Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by goody, Mar 4, 2018.
I meant it in the kindest possible way
In that same speech Eisenhower called for a large peacetime military because in any future conflict there would be "no time for mobilization" and our armed forces would have to "come as we are".
What do you mean by "all these years on planet"? I'm only 50 years old.
Note, Eisenhower was also a big advocate of being willing to use nuclear weapons to win international disputes. Would you support his more casual approach to the use of nuclear weapons?
After 5 decades on this planet you should be able to figure out why Russia does just wake up in the morning and target US aircraft carriers.
Then you get into another mindless strawman (accusing me of something I did not say so you have something to attack). Sad that you were teaching history yet have such little understanding of logic, logical fallacy and critical thinking.
I understand Ave. Joe lacking these basic skills but there is no excuse for someone who teaches History.
I suppose there is no time like the present to begin your education.
Lesson 1. "Non Sequitur" - "it does not follow". This is a fallacy where A does not follow from B.
It does not follow that because someone agree's with one idea that Eisenhower expressed, one agrees with all of Eisenhower's ideas.
baby steps ...
Yeah...I know that the meaning and or the definition of words can change over time.
Who would have ever thought that the M-16 would ever be called an assault ?
Get back on the page ! Aircraft Carriers ... now that is an assault technology
You are correct in this point but I thought I could slip one by you.
I'm sure you know that the opposite is also true.
People call each other all kinds of things on line shoog, and why would I remember you other than for your penchant for denial? At any rate, here, "pops" free;
Oh it's not personal, merely observational. You reject data every time. And you foolishly still believe your power structure tells you the truth.
Glad that you have stepped up and taken responsibility for posting disingenuous nonsense. Please stifle that urge in the future
This is what every one of those that claims the "Carrier is obsolete" seems to miss.
A carrier does not operate on it's own, no more than a tank does. It has a lot of other support systems around, in the case of carriers it has cruisers and destroyers. In addition to aircraft flying CAP and E2C AWAC aircraft. Any missiles have to be able to get through all of that before they can even hope to engage the carrier.
And every few years we are improving and making new missile and air defense systems. The newest on the Ford is the RIM-162 ESSM, which is designed to intercept supersonic missiles.
I don't consider the "power structure" in the United States to be some monolithic political/economic entity which sets out to deceive and oppress the American people. I believe most of the "bad" things done to be largely due to negligence and lack of interest.
What the "carrier is obsolete" crowd routinely does though (at least it seems) is promote the idea that if one or two carriers are destroyed in a major war that it means they are overly vulnerable of obsolete.
They ignore the fact that the U.S. Navy itself estimated that in an all out conventional war with the Soviet Union in the 1980s that we would lose 4-6 supercarriers.
They also (as Giftedone has in this very thread) love to talk about carriers vulnerability in a nuclear war. Let me give them a clue. EVERYTHING is vulnerable in a nuclear war. And if nuclear weapons start destroying carrier battle groups I guarantee that no one in any major country is going to give a damn one way or the other.
Not entirely accurate.
It is not detectable from the surface until about a minute prior to intercept if detected by surface RADAR. It is detected much further away via airborne RADAR like the E2C. And of course it would also be detected by the picket ships of the CSG first, which would be many miles in front, behind, and to the sides.
Not to mention the other systems used to detect such threats. In the event of operating in high threat conditions, there will also be submarines on picket duty at even further distances with their RADAR masts deployed. This would give even more warning.
Those that studied the expected actions of a WWIII scenario of that era are all to well aware of that. I was, because it is highly likely if it had ever happened I would have been involved personally.
"The Third World War: August 1985" by Sir John Hackett was the first such serious book I had read. Somewhat obsolete shorty after it was released (197. it of course did not take into account the fall of Iran. But it went into quite a bit of detail of the expected path such a war would have taken. And he was knowledgeable on the subject, having been both the Deputy Chief of Staff for the British Army, and Co-Commander of NATO's Northern Army Group (the defense of Germany).
