The U.S. Navy's Newest Class Of Aircraft Carriers: The Gerald R. Ford Series. (rant, money)
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 never got tired of watching flight ops when I was on a carrier.
I've seen F4 Phantoms go vertical and climb straight up after clearing the cats when Russian aircraft (Russian Bear Bombers) were flying over our position.
The Bears are desiginated TU 95 and the new Soviet jet Bombers(Blackjacks) are designated TU 160.
ROFLMFAO......interesting Russia never did finish their second aircraft carrier.....if I remember correctly, they sold the hull to another foreign power.
ROFLMFAO......interesting Russia never did finish their second aircraft carrier.....if I remember correctly, they sold the hull to another foreign power.
Actually at the start of WWII, the Navy saw carriers as support craft, handy cause planes could scout large areas, but battles would be won with battleships.
The fact the Japs sunk many battleships turned out to bit them in the butt, as we had to go with what we had, a few carriers. But soon it was realized that the carrier was the foremost weapon with which to wage war at sea.
Well hopefully the next major war doesn't decimate our carrier fleet and leave us wishing we'd built more nuclear submarines
I do think there's a great use for carriers (force projection) but they're quite inoperable when they suffer any damage to their flight decks. Obviously it's the carrier's escorts to prevent this from happening but some countries have hundred if not thousands of cruise missiles.
I'd say carriers are most vulnerable to advanced mines and torpedoes. Probably only a few MK-48 torpedo hits would be necessary to put it completely out of action if not sinking it. A stationary SSK is completely silent so if one got lucky in guessing the CBG's path they could inflict some serious damage from within the perimeter established by our subs.
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here as I personally love carriers and think they are our military's biggest competitive advantage outside our satellite system.
Thanx...I forgot which country acquired the hull. Seems fitting as they will reverse engineer some of it's technology and soon begin building their own aircraft carriers.
ROFLMFAO......interesting Russia never did finish their second aircraft carrier.....if I remember correctly, they sold the hull to another foreign power.
LOL ... are you ROFLMFAO because of the russian aircraft carrier or because i posted that i wish General Patraeus would send F-22 raptors to attack the two national party headquarters ( I'm just kidding around so don't be offended you democrats and republican party lovers )
Well hopefully the next major war doesn't decimate our carrier fleet and leave us wishing we'd built more nuclear submarines
I do think there's a great use for carriers (force projection) but they're quite inoperable when they suffer any damage to their flight decks. Obviously it's the carrier's escorts to prevent this from happening but some countries have hundred if not thousands of cruise missiles.
I'd say carriers are most vulnerable to advanced mines and torpedoes. Probably only a few MK-48 torpedo hits would be necessary to put it completely out of action if not sinking it. A stationary SSK is completely silent so if one got lucky in guessing the CBG's path they could inflict some serious damage from within the perimeter established by our subs.
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here as I personally love carriers and think they are our military's biggest competitive advantage outside our satellite system.
Have they changed the Carrier tactics since the 80's/90's ?? ... as we were told that if a major scale war with the Soviets had broke out that the Carriers are virtually surrounded by Subs, Destroyers, Frigates, Crusiers etc. when underway.
Have they changed the Carrier tactics since the 80's/90's ?? ... as we were told that if a major scale war with the Soviets had broke out that the Carriers are virtually surrounded by Subs, Destroyers, Frigates, Crusiers etc. when underway.
Oh they still are. I just think that it's wrong to think of them as invulnerable. Successful ASW is never a guarantee and if I'm not mistaken we usually have 1-2 nuclear sub escorts for our battle groups. And surface efforts would be a cross your fingers sort of thing imo. There's been a proliferation worldwide of stealthy SSKs though and I don't think it's wise to underestimate the threat. Also, more and more likely war-zones are right off coastlines (Taiwan, Middle East) where potential enemies (China, cough cough) have more than enough cruise missiles to penetrate Aegis.
Thankfully I'm not the one who's paid to worry about this stuff though! I'm sure our Naval commanders would never bring them within range of the missiles-it's those quiet subs that are the wild card.
The russians back in january this year (2010) unveiled their newest fighter jet that supposedly rivals our F-22's and China is set to launch around 2018 it's super fighter jet that also will rival our F-22's.
That being said yes i do agree that there's tremendous waste and fraud in our military procurements and i wish i had the answer for that. Do they still purchase the $200 toilet seats etc??
he is right this is waiste of money(carriers)they are just huge moving target for sunburns.it takes tax payers money around billion or more to built this huge moving piece of metal that will sunk in less then an hour if sunburn with nuke war head hits it
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.