Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

Questerr · Nov 10, 2017

Mushroom said: ↑

Watching that thing gave me a headache. Basically a fanboi's idea of what they wanted in a wet dream.

Rail guns, lasers, nuclear power plant? About the only thing missing was to turn it into a spaceship.

No, the era of Battleships as in the BB Iowa class is gone. They were great ships, but the design is simply to old, as is the equipment.

But it has to be remembered what I had said several times earlier. Battleship is more of how a ship is used than any specific feature.

All that would be needed in the modern era would be a modernized CB Alaska class ship. Considered a "Large Cruiser" or "Battle Cruiser", there was actually very little to differentiate the CB from the BB was the size of guns (12" instead of 16"), 15,000 tons of displacement, and about 45 feet in length.

And with modern fire control, LRLAP munitions, guided precision artillery rounds similar to the M712 Copperhead, and modern missiles. With capabilities like that 2-4 of these would more than fulfill the demands of providing naval gunfire without trying to resurrect 75 year old ships.

And yes, in the modern era this would indeed be the equal of a Battleship. Like the Iowa class, building them with 9-12" armor would be proof against all conventionally armed missiles in use today.

Building enough to place 1 in each Amphibious Warfare task force would restore a capability that has been gone since the Gulf War.
Click to expand...

Why do we need that capability? Are we going to be storming islands fortified like Iwo Jima again?

Dayton3 · Nov 10, 2017

Questerr said: ↑

Why do we need that capability? Are we going to be storming islands fortified like Iwo Jima again?
Click to expand...

Unlikely. But most military operations are against areas where there are concentrations of people. And the demographic trends are for more and more of the global population to live relatively close to coastlines.

Questerr · Nov 10, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

Unlikely. But most military operations are against areas where there are concentrations of people. And the demographic trends are for more and more of the global population to live relatively close to coastlines.
Click to expand...

And amphibious warfare doctrine in the modern era calls for landing away from concentrations of enemy defenses, not battering through them like in WW2.

Dayton3 · Nov 10, 2017

Questerr said: ↑

And amphibious warfare doctrine in the modern era calls for landing away from concentrations of enemy defenses, not battering through them like in WW2.
Click to expand...

And when you have no choice?

Questerr · Nov 10, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

And when you have no choice?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing. There is no where on the planet where a potential enemy can provide perfect all-round defense in equal concentration along their entire coast.

There are always going to be weak spots exploitable by helicopter, Osprey, and LCAC.

APACHERAT · Nov 10, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

And when you have no choice?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to these islands that U.S. Marines have been conducting amphibious assaults exercises in the Marianas to put Marines on a hostile, heavily defended beach ?

These are the heavily defended Chi-Com islands in the South China Sea that the Marine Corps has been training for.

Some times you don't have a choice like why did we land on Iwo Jima ?

The Chi-Coms have been studying the war in the Pacific during WW ll for decades.

When the Chi-Coms militarizes an island the first thing they build is a concrete plant.

http://www.allworldwars.com/Iwo-Jima-Naval-Gunfire-Support.html

Dayton3 · Nov 10, 2017

I really wasn't thinking of any place in particular.

APACHERAT · Nov 10, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

I really wasn't thinking of any place in particular.
Click to expand...

With war clouds forming over the Western Pacific and war with China very likely by 2026 and that war will not be fought on China's mainland but on the same islands where the war in the Pacific were fought during WW ll, everyone is getting ready.

Australia’s Amphibious Force Nearing Full Operational Capability

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is nearing full operational capability of its amphibious force, after a six-year effort to turn an Army battalion into the heart of a joint-service expeditionary capability akin to the U.S. Marine Corps.

Despite being an island itself, and having only islands as its closest neighbors, the ADF never set up a dedicated amphibious force. As part of an effort to modernize its military, though, Australia decided in 2011 to turn its 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment (2 RAR) into a permanent pre-landing force, with other Army units rotating through annually to serve as the ground combat element on the ADF’s three-ship Amphibious Ready Group.