Another more of a popularist type was of course Red Storm Rising.
The famous segment in that book ("Dance of the Vampires") was akin to how the Soviets would make such a strike. Waves of bombers launching missiles at the carriers.
And anybody who read the book can tell you how that ended. With the carriers damaged (not sunk) and returning to base for repairs, and most of the Soviet bomber fleet destroyed. It was literally a one-shot attack that so badly damaged the bomber forces that they were combat ineffective for the rest of the war (giving NATO almost unrestricted access to the North Atlantic).
And of course the engagement described was missing a lot of anti-air systems that were developed and emplaced between the writing of the book, and when the engagement was supposed to have taken place.
Agreed .. that said, even if you know they are on the way, the ship is still not able to react until the missile breaches the horizon.
Actually in Red Storm Rising the Soviet Backfire bomber force was almost entirely undamaged by the U.S. fighters after all four squadrons of Tomcats were decoyed away by modified Kelt missiles launched by TU-16 Badgers. France F-8 Crusaders managed to kill a handful of the Backfires after they launched their anti ship missiles.
In all about 12 of the Soviet anti ship missiles reached their targets. Two severely damaged Nimitz. One lightly damaged Saratoga. Three destroyed the French Foch. Two blew apart the Saipan (and killed more than 2,000 U.S. Marines). One severely damaged Ticonderoga. At least three more hit and sank two destroyers and a frigate.
The Soviet Backfires were later all but massacred when they attempted a massive air strike on the U.S. forces involved in retaking Iceland. That time, the USN was ready for them.
Which ship? You're not talking about the carrier I assume. Because even if under attack a U.S. carrier is not supposed to fire even its close in weapons systems except as a last resort because of the possibility of causing damage on the flight deck
I know... The key word here is Strike group"s"... Not just one, but several of them cruising the world's oceans. We're talking about several "navy+air force" badass joint operation forces mobilizing with nuclear powered ships carrying nuclear missiles... Sh.t loads of deterrence, the best of its kind being able to be moved "anywhere" that has shores to seas having access to oceans...
But the brain-dead zombies here confuse this ferocious power projection ability with "digital demonstrations of some non-existing nuke systems"
The ship that is trying to destroy the missile is not able to react until the missile breaches the horizon.
Regardless .. this is all water under the bridge. Did you see the news on the latest Russian anti-ship missile ? The Zircon was bad enough .. hypersonic (mach 6- with a range of 600 miles A missile the Brits say is unstoppable.
The newest missile was announced by Putin the other day along with a number of other technologies that were developed to re-stabilize the balance of power and nuclear detente.
The Kinzhal is the latest upgrade to the arsenal. Mach 10 with a range of 1200 miles and ability to take evasive maneuvers which, if true, is a crazy technological feat at hypersonic speeds.
Think what you like about the Russians but they have been at the forefront of missile technology for decades and their stuff just keeps getting better. They have been working with India and China to develop better missile technology.
India just completed a hypersonic test (mach 7) of its new Brahmos-A anti ship missile - a project that came to fruition by working in close conjunction with Russia.
Time to retire most of our carrier fleet.
And naturally you believe the Russians?!? The same ones that claimed for years that their "new" Topol-M ICBM was a new unstoppable missile when it reality it was 25 years old.
And without carriers how do you suggest projecting air power into an area if you have no nearby overseas bases?
It should not have to. There are other ships and aircraft between it and the missile that will take care of it for them.
Asking a carrier to take out a missile is a last ditch option. Kind of like asking the US President to take out a potential assassin because they had already killed or wounded all of their Secret Service agents.
And most of the Badgers were destroyed. This aircraft by that time had largely been retired as an active bomber, and was mostly used for naval recon, acquisition, and tracking. With the loss of these aircraft, they were not able to accomplish that role.
I should have been more specific, in that I was talking about the Badger and not the Backfire (which is what I meant when I said "giving NATO almost unrestricted access to the North Atlantic")..
Separate names with a comma.