The world's newest aircraft carriers

<Mod Edit>

1) A carrier has four Hawkeyes. Two carriers have eight. So you could have a number of Hawkeyes airborne in a wartime situation covering the likeliest threat vectors and sustained by air to air refueling. If being attacked was likely for the Hawkeyes, each would be escorted by a couple of fighters.

2) The air to air missiles on the F/A-18s wouldn't be intended to shoot down incoming anti ship missiles. That would be the job of the Standard missiles aboard the Ticonderoga and Burke class escorts. The F/A-18s would be tasked with shooting down approaching bombers BEFORE they launched their antiship missiles.

3) The Russians and Chinese have no stealth bombers or stealth anything for that matter.

4) Launching anti ship missiles from 1,000 miles away is a complete waste of the missile. By the time it gets to the area of the carrier, the carrier battle group will have put miles between itself and the point the missiles were launched at.

 

On active sonar, yes. The sub that was part of the CSG had passive sonar, however.

 

And could have been miles away from the group at the time.

 

A submarine was reported as part of the CSG. The Chinese sub went unnoticed. You could post hypotheticals all day long I suppose.

 

In regards to the Chinese submarine evading detection and penetrating close to the carrier, anyone can get lucky.

But wars are seldom won by luck alone.

 

Exactly ... if we were to attack a target in Russia you could just fly a stealth bomber from Germany or some such thing. Prior to this you would have to take out the air defenses with cruise missiles as our stealth bombers are not that stealthy - will be detected.

If carriers are then of very limited use against Russia (or China for that matter) - far less than say building missiles and stationing them in our bases that surround Russia - what is the point of maintaining and operating all these Carriers ? - never mind building more. Especially given the extremely remote possibility and insanity of actually going to war with Russia ... and the fact that doing could lead to nuclear annihilation.

Even a carrier 1000 miles out is vulnerable latest Russian hypersonic anti ship missiles (Zircon) or from a sub.

The geopolitical chessboard has changed and not recognizing this (continuing to live in the fantasy that we are the only world superpower and thus immune from the military ability of other nation) is seriously endangering our long term economic security.

This has been true since the cold war began.

 

For one, stationing missiles near the territory of an adversary is generally considered far more provocative and hostile than a carrier battle group which comes and goes.

There is a saying that "naval power allows a nation to have as little or as much of war as it wants and that a nation can take a major defeat at sea and move on but not a major defeat on land".

Also that "armies invade, navies make port visits".

 

I completely agree that stationing missiles ( such as ABM's which we are doing) is provocative and a bad move and have commented on this previously - it forced Russia to take counter measures due to the destabilization of nuclear detente which resulted in the world becoming a less safe place.

The main thing one needs to understand is that the geopolitical chessboard has changed due to the advent of nukes. What good does navel power, or the ability to project land base power, do if the enemy can annihilate you at will ?

Military is no longer the strongest piece on the geopolitical chessboard - economic is. Every major world military/economic empire fell on hard times due to the same thing - trying to project power and maintain hegemony in the face of the spread of technology.

On the way up - Technological innovation leads to military superiority which leads to economic hegemony. On the way down - technology spreads which increases the cost of projecting power which leads to bankruptcy to those that try to maintain their position.

The Romans had far superior technology - (revisit the first scene of Gladiator). As technology spreads the Barbarians became much tougher. The ability to project power became more difficult and costly.

The British are a good example. With the gatling gun they could pretty much take over an entire African nation (fighting back with sticks and stones) with one gun ship. The gatling gun turned out to be a better defensive than offensive weapon. As technology spread the African nation got the gun. Now one needs to send not just one ship but an entire armada. This is expensive and you will take big casualties.

We are facing exactly the same dilemma. Trying to live in the fantasy world that we can police the world militarily without breaking the bank is .breaking the bank.

We have spent Trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq had been decimated by the first war and had a military embargo and crippling sanctions for the decade prior. Saddam was fighting back with dilapidated 1960's technology and with an army that did not want to fight.

Yet .. we still spent Trillions of dollars. God forbid it was an enemy like Iran. The return on investment for spending these Trillions was that the problem in Iraq is now worse. Same for Afghanistan.

