Navy's Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks!

reply to post by rogue1



Please, you really need to brush up pon your ww2 history.

Papa Joe pleaded with britain and the us to open a second front in western europe to take the pressure off.
I suggest you do a little reading on the lend lease program

if it werent for US factories supplying the soviets with much needed equipment and supplies they never would have lasted.And if it werent for the US and britain keeping the japanese busy they would have over-run the eastern portions of the soviet union quickly.

The defeat of the axis powers was a joint effort by the allies no single country could have done it alone.
I wont take anything away from the brave soviets citizens, many of whom saw the germans as liberators in the beginning, who had thier lives thrown away by incompitent soviet commanders.
. The opening scenes in the movie"Enemy at the Gates" sums it up, when the political officer says" When the man with the gun dies the man with the bullets picks up the gun".

I agree with the last poster it was a joint effort and rouge1 you do need to brush up the 150% is about wrong the only superior damage the germans did you us was on D-day because they were sitting 150 ft above us on cliffs where we just kept comin and coming and actually if you look back to the 1700's to now the Us has faced more than third world countries and id say since I'm in the navy and I kinda know the history a bit the fact that our naval ships have only been attacked twice, pearl harbor and U.S.S Cole that our navy is pretty efficient

reply to post by rogue1


And you have a source to back that up, right? Last I checked, P-3 Orion's could detect any nuclear sub and diesel subs make too much noise. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong, but I'll need 3rd party confirmation to your claims before I do. Really folks, whatever happened to backing up claims with source material on these threads? It wasn't that long ago when it was the norm here.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
This is really a riot

This is like the third thread I've read where the Carriers are doomed.

Can you imagine any admiral just sailing a fleet right into harms way without stopping and thinking about the possible hazards to his fleet.

Come on man.

As much as some hate the US or it's Navy, you cant possibly think they are that stupid.

Well of a fleet doesn't sail into harms way, what good is it ?

The people in charge of the US Navy aren't stupid, it doesn't mean that they are invincible as some people here like to believe.

As things stand atm, none of the US Navy defences have been tested in real world combat, that being said neither have any opposing weapon systems been tested against a carrier. So anyone saying this or that has the upper hand, has no idea what they're talking about, as the scenario has never been played out. That includes me.

Are carriers vulnerable, damn right they are

Originally posted by rogue1
As things stand atm, none of the US Navy defences have been tested in real world combat, that being said neither have any opposing weapon systems been tested against a carrier. So anyone saying this or that has the upper hand, has no idea what they're talking about, as the scenario has never been played out. That includes me.

Are carriers vulnerable, damn right they are

Good point but....

On the other side of that coin skippy.....

No one has really seen the full ability of a modern US battle Fleet in action either.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by rogue1

 

And you have a source to back that up, right? Last I checked, P-3 Orion's could detect any nuclear sub and diesel subs make too much noise. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong, but I'll need 3rd party confirmation to your claims before I do. Really folks, whatever happened to backing up claims with source material on these threads? It wasn't that long ago when it was the norm here.

Sure no problem, of course you could have just googled it. But here you go.

Twenty-three years ago during the 1981 NATO exercise Ocean Venture, an unnamed 1960s vintage Canadian diesel submarine “sank” the carrier USS America without once being itself detected, and a second unidentified vintage sub “sank” the carrier USS Forrestal.

What did we learn from this?

Eight years later, during NATO exercise Northern Star, the Dutch diesel submarine Zwaardvis stalked and “sank” the USS America again. Did the America just have problems? Well, in RIMPAC 1996, the Chilean diesel submarine Simpson “sank” the carrier USS Independence, and in 1999 during NATO exercise JTFEX/TMDI99, Dutch diesel submarine Walrus not only “sank” the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, but also “took out” the American exercise command ship USS Mount Whitney, plus a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, and the nuke fast attack USS Boise – all without herself receiving a scratch.

Then, during RIMPAC 2000, the Australian Collins Class diesel sub HMAS Waller “sank” two American nuke fast attacks and got dangerously close to the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. During Operation Tandem Thrust in 2001, HMAS Waller “sank” two American amphibious assault ships in waters between 200 to 350 feet deep, barely more than the length of the submarine itself, and an unnamed Chilean diesel sub “took out” nuclear fast attack sub USS Montpelier twice during successive exercise runs. A year later in October 2002, HMAS Sheehan successfully hunted down and “killed” the U.S. fast attack USS Olympia during exercises near Hawaii, and just a year ago in September 2003, in an unnamed (read “classified”) exercise, several Collins Class subs “sank” two U.S. fast attack subs and a carrier – all unnamed, of course. And a month later another Collins Class sub surprised and “sank” an American fast attack during another exercise.


www.argee.net...

reply to post by rogue1


It's not my job to prove your position. As to your source, it's not verified either. The author, who happens to be an author, doesn't bother to source his material either. But that's neither here nor there. No one, including myself, is stating that the Carrier fleet is invulnerable. There is no such thing as an invulnerable defense system. The position proposed in the OP is that the Carrier fleet is defenseless, which it is not. Is it possible to sink a carrier? Of course it is! Is it possible that you will fail due to the defenses of the carrier's battle group or the carrier itself? You better believe it! And if our Navy is soooooo defenseless, then why hasn't the Navy lost one single ship in battle in recent memory (at least 40 years)?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by rogue1