After years of planning, reorganizing and training, the commander of the ADF’s Deployable Joint Force Headquarters has certified that the amphibious force is ready for operations, after using this summer’s Talisman Saber 2017 exercise as a final certification event. All that remains is for the Chief of Navy to sign off on that recommendation, certify that the three amphibious ships are deployable, and declare the force fully operational.

Maj. Gen. Paul McLachlan, commander of the Deployable Joint Force Headquarter and the Australian Army’s 1st Division, told USNI News that this year’s final certification event came on the heels of a very successful year last year and a half, which included sending the new Canberra-class large amphibious ship to its first real-world disaster relief mission, and participating in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2016 exercise.

In February 2016, HMAS Canberra (L02) deployed to Fiji after Tropical Cyclone Winston severely damaged the island chain. Operation Fiji Assist 2016 was Canberra’s first operational deployment and perfectly demonstrated a primary purpose of Australia’s amphib force: to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions in the region.

Just months later, 2 RAR soldiers boarded Canberra and sailed to Hawaii for RIMPAC 2016, where they could practice not only HA/DR missions but also higher-threat missions as part of a multinational coalition – the other intent for the amphib force.

One benefit of the RIMPAC participation was that “we got to show the region, all the participants at RIMPAC, the Canberra class and where we are with it and where we are with our amphibious force,” McLachlan said, adding that the exercise also demonstrated an important lesson to the ADF.
“It’s not just about that amphibious capability. The blue water requirements, the joint capability required, the air and sea control, the escort, the submarine that are required to employ amphibious forces successfully are important. So bringing that amphibious capability into the ADF RIMPAC deployment was absolutely fantastic to open their eyes as to what’s required in the successful employment of an amphibious force.”

McLachlan said the international component of RIMPAC and again at Talisman Saber 2017 were important, given the vision for Australia’s amphibious force.

“We’re a small-middle power, we have no aspirations of unilateral force projection, but certainly the ability to transport and sustain forces, joint forces within the region is an incredibly important capability and something that the government decided that we would pursue,” the general said.
“We strive to become a contemporary force, and in a nation that is as much an island as Australia is, it makes absolutely no sense if you don’t have the capacity to deploy a legitimate and competent amphibious capability. We’re not aspiring for this to be a significant force projection capability – because to be perfectly frank that is beyond the capacity we have designed and trained for – but that capability would certainly be a highly competent contribution to a multinational coalition in a higher threat spectrum, if that were required and authorized. Closer to home, it gives us an amazing capability to go and help the region, and that is one of the key aspects that we are building and training this force to deliver.”

Though intuitive for the island to have an amphibious force that can respond to natural disasters or join Pacific allies in a bigger fight, the development of the force hasn’t been without challenges.

First was finding the manpower. The ADF decided early on it couldn’t support a Marine Corps, so the venture would have to be a joint service one, with a hybrid model that relied on some full-time experts and some rotating units. In the end, 2 RAR was selected to serve as the permanent force that will conduct pre-landing activities – the 300 or so soldiers in the unit will serve as the command and control element, small boat operators, reconnaissance and snipers that go ashore on the small boats, a communications element and a logistics element. The actual ground combat unit that will be brought ashore for the fight will rotate each year.

To train this rotational ground combat force, a Sea Series of exercises will serve as training and certification events: Sea Explorer will assess command and control, Sea Horizon will ensure the soldiers are proficient at embarking and debarking by surface craft and helicopters, and Sea Raider will be an overall demonstration of amphibious capability that will certify that year’s unit as ready to deploy.

McLachlan said this is a big change for the ADF, which brings with it some cultural problems, but he said he’s confident the amphibious force is on the right path.

“The amphibious capability is fundamentally going to change the way the whole ADF operates because it is a particularly utilitarian capability in our region, and the whole – all of our Army, Air Force and Navy – need to understand what they have to bring to the amphibious capability. Now, that’s going to take a period of time to inject into our ADF, so it’s an evolutionary thing and I personally believe that we’re going to need to do those yearly rotations for about six years before we start to really generate a fully informed and pervasive amphibious awareness and capability within the ADF. But once we get there, I think there will always be someone in the readying force that has a good deal of amphibious understanding, so we will get better at it over that time.”

