USS Ford in danger of delay due to AAG

a reply to: intrptr

No actually the reason they built Jeep carriers in the numbers that they did in WWII was so that they could lose them in large numbers and not be hurt nearly as badly as losing one or two fleet carriers.

And who has said anything about them being invincible?

a reply to: Zaphod58

LST's-- Large Slow Targets.

a reply to: intrptr

Carriers are anything but slow.

Got anything better than your opinion and lame changes to ship class abbreviations?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Carriers are anything but slow.

For a minute there I though you were gong to tell me they learnt to fly.

Old doctrine has a big boat loaded with fuel and bombs bobbing off some shore, launching stuff.

New doctrine has hypersonic sea skimming cruise missiles… no boat, no jet, just a truck parked in a cave somewhere along a vast shoreline.

One thousand trucks, one thousand missiles, one little gulf pond.

a reply to: intrptr

Really. There are that many hypersonic missiles out there? Maybe you can name more than one, and give some numbers for things like range, number in service, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No one knew the name exocet before it started holing ships. 5 missiles, five jets, two sunk british ships. Falkland lesson is lost on you, though. Every threat a potential enemy employs has been defeated in computer simulation after computer simulation, right?

The little guys surprise you every time.

a reply to: intrptr

The Exocet was known prior to the Falklands. It became famous during that conflict, that doesn't mean no one knew anything about it.

The lessons are not lost on me. And no, they don't just do computer simulations. There are plenty of real world tests that are done that are as realistic as they can be short of a live warhead hitting the ship.

But come on, I'm still waiting for your evidence of thousands of hypersonic missiles that apparently have enough range to hit a carrier out to sea, beyond the horizon (since that's where they operate).

a reply to: Zaphod58

And no, they don't just do computer simulations. There are plenty of real world tests that are done that are as realistic as they can be short of a live warhead hitting the ship.

lol…

a reply to: intrptr

Yeah that's right, just laugh. Because you know it's true, and you're wrong.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"Mistaken" about what?

They call it the Gulf war and war in the Persian Gulf, but there hasn't been a war "in" the Gulf yet, except on computer.

Big difference between "real world" and simulation, testing, and exercise.

Whats wrong with this scenario is shutting down discussion about it. You want to argue techno babble from a position of superiority, I see through that, too.

So I cage my response on the same level as the ridicule-- (lol)

a reply to: intrptr

Oh, so now carriers are ONLY going to be used in the Gulf? And Iran has thousands of hypersonic cruise missiles?

Keep making ridiculous claims, and you get responses to match.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And Iran has thousands of hypersonic cruise missiles?

'
Where did I say that? It only takes one to get through…

Unless Carriers learned to fly, submerge or cloak, they are "sitting ducks", the easiest kind of duck to hit.

a reply to: intrptr

One thousand trucks, one thousand missiles, one little gulf pond.

Oh right. Moving the goal posts again. First it's hypersonic missiles, now it's just missiles.


Of course they're sitting ducks, because they sail alone, and have no defenses against any missile attack.

originally posted by: intrptr

Unless Carriers learned to fly, submerge or cloak, they are "sitting ducks", the easiest kind of duck to hit.

A 'sitting duck' implies no defensive capabilities:

NOUN informal
a person or thing with no protection against an attack or other source of danger.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

One thousand trucks, one thousand missiles, one little gulf pond.

Oh right. Moving the goal posts again. First it's hypersonic missiles, now it's just missiles.


Of course they're sitting ducks, because they sail alone, and have no defenses against any missile attack.

I see you edited your post. Who's moving the goal posts?

I said a thousand missiles which you grew to "thousands". If I was Iran I'd put a missile every mile along that lengthy coastline, how many is that in "both" Gulfs?

Looking at it like that it becomes clear the "Geo" political importance of controlling Iran.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Carriers don't fly, either.

How about a bobbing cork?

Floating tin can?

LST- thats for you redneck muthers…

originally posted by: intrptr
Carriers don't fly, either.

Nor do they need to fly. They are equipped with an air wing and a multi-ship defensive picket arrayed with various defensive armaments and weaponry.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm not the one that went from how dangerous hypersonic missiles were, to making it seem that carriers will only operate in the Gulf and will be met with a thousand missiles.

And I'm not the one ignoring that not only do they have missile defenses themselves, they have multiple ships capable of missile defense around them, to claim they're sitting ducks.

I'm sure Iran is glad you're not in charge of their defenses of that's how you'd do it, since one heavy strike along the coast would wipe out a huge number of your missiles.

a reply to: Zaphod58

one heavy strike along the coast would wipe out a huge number of your missiles.

Thats a thousand miles of coast… on the gulf. It doesn't sink. The trucks are mobile and kept in caves… this is my scenario, remember. As soon as I begin to unleash them, I do it randomly at all hours, a few here, there, always testing the defenses. Ships defending themselves from the constant alerts aren't going to be launching or recovering aircraft.

I can send out my small boats, bring my diesel electric subs out, launch my own aircraft. I am shooting missiles hi, lo and medium trajectory here and there around the clock. They arrive at the same time from all points of the compass.

The subs and small boats sow rocket mines along the narrow strait, bottling the fleet up in the Gulf. Then the hidden Russian subs come out, too. They are like the ones that escaped detection before in the North. Armed with rocket torpedoes , they also divert the defensives away from the flattops. after two of three days of constant harassment, the strike groups defenses are depleted, the crews exhausted, they are sitting ducks. Now I release all my hidden reserves. I been saving the best for last. Mushroom clouds blossom over where the fleet was steaming in constant circles.

They we're right, Iran had nukes. They got ahold of them when the USSR collapsed and the Iranians bought some half dozen artillery sized warheads from a pissed off, greedy, cold war general.

In a couple hours all the remaining battered assets of the US fleet sink, the water becomes calm again and Tehran plays loud music on tinny megahorns all over the city.

No actual assets were harmed in the making of this uncomputerized hypothetical scenario.

a reply to: intrptr

And the Navy has lasers on all their ships and on their planes if we're gonna play that game.

So now Iran has caves along all thousand miles of coast? And a massive air force? The only real threat are the diesel subs. The carrier isn't operating alone, and will have both AWACS and land based fighter support in addition to their battle group.