore power or power from another ship, such as a submarine tender.

Once while in the Med, an SSN needed to shut down their reactor for several days. Instead of burning up extra emergency diesel fuel, they came alongside my cruiser and we rigged power lines to allow them to shut down and maintain power for their other systems. BTW, we did this at anchor in the middle of the ocean by tying them up to out starboard side.

 

[DudleySmith]

DudleySmith you should mourn that you do not know military history

In yours and Mushroom's case that just means I'm much better read than both of you, so thanks.

 

[DudleySmith]

Really, we had enough? We had eight in the entire Navy. Entering into a two front war with the battlefields across entire oceans. You think 8 fleet carriers was enough?

Japan already outnumbered us with 12 fleet carriers. If we had not driven them off of Guadalcanal and started to push on New Guinea, where do you think the force that had just conquered the Philippines was going next?

Well, apparently you think they should have just hunkered down in place, and not gone out trying to drive the Japanese back. Just keep their carriers near Pearl, and not push for the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway. Which by the way is exactly why Japan never did invade Australia. We took out enough of their carriers (and lost some of our own), they lost 5 fleet carriers to the 2 the US lost. And by the end of 1942 the invasion was put on hold until "the front stabilized in their favor".

And really, your argument is tankers? Tell me, tankers were struck by the dozens during the "Tanker War" of the 1980's, and are still attacked regularly by pirates. Where are the air defense systems and armed fighters on board to drive off the pirates?

You really are just shooting blindly, trying to say anything that you somehow think proves your point. "If this technology exists, why was it not on tankers!" Well, why is there no kind of defensive systems at all on any tankers or freighters, anywhere?

We had enough that FDR thought we could focus much more on Europe than the Pacific, as the Japanese strength wasn't much of threat compared to Germany's. You really are uninformed.

 

[Mushroom]

as the Japanese strength wasn't much of threat compared to Germany's

Japan was a naval power, their Army was mostly tied up already in China. But we had to work down their Navy one battle at a time, until they finally had nothing left.

 

[DudleySmith]

Japan was a naval power, their Army was mostly tied up already in China. But we had to work down their Navy one battle at a time, until they finally had nothing left.

14 of those fleet carriers saw combat, so obviously we had more than enough. The Japanese over-extended themselves, and we knew how long their oil industry could hold out without American exports, thanks to Standard Oil's excellent record keeping and accurate estimates: 3 years. The Dutch fileds did them no good; the Dutch sabotaged the wells and lines, and an American sub sank a tanker that was carrying almost their entire manpower of oil industry techs, some 800 out of a mere 1,000. We really had to do nothing but wait, but it turns out we got some lucky breaks, most of which we made for ourselves. The big giant fleet just wasn't all that much to brag about. Does a country having only a 1,000 oil field and refinery hands sound like big giant threat to the U.S. to you?

 

[Mushroom]

14 of those fleet carriers saw combat, so obviously we had more than enough. The Japanese over-extended themselves, and we knew how long their oil industry could hold out without American exports, thanks to Standard Oil's excellent record keeping and accurate estimates: 3 years. The Dutch fileds did them no good; the Dutch sabotaged the wells and lines, and an American sub sank a tanker that was carrying almost their entire manpower of oil industry techs, some 800 out of a mere 1,000. We really had to do nothing but wait, but it turns out we got some lucky breaks, most of which we made for ourselves. The big giant fleet just wasn't all that much to brag about. Does a country having only a 1,000 oil field and refinery hands sound like big giant threat to the U.S. to you?

You know something? I am bored. You stopped being even entertaining in your factual ignorance ages ago, and you are not even interesting anymore.

You bring up almost nothing factual, only vomit up some of your strange opinions disguised as facts, and often horribly wrong from reality and history.

Yes, I guess to you that you must be right. Japan was no threat, was never a threat, the US and the rest of the world should just have ignored Japan.