Aircraft Carriers have been obsolete for a long time

reply to post by Jepic


ah more technology that doesnt exist or exists only in anime well on that note then all carriers in the usa fleet are secretly like furies Helicarrier and can fly and get into the cloud cover and hide from your imagainary tech cuz our imiginary tech is better i mean didnt you see transformers? we have bumbebee and optimus prime on our side man and willsmith allready took out the alien mothership with a virus from a mac with jeff goblums help i mean if we are using tv shows and imaginary stuff as refrence points hell why dont we just give america the USS eneterprise with transporters and antimater weapons......see how foolish all of that sounds? stick to real tech that exists in the real world not fantasy

Originally posted by Gazrok

Right now, there are two other powers that pose any kind of (non-nuclear) realistic threat to a US Carrier Group....Russia, and China. That's really about it. Both have planes and missiles that could penetrate the defense net of a carrier group, just as we have the same that could penetrate theirs as well. (Both Russia and China have 1 in service).

edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

France, UK and Israel cannot??

The best way to attack a carrier group would be by submarines. Nice stealthy ones too. Enmasse like the germans did with their U-boats.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


There were a couple of nuclear powered cruisers. They weren't very practical though. At the time that WA the smallest surface ship they could pt a reactor in. There has been talk lately of making any Ticonderoga replacement nuclear.

reply to post by Jepic

This week, the Pentagon tried something different. On Wednesday evening, it announced that it successfully launched a sea-based missile and shot down a crippled satellite gliding 150 miles overhead, in a $60 million effort to blast it out of the sky before it could tumble home and hurt someone. It's been a neat little feat on the part of the military planners — but that doesn't mean they're telling the whole truth about why they bothered in the first place. Read more: www.time.com...

the usa is capable of taking out satellites from our naval vessels so we can hit them from ships at sea and as far as i know no other nation has done a simaler feat not even the russians but i could be wrong on that

www.time.com... and we shot one down from land in the 1960s so what satellite do you think will survive open conflict with the usa?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yes, but two of the three mentioned are allies. I think he was going for countries we don't have the best relations with.v

reply to post by Jepic


ah so now your imaginary nation has violated the weaponization of space laws that have been on the books since the cold war....some how i see russia having a problem with this as well as the usa and problay china throwign a fit

if this werent ats and against the t and c id ask you a question brian from family guy asked peter once.....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Possibly, but some recent changes to the sub defenses would make this a lot less likely. As I recall, last I heard we couldn't even penetrate the more recent sub net with our own stealth subs. But things are constantly changing and that was like a year ago.

So when this 'destroyer group' comes face to face with a combined battle group, all with integrated roles that cover near the entire spectrum - and to some extent, overlapping capabilities....what then?

When they're harried by aircraft strikes, along with submarines from far-out of the destroyer groups effective range...and when they finally get into range to use their surface-to-surface weaponry... the combined battle group's own destroyers retaliate in kind....along with constant aerial attacks....along with submarine warfare.

Where's the destroyers defences? The battle groups operate on mutual support, in order to cover the almost all avenues of defence for each other. Along with the carrier. Mutual support and defence from a wide variety of sources.

Well you know what. Gazrok has a point. You may as well turn my destroyer into a flat deck.

reply to post by Jepic


yeah not to many nations have even close to parity with usa tech as most nations do not do what america does ie carrier fleets so they focus on missiles so parity would not happen even in your fantasy world at least not at this point in time maby in 100 years things will be diffrent but right now america and her allies own the oceans of the world

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


I've always favored the idea of a stealth submersible aircraft carrier. Now THAT would be pretty damn effective. I mean, if we're talking theoretical. I used to sketch these back in 9th grade during my own little "take over the world" phase (something I assume the OP is going through?). I'm quite sure that little sketch book would get me a one way ticket to a padded room, so I keep that hidden, hehe...

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Jepic

 

yeah not to many nations have even close to parity with usa tech as most nations do not do what america does ie carrier fleets so they focus on missiles so parity would not happen even in your fantasy world at least not at this point in time maby in 100 years things will be diffrent but right now america and her allies own the oceans of the world

They certainly do.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

 

I've always favored the idea of a stealth submersible aircraft carrier. Now THAT would be pretty damn effective. I mean, if we're talking theoretical. I used to sketch these back in 9th grade during my own little "take over the world" phase (something I assume the OP is going through?). I'm quite sure that little sketch book would get me a one way ticket to a padded room, so I keep that hidden, hehe...

Yea... There is a few problems with that... Related with pressure and potential fuel leaks..

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Yes, but two of the three mentioned are allies. I think he was going for countries we don't have the best relations with.v

edit on 4/24/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

France is part of NATO too.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


i assume u ment a jet engine sucks in air to provide combustion for the engine to create thrust as im pretty sure jet engines and water do not mix

Originally posted by Jepic
Don't ask me for my age since I never asked you for yours. Let's keep with the topic at hand.

I just is that you sound like a teenager with a pechant for fun but unrealistic movies is all.

Alright I'm willing to take some good professional experience if it is true that some of you served.

I thought a few books might have given me a bit too much of an ego boost.

Originally posted by intrptr
I'm going to plant a string of smart mines in its pathway, hide subs along shorelines to defeat sonar that can fire a spread of torpedoes each, launch supersonic sea skimming missiles from all points of the compass to arrive at the same time as the torpedoes and mines converge...

LST Large Slow Targets bobbing like a cork.

The carrier is useful at projecting power afar...



as long as nobody shoots back.

I need to see schematics on these "smart mines" keep your subs near shore as much as you want...CBG aint going to go shallow or littoral.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I was thinking Israel actually. They're not exactly the best allies we could ask for.

reply to post by Jepic


shows you how limited the enemies of america are in sattelite forces and numbers of such?