Total Military Spending was roughly 300 Billion in 2000. It rose to over 900 Billion under Bush and topped 1 Trillion under Obama.

Had we maintained 2000 level spending (increasing with inflation, we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology and ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium.

Factor in the 450 Billion/year in interest on our debt and you can add another 7 Trillion to the total.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet - into the pockets of the international financiers an oligarchs that profit from war- on the basis of the fantasy that we can police the world without breaking the bank.

Once again ... the geopolitical chessboard has changed. Economic is now more powerful than military. We are making huge blunders (same as did all the past empires) and it is costing us the chessgame- our long term economic security.

 

I've already shown this to be false. And economic power doesn't always translate into global power. Otherwise Japan in the 1980s and early 1990s would've been one of the most powerful nations in the world. It had the second largest economy.

Needless to say Japan wasn't remotely that powerful.

And military power is only a major factor if it is "usable" by the nations that have it. Nuclear weapons for obvious reasons are not very usable. Which is why things like naval, air and even land based conventional military power is still very important. Arguably more important on the world stage than nuclear weapons. Because you can use things like a carrier battle group. You can't use nuclear warheads except in the most dire circumstances (circumstances that haven't occurred in last 72 years plus).

 

1) What is false and what have you proven false ??

2) What do you mean by " economic power translated into global power" and how is Japan relevant to the global power equation given it is not the global economic power and its power was mostly reliant on the US. How does this relate to the economic power game that is being played right now ? Japan is also a horrible example because its economy is relatively closed to competition from other nations.

China just forced the Marriott Hotel Chain to fire one of their social media employees because the guy clicked "Like" on a post that supported independence for Tibet. This is a small example but a pointed one.

Over the past many decades, our economic might has been far more coercive than our military might. This is what has allowed our continued economic hegemony.

3) LOOK - ... For all of human history - if a nation fell on economic hard times they could attack their neighbor and take their stuff.
The advent of nuclear weapons has completely changed the power dynamic. No longer can you attack a nation that has nukes without risking consequences that are too dire to contemplate. The ROI is way beyond negative.

 

Most countries in the world do not have nuclear weapons.

And I disproved your falsehoods about military spending way back up thread. Go back and read that

 

My God this is bloody nonsense. What are you talking about. You tried to claim that spending on Veterans (Including pensions and so forth), was not part of total military spending.

This is compete abject nonsense. How is the cost of employing military personnel not part of Total Military Spending ?

When tens of thousands of wounded return from battle and need to be taken care of .. how is this not part of "Total Military Spending".

You can not even get the bloody term right .... holy carp you are lost in your own delusion.

 

Most veterans spending is for veterans who simply have gotten old. That happens battle or no battle.

And your trying to add in "debt interest" to military spending is utterly dishonest. Why not figure the interest on debt as part of spending on Social Security? or Education? Or various social welfare programs?.

And you have the nerve to called me "delusional"? What do you call your ridiculously false notion that any major military engagement is "nuclear or not at all".

Which is not born out by history since the nuclear age began.

 

Your claim that Veteran spending is not part of Total Military Spending is abject nonsense. You can live in this delusion if you like but our own Gov't includes this spending under "Total Military Spending".

2) I did not add the debt interest to Total Military Spending - Strawman (If I had done so the total would be much higher)

3) I did not claim that any military engagement with is "nuclear or not at all"... Strawman 2.

Do you have something other than nonsensically false delusion and strawman fallacy (accusing the other of saying something they did not).

 

1) Since the discussion was in relation to one carrier and one hawkeye ... this is strawman fallacy
2) You were the one that stated the the carrier is defended from anti ship missiles beyond the horizon. If planes will not shoot them down then your claim is mostly false.
3) Russians and Chinese have Stealth
4) this is laughable nonsense on many levels - the first being that anti ship missiles would be launched by planes, subs and ships that will be much closer than 1000 miles and ... the laughable idea that a modern anti ship missile is not able to track the movement of the carrier.

Given that a Zircon launched 600 miles (1000 KM) from the target takes about 10 min to arrive travelling at Mach 6. The carrier will not get far

Laughable that you now try to hide your posts talking about me. Lame -o-rama.

 

You are failing at even spreading untruths.

