The world's newest aircraft carriers

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by goody, Mar 4, 2018.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It should be noted that almost every other nation with a navy that is an ally of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Japan, Australia to name but a handful design their ships and naval doctrine to exercise with and be "slotted in" to U.S. carrier battle groups in war time.

    So obviously it isn't simply the United States and the SUPPOSED influence of the "military industrial complex" that believes big time in the combat effectiveness of large carrier battle groups.
     
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that's nice ... If it is any consolation, my wife is Eastern European and we have hoards of friends from Eastern Europe ... a whole bunch who are Romanian. Romanians in general hate Russians. They tell stories (or stories told to them from their grandparents) of bad stuff that happened when the Russians came. Not pretty. One fellow who we know well is Ukrainian - they guy was sending care packages over to the Ukraine to support the war effort - anti Russian x 10.

    I am a chess player - not the back yard variety - I play in tournaments such as the National Open in Las Vegas and the World Open in Philly. When I look at the chessboard- it matters not what the nationality or ethnic background of the opponent is - what matters is what's on the board - and finding the best move on the board has nothing to do with the nationality of the opponent.

    One can wrap themselves in nationalistic fervor and to the point of blindness and belief in invincibility... this is the rule rather than the exception. Is this not how most Hollywood productions end ?
    The Pentagon promotes this perspective (as does the MSM) aka - Propaganda.

    Belief in "necessary illusions" however, does not help one to find the best move on the board.

    I present facts figures, links numbers and so on (the position on the board as I see it). The response is to put fingers in ears and cry "No No No" followed by some kind of demonization of the messenger "your a Russian bot" :)

    I notice that this same kind of denial response happens often when folks in the religious forum come across information that conflicts with "necessary illusion".

    Forget how susceptible a carrier is to a modern anti ship missile. This has little to do with big picture. The big picture idea that you are so desperate to deny is that the cost of projecting power to maintain global hegemony increases with time .. to the point where the nation trying to do so bankrupt's itself.

    While this may not be your area of Historical Study, it is mine - in a decades long pursuit of trying to figure out what the position on the board entails. (If you are interested in megapolitical cycles you might want to read "Blood in the Streets" and "The Great Reckoning"- James Dale Davidson and Sir William Reec-Moog. The dude was lorded and in the second book it is "Lord Moog" Editor of the London Times - second most powerful newspaper in the world and Chairman of the BBC)

    It is not some Hollywood fantasy that we are living way beyond our means. It is not a "myth" that all of the previous world economic empires went down this same path of debt (for roughly the same reasons justified by the same justifications) and that this debt took those empires down.

    It is not some myth that we have gone from " Give me liberty or Give me Death" to "It is our patriotic duty to give up individual liberty over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from walking"

    It is not some myth that the founders knew the age old trick of using the "fear factor" - threat of an external enemy to take away individual liberty.

    Ben Franklin did not just wake up in the morning an sigh "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

    Obama did not just wake up in the morning and sigh "If we want increased security - we have to give a little" - referring to giving up individual liberty in relation to the NSA spying scandal (a felony) where Clapper lied to congress (a felony) yet was not punished and kept his job.

    We can understand "village idiot" Bush for not knowing the main principle on which this nation was founded but, Obama ? Harvard Constitutional scholar and civil rights activist. Obama knew exactly what he was saying ...and that is the scary thing.

    There is nothing "Patriotic" about getting on one's knees and cowering in a corner in fear - begging to give up individual liberty - over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking".

    What is anti-american is those who demonize those who point this out as "anti -american".

    It is not a myth that Stalin used fear of an external threat to take away individual liberty and move towards totalitarianism. He called his program "Security for the Motherland"
    It is no myth that Hitler used the same formula "Fatherland Security"
    It is no secret that Bush used the same formula "Homeland Security" ... followed by making it our "Patriotic Duty" to give up the individual liberties for which our forefathers shed blood.

    Please explain to me how this is not "anti-american".

    Explain how sacrificing our economic future by spending Trillions of dollars fighting a war (that the congressional committee concluded was on the basis of lies, falsehoods, misrepresentations and ignoring good intelligence - and the were being charitable) a war that killed 5000 of our soldiers and wounded tens of thousands is not anti-american?

    Making matters worse, the nation we were fighting was completely contained. We had control of his airspace and weapons inspectors running around his country (Compare to North Korea).

    Then factor in that the country we attacked (due to 911) was not the nation that was responsible for supporting Bin Laden .. that would be our good buddy El Saud.

    Explain to me how 10 years after 911... we (in conjunction with El Saud, Qatar and others) decided to support and arm Al Qaeda to fight a proxy war in Syria and how it is that we fight on the same side of Al Qaeda in Yemen ?

    Then explain to me how this can be kept so quiet in a country that supposedly has a fair and free media. Why is it that we have been in a war in Yemen for 3 years and this gets nary a mention in the MSM.
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The international financiers and Oligarchs that profit from the MIC and the banks are just that - "international" :)

    You do not seem to know what the MIC is or how it functions. It is not some big secret that influence peddling in Washington is rampant. Why would you pretend otherwise ? Do you want some examples ?
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you got lost. This is not the "Conspiracy Theory" section.
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good gracious you having a good whine. Wailing on about a link from 2016 stating deployment of the Zircon's would be in 2018.