 

It's not my job to prove your position. As to your source, it's not verified either. The author, who happens to be an author, doesn't bother to source his material either. But that's neither here nor there. No one, including myself, is stating that the Carrier fleet is invulnerable. There is no such thing as an invulnerable defense system. The position proposed in the OP is that the Carrier fleet is defenseless, which it is not. Is it possible to sink a carrier? Of course it is! Is it possible that you will fail due to the defenses of the carrier's battle group or the carrier itself? You better believe it! And if our Navy is soooooo defenseless, then why hasn't the Navy lost one single ship in battle in recent memory (at least 40 years)?

Actually he does show his sources.

Also there was a documentary on in Australia with a camera inside one of the Collins class subs during RIMPAC, where the penetrated the carrier screen and sank a carrier.

www.electricpictures.com.au...

You can buy it and watch it

Lost a single ship in the last 40 years....hmm lets see possibly because any country you have been at war with has a Navy consisting of no more than patrol boats - you figure it out's it blidingly obvious.

You ahve stated it is invulnerable to attack by your above post - Is it possible that you will fail due to the defenses of the carrier's battle group or the carrier itself? You better believe it!Please enough of the arrogance.

Either way you can verify anything mentioned on tha article to your hearts content - GOOGLE - it's your friend, wellmaybe no to those who wish to remain ignorant.

reply to post by rogue1


One: I have reread every one of my posts on this thread, and not once did I say that the carrier fleet was invulnerable, NOT ONCE!

Two: Your "source" only references other articles that he has written and a "Thanks" to a Knightsbridge University professor for his research, but no mention of any publication that said research was published in.

Three: You can't seem to follow the simple rule of 'attack the post, not the poster' (the arrogant comment was uncalled for and just shows bad debating skills) so this debate (between you and I) is over. I suggest you review the decorum guidelines that are supposed to be used by all members here.

reply to post by rogue1




Without the 18,700 aircraft supplie4d by the united states,
or the 1,981 locomotives the us supplied
or 4,100 shermans sent to the soviet union
that were just a part of the 12,000 tanks sent,
or the 400,000 trucks we delivered
or the 8000 anti aircraft cannons
or 400,000 machine tools

or the millions of tons of supplies that included much needed winter gear that played a decisive role in the winter defence of moscow.

Deliveries of aircraft to the USSR

I could go on but it would be tedious,
so without the enourmous infusion of war material could the soviets have survived? Maybe maybe not


I found this site
Lend lease on airforce.ru
Its a russian airforce site, so i would say its an inbiased view.

I would suggest every one check it out it has lots of really cool old photos
and actual shipping docs of material recieved by the soviets.






[edit on 17-6-2009 by punkinworks09]

reply to post by rogue1


Rogue Give it a rest.

A carrier battle group is not invulnerable.

Nothing is invulnerable!

Including those subs you keep bragging about. But a Carrier Battle group is also not a sitting duck! Not the way you would have others believe. As much as you like to point out a few cases where they could have taken a shot at the battle group. It has not happened in real life yet. So that says a lot. so you're whistling in the dark there.

Second...

Don't forget we also have subs. Sub warfare Cat and mouse has been going on for decades. What you wont find published is how many times The US navy has snuck up and followed those very same subs. You wouldnt know that because the US NAVY doesn't publish that kind of information.
Now we have some new players. Doesn't mean the US navy will now just give up and run and hide

For every measure there is always a counter measure.

Originally posted by punkinworks09
or the millions of tons of supplies that included much needed winter gear that played a decisive role in the winter defence of moscow.

Lend Lease hadn't even started until Nov 1941 well after the Battle of Msocow had started. In fact almost nothing was supplied to the USSR during the Battle of Moscow especially not cold weather gear. It was the 500,000 Siberian troops STAVKA moved from the frontiers of Asia which pushed the Germans back, without any American help whatsoever.

The USA supplied alot to Russia, mostly logistical help such as the trucks. American Lend-Lease supplied planes and tanks were seen as crap by the Soviets and were only used in supporting roles. The IL-2's and superior Russiantanks were used in frontline combat.

Whilst you can talk about Lend-Lease it was the 25 million Russians who died fighting Hitler which one the war in Europe.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Rogue Give it a rest.

A carrier battle group is not invulnerable.

Nothing is invulnerable!

I know they are very vulnerable as exercises with friendly powers have shown.

Including those subs you keep bragging about.

But a Carrier Battle group is also not a sitting duck! Not the way you would have others believe. As much as you like to point out a few cases where they could have taken a shot at the battle group. It has not happened in real life yet. So that says a lot. so you're whistling in the dark there.

