Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 12:25pm PT
|
China has no aircraft carriers .
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 01:24pm PT
|
Do you really wonder why we have f-22's??? And that program got killed?
Do you understand why we have about
- At what cost, blue?
You will fail to see my point, I'm sure.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 02:02pm PT
|
That war nerd says some interesting stuff.
Why hasn't a carrier been sunk recently? Because we really haven't challenged one of the big dogs in awhile and all the little dogs that could sink our ships know that if they sink our fleet, then America will go into terrified mode and will likely nuke them. Which in turn might easily start WW3. But the little dogs know they would die, so they haven't yet attacked us. But that doesn't mean the day wont come. All you need is some suicidal whack job leading one of the countries that has enough small missiles, to finally decide that enough is enough, that he has been pushed around too much, and poof.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 02:07pm PT
|
"15 December 2005" - f-22 is introduced...
Is there a connection between the OP and the title of this ridiculous thread?
F*#king shameful
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2011 - 07:17pm PT
|
At what cost, blue?
You will fail to see my point, I'm sure.
Yer an idiot if I have to explain this to you, and how WW2 ties into our current bent on military strength and power.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 07:37pm PT
|
This the case for the expansion of non-traditional uses for carriers:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG448.html
Asymmetric and non-traditional is quite likely to continue rather than reduce carrier dependency, because of the variety of locales that aren't conducive to ground-based air support.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 07:50pm PT
|
China has no aircraft carriers .
Actually China is getting into the carrier business as we speak. Their first use for such a ship will probably be to put a stop to Vietnamese oil exploration in international waters of the South China Sea.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 07:59pm PT
|
I'm with KLK, for the current use, but against a more sophisticated foe, they may turn out to be future dive sites.
Bluering- you read that war nerd stuff yet?
Get a beer or three and just start browsing the guy on a Friday night. You'll love it.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 08:07pm PT
|
Tie a retired one up in the river, and it will draw Japanese tourists like moths to a flame.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 08:25pm PT
|
Haven't read the whole thread, but it's always a good strategy to prepare for the last war. lol
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 09:18pm PT
|
The Millennium Challenge was covered by everyone-- War Nerd isn't especially useful on that topic. But the Bush admin. stuffed everyone who pointed it out. It made van Riper famous. It was a remarkably shameful and embarrassing moment for the Pentagon, the Navy, and especially the Bush admin., which was using the exercise as part of the agit-prop run-up. But it doesn't mean that carriers have lost their utility.
Carriers offer a mobile base for air operations. It is really difficult to imagine a future, keyed to asym and non-traditional ops, in which mobile basing won't be crucial. That may mean that carriers would need to be accompanied by fleets of small fighter craft to deal with threats like the one van Riper demonstrated (much as fighter jets had to accompany major bomber missions). And it may be that 11 is more than we should pay for.
And yes, China is equipping itself. It's been widely and lovingly covered in Jane's, but that's subscription, so I can't link it.
Anyone who really cares about the current state of debate can read the full RAND study I linked and then backtrack to the full library of other docs. Then move on to the rest of the literature.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 09:46pm PT
|
Lately I've heard several people argue that we need to maintain our current military size in order to protect ourselves from China.
It think it might be difficult for China to invade the US when they have only one aircraft carrier - one that they haven't even built yet.
Also, I don't see why they would attack their biggest customer.
But they have us outnumbered five to one!
There will never be another WWII. We live in the nuclear age now.
My neighbor is a drone pilot for the Air Force. Sits in an air conditioned office and kills people like he's playing a video game. It's a "9-5" job. It really f*#ks these guys up.
But back to WWII: For those of you that like to romanticize the most tragic event in human history, just accept the fact that you'll just have to watch Band of Brothers over and over.
There will be no more heroic tales of that sort moving forward.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 09:48pm PT
|
you'll just have to watch Band of Brothers over and over.
a suitable punishment.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2011 - 09:59pm PT
|
The US has eleven carrier battle groups, ten based in the US and one in Japan.
A carrier strike group (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates,[1] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines and attached logistics ships. They are a main way in which the US can project its marine power, and so its air and land power, nearly anywhere in the world. Notwithstanding such vulnerability as a CSG has to nuclear weapons, missiles, torpedoes, and mines - their defences against the last three are likely rather sophisticated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
And here I thought we were going to once again have to talk about who 'won' World War II, starting with defining "won".
|
|
Pakdong
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 02:02am PT
|
Imagine if your longterm strategy towards such trifles as aircraft carriers precluded their use? The war will end without a shot fired.
Unrestricted Warfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare
you can find free PDFs online
required reading
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 02:16am PT
|
Chaz, skipt or bluering:
Have you ever served in the military? Which branch, how high in rank, and for how long?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2011 - 12:41pm PT
|
What exactly is the closest one? On the right side, bottom? The one we only get a glimpse of. Anyone know?
AWACS-type plane?
|
|
FeelioBabar
Trad climber
One drink ahead of my past.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 01:06pm PT
|
haha...wow...some dumb posts on here by folks that don't know sh#t about the role carriers fill.
Never have carrieres?....lol.....sure.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!