    You made the nonsense claim that deployment would be 3-8 years from now and provided zero to back up that claim. Not only did I provide a link stating the time line for deployment was 2018 ... Putin announced last week that the Kinzhal is already deployed.

    You blab and blab but give no support for up your nonsense claims.
    Lacking material you then build strawman ( the example was at 1000 miles not 500 )

    Your claims about sub detection are unsubstantiated and defy reality.

    Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

    The Chinese sub surfaced within 5 miles of the US carrier - and you claim that a Russian Sub - 300 or more miles away from the carrier group will be detected - patent and absurd nonsense.

    .http://nation.time.com/2012/12/04/more-than-the-navys-numbers-could-be-sinking/

    Further in the same article
     
  6. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Explain to me how any of this is relevant to the question of modern aircraft carriers and their combat effectiveness.

    And links and a bunch of numbers do not tell the whole story.
     
  7. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please explain to me how spending a whopping 5% of the U.S. GDP annually on defense is ruining our economy?

    Incidentally, "Gifteddone" love to mention the incident where the Chinese submarine got to within a five miles of a U.S. carrier.

    If he knew anything about submarine warfare (and he doesn't) he would know that its much easier to detect a submarine at a good distance from a carrier battle group (yes, even hundreds of miles) than it is at minimal distance.

    Because extremely up close the noise signature of a submarine is largely drowned out by the sounds emanating from the carrier and its escorts. From what I've read (and the Navy doesn't reveal complete operational details) the escorting American SSNs that guard a carrier battle group routinely stay at least 50 miles away from the carrier for that very reason. ​
     
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. In the middle of an Search & Rescue exercise. Not a combat exercise where they would have been on a wartime footing.

    Yea, kinda forgot that part, eh?

    But this brings me to yet another reason why I laugh at your "sources".

    The most advanced conventional subs in the Russian Navy is still the Kilo class. The replacement Lada class was first built in 2010, but the performance did not meet expectations and the 2 hulls under construction were halted.

    Finally in 2013 and 2015, construction was resumed on the second boats, with completion expected in 2017 and 2018.

    Well, we are now into 2018, and completion for both is expected in 2019. Want to bet it is closer to 2020 if not later until they are ready?

    I never take such estimates seriously, nor does anybody else in the defense industry. It is not until a system is in the field and operational do we consider it to be in service.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conspiracy Theory is when folks make stuff up on the basis of little evidence.

    That you claim influence peddling in Washington is "conspiracy theory" is a function of abject ignorance x 2 ... par for the course for many of your posts.
     
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Combat effectiveness was a sideline but, not the central question.
     
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Both links were describing combat exercises and/or war games. No mention of any "search and rescue" operation was mentioned.

    Either you are reading comprehension impaired or this is disingenuous ignorance ... probably a combination of both.

    Your claim that we can easily detect subs at 300 miles (when we have failed to do it at 5 miles during navel exercises) is laughable nonsense as your pathetic attempt to deflect by trying to claim it was a "search and rescue mission" when this was not the case.
     
  12. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    j

    Why? I explained thoroughly about submarines at extremely close range being drowned out by the surface ships.

    Most submarines are detected by the noise they emit by the way.
     
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually the main way that subs would be detected during a wartime footing is by sonobuoys.

    And these come in 2 varieties. The Directional Low Frequency Analyze and Record (DIFAR) is a passive sonobuoy, which is largely undetectable and simply lurks and listens for any noise that it can detect. These are the preferred means of detecting and tracking submarines, as they have no idea they are being watched.

    The other type is the Air Deployed Active Receiver (ADAR), which operates in both Passive and Active modes. These use active sound pings as well as passive listening to locate enemy submarines. This model is often used as a kind of acoustic barrier, as no enemy sub wants to take a chance of being detected so keeps clear of them in the active mode.

    Frequently the Orion drivers will lay lines of passive buoys, with several active ones on the outsides. In that way they can funnel the submarines towards the passive ones as they try and stay clear of the passive ones.

    But these are "disposable", after use they are simply left. And at around $2-5k each, they are generally not used in routine exercises (but in an active war setting they would be dropped by the hundreds). And of course during ASW operations you have the P-3 Orion with it's MAD Boom, as well as the SH-60B Seahawk, which also drops sonobuoys and has a MAD detector. The SH-60F is a similar helicopter, but instead of a MAD unit it has a dipping SONAR unit that can operate in both active and passive modes.

    And to give an idea how much ASW such a fleet has, think about this. Typically the carrier itself has 8 SH-60F helicopters. Then each Burke class destroyer (4-6) will have 2 MH-60R ASW helicopters. And the Ticonderoga class Cruiser will have 2 SH-60B ASW helicopters. Even at only a 50% footing, that means between 9 and 13 dedicated ASW helicopters in the air at any one time. All with only one mission, to locate and deny or destroy any enemy submarines in the area.

