Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 01:08pm PT
|
Apogee,
Nope. I never served in the Military, not even for a minute.
Skipt,
That turboprop job with the huge antenna is a Grumman E1-B Tracer. ( I had to look it up )
I didn't get any pics of that one, but here's a shot of that same plane:
http://new-york-pictures.com/v/intrepid-museum/Grumman+E1-B+Tracer+aircraft+aboard+the+Intrepid+in+NY.jpg.html
What struck me while walking around on that carrier is how small it is. I certainly wouldn't want to be on that deck if even one jet were running, and the Navy moves dozens at once. I know the newer carriers are bigger than this one ( USS Intrepid ), but they aren't that much bigger.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 01:17pm PT
|
I think the war nerd is right on. Think France and the Maginot Line... The Japanese missed the carriers on Dec. 7...
And once my buddy the retired Chief Torpedoeman told me about nuclear torpedoes, well, that's the end of surface fleets. You don't even have to get close.
And let's not mention the Cole, shall we?
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 01:35pm PT
|
Pakdongs link: the book argues that the United States does not consider the wider picture of military strategy, which includes legal and economic factors. The book proceeds to argue that the United States is vulnerable to attack along these lines.[4]
Hmmmm, had not see that Chinese book b4. 2 plus 2 = CRASH?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash/
"8:54 p.m., Monday, February 28, 2011
Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system. The unclassified 2009 report “Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses” by financial analyst Kevin D. Freeman, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, states that “a three-phased attack was planned and is in the process against the United States economy.”"
bold is mine.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 01:41pm PT
|
Many carrier jobs are now performed as well by smaller vessels, but there is something about having four and a half acres of sovereign American soil that can go 34 knots for a quarter century without refueling that still appeals to me.
It sort of says to anybody who would screw with us,..
YER GONNA DIE!!!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 01:48pm PT
|
Ha! Ron, if you believe a carrier can only go 34 kts then you gotta
invest in my new retirement community in Isfahan. Jess sayin' to stoke* the fires :-)
*bad navy pun, I know
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2011 - 01:53pm PT
|
Lincoln Battle Group
Enterprise Carrier Group
C'mon!!!
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 02:08pm PT
|
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 02:23pm PT
|
That's a different kind of "carrier", Mr Icey.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 02:31pm PT
|
Didn't John Wayne single-handedly win World War II for the United States, with an assist from Humphrey Bogart?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2011 - 02:42pm PT
|
Anders, I think Chuck Norris was involved too.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 02:47pm PT
|
Now it's just a big, fat, slow-moving target. Effective against foes that do not have sophisticated missiles (i.e. the kind of foes the US is fighting these days), but not against a modern military. Exactly what happened to Battleships in WWII. When you build a weapon delivery system which concentrates power and men in one place, it becomes an irresistable target and The Enemy will concentrate its weapons design and strategy against it. There's nothing a carrier battle group could do for protection against a well aimed ICBM with multiple re-entry vehicles carrying nuclear warheads. Which could be launched from a submarine. Or against a concentrated attack by anti-ship missiles as happened to the British Navy at the Falklands.
In WWII Great Britain, while on the ropes from German bombing, cornered the Graf Spee, sunk the Bismark, bottled up the Scharnhorst, and Tirpitz and then sunk them. All with "inferior" forces: medium cruisers, destroyers, small aircraft and 2-man submarines. At the end of WWII no new battleship was built by any nation.
Russia has Battle Cruisers that ship to ship can send anything we have to Davy Jones' locker. Do we need to build big battle cruisers?
The only reason we need all those carrier battle groups is because we've chosen to claim all the world's oceans and many of the bordering nations as affecting our national security.
The F-22 Raptor was cancelled because the Dept of Defence wants the F-35 instead
From Wikipedia
The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air combat missions because of delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter programs, a US ban on Raptor exports, and the ongoing development of the supposedly cheaper and more versatile F-35 resulted in calls to end F-22 production.[N 1] In April 2009 the US Department of Defense proposed to cease placing new orders, subject to Congressional approval, for a final procurement tally of 187 Raptors.[10] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 was signed into law in October 2009 without funding for further F-22 production.[11]
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2011 - 02:57pm PT
|
There's nothing a carrier battle group could do for protection against a well aimed ICBM with multiple re-entry vehicles carrying nuclear warheads.
That's why there are multiple carrier groups that are carefully kept away from each other. You may get one of them, but the others will retaliate and wipe you off the map.
And the F-35 is a POS compared to the F-22...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 03:02pm PT
|
Attacks by Japanese planes also sank two British battleships, the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, near Singapore in December 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53);
They didn't have much aerial support.
Ever since the USSR acquired nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, in the mid 1950s, it has been implicit that anything was vulnerable to them. The questions are how vulnerable an aircraft carrier and its associated fleet is to conventional attack, whether that is an increasing risk, and what counter-measures are possible. Assuming, that is, that a carrier group is the most effective and economical way of projecting force to foreign oceans.
It's worth noting that apart from hot spots such as Somalia, and the Straits of Malacca, the world's oceans have largely been at peace for decades, in part due to the presence of various navies, not just that of the US. A less dramatic thing, perhaps, but showing the flag can be a very effective exercise.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2011 - 03:37pm PT
|
You've worked on them or flown them and personally KNOW this to be TRUE???...
No, but I read what pilots say about them and their capabilities/features.
The F-35 was designed as a NATO jet. The F-22 was designed to be the best fighter ever.
They had F-15 pilots fly the Raptor against 5 F-15's. The F-22 won.
This is an example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INb-421E-mo
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 03:46pm PT
|
Whose losing out here?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 03:48pm PT
|
Gary
Please don't confuse the arguments with facts.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2011 - 04:14pm PT
|
"Thank god."
Since we had so much trouble achieving air superiority with those crappy F-15s against Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Libya. Having more F-22s would have made things so much easier for the boots on the ground problems we experience.
Just because something is really cool and high-tech doesn't mean it is a good use of money.
And carriers are good for force projection against these really weak foes. But how many do we really need? Are we Team America World Police?
Against a foe like China, they wouldn't be too much help. Lots of cruise missles can overcome the defenses, to say nothing of the DongFeng 21D. And what would our response be to one or more sunk carriers? Nuclear? If so, the subs are the way to go. Everything else is just a big expensive floating target against a higher-level foe.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2011 - 04:17pm PT
|
Having more F-22s would have made things so much easier for the boots on the ground problems we experience.
Just because something is really cool and high-tech doesn't mean it is a good use of money.
Thanks for making the point of my OP. You people don't get it do you?
Never again. Remember and learn from the past.
We were caught off-guard in WW2. We were not prepared. We are now. Ya know why?
Thrust-vectoring in the F-22.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTCGJAoAz_8&feature=related
Unbelievable....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!