The few cases ? In almost every RIMPAC exercise they have been in position to sink American warships including carriers without being detected. These are exercises where the US Navy knows there are subs hunting them and where they are, yet these subs still manage to evade ASW defences, sinking a few SSN's along the way.

And of cause the Chinese deisel which popeed out of the water 10 miles from a carrier in the pacific. If it hadn't surfaced the US Navy would have bever known it was there. Quite frankly ASW defences are a huge weakness.

Second...

Don't forget we also have subs. Sub warfare Cat and mouse has been going on for decades. What you wont find published is how many times The US navy has snuck up followed those very same subs. You wouldnt know that because the US NAVY doesn't publish that kind of information.

Unlikely SSN's are very noisy boats and probably haven't snuck up behind any of them. If you disagree provide a source apart from it's all "secret".

Now we have some new players. Doesn't mean the US navy will now just give up and run and hide

For every measure there is always a counter measure.

Yes the old missile vs armour debate. Missile always wins.
It seems blatantly obvious the USN is having problems tracking these ultra quiet subs considering they had to lease a Swedish one to practice with.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by rogue1]

reply to post by rogue1


That's nice!

Go ahead and cherry pick which part of my reply you have no answer for and then reply to something you can throw in a "Opinion" but not much more.

Come on Rogue you can do better than that pathetic response.

Here let me help you.

Obviously a reading comprehension class is needed.

Am I typing slow enough?

[edit on 17-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
One: I have reread every one of my posts on this thread, and not once did I say that the carrier fleet was invulnerable, NOT ONCE!

Can't read your own writing, I even highlighted where you contradicted yourself. Sorry you can't see that.

Two: Your "source" only references other articles that he has written and a "Thanks" to a Knightsbridge University professor for his research, but no mention of any publication that said research was published in.

Google is your friend. You can google any of those statements and see similiar facts presented on other defense websites. Don't pretend there is nothing else there.

Three: You can't seem to follow the simple rule of 'attack the post, not the poster' (the arrogant comment was uncalled for and just shows bad debating skills) so this debate (between you and I) is over. I suggest you review the decorum guidelines that are supposed to be used by all members here.

What debate? You have presented nothing to back your point of view. Pease don't throw a tantrum. If you want to bury your head in the sand it's fine by me.

I'll play the devil's advocate here and ask, Does anyone have a true defense against a ballistic missle? Oh wait, UFO's can avoid a ballistic missle, and if stories are correct they can even disable them!

Originally posted by rogue1

Yes the old missile vs armour debate. Missile always wins.
It seems blatantly obvious the USN is having problems tracking these ultra quiet subs considering they had to lease a Swedish one to practice with.

You sure do make a lot of "Assumptions" I meant no such thing.

The US navy has no such issues. You really do live in your own head don't you. What do you think our subs do all day every day? Just go to the bottom and sit there? Tell me exactly where they are at this moment? Can you tell me that? Not only that but we are also updating our sub fleet with the latest and greatest.


It's all part of the game...

Block I
USS Virginia (SSN-774), commissioned and in service
USS Texas (SSN-775), commissioned and in service
USS Hawaii (SSN-776), commissioned and in service
North Carolina (SSN-777), named December 11, 2000; scheduled delivery in 2007[1]; this is the last ship of the First Block or "Flight".

Block II
New Hampshire (SSN-778) has been ordered for delivery in 2008[1]
New Mexico (SSN-779) has been ordered for delivery in 2011
California (SSN-780) was ordered in 2005 and is expected to be delivered in April, 2011
SSN-781 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-782 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013[2]
SSN-783 is expected to be ordered in 2008; this is the last ship of the Second Block or "Flight".

Block III
SSN-784 through approximately SSN-791 are planned to make up the Third Block or "Flight" and should begin construction in 2009.

source

reply to post by skyeyes


Yah,

SM3
en.wikipedia.org...


SM3 launch and interception of a satellite

reply to post by punkinworks


Nice video, but that's just one missle. What happen's when you have multiple target's from multiple countries. No one wins in a nuclear exchage.

reply to post by rogue1


One last post.

One: Let's look at the rest of that post, shall we?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
No one, including myself, is stating that the Carrier fleet is invulnerable. There is no such thing as an invulnerable defense system. The position proposed in the OP is that the Carrier fleet is defenseless, which it is not. Is it possible to sink a carrier? Of course it is! Is it possible that you will fail due to the defenses of the carrier's battle group or the carrier itself? You better believe it!

Looks like quote mining to me. Who's the arrogant jackhole now?

Two: It is up to you to prove your position and arguement, not me! You google them and source them.

Three: My 'point of view' as you call it, is common knowledge for anyone who has the slightest inkling about US naval procedures and practices, which apparently you do not! I would not say you have your head buried in the sand, as it is blaringly apparent that you suffer from cranial rectalitis! And you're right, this isn't a debate it's us talking to a brick wall!

I stooped to your level as it seems that is the only thing you understand. Of course, anyone checking your profile or just looking at your current point total can tell that you think you are above the rules and have probably had more posts banned than not here.

My apologies to the mods for going off here, but sometimes you just gotta put a know-it-all punk in his place.