Military Planners Conclude the Gerald R. Ford And Its Fleet Could Be Destroyed ‘With Certainty’

[Mushroom]

Yes

Then you are fool.

They have no long range weapon, in fact they have no offensive weapons at all. So there is absolutely no reason for them to be much less than 100 miles from the coast.

 

[Mushroom]

Agreed, but they are untested against hypersonic missiles.

Wrong. They have shoot down multiple ballistic warheads.

And guess what? All ballistic warheads are hypersonic. The very fact that you insist in using that silly term instead of discussing what they really are shows you really do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Mushroom]

You do realize US carriers transmitted the Straight of Hormuz all the time until a few years ago,

You are aware that the Straight of Hormuz is a passage area, right? They pass through it to get to and from the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

And no, they do not "transmit" the Straight of Hormuz, they transit the Straight of Hormuz. As quickly as possible so they can return to open water once again and have room to operate in. They do not linger in the Strait of Hormuz, they pass through it.

And there is no "until a few years ago", we still transit it all the time. We no longer keep a carrier on station in the Persian Gulf as we did when we were fighting in Iraq, but we still transit it regularly. The same way we are regularly transiting the waters around China that they claim they own. The same way we regularly transited the Gulf of Sidra. The same way that the Soviets-Russians regularly transited many of the same kinds of straights and passages.

I am laughing now because the more you are saying, the more I am realizing that you really have absolutely no idea what you are actually talking about.

 

[Mushroom]

Not sure why you are laughing, that literally is all they are. Simply a ballistic missile launched from an aircraft.

They have a ballistic flight profile, and operate no differently than any other ballistic missile. They are launched form the aircraft at a high altitude, then use their engines to climb to an even higher altitude, exactly as any other ballistic missile. They then detach the warhead which uses gravity to land on its target. Exactly as any other ballistic missile.

And as I said, the US looked at that technology way back in the 1970s. We actually did several tests of it, and ultimately decided it was a rather stupid idea. And as with the Soviets we had multiple treaties that eliminated almost all ballistic missiles we never bothered to look into it again. However, as Russia is now showing they have never really had an interest in upholding the treaties that Russia did and resumed their R&D and development.

But there is nothing magical about them, they are not undetectable and they are not impossible to shoot down. They literally are just another ballistic missile, in reality no different than a SCUD or V-2 as I stated. Simply one launched from an airplane instead from the ground.

And I am finding it hilarious to be honest that you are making all those silly claims, and actually trying to tell multiple experts who have actually worked in these fields themselves for decades that they are wrong. And that you are any kind of planner for the Navy.

 

[easyt65]

Then you are fool.

We are not at war wirh China, & the military gets paid to be in hatm's way, not cower / show weakness.

 

[easyt65]

Not sure why you are laughing, that literally is all they are. Simply a ballistic missile launched from an aircraft.

They have a ballistic flight profile, and operate no differently than any other ballistic missile. They are launched form the aircraft at a high altitude, then use their engines to climb to an even higher altitude, exactly as any other ballistic missile. They then detach the warhead which uses gravity to land on its target. Exactly as any other ballistic missile.

And as I said, the US looked at that technology way back in the 1970s. We actually did several tests of it, and ultimately decided it was a rather stupid idea. And as with the Soviets we had multiple treaties that eliminated almost all ballistic missiles we never bothered to look into it again. However, as Russia is now showing they have never really had an interest in upholding the treaties that Russia did and resumed their R&D and development.

But there is nothing magical about them, they are not undetectable and they are not impossible to shoot down. They literally are just another ballistic missile, in reality no different than a SCUD or V-2 as I stated. Simply one launched from an airplane instead from the ground.

And I am finding it hilarious to be honest that you are making all those silly claims, and actually trying to tell multiple experts who have actually worked in these fields themselves for decades that they are wrong. And that you are any kind of planner for the Navy.

Your over-simplification of hypersonic missilrs and their threat is humerous.

 

[there4eyeM]

Big, few and expensive is a thing of the past, especially in war. The cliché about military thinking holds true; they are always still fighting the last big war. Landing platforms at sea for aircraft may be useful, but they don't need to be in the configuration inherited from WWII.
We spend too much for too little return and with too much risk for loss in "defense" spending. The enemy always looks at the openings on one's weaknesses and is not impressed by the power of one's strongest points.

 

[Mushroom]

Your over-simplification of hypersonic missilrs and their threat is humerous.

No, I am being 100% accurate. They are simply air launched ballistic missiles.

YOu are the one giving them amazing capabilities they do not possess.

 

[Mushroom]

Landing platforms at sea for aircraft may be useful, but they don't need to be in the configuration inherited from WWII.

And they are not, there are huge differences between the two and they are laid out nothing alike.

The closest we have to how a carrier from WWII was configured is probably the America class LHA. But those are not carriers but amphibious assault ships.

And of those ships, at this time there are 2 different "flights" with very different purposes. Flight 2 will include "well decks" for the various amphibious assault vehicles that will be used to take and support the Marines on shore. However, Flight 1 did not include well decks but instead large hospital areas for medical care.

But if anybody looks at an Essex class carrier, they are nothing like what we use today.

 

[Mushroom]

We are not at war wirh China, & the military gets paid to be in hatm's way, not cower / show weakness.

And what does this have to do with your claim that in a war our ships would be sailing within 20 miles of shore?

It is not "cowering" or "showing weakness", it is just common sense. One also does not retardedly put oneself into harms way without a need.

And there is absolutely no need to put a carrier within even 50 miles of China, especially during a conflict. That is an absolutely stupid thing to do, as the carrier has nothing aboard that is not effective at 100 miles away or more.

In fact, there is little need to put any of our modern ships closer than 50 miles of shore unless they are transiting, or supporting an amphibious operation. We have not had big gun ships in decades, so there is little point in the modern era.

Case in point, during the Vietnam War the locations that our carriers operated out of were known as "Yankee Station" and "Dixie Station". And both of them were about 60 miles off the shore, of South Vietnam. That is because it was a safe and secure location to put them in where they could not be easily attacked, yet still respond with their fighters pretty much anywhere they were needed.

In the Middle East, a similar position was held by "Gonzo Station". A position in the middle of the Gulf of Oman that served the same purpose.

Hell, I was never even a squid but I know of things like this. I am finding it harder and harder to believe you have ever had more to do with the Navy than playing with boats in the bathtub.

 

[easyt65]

No, I am being 100% accurate. They are simply air launched ballistic missiles.

YOu are the one giving them amazing capabilities they do not possess.

The US currently has no defensive system capable of stopping / destroying a hyperdonic missile, although the US is aggressively working on such defensive systems...

....but maybe you know more than the experts who briefed Congress.

Report to Congress on Hypersonic Missile Defense - USNI News

The following is the Jan. 24, 2023, Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Hypersonic Missile Defense: Issues for Congress. From the report The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Space Development Agency (SDA) are currently developing elements of a hypersonic missile defense system to...

news.usni.org

 

[easyt65]

And what does this have to do with your claim that in a war our ships would be sailing within 20 miles of shore?

It is not "cowering" or "showing weakness", it is just common sense. One also does not retardedly put oneself into harms way without a need.

And there is absolutely no need to put a carrier within even 50 miles of China, especially during a conflict. That is an absolutely stupid thing to do, as the carrier has nothing aboard that is not effective at 100 miles away or more.

In fact, there is little need to put any of our modern ships closer than 50 miles of shore unless they are transiting, or supporting an amphibious operation. We have not had big gun ships in decades, so there is little point in the modern era.

Case in point, during the Vietnam War the locations that our carriers operated out of were known as "Yankee Station" and "Dixie Station". And both of them were about 60 miles off the shore, of South Vietnam. That is because it was a safe and secure location to put them in where they could not be easily attacked, yet still respond with their fighters pretty much anywhere they were needed.

In the Middle East, a similar position was held by "Gonzo Station". A position in the middle of the Gulf of Oman that served the same purpose.

Hell, I was never even a squid but I know of things like this. I am finding it harder and harder to believe you have ever had more to do with the Navy than playing with boats in the bathtub.

You have proved you know little but make up a lot.

 

[Mushroom]

You have proved you know little but make up a lot.

Uh-huh. And still you do not actually address where you have been called out. You simply deflect then toss around insults.

The US currently has no defensive system capable of stopping / destroying a hyperdonic missile, although the US is aggressively working on such defensive systems...

....but maybe you know more than the experts who briefed Congress.