In the event of a major contingency, he said, the rotational ground force concept would mean a larger pool of soldiers would be familiar with amphibious operations and therefore could deploy aboard Australian or allied ships if needed.

Still, operating onboard a ship is not necessarily a talent all the soldiers wanted to learn.

“We have soldiers that joined to be soldiers, who now find themselves operating for long periods of time off a ship in the maritime environment,” he said.
“Now, if you join the [U.S.] Marines, you know what you’re in for. But five years ago, if you joined 2 RAR you did not expect to be deployed on and from a ship. … The organization is changing quite significantly, and that is just part of the amphibious journey going forward, but learning how to operate on the ship as well as staying good at being soldiers operating off the land has been a significant challenge that actually I think has been very well handled by the 2nd Battalion.”

Another cultural challenge has been learning to operate in a joint environment – something certainly not unique to the ADF, as U.S. military officials still cite that as a challenge for them. McLachlan noted the move to “joint command and control systems off what has previously been a single-service platform, so you’ve got to get people willing to give up bandwidth from the ship’s operating capability in order to achieve the joint mission, and that’s a very difficult thing to achieve.”

McLachlan said he expected to see the quality of the amphibious force to go up as more annual rotations occur, but he said he’s proud of the progress that has been made leading up to Talisman Saber 2017.

“From my perspective, we demonstrated a certifiable capability for the amphibious element that was deployed on Talisman Saber, and that advice has gone up” to the Chief of Navy for consideration, he said.

Source -> https://news.usni.org/2017/10/05/australias-amphibious-force-nearing-full-operational-capability
Click to expand...

HMAS Canberra with US, Australian and New Zealand naval ships in a post Talisman Saber 2017 group photo.

Strasser · Nov 13, 2017

APACHERAT said: ↑

With war clouds forming over the Western Pacific and war with China very likely by 2026 and that war will not be fought on China's mainland but on the same islands where the war in the Pacific were fought during WW ll, everyone is getting ready.
Click to expand...

Have any special reason for why it will be by 2026?

Mao got burned bad by Korea, and never wanted to take on the U.S. directly because of that, and the Gulf War certainly reinforced that reticence among not only the Chinese but every other wannabee, despite the best efforts of Obama and the Democrats to encourage major wars around the globe; the Commies usually just slaughter millions of their own when they eventually need a major outlet for failure, usually via famines and purges. They tend to keep lessons learnt for very long times.

We don't, though, and the stupid trend back to isolationism is increasing instability, so who knows, they certainly have no problems with poking to see what responses are and how far they can go; those artificial islands and intimidation tactics aren't good signs at all.

Max Rockatansky · Nov 13, 2017

tecoyah said: ↑

NO
Click to expand...

Agreed.

A few facts:
1) The planet is 75% water

2) http://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade
Around 90% of world trade is carried by the international shipping industry.

Without shipping the import and export of goods on the scale necessary for the modern world would not be possible.

Seaborne trade continues to expand, bringing benefits for consumers across the world through competitive freight costs. Thanks to the growing efficiency of shipping as a mode of transport and increased economic liberalisation, the prospects for the industry's further growth continue to be strong.

There are over 50,000 merchant ships trading internationally, transporting every kind of cargo. The world fleet is registered in over 150 nations, and manned by over a million seafarers of virtually every nationality.

3) As President Jefferson learned during the Barbary Wars, Naval ships are necessary to secure those trade routes.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars

4) Aircraft Carriers have a solid strategic purpose in supporting securing the sea lanes. However, in the event of WWIII, like airbases and cities, they present a large target.

Questerr · Nov 13, 2017

APACHERAT said: ↑

Are you referring to these islands that U.S. Marines have been conducting amphibious assaults exercises in the Marianas to put Marines on a hostile, heavily defended beach ?

These are the heavily defended Chi-Com islands in the South China Sea that the Marine Corps has been training for.

