Nuke carrier leads US strike force into Syrian waters.

Ummmm...you live in a bubble? What Russian Navy?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

I don't think Russia wants to mess with that carrier it would be suicidal..

You mean it would best for America not to mess with Russias Navy

There's one thing I'm not sure of and I was hoping someone could clear up for me, when they say Nuke Carrier do they mean nuclear powered or it's carrying live nuclear weapons? The U.S. has got some big balls if they're bringing more nukes into the arena.

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
There's one thing I'm not sure of and I was hoping someone could clear up for me, when they say Nuke Carrier do they mean nuclear powered or it's carrying live nuclear weapons? The U.S. has got some big balls if they're bringing more nukes into the arena.

Its a nuclear powered carrier...all US AC super carriers are nuclear powered.

I think people are forgetting the simple fact that this carrier is basically like one giant nuke. Its basically a 4 acre nuclear powerplant.

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


Mostly all US Naval ships carry Nukes, if you did not know that where have you been?

Although these rumors have never been confirmed or denied by the US Military.

I do know for a fact that UK Carriers had nukes on them. So I would not be surprised if the US had them also.

The presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. aircraft carriers since the end of the Cold War has neither been confirmed nor denied by the U.S. government. As a result of this, as well as concerns over the safety of nuclear power, the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier in a foreign port has occasionally provoked protest from local people, for example when USS Nimitz docked in Chennai, India, in 2007.

Wikipedia

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Ummmm...you live in a bubble? What Russian Navy?

What exactly do you mean?
Russia has a very powerful navy, with some unimaginable
technology at their disposal.
Trust me, I've had some classified dealings with them in the past.
The US navy should not provoke them in any way, except perhaps act
only in self defense,

Tisk tisk....nuke carrier or nuclear carrier who gives a damn. The fact is, is that this ship carries nuclear weapons capable of doing unimaginable things.

i know exactly where the nukes were when I was on a carrier when I was active in the Navy.
Not sure if I should say where, but the locked space deep below was adjacent to where I performed maintenance on the bearings that the screws wrap around.

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by concernedcitizen519

 

I do know for a fact that UK Carriers had nukes on them. So I would not be surprised if the US had them also.

The presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. aircraft carriers since the end of the Cold War has neither been confirmed nor denied by the U.S. government. As a result of this, as well as concerns over the safety of nuclear power, the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier in a foreign port has occasionally provoked protest from local people, for example when USS Nimitz docked in Chennai, India, in 2007.

Wikipedia

This has been a false rumor.

I was on the USS George H.W. Bush last night. It is in Marseille, France.
They did go through the Suez canal, as they are on a tour of the Med. But they did not stop near Syria.
I specifically asked about this, of not only the Rear Admiral Nora Tyson (in command of the carrier) but of many other pilots and crew members. They are going home as soon as they leave Marseille, and have no orders to get involved in any way with the Syrian conflict.
I have pictures to prove it happened.
At the dock-

On the flight deck, you can see clearly the 77-

And even me in the hangar-

reply to post by Bluesma


Seeing the insider of a carrier brings back memories of running up 4 flights of steep metal stairs and back down again and repeating this around 10 times when we once had to jettison around 50 heavy valves that we did not need. Those knees were hurting going down those stairs. Former BT - Now defunct

reply to post by Bluesma


If you're the woman you are absolutely stunning!
Thanks for the info!

reply to post by jacobe001


LOL- Yeah, I commented as we climbed up and down that those stairs must keep you guys in shape. (I was also happy I decided against wearing the skirt and high heels that evening...)

reply to post by Bluesma


Thank you for the pictures.

This shows the media was hyping nothing at all. So much for the AP and Reuters, they used to be fairly reliable.

What exactly do i mean? I will post this which has already been stated on this thread by someone else:

The US has 50 nuclear powered subs..russia has 6. The US has 12 super carriers...Russia has 0. From the Aegis destroyers, the refurbished ohio class attack subs, and the new virginia class attack subs, Russia wouldn't stand a chance. in fact, you could take all the navies in the world, and they would not equal the size and sophistication of the USN.

I will repeat: YOU CAN TAKE ALL THE NAVIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED AND THEY WOULD NOT EQUAL THE SIZE OR SOPHISTICATION OF THE US NAVY.

Thats what i mean.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Ummmm...you live in a bubble? What Russian Navy?

What exactly do you mean?
Russia has a very powerful navy, with some unimaginable
technology at their disposal.
Trust me, I've had some classified dealings with them in the past.
The US navy should not provoke them in any way, except perhaps act
only in self defense,

reply to post by princeofpeace


In a huge superpower war, none of that matters. the losing side
will throw nukes.

This video shows the grip reality of nuclear war. Its a documentary showing the effects of a nuclear attack on the Uk. Everyone should watch this because nuclear war is horrible for everyone, no exceptions



www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by chrismicha77
Tisk tisk....nuke carrier or nuclear carrier who gives a damn. The fact is, is that this ship carries nuclear weapons capable of doing unimaginable things.

True, though to date after WWII cooler heads have prevailed and nukes have not been used,
nonetheless the possibility exists.
Cute superman in your avatar btw, reminds me of Alexander the Great.

Cheers

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Ummmm...you live in a bubble? What Russian Navy?