Report to Congress on Hypersonic Missile Defense - USNI News

The following is the Jan. 24, 2023, Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Hypersonic Missile Defense: Issues for Congress. From the report The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Space Development Agency (SDA) are currently developing elements of a hypersonic missile defense system to...

news.usni.org

Well, as I have absolutely no idea what a "hyperdonic missile" is, whatever.

But I did look through that "paper", it is a briefing by somebody who is not even any kind of expert in that field. She is literally a technical writer that has also written about things like 5G cell phone technologies, deep fake images, AI to write propaganda, and a slew of other topics.

In other words, she is simply a technical writer that writes things as asked for by her bosses. She is not any kind of expert in any of the things she writes about. And that was obvious when it even tried to describe "hypersonic missiles" operating at low altitudes. Sorry, just not possible. Atmospheric friction would burn the damned thing up, there is a reason why these are all high altitude weapons.

 

[easyt65]

Uh-huh. And still you do not actually address where you have been called out. You simply deflect then toss around insults.



Well, as I have absolutely no idea what a "hyperdonic missile" is, whatever.

But I did look through that "paper", it is a briefing by somebody who is not even any kind of expert in that field. She is literally a technical writer that has also written about things like 5G cell phone technologies, deep fake images, AI to write propaganda, and a slew of other topics.

In other words, she is simply a technical writer that writes things as asked for by her bosses. She is not any kind of expert in any of the things she writes about. And that was obvious when it even tried to describe "hypersonic missiles" operating at low altitudes. Sorry, just not possible. Atmospheric friction would burn the damned thing up, there is a reason why these are all high altitude weapons.

You continue to prove you are just making shit up.

I choose to believe experts who brief Congress instead of anonymous self-proclaimed chatboard experts.

 

[Mushroom]

You continue to prove you are just making shit up.

In other words, "Don't make me try to justify anything I have claimed, I am just going to insult you yet again".

And wait, did you not yourself claim you were such an expert, who regularly briefed the highest officers in the navy?

But before I leave, think on this. Why does every single high speed aircraft have in common? The SR-71? The X-15? The MiG-25 "Foxbat"? All of them, what is the biggest thing they all have in common?

Why, they all only operate at those speeds at extremely high altitudes. Typically in excess of 20,000 meters. That is simply because they have to, even the SR-71 made primarily of titanium would have burned up if it tried to achieve its speeds at lower altitudes.

Yet you believe a fantasy of missiles operating 50% faster than that at lower altitudes. I am not simply "making things up", but you go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

 

[Flash]

I served on the Nimitz in the late 70s.
At the time it was estimated the max lifespan of the carrier in a conflict with the Soviet Union was 38 minutes. The fleet was to make sounds like a carrier to fool subs and all the training and work was to be able to launch all aircraft within 30 minutes.

That is funny.

38 moinutes? LOL! You were lucky. Before going to Vietnam I spent a few months in 1967 on a forward base at the Fulda Gap in East Germany. We were told we had less than five minutes to live if the Soviets were to invade.

 

[there4eyeM]

Big, few and expensive is a thing of the past, especially in war. The cliché about military thinking holds true; they are always still fighting the last big war. Landing platforms at sea for aircraft may be useful, but they don't need to be in the configuration inherited from WWII.
We spend too much for too little return and with too much risk for loss in "defense" spending. The enemy always looks at the openings on one's weaknesses and is not impressed by the power of one's strongest points.

Towed barges could provide cheap and plentiful landing sites.

 

[Dadoalex]

That is funny.

38 moinutes? LOL! You were lucky. Before going to Vietnam I spent a few months in 1967 on a forward base at the Fulda Gap in East Germany. We were told we had less than five minutes to live if the Soviets were to invade.

Undoubtedly.
We were on the ocean, surrounded by ships whose only purpose was to die so we could live.
You were within shouting distance of the enemy with nothing but some barbed wire between you.

It's why I want to do submariner service.

 

[Flash]

Undoubtedly.
We were on the ocean, surrounded by ships whose only purpose was to die so we could live.
You were within shouting distance of the enemy with nothing but some barbed wire between you.

It's why I want to do submariner service.

A few miles away was The Soviet Third Shock Army. In 1967 they were not misnamed.

However, after hearing all this news about the tourist submarine being lost I will pass on being in a sub and take my chances against Soviet armor.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Going on a ship that sinks on it's own accord? No thanks, that's why I stuck with surface Navy.