Some times you don't have a choice like why did we land on Iwo Jima ?

The Chi-Coms have been studying the war in the Pacific during WW ll for decades.

When the Chi-Coms militarizes an island the first thing they build is a concrete plant.

http://www.allworldwars.com/Iwo-Jima-Naval-Gunfire-Support.html
Click to expand...

Those islands are built out of dredged sand. Their “heavy defenses” aren’t buried hardened bunkers that you need battleships to take out. They are unarmored mobile launchers for SAMs and Anti-ships missile’s that you can easily kill with cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons.

We still wouldn’t need naval gunfire to take those islands.

APACHERAT · Nov 13, 2017

Questerr said: ↑

Those islands are built out of dredged sand. Their “heavy defenses” aren’t buried hardened bunkers that you need battleships to take out. They are unarmored mobile launchers for SAMs and Anti-ships missile’s that you can easily kill with cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons.

We still wouldn’t need naval gunfire to take those islands.
Click to expand...

Sand ???

Try coral.

Think of Tarawa, Kwajalein, Wake, Eniwetok, Midway.

The first thing that the Chi-Coms built on these islands were concrete plants.

Concrete think of Iwo Jima.

Eighty kilometers southwest of Woody, on Duncan Island (seized by China from Vietnam in 1974) satellite images show landfill that has increased the size of the island by approximately 50 percent since April 2014. Known as Chenhang Dao in Chinese and Đảo Quang Hòa in Vietnamese, the island houses a military garrison, four radar domes, a concrete manufacturing plant, and a port that has recently been expanded via dredging and coral cutting. A reinforced sea wall is being constructed around recent landfill. New buildings have also appeared on nearby Drummond Island, occupied by China... -> https://thediplomat.com/2015/04/south-china-sea-china-is-building-on-the-paracels-as-well/
Click to expand...

Who ever militarily controls the Paracel and Spratly Islands controls the sea lanes of the Western Pacific.

THE UNITED STATES ARMY
SIGNAL CORPS
OFFICER CANDIDATE SCHOOL ASSOCIATION -> http://www.armysignalocs.com/veteranssalultes/rebal_japan.html

APACHERAT · Nov 13, 2017

Strasser said: ↑

Have any special reason for why it will be by 2026?

Mao got burned bad by Korea, and never wanted to take on the U.S. directly because of that, and the Gulf War certainly reinforced that reticence among not only the Chinese but every other wannabee, despite the best efforts of Obama and the Democrats to encourage major wars around the globe; the Commies usually just slaughter millions of their own when they eventually need a major outlet for failure, usually via famines and purges. They tend to keep lessons learnt for very long times.

We don't, though, and the stupid trend back to isolationism is increasing instability, so who knows, they certainly have no problems with poking to see what responses are and how far they can go; those artificial islands and intimidation tactics aren't good signs at all.
Click to expand...

For over 12 years generals and admirals have been saying that war with the Chi-Coms was very likely and the dates they used were from 2024 - 2028

Just a few weeks ago during the Congressional oversight hearings of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, Gen. Dunford was asked what was the biggest national security threat facing America ?

Gen. Dunford replied at this particular time North Korea was the biggest threat to America, Russia was second. Then Gen. Dunford said by 2026, 2028 China will be the biggest threat to America.

Those are the years being used.

In 1905 the fuse was lit for war in the Pacific between Japan and America.

Japan knew it and America knew it and both sides started drawing up their war plans.

It's why Japan declared war on Germany in 1915 during WW l. For Japan to defeat the U.S. Navy in the Pacific they needed the German Mandate Islands in the Central Pacific which was German territory before WW l. Japan was awarded the Mandate Islands after WW l and started militarizing those islands in the Central Pacific.