1) The discussion had been about carrier battle groups. Not "one carrier and one hawkeye". You are moving the goalposts to make your argument seem more reasonable.

2) I never stated that at all.

3) The Russians and Chinese have stealth aircraft? Post a link from a credible source or it isn't true.

4) Post proof that a modern anti ship missile can track the movement of a carrier which has moved several miles (in any possible direction) from the initial aim point. Also post proof that the missile can do so WITHOUT real time targeting data from another source (like an aircraft near the carrier which would be very hard to do in a war time situation).

 

1) Incorrect.
2) You brought it up.
3) You keep bringing up nuclear weapons for no good reason.

Do you read you own posts? Apparently not.

 

1) False ... prove your claim by posting where I referred to carrier battle "groups"
2) Yes you or Quester did and you were responding to my posts to Quester.
3) Don't blame me for your ignorance ...it is up to you to prove your claim (say by at least googling Russian Stealth Fighter which would immediately prove your claim false) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/22/new-russian-stealth-fighter-spotted-in-syria
4) how the frick do you think an anti missile missile or an anti aircraft missiles works if it can not track its target ?? Have you never heard of GPS ?

If your claim is true ... then your claim of defense against anti ship missiles with missiles is false as modern anti ship missiles make evasive maneuvers prior to impact.

 

Don't blame me that you disagree with the category in which our budget department puts VA spending or because you were ignorant of this fact. Further - how is the cost of treating wounded veterans ... not related to military spending ?

You accuse me of saying things I did not (Strawman) and then try and blame your reading comprehension issues on me. Priceless delusion.

I realize that you can not deal with me bursting the the necessary illusion bubble in which you believe .. but, just because you can not handle the message is no reason to attack the messenger.

 

1) You didn't refer to carrier battle groups. I did. And I'm the one right in this argument.
2) You don't even know whom you're talking to yet expect to be taken seriously?
3) The Russian aircraft in question is not a "stealth fighter" as we consider it. It has some low observable qualities like the F-22 Raptor but it isn't a stealth vehicle designed to deliver anti ship missiles which is kind of the whole point of this entire thread and you well know it.

4) An antiship missle takes its initial targeting solution from normally the launching aircraft or a reconnaissance aircraft in the area. It then flies to the area indicated and basically can attack a target like a ship within its field of vision once it pops up (distances vary depending on the altitude of the missile). What it can't do is "search' for a ship and make multiple adjustments to its course.

And GPS is worthless for attacking a moving target.

 

You have not provided a U.S. government source that includes "Veterans spending" as a portion of military spending.

 

You are talking out your backside. I hate to burst your bubble but missile systems such as Thaad use GPS.
Our "stealth" planes can be detected so the idea of "stealth" as you consider it is nonsense

Back up your "carrier groups" claim by posting where you said this in relation to the hawkeye.

 

Please explain how an anti missile system like THAAD uses GPS? I guarantee it isn't used for targeting the missiles themselves.

And ANY aircraft "stealth" or otherwise can be detected eventually. What "stealth" means is that it can only be detected at far shorter ranges than regular non stealthy combat aircraft.

If a radar can detect an approaching aircraft 100 miles away and you set up a line of them 150 miles apart, an approaching aircraft can't get through to the target without being detected as the radar coverage overlaps.

But if you have a stealth aircraft that can only be detected by the same radars at 25 miles distant, then the stealth aircraft can penetrate to the target without being detected because it simply "flies through the gaps" in the radar coverage.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-15

Next you will be trying to claim that nuclear weapons research is not part of Total Military Spending as well.

That is just as much of a joke as trying to claim that money spent on wounded soldier returning from battle is not part of the Total Military Spend.

The lengths some are willing to go to delude themselves is amazing.
.

 

Nuclear weapons research I will of course accept as part of military spending. But then again the U.S. doesn't spend much on nuclear weapons research.

I never claimed spending on "wounded soldiers" is not part of total military spending.

But most U.S. veterans (even during war time) are not wounded. Thus the spending on them is simply related to old age. Old age that would occur in war time or not in war time.

Don't you see it as ridiculous to include a person who volunteers to serve in the military then starts collecting a pension DECADES later as part of military spending.?

And you own link does not support your claim of trillion dollar annual military spending by the U.S.