Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was talking to a lawyer a few years ago who believes more money needs to be spent on human services and less on military. He mentioned drones make big navy ships like aircraft carriers easy pickin's, and thus obsolete or close to obsolete. Is that true?
I was talking to a lawyer a few years ago who believes more money needs to be spent on human services and less on military. He mentioned drones make big navy ships like aircraft carriers easy pickin's, and thus obsolete or close to obsolete. Is that true?
Watch this real video carefully... Some drones are released from "navy ships like aircraft carriers". Etc
How much military time has your lawyer friend served? (I was drafted... Then I did 22+ continuous years...)
Ask your lawyer if .... Never mind. Try to watch the video and see if you learn anything...
I was talking to a lawyer a few years ago who believes more money needs to be spent on human services and less on military. He mentioned drones make big navy ships like aircraft carriers easy pickin's, and thus obsolete or close to obsolete. Is that true?
No offense, but being a lawyer (even a military lawyer) doesn't give one some sort of leg up or expertise on military or human services matters. And I write this as an attorney and military man myself.
The conversation is a legitimate one to have (regardless of what side you fall on), but I don't see what the guy's occupation has to do with anything.
I was talking to a lawyer a few years ago who believes more money needs to be spent on human services and less on military.
I agree that our nation spends far too much on Defense.
Just as we also maintain way too many of our population locked in prisons.
Quote:
... He mentioned drones make big navy ships like aircraft carriers easy pickin's, and thus obsolete or close to obsolete. Is that true?
Your lawyer friend may be experienced in court room politics, but there are many career military who have experience in battle.
An aircraft carrier normally functions within a 'Battle group', which consists of a bunch of other surface ships that form a shield around the carrier so no enemy aircraft or missiles can get near the carrier. Each Battle group is also required to have one combatant escort [a submarine] to detect and neutralize any enemy vessels.
An aircraft carrier normally functions within a 'Battle group', which consists of a bunch of other surface ships that form a shield around the carrier so no enemy aircraft or missiles can get near the carrier. Each Battle group is also required to have one combatant escort [a submarine] to detect and neutralize any enemy vessels.
The problem isn't drones, Not yet. There's a lot of argument in (non-Navy) military circles that it's long range and ballistic anti-ship missiles (not to mention hypersonic missiles) that are making aircraft carriers obsolete. If you have a carrier that has to stay 500 miles or more off shore because it's worried about getting blown out of the water by missiles, that significantly limits its capability.
I have never stepped onto a carrier. That was never my life.
I am aware that Battle Groups tend to have a bunch of target ships, whose entire purpose is to shield their carrier from incoming missiles.
My dealings with Battle Groups were fairly limited. They all make noise, and they tend to muck-up the water. So all of those ships show up in our fire control system as targets, and torpedoes get assigned to each one of them.
If non-Navy vets think that all those target ships are not capable of shooting down incoming missiles. I don't know what to tell you.
If non-Navy vets think that all those target ships are not capable of shooting down incoming missiles. I don't know what to tell you.
Well I am a Navy vet, but it's not me making the argument. High level military strategists are making these arguments. And yes, I understand that a battle group is the screen for the carrier. And yes, they probably could shoot down some of the incoming missiles. Couple of problems: missile tech has come a long way since the creation of the battle group. Anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles are much harder to shoot down. And there's going to be a LOT of them. Cruisers and destroyers only have so many interceptors in the can before they have to be reloaded. All it takes is one 2,000 pound warhead to ruin a carrier's day.
And that's not even discussing hypersonic missiles that the Russians and the Chinese have tested. They would an order of magnitude harder to defend against.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
