F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.

You are comically stupid.

Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

And you're an URDHA.

Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand? No problem.

Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans. You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall, roughly 300 lbs., and wearing a bright orange coat. It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.

You are given the section, row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him. Could you find him? Sure, probably in a few seconds.

But, real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that. Instead you're given only the section number where the man is. A section has around 10,000 people total. And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the ocean). Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable). Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).

How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then? Sure, you might get lucky and find him quickly. More than likely you won't find him at all. Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
Let me guess! You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass? The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil. I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.

Are you from Earth?
The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them? Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier. So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack. We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming. Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?

Nope and they never will
The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.

You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway. Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?



With no radar lock

overflying a U.S. ship in peacetime is no indicator whatsoever of combat performance in war time.
The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down. That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate. The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,186
Reaction score
13,343
Points
1,560
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants''' hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only Missile Command...now we know you play Star Trek
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
You are the noise


Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr
THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's
Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull. Much less be forced to retreat.
LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier

No chance.
LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads. Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China. That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan
China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers. The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers. Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China. The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for. Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers. Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation. The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed. China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred, Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon. Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed. And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes. Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants''' hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only Missile Command...now we know you play Star Trek
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
You are the noise


Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr
THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's
Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull. Much less be forced to retreat.
LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier

No chance.
LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads. Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China. That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan
China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers. The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers. Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China. The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for. Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers. Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation. The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed. China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred, Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon. Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed. And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes. Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
197
Points
178
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

And you're an URDHA.

Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand? No problem.

Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans. You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall, roughly 300 lbs., and wearing a bright orange coat. It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.

You are given the section, row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him. Could you find him? Sure, probably in a few seconds.

But, real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that. Instead you're given only the section number where the man is. A section has around 10,000 people total. And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the ocean). Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable). Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).

How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then? Sure, you might get lucky and find him quickly. More than likely you won't find him at all. Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
Let me guess! You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass? The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil. I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.

Are you from Earth?
The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them? Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier. So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack. We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming. Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?

Nope and they never will
The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.

You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway. Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?



With no radar lock

overflying a U.S. ship in peacetime is no indicator whatsoever of combat performance in war time.
The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down. That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate. The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook
Again. Peacetime. The U.S.S. Donald Cook couldn't have fired on the Russian aircraft no matter what.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,186
Reaction score
13,343
Points
1,560
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.

You are comically stupid.

Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants''' hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only Missile Command...now we know you play Star Trek
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
You are the noise


Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr
THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's
Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull. Much less be forced to retreat.
LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier

No chance.
LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads. Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China. That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan
China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers. The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers. Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China. The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for. Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers. Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation. The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed. China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred, Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon. Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed. And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes. Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
You're an asshole. Lying repeatedly about what I've said.
You said that only a nuke can take out a carrier, you said this and you are clueless as this is just not true anywhere anytime. That said if an enemy is going to aim at a carrier they might as well nuke it
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

And you're an URDHA.

Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand? No problem.

Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans. You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall, roughly 300 lbs., and wearing a bright orange coat. It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.

You are given the section, row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him. Could you find him? Sure, probably in a few seconds.

But, real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that. Instead you're given only the section number where the man is. A section has around 10,000 people total. And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the ocean). Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable). Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).

How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then? Sure, you might get lucky and find him quickly. More than likely you won't find him at all. Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
Let me guess! You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass? The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil. I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.

Are you from Earth?
The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them? Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier. So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack. We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming. Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?

Nope and they never will
The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.

You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway. Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?



With no radar lock

overflying a U.S. ship in peacetime is no indicator whatsoever of combat performance in war time.
The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down. That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate. The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook
Again. Peacetime. The U.S.S. Donald Cook couldn't have fired on the Russian aircraft no matter what.
Ah yea they could. Lets just leave it at that

However without a functioning radar system that was just shut down meaning hand operated 50 cal's to do the job. Shit it's over long before one gets loaded
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.

You are comically stupid.

Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants''' hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only Missile Command...now we know you play Star Trek
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
You are the noise


Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr
THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's
Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull. Much less be forced to retreat.
LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier

No chance.
LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads. Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China. That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan
China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers. The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers. Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China. The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for. Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers. Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation. The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed. China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred, Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon. Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed. And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes. Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
197
Points
178
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
You're an asshole. Lying repeatedly about what I've said.
You said that only a nuke can take out a carrier, you said this and you are clueless as this is just not true anywhere anytime. That said if an enemy is going to aim at a carrier they might as well nuke it
Explosions aboard U.S. carriers in the past have repeatedly shown their ability to endure and continue operating even if hit by the equivalent of up to half a dozen antiship missiles.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
197
Points
178
The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down. That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate. The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook
Again. Peacetime. The U.S.S. Donald Cook couldn't have fired on the Russian aircraft no matter what.
[/QUOTE]
Ah yea they could. Lets just leave it at that

[/QUOTE]

U.S. ships often fire on Russian aircraft in peacetime? That's news to everyone here.

Pretty interesting fact from a 12 year old.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,186
Reaction score
13,343
Points
1,560
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.

You are comically stupid.

Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants''' hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only Missile Command...now we know you play Star Trek
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
You are the noise


Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr
THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's
Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull. Much less be forced to retreat.
LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier

No chance.
LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads. Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China. That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan
China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers. The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers. Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China. The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for. Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers. Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation. The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed. China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred, Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon. Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed. And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes. Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan
the Phalanx will take out those missiles
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
You're an asshole. Lying repeatedly about what I've said.
You said that only a nuke can take out a carrier, you said this and you are clueless as this is just not true anywhere anytime. That said if an enemy is going to aim at a carrier they might as well nuke it
Explosions aboard U.S. carriers in the past have repeatedly shown their ability to endure and continue operating even if hit by the equivalent of up to half a dozen antiship missiles.
You are so shitfaced stupid that it's comical. Your claim is that the weapons that the Nips used in WW2 that could easily sink carriers could do so, but todays weapons that start at 50,000 times to what several million times more powerful can't do it

Take your medication

Now please
 
Last edited:

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
197
Points
178
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.

You are comically stupid.

Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants''' hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only Missile Command...now we know you play Star Trek
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
You are the noise


Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr
THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's
Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull. Much less be forced to retreat.
LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier

No chance.
LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads. Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China. That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan
China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers. The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers. Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China. The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for. Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers. Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation. The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed. China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred, Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon. Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed. And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes. Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan
the Phalanx will take out those missiles
Actually IIRC, Rolling Airframe MIssiles (RAM) have largely replaced the Phalanx CIWS.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.

You are comically stupid.

Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

Oh sure. from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.
It's a FUGE ocean out there.
esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake". esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.

In reality, while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth....it has to no where to look first. No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results. Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location. It gets even more difficult when the object is moving. And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
good analogy ..on Star Trek, they could find specific humans
Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners. Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible. It's a really, really big ocean.
They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants''' hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only Missile Command...now we know you play Star Trek
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
You are the noise


Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr
THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's
Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull. Much less be forced to retreat.
LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier

No chance.
LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads. Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China. That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan
China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers. The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers. Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China. The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for. Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers. Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation. The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed. China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred, Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon. Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed. And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes. Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan
the Phalanx will take out those missiles
Actually IIRC, Rolling Airframe MIssiles (RAM) have largely replaced the Phalanx CIWS.
Might well be but a gun is just superior in certain situations
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
197
Points
178
Might well be but a gun is just superior in certain situations
I don't disagree. But IIRC the Phalanx CIWS was always maligned for not being able to throw a sufficient weight of projectiles to stop an incoming missile that has gone ballistic from continuing on even after being disabled and crashing into the targeted vessel.

The British Goalkeeper which uses the same gun the U.S. A-10 uses is reportedly much better in that regard but it can't be simply "bolted on" like the Phalanx can.

On the other hand, the Phalanx has reportedly done a great job intercepting small rockets and missiles fired at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
Might well be but a gun is just superior in certain situations
I don't disagree. But IIRC the Phalanx CIWS was always maligned for not being able to throw a sufficient weight of projectiles to stop an incoming missile that has gone ballistic from continuing on even after being disabled and crashing into the targeted vessel.

The British Goalkeeper which uses the same gun the U.S. A-10 uses is reportedly much better in that regard but it can't be simply "bolted on" like the Phalanx can.

On the other hand, the Phalanx has reportedly done a great job intercepting small rockets and missiles fired at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad.
Baghdad was baby shit 50 or more year old shells blowing up hummers and troops as IED's. We accomplished nothing there
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,598
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
And if all 10 things went right to get it to the carrier. Let one thing go wrong and it goes terminal. The chances of it working is not even worth calculating.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top