America started drawing up its war plans for war in the Pacific and in 1924 adopted War Plan Orange that was used to defeat Japan during WW ll.

excerpt:

THE EVOLUTION OF ORANGE PLAN

American acquisition from Spain of Guam and the Philippine Islands was followed within a few years by the emergence of Japan as a world power. The question arose whether the Philippines, at the end of a long and vulnerable line of communications, could be defended against the modern armed forces of Japan. Since both the American Army and Navy would take part in defending these islands, the Joint Board, an agency created to develop plans and policies which would most effectively use the available forces of both services, turned its attention to developing a coordinated plan for a possible war in the Pacific. Defending the Philippines, however, seemed so difficult a task that President Theodore Roosevelt, writing in 1907, termed the islands "our heel of Achilles."

War plans of this era derived their titles from the code name of the probable enemy, and because Japan was designated ORANGE, the plan dealing with a conflict in the Far East was called ORANGE Plan. The earliest drafts required the Army to defend the Philippines until the fleet could shepherd reinforcements across the Pacific. Planners believed that the Japanese Navy would challenge the approach of the American armada and that the ensuing battle would decide not only the fate of the Philippines but the outcome of the war.

Naval strategists realized that before a relief expedition could be dispatched to the Far East, Japan certainly would have seized Guam, thus depriving the United States of its only fleet anchorage between Pearl Harbor and Manila Bay. Either Guam would have to be retaken or some other site occupied as a coaling and repair station. Whichever course of action was adopted, a landing force made up from the various ships' crews could not be used. With Japanese battleships lurking just over the horizon,

Since the recapture of Guam or the taking of some other island--Truk was most frequently designated the prime objective3--was an integral part of the war at sea, such missions fell to the naval services and specifically to the Marine Corps, which was especially suited to those operations, During the Spanish-American War, a Marine battalion had landed at Guantanamo Bay to obtain a coaling station for the American ships blockading Cuba. Following the war, Marine units inherited the mission of occupying and defending advanced naval bases, and some naval officers began to urge that specially equipped defense forces be incorporated into each American squadron. Various planners cooperated in applying the lessons learned at Guantanamo Bay to the situation in the Pacific.

Among the first Marines to claim for their Corps an important role in an ORANGE war were Major Dion Williams and Captain Earl H. Ellis. Writing in 1912, Williams offered tables of organization for a brigade to accompany the battle fleet and assist it by occupying poorly defended anchorages, emplacing weapons, and guarding against counterattack. Ellis, whose study appeared a few years later, agreed with the basic theory set forth by Williams, but he prophesied that the day might come when the enemy had fortified those islands suitable as advanced bases. Should this happen, the Marine contingent would be called upon to seize a defended beach. The capture of the objective rather than its subsequent defense would become the primary task of the Marines supporting the battle fleet.

As a result of World War I, during which Japan and the United States had been allies, America's potential enemy gained control over the former German possessions (mandate Islands) in the Marshalls, Carolines, and Marianas. The Philippines were more vulnerable than before and Guam now was ringed by Japanese outposts. By 1921, the Marine Corps had evaluated recent gains by Japan and developed a realistic framework for its own operational and logistical planning. Staff officers believed that Guam and probably the Philippines would fall to the enemy shortly after the outbreak of war, and that Marine Corps units, in cooperation with Army troops, would face the task of seizing bases in the Marshalls, Carolines, Marianas, and Philippines. In addition, they assumed

Earl Ellis, now a major, concentrated on one segment of a war against ORANGE and devised Operation Plan 712, which dealt with the systematic reduction of the Marshall Islands. He also outlined the tactics to be used against such objectives as Eniwetok, Wotje, and Maloelap. Although his theories were limited by the equipment then available, he made several sound recommendations, urging among other things that troops fighting ashore have at their disposal the on-call fire of supporting warships. Yet, the amphibious assault depicted by Ellis was understandably crude in comparison to the skilfully coordinated landings of World War II.

Whatever the flaws in his theory, Ellis's plan marked a complete break with tradition. No longer would Marines be used primarily to defend advanced bases. Instead, they would seize these bases from the enemy.

During the 1920s and 1930s, various Marine Corps officers elaborated upon Ellis' amphibious doctrine. Key Pacific islands were studied as potential battlefields, new types of landing craft were tested, and more efficient landing techniques came into use. Thus did the Marine Corps devote its energies to preparing for whatever amphibious missions might be assigned it in an ORANGE war...

entire article -> https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/III/USMC-III-I-1.html
Click to expand...

