Developing carriers is hard!

It was the Hollywood Left who sold America out to the Communist Chinese. Scuttlebutt is that the PLA-Navy has gone over every frame of this movie to learn how to carry out carrier operations.

[video=youtube_share;GJaREhzcO48]http://youtu.be/GJaREhzcO48[/video]

 

Are you freaking kidding? That movie was largely a joke when it was made, and it does not stand up at all in the following decades.

Heck, the aircraft that was used in the movie (Tomcat) has been retired now for close to a decade.

Do you really think that a Tom Cruise movie is accurate and discloses military secrets? Maybe we should have classified all Tom Clancey books and movies as well as the Pauley Shore movie.

[video=youtube;PIdOZsEubYc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIdOZsEubYc[/video]

 

Top Gun was complete and utter crapola in terms of a realistic depiction of military aviation.
The Mig bandits were F-5s for one thing....

Strictly entertainment....

Aside from the regulations. directives & other assorted paperwork a young aeronautically rated officer must familarize themselves with, otherwise known as "queep"....when you do get to actually fly...most stick time, at least in the air mobility components... consists of hours of boredom interrupted by moments of occasional terror.

"Talk to me Goose"

Indeed.

 

Yeah, developing aircraft carriers is hard. And it's even more difficult to defend and protect them after they are built. They are vulnerable to torpedo and fighter jets carrying missiles as the British found out during the Falklands War when the carrier they lost forgot to turn on its Phalanx system.

 

Hmmmm no.

The Brits didn't lose any carriers at the Falklands.

 

Hmmmm, I stand corrected. It was the British battleship HMS Sheffield who forgot to turn on its Phalanx system and was sunk by missiles from Argentine jets.

 

Do you think the commander of the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic air arm, Rear Adm. Ted Branch, was freaking kidding when he said the Chinese would "not have to pay nearly as dear a cost"?

“They probably watched ‘Top Gun,’ he said.
“They see how it works.”

Please refer to our friend APACHERAT's post in this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/security-defenses/294785-developing-carriers-hard-5.html

If Rear Adm. Ted Branch was not freaking kidding, your suggestion is worth considering.

What a contradictory stand you are taking! On the one hand, you said that movie "was largely a joke when it was made". On the other hand, you like and have no objection to APACHERAT's claim that the "PLA-Navy has gone over every frame of this movie to learn how to carry out carrier operations". Are you freaking kidding too?

 

Hollywood Left should move to China, leaving Hollywood Right in America.

PLA-Navy has gone over every frame of this movie to learn how to carry out carrier operations? I hope Mushroom has not missed this joke.

That's why I suggested in my previous post that the Pentagon should have classified "Top Gun" under "top secret" and limited the audience to a few selected US naval officials.

 

Hmmmm no....the HMS Sheffield was not a battleship either. If it had been a battleship, the missile would have most likely bounced off.

The Sheffield was an unarmored Destroyer. And it didn't carry a Phalanx system.

But the Sheffield was hit by a missile fired by an Argentine jet- which damaged it severely enough that it ultimately sank. So you got something right.

 

And anything "learned" would be so badly outdated it would be almost worthless. That movie was made in 1986, with the "old guns" being Vietnam vets. That is 27 years ago, think about it.

That is about as usefull as some movies based on Hellcat carrier pilots from WWII movie being used to train the NVA in 1969. Not only that, Top Gun really had very little actual involvement with Carrier Operations, the makeup of the carrier fleet, and other thigns of critical importance.

In fact, I think watching The Final Countdown would give more real information then Top Gun would.

This is the problem with somebody watching a movie, and thinking it is a reflection of what real life in the military is like. And the training and doctrine of Top Gun is outdated and obsolete not only by over a quarter decade of doctrine and training, but a decade plus of real world experience, from the Gulf War, former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry, fail here. I am about as worried over this as if they were watching the movie "Midway" frame by frame.

 

Folks have uploaded a few training type films on youtube...I can't say specifically the USN has any dedicated to carrier operations, but a google search and you'll find a lot of information. Specific to the C-130 airframe, there is quite a bit of study aids, also referred to as "gouge," with easy access by anyone with an internet connection...I don't think any of it is classified, but some information is very detailed beyond a "Fact Sheet" released by the DoD. Anyone can buy flight manuals of many of the existing aircraft currently in the DoD inventory...or other training type manuals. You don't have to have special computer skills along the lines of a "hacker" to access this information either. As I say, the vast majority is unclassified, but there is a plethora of information out there much more valuable to a potential adversary beyond a "Hollywood" movie which typically lasts 120 minutes with only spliced scenes of real-world military operations along the lines of carrier operations. The 9/11 terrorists used off-the-shelf flight simulator software in conjunction with actual flight lessons. Hollyweird is the least of the problem in terms of publically accessible sources of intel.

 

The HMS Sheffield wasn't a battleship. The Sheffield was a destroyer not a battleship.

 

Talk about gullibility, I was referring to the comedy "Hot Shots" a movie making fun of the movie "Top Gun."

Re: "Top Gun" The movie "Top Gun" ended up being a recruiting movie for the Navy like "Full Metal Jacket" was for the Marine Corps. Otherwise "Top Gun" was just another Hollywood Left entertainment flick with little reality, more fiction than facts.

BTW: Someone mentioned using F-5's as MIGs. The Navy's Top Gun School did use F-5's as adversary aircraft because their performance and maneuverability is comparable to some MIGs. The Navy during the 1990's the Navy's F-5's were sent to the bone yard and were replaced with F-16's as an adversary fighter.

 

The aggressor squadron in the movie Top Gun used A-4s. I was referring to the F-5s used to portray the hypothetical "MiG-28."

Yes the movie did bump Navy recruiting when it was released...although unrealistic in terms of the lifestyle...it was a hugely popular movie and glamourized the fighter jock. Poor kid out of high school thinks Navy life will be wall to wall babes and combat action...the reality of 6 months at sea...12 hours on, 12 hours off....monotony...."sinks" in quick I'm sure...(no pun intended.)

 

Okay let me lay this out what is OUR ability to go to full military war production when most electronic components needed for our technology is made in China, we have far less large industrial production, no domestic rare metals mining, our oil is largely imported, we are heavily in debt and the Chinese can out produce us and have a lot more manpower. We may have the technological advantage but like Germany in WW2 our ability to sustain a prolonged major war against a peer is limited for to long.

 

I realized it was nonsense the moment I saw Tom Cruise race down next to the runway on his motorcycle.

I mean, come on! No helmet! No reflector vest! No gloves! Tennis shoes!

If that was reality, the MPs would have had him pulled over within minutes for those safety violations.

There are only a very few movies that I consider coming even close to "reality" when it comes to military-war movies. And I place Top Gun right up there among the finest....

Like No Time For Sergeants.

[video=youtube;qqg4rJPUxGs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqg4rJPUxGs[/video]

 

Well that is an interesting question. There is no 'peer' yet- and there is no viable way for the Chinese to get to the U.S.- yet.

Oil? The U.S. has far more oil reserves than China- and easy access to Canada and Mexico- and easier access to all oil than China other from Russia.

People- yes China has far more people- still not an issue when there is a Pacific ocean between us.


But here is where I always go with this- China has far more to lose from any war than the U.S.. China is far more dependent on international trade than the U.S. is- and it is 95% ocean trade- which would shut down if a war started.

The U.S. would just keep shipping business as usual from the East Coast to Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America- anywhere but Asia. China wouldn't be able to ship a single container if a war started- steamship lines, other than the state owned Chinese ones would all withdraw all ships from the region. Marine Insurers would not insure a single ship.

 

China's economy has become completely dependent on International Trade. Not only for the raw materials that they use to make their stuff (do not forget, almost all plastics are petrolium based), but where they sell those goods afterwards. And most of their goods are along the lines of "luxuries", not many people actually need what they produce.

And the same with the electronics. Among the "must have" electronics, look at where the really important chips are made. And it is not China.

AMD makes a lot of chips, mostly in California, Germany, and Singapore. A few (like memory chips on video cards) are made in China, but the critical CPUs and GPUs are not made there. And the same with Intel, wich facilities for main production in California, Arizona, Germany, but none in China.

What does this mean? Well, while loss of China as a chip source would rise costs and reduce quantity, none of them are irreplaceable and not made elsewhere.

So yea, the suppply of iPads and Dry Baby monitors will decrease, but the military would not feel it hardly at all.

And to be accurate, our technology is not "made in China", it is only manufactured there. Anybody who has seen a Chinese ebook reader, MP3 player or most other consumer grade electronics would never confuse them with those that were actually designed in the US.

 

You have to admit, the latrine scene in "No Times for Sergeants" was historically correct (except for the saluting toilets) and it was before the loony left and political correctness of having toilet stalls and friendly gender commodes.

And back then, their uniforms actually looked military.

 

I believe, correction I hope most of us know that there is no such thing as a MIG-28, only liberals believe there's such a thing.

Here's a link to all of the Hollywood's Left screw ups in "Top Gun." -> http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1312?singletype=factual

 

The US has about four or five nuclear carriers in excess of what we need to actually defend the United States so why don't we sell one as US military surplus. It's still worth a lot of money and we could burn down our national debt by allowing China to pay for it with US Treasury notes.

 

This is like banging my head against a Aberdeen granite wall. The militaries purpose is defense of territory and interests. Not just territory. People seem to have no idea how important the US navy is to US and world trade. The same way people in the UK think the Royal Navy isn't productive so we should just cut it, forgetting about all the UK's overseas interests and trade that needs protecting, we shouldn't help others we should let them do it themselves. Then when I say no we should help others and in doing so gain influence and power I get called imperialist. As for the US selling carriers to China what effect would that have on other countries in the region? Here we go again nationists only thinking about themselves. Selling carriers to China wouldn't even take off 1% of US national debt.

 

You really don't know how a navy works do you Shiva_TD ?
Maybe you doing to much shiva ? ;- )

Are you aware of the "Rule of Three" ?

It takes three ships of any class to be able to have one ship at sea at any given time.

1/3 of all ships are suppose to be on station in their Area of Responsibility (AOR)
1/3 of all ships are in port for maintenance, repair, basic up keeping and training.
1/3 of all ships are building up for deployment (six month cruise in their AOR) or are in transit to their assigned AOR or are in transit from their AOR headed for their home port to go through the phase of maintenance and repair.

The U.S. Navy has five AOR's. For the Navy to be able to accomplish their mission by having a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in each of the five AOR's, the Navy needs 15 carriers and it's escorts to accomplish that mission.The current administration (Obama) has a problem of keeping two carriers at sea at any time because of the $500 Billion Dollars that Obama cut from national defense during his first term in office and instead of spending money on maintains of Navy's ships and aircraft the funds have been redirected to social engineering and other political correct projects.
23 % of the Navy's ships are incapable of putting too sea and being able to fight because the lack of funding for maintenance and spare parts. Our fleet is literally falling apart under the Obama administration.

 

The US would rather dump any obsolete carrier or weapon into the sea than to sell it to China at an astronomical price.

Please refer to my political satire: http://www.politicalforum.com/humor-satire/305700-security-threat-seen-every-deal.html

 

Because 1/2 of all defense spending is being funded with borrowing I suggest the "Rule of Two."

1/2 of all ships are suppose to be on station in their Area of Responsibility (AOR). These ships will also be conducting routine training for crew members with drills as necessary and basic up keep will be performed by the crew.

1/2 of all ships are in port for maintenance, repair, or in route to deployment area.

Two AOR's, one in the North Atlantic and one in the North Pacific, which are the only two areas that actually defend the United States from sea born attacks.

Okay, pragmatically the North Pacific is big and might require an additional carrier group to provide additional patrol capability so we could authorize two additional carrier groups for the Navy Reserves that would each spend 1/2 of their time at sea in the Pacific off the US West Coast in 3 month deployments.

Total number of carriers required, including the necessity for training the Navy Reserves, is six which leaves us with five extra carrier groups we can sell as surplus if we choose. Of course this would be limiting Naval operations to what they're authorized to do in Article I Section of the US Constitution where it states the legislature is to provide for the "common Defence.... of the United States."

Of course limiting what our military does to what its authorized to do in the US Constitution and actually paying for the costs of the US military expenditures is not something "authoritarian big government" neo-cons want or support because they've thrown the US Constitution out the window years ago.