    Sonobuoys are dropped at ranges starting generally at over 100-200 miles in all directions of a carrier force, further towards the front and likely path of enemy advance. And by alternating between active and passive buoys (as well as alternating between the active ones are operating in passive mode), enemy sub drivers are never sure if they have triggered some kind of detection or not.

    And since these craft also have the Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), they are also actively seeking any submarines that might already be in the search area.

    And for those that love drones, the Navy is also researching 3 different versions of ASW detection drones. One is an aircraft akin to the Predator which uses a MAD array to detect submarines. The second is a drone boat which also operates MAD as well as remote operated passive SONAR. The final is a remotely operated submersible, similar to the surface drone. All 3 have been in tests for years, and could be rushed to production if needed.

    That is a hell of a lot of ASW capability, not even counting what is on the ships themselves.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Most subs" ? well that is comforting. Further, you completely ignored the links explaining that a Chinese Sub was able to surface "undetected" 5 miles away from one of our carriers during a navel exercise ? Did you not read that during navel exercises the Swedes and Australians have achieved a high carrier kill ratio (due to being extremely hard to detect) ?

    https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/15/politics/mark-ferguson-naval-forces-europe-russian-submarines/

    So you tell me - who should I believe ? - statements from the commander of the US navel forces in Europe and the former NATO supreme allied commander or claims from yourself and Mushroom backed up by nothing that contradict the claims of the aforementioned ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lf-Mexico-weeks-undetected.html#ixzz59vLnI8fe

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/58254...marine-us-coast-undetected-american-defences/
     
  15. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. And you are aware that Sweden and Australia are allies of the United States aren't you?

    Naturally you will say "why does that matter"?

    It matters because as allies of the United States their submarine crews have exercised for years with the U.S. Navy. They know American navy procedures, operating practices, and equipment. Hell I would wager good money that the Swedish and Australian submarine commanders even know key U.S. Navy commanders that they are exercising with personally. Meaning they know their strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, et cetera.

    Same with British submarine commanders who exercise with the U.S. Navy.

    Needless to say the Russians and Chinese are not likely to have those advantages.
     
  16. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What matters is that your claim that a carrier group can detect a Russian Sub - 300 miles away, when it failed (during navel exercises meaning peak readiness/war games) to detect a Chinese sub 5 miles away... is patent nonsense.

    If you read the links given you - you would have read that the problem with the Australian and Swedish subs was that they were getting harder and harder to detect ...you would have read an Admirals and Navel experts stating directly how Russian subs are getting hard to detect.

    So then ... should I listen to the US Navy admiral and Navel experts or .. someone whose glasses are so rose colored that they will deny that the sky is blue ?
     
  17. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why?
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is getting painful and repetitive. All you do is deny deny deny because the information presented conflicts with your "necessary illusions" - (Thought control in a democratic society by Chomsky if you want to educate yourself and possibly start down the path of ridding yourself of your brainwashing)

    Obviously if the sub detection technology fails to pick up a sub 5 miles away - how is it going to pick up a sub (with better technology) 300 miles away. I could make a comment in relation to "common sense here" but this does not even require that.

    As stated previously - in conjunction with everything else presented to you - an your complete lack of any material of presented by you in support your claim - it is akin to denying "the sky is blue".
     
  19. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As I've pointed out more than once. A submarine at extremely close range is likely to have its noise signature obscured by that of the surface ships of the carrier battle group.

    And I've read Chomsky's work. He's an idiot.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2018
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I highly doubt you have read much by Chomsky - and what you did read was not understood due to reading comprehension issues.

    This is illustrated by your claim "Chomsky" is an idiot - which of course you do not back up by anything.
    Chomsky is many things - and I disagree with him on some of his conclusions. This does not change the fact that the guy is brilliant.

    Chomsky's facts can not be challenged - it is his conclusions that are sometimes debatable.

    Your problem is that you brand anyone who presents "FACTS" that conflict with your "necessary illusion" an idiot. This of course is simply transferring your issues onto others.
     
  21. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Notice you've made no response to what I said about the surface ships of a carrier battle group drowning out the acoustic signature of a submarine at extremely close range.

    And any "fact" can be challenged.
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) you have given no support for this claim ... nor any support for the 300 mile claim
    2) what would be the point ? When I have refuted your unsupported claims in the past - by presenting facts and evidence that contradicts your claim - you ignore these facts and carry on as if they had not been presented to you. It would then made me the idiot to continue putting effort into refuting your claims.
     
  23. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You've never presented "facts" or "evidence" from an unbiased source. And you have posted what might best be called "drivel" about anti missile missiles using GPS for targeting.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  24. braindrain

    braindrain Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    And what exactly is it that has our super hornets outclassed and running for their lives.

    You sure do go all in for the Russian propaganda don't you. Maybe you don't realize it but your pro Russia bias is quite obvious
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2018
    Dayton3 likes this.
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hate Russia. What I also hate is wasting my children, and grandchildren's, future by wasting Trillions of dollars on the Military Industrial Complex.

    You have wandered into a long conversation and picked out one post.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018

Share This Page