Questerr · Nov 13, 2017

APACHERAT said: ↑

Sand ???

Try coral.

Think of Tarawa, Kwajalein, Wake, Eniwetok, Midway.

The first thing that the Chi-Coms built on these islands were concrete plants.

Concrete think of Iwo Jima.

Who ever militarily controls the Paracel and Spratly Islands controls the sea lanes of the Western Pacific.

THE UNITED STATES ARMY
SIGNAL CORPS
OFFICER CANDIDATE SCHOOL ASSOCIATION -> http://www.armysignalocs.com/veteranssalultes/rebal_japan.html

Click to expand...

You aren't going to build deep bunkers on an artificial island. The water table is too high for one.

Furthermore, you aren't going to be able to put anti-ship missiles or SAM's in buried bunkers. And if you don't have ASM's or SAM's, then the US Navy doesn't need battleships. Super Hornet's can just drop bunker busters all day until you die.

APACHERAT · Nov 13, 2017

Questerr said: ↑

You aren't going to build deep bunkers on an artificial island. The water table is too high for one.

Furthermore, you aren't going to be able to put anti-ship missiles or SAM's in buried bunkers. And if you don't have ASM's or SAM's, then the US Navy doesn't need battleships. Super Hornet's can just drop bunker busters all day until you die.
Click to expand...

Ever driven through the Holland Tunnel ?

One of the problems with coral islands has always been a water source. There is no real water table.

Super Hornets require an aircraft carrier so the question has been answered, U.S. carrier fleets aren't obsolete.

New Chinese Missile Installations in Spratlys?
Structures might house long-range SAMs as China inches closer to “militarization” of islands.
China is completing new structures on several islands in the South China Sea’s Spratly Islands chain that appear intended to house new long-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The structures follow revelations from the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) last December that China had installed shorter ranged point-defense weaponson all seven features in the Spratlys that it occupies. The move brings China closer to breaking its pledge not to militarize the islands but does not alter the strategic balance in the South China Sea yet... -> https://thediplomat.com/2017/02/new-chinese-missile-installations-in-spratlys/
Click to expand...

South China Sea: China Has Deployed Anti-Ship Missiles on Woody Island
The People’s Liberation Army-Navy’s YJ-62 anti-ship cruise missile is now on Woody Island.

China has placed indigenously developed advanced anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) on Woody Island in the South China Sea. Based on images shared on Chinese social media websites, IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly reported earlier this week that YJ-62 ASCMs are now on Woody Island. The YJ-62 ASCM would allow China to potentially target any surface vessel within 400 kilometers of Woody Island, providing a powerful power projection capability. Jane‘s notes that the ASCM was deployed on Woody Island around the same time as China’s deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems there... -> https://thediplomat.com/2016/03/sou...-deployed-anti-ship-missiles-on-woody-island/
Click to expand...

China Defends Deployment of Anti-Ship Missiles to South China Sea Island
https://news.usni.org/2016/03/30/ch...-anti-ship-missiles-to-south-china-sea-island

https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/chi...h-china-sea-securing-the-air-from-the-ground/

Questerr · Nov 13, 2017

APACHERAT said: ↑

Ever driven through the Holland Tunnel ?

One of the problems with coral islands has always been a water source. There is no real water table.

Super Hornets require an aircraft carrier so the question has been answered, U.S. carrier fleets aren't obsolete.

China Defends Deployment of Anti-Ship Missiles to South China Sea Island
https://news.usni.org/2016/03/30/ch...-anti-ship-missiles-to-south-china-sea-island

https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/chi...h-china-sea-securing-the-air-from-the-ground/
Click to expand...

Those missile launchers are unarmored. You can’t launch them from hardened bunkers. So you sweep the islands clear with stand off weapons like cruise missiles and then any bunkers can be killed at you leisure with air power.