What exactly do you mean?
Russia has a very powerful navy, with some unimaginable
technology at their disposal.
Trust me, I've had some classified dealings with them in the past.
The US navy should not provoke them in any way, except perhaps act
only in self defense,

Russias navy has never been a real threat to US naval supremacy. This goes all the way back to the Cuban missile crisis, when the USN set up a blockade against the Russian navy. The USN is the largest most sophisticated navy in the world...the second largest "navy" in the world belongs to the US Coast guard...kinda puts things into perspective.

As for the rest of your post, Russia doesnt have the technical know how, or the money to be taken srsly. We see this by the quality of Russian weaponry, which was never that great. They valued quantity over quality. They also never had the brain drain that the US had. And when the USSR collapsed, it was discovered that the Russian GDP was roughly $500 billion at its highest, compare this to the US GDP of $5 trillion at the same time. In other words, the US had a GDP that was 10x larger than the soviet GDP...meaning the US could spend 5-6% of GDP on the military and still far outspend the USSR by quite a substantial amount.

So your post isn't very credible. Sure, Russia has one of the worlds most powerful armies, but the US navy is second to none. With the DD-X destroyers soon to come on line, the Aegis destroyers, the Virginia class attack subs, the new and present supercarriers that will harbor technology like free electron lasers for offensive and defensive purposes, to rail guns that could adorn ships in the USN by as early as 2013-2020, the US is way ahead of the curve.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
What exactly do i mean? I will post this which has already been stated on this thread by someone else:

The US has 50 nuclear powered subs..russia has 6. The US has 12 super carriers...Russia has 0. From the Aegis destroyers, the refurbished ohio class attack subs, and the new virginia class attack subs, Russia wouldn't stand a chance. in fact, you could take all the navies in the world, and they would not equal the size and sophistication of the USN.

I will repeat: YOU CAN TAKE ALL THE NAVIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED AND THEY WOULD NOT EQUAL THE SIZE OR SOPHISTICATION OF THE US NAVY.

US carrier fleets are made primarily to project power and serve as mobile bases. They are not well suited to defensive functions, and are not meant for this. In a hypothetic all-out war, the plan is for the carrier air wings to take off as soon as possible, because the carriers are guaranteed to be gone, quickly.

Russian naval and airforce strategy, barring SSBN, has always revolved around disabling US carrier fleets as soon as possible. They don't need to be anywhere within sight of the carriers or the interceptors launched from the carriers. Russia has the most advanced naval supersonic cruise missiles in world, and it has a lot of them - both on its ships and air-launched. It has far more missiles than US has surface ships, and these missiles have no know defenses against them. It is mistake to undermine Russia's ability to take out Carriers - its navy has been designed to do exactly that since early Cold War.

Other navies don't need to be the size of the US navy, to pose a threat to it. They simply need to be designed for the right purpose.

Either way all this posturing and chest-beating about US navy vs Russian navy is completely irrelevent here. They may have ships in the same sea, but both sides know better than to even consider an engagement. This was the case during the Kosovo war, and during the Georgia War. To say that those in command of the US navy absolutely disregard the capabilities of the Russian navy and write them off as weak and incompetent shows complete ignorance.

Originally posted by maloy
US carrier fleets are made primarily to project power and serve as mobile bases. They are not well suited to defensive functions, and are not meant for this. In a hypothetic all-out war, the plan is for the carrier air wings to take off as soon as possible, because the carriers are guaranteed to be gone, quickly.

Thats actually wrong. US carrier groups are never alone. They are defended by Subs, Aegis destroyers and a host of air defense systems... The US naval defensive/offensive capabilities are quite impressive. You dont spend several billions on these machines to use as cannon fodder.



The above is a diagram of the type of ABM capabilities that the US currently possesses with current tech. Russia would also have to contend with Americas offensive capabilities, like F22s, B2s, B1's, etc...not just US naval assets.

Russia has the most advanced naval supersonic cruise missiles in world,

I could easily one up you by pointing out the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile that the US is developing, or the 64 megajoule rail gun that could be adorning USN fleets this decade. (BAE systems has already developed a working 32 megajoule prototype for the USN)

But I suppose that would just start a predictable pissing match which would look highly retarded. However, I think the Aegis air defense systems would prove quite worthwhile in such scenarios...also, with the free electron laser that will be fitted on US naval assets, I suspect this "advantage" you speak of is quickly fading.



These systems are currently at the prototype stage. And are proving highly effective. Again, you dont invest as much $$$ into a navy like the USN without making sure your investment stays safe. This, along with rail guns could be adorning the USN by as early as 2013-2020. Again, there is no navy on the planet that comes close to the USN in sophistication or capability.

Now for a moment of clarity. The American people are not the enemies to the Russian people, and vise verse. Its unfortunate that both governments would rather use conquer and divide strategies and propadanda on our people in pursuit for their own self serving interests. These interests do not benefit the common man or women in both countries...And really, this is something that applies to all governments and people.

Can't we all just find some common ground and get along?

Originally posted by xlb40

As for the rest of your post, Russia doesnt have the technical know how, or the money to be taken srsly.

This is highly presumptuos and a seemingly ignorant statement.
It is best for the us or any other navy ,not to find out the hard way
by being check mated.