APACHERAT · Nov 13, 2017

Questerr said: ↑

Those missile launchers are unarmored. You can’t launch them from hardened bunkers. So you sweep the islands clear with stand off weapons like cruise missiles and then any bunkers can be killed at you leisure with air power.
Click to expand...

NOTHING TO SEA HERE
China DENIES filling South China Sea islands with war-ready gun turrets and missile launch pads despite satellite pics

Brazen claims comes as space images clearly show military installations

Satellite images showing missile pads have been released amid warnings from the US about China's behaviour in the region

Secret guns have also been captured in the newly-released aerial shots that have been analysed in Washington

China has constructed enough concrete hangers for 24 fighter jets and four or five larger planes such as bombers or early warning aircraft

A photo from last July shows a Chinese frigate launching a missile during the exercise in the South China Sea

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3224996/china-south-china-sea-islands-war-threat/

Questerr · Nov 13, 2017

APACHERAT said: ↑

NOTHING TO SEA HERE
China DENIES filling South China Sea islands with war-ready gun turrets and missile launch pads despite satellite pics

Brazen claims comes as space images clearly show military installations

Satellite images showing missile pads have been released amid warnings from the US about China's behaviour in the region

Secret guns have also been captured in the newly-released aerial shots that have been analysed in Washington

China has constructed enough concrete hangers for 24 fighter jets and four or five larger planes such as bombers or early warning aircraft

A photo from last July shows a Chinese frigate launching a missile during the exercise in the South China Sea

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3224996/china-south-china-sea-islands-war-threat/
Click to expand...

So an Ohio class SSGN slings a hundred Tomahawks at those islands taking out the SAMs, the radars, the fighters, any ship in harbor, and cratering the runways.

Then they can either be ignored at our leisure or killed at our leisure. Who gives a **** how many defenders or gun turrets they have at that point?

JakeStarkey · Nov 13, 2017

Absolutely not. Any who suggest that is are Russian tools (RT).

Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

Strasser · Nov 14, 2017

A technology was developed many years ago, things called elevators and lifts; they work just as well built into bunkers as they do buildings, and the new ones are much better than the originals. Also telescoping towers are handy for many applications. Bunkers can handle anything anybody wants to put in them, and their size is only limited by time and needs; engineers have also mastered the problems of building stuff underwater many decades ago as well. See the histories of building various bridges in New York City, and the already mentioned Holland tunnel. San Francisco Bay also has many kinds of wonderful stuff underwater as well.

Kash · Nov 14, 2017

This is ridiculous.

9’’ RHA (Iowa side belt) is penetrated by hand held AT missiles designed in 50s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW

Granit weights 7000kilos at launch and carries a 800kilo warhead.

The Battleships are gone. Forget about them. If you place Iowa guns and armor on Alaska, she will drown. If you expand Alaska to fit Iowa guns and armor, Alaska will become Iowa.

Mrbsct · Nov 16, 2017

Black Pigeon Speaks is Alt-Right ie. Pro-Russia, anti-American

Carrier strike groups are not obsolete. Groups travel with subs, so sinking the carrier without getting the way of subs protecting it is not possible. Also Carriers are escorted by Destroyers who destroy income anti-ship missiles.

Dayton3 · Nov 16, 2017

Kash said: ↑

This is ridiculous.

9’’ RHA (Iowa side belt) is penetrated by hand held AT missiles designed in 50s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW

.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia or not sounds like complete BS to me.

Kash · Nov 20, 2017

Dayton3 said: ↑

Wikipedia or not sounds like complete BS to me.
Click to expand...

So, have you double checked?

Dayton3 · Nov 20, 2017

Kash said: ↑

So, have you double checked?
Click to expand...

Not beyond your links.

Log in or Sign up

Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

Questerr Banned

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Questerr Banned

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Strasser Banned

Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

Strasser Banned

Kash Member

Mrbsct Active Member

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Kash Member

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

Questerr Banned

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Questerr Banned

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Strasser Banned

Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

Questerr Banned

JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

Strasser Banned

Kash Member

Mrbsct Active Member

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Kash Member

Dayton3 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches