The world's newest aircraft carriers

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

  1. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you're like my gear head friends denying technology changes...some pre WW2 engineers still wouldn't accept that highly maneuverable biplanes and triplanes were doomed to irrelevance by speed...SAMS and AAMs are slow compared to what's coming, hard to dodge a hyperspeed bullet regardless how maneuverable the craft is...
     
  2. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You do know that experience has been that the faster an airborne object goes the greater its turn radius. In case you were not aware "turn radius" is normally a key measure of maneuverability.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can only go with the estimates by the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs.

    https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter09/articles/winter09pg10-14.html
     
  4. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you do know that you can't dodge a bullet regardless how good your reaction...the latest Russian SAMs the S-400 reach speeds of mach14 11,000 mph...to the best of my knowledge no NATO plane has encountered any as yet...
     
  5. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your military is no different than ours(canada), for many years our military resisted admitting the full effect of PTSD , it was an issue until the number of suicides by vets was impossible to ignore...and my government still under funds vet assistance for PTSD...I'm not a military type but if a country is going to send it's military to war zones then it should be expected to pay the full cost of their rehabilitation...
     
  6. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If its going that speed its rate of turn will be enormous.
     
  7. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Despite what some clown in this forum tries to maintain (I won't name him) the Department of Veteran's Affairs is not part of the U.S. military. In fact they have an incentive to maximize the PTSD in order to increase their budget.
     
    ArmySoldier likes this.
  8. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And their employees pop more pain killers than actual veterans
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quit transferring your failings onto others. They you go further and state falsehoods about what your proposed "clown" said to make your case.

    The claim was that the VA is part of "Total Military Spending" ... You admitted that taking care of wounded veterans was part of "Total Military Spending" - contradicting your own claim that the VA is not part of "Total Military Spending".

    And now you go around calling others "Clowns". Who then is the real clown in this equation ?
     
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You better run and hide Dayton ..."The Russians are coming" !

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/hyp...-are-and-why-us-cant-defend-against-them.html
     
  11. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it doesn't.

    It's questionable whether it can defeat China.
    China dominated the Pacific but America has more in other oceans to bring to party.
    Chins has the tech advantage.

    China plus Russia > America navally.
     
  12. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or a submarine or a drone or a little man on a hill.
    Also another boat.
    An underwater microphone.
    A sonar buoy.
    Aerial radar.
    Tall radar masts on ships.
    A hot air balloon.
    Gyrocopters on ropes were used in WW1.


    What you can also do is send a missile where you guess a ship might be, and see what it locks on to.
    E9. Miss.


    Satelittes can't see through clouds. So in bad weather you can move fleets unseen for as long as it remains cloudy.
    Which means forever and ever and ever in English summertime.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  13. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evidence?
     
  14. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly how far do you think a ship can travel in the time it takes for a missile to arrive?
    Miles? Pfft, more like metres.

    i
     
  15. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fleet numbers off wiki.
    The Kitthawk Incident to show subamarine capabilities.
    The DF 21 to show missile capabiliites.
    Sunburn for the Sov's. Plus their own sub fleets.
    Consider also those nukinator ships. I've referenced previously.
    But mostly their submarine forces.

    America's got a load of old tech. Carriers and balls like that. Surface vessels.
    Anti missile systems than don't work.
    Anti submarine systems that don't work.

    And critically a massive range disadvantage. And that's the decider. They can't even shoot back FFS.

    Do you even have water pistols?
    [​IMG]

    Check this out for a naval battle.
    [​IMG]
    China vs Japan.
    [​IMG]

    Takeshi's castle but with ships.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  16. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A carrier can move about half a mile in one minute. Fired from a reasonable range a missile will take 10-15 minutes to reach a carrier.

    Meaning the carrier will move five to seven and a half miles from the missiles original aim point. Unless you want to buy in to Giftedone's ridiculous assertions about anti ship missiles hunting down ships over vast expanses of ocean.
     
  17. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All they need to do is move far enough to force the missile to have to make a 90 degree turn.

    Bear in mind, to make a 90 degree turn, the SR-71 “only” moving at Mach 3 required more than a hundred miles travel distance to make that turn. Hypersonic weapons would have to travel even further. That puts them out of position to make any kind of attack and gives the carrier group even more time to shoot at them.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  18. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't waste your time Questerr. People here believe that if a missile (or drone) can pull a lot of "G's" that it can turn like an X-Wing in Star Wars.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  19. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Eh no. Most of Russia's ports do not even work since they freeze over winter. Also since most of Russia's naval supply is in the West there is no way they can relocate their fleet to the Pacific. Moving their entire land forces and air forces into Siberia is hard enough for Russia doesn't have the number of airbases to project power in the East. Add that to the majority of Chinese submarines are obsolete disel subs who have little endurance. A China-Russia team up is very difficult simply due to logistics.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
    Dayton3 likes this.
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, the report that Dayton is talking about was a 1966 report commissioned of the Royal Aeronautical Society by the UK Ministry of Defense, into the next 50 years of aviation and defense.

    And not just aircraft, but they predicted that almost all military would be replaced by missiles. That includes armour, infantry, everything.

    "Britain is likely to become part of a United States of Europe whose total defence would therefore be handled on a group basis … In 2016 the (British military) services will be much more, if not fully, integrated. Weapon development will be largely missiles launched from underwater bases either from underwater vehicles or underwater defence cities."

    Not unlike predictions that bombers would win wars without infantry, and that nukes would make wars impossible. I now tend to ignore most such predictions, as they are generally made by idiots that are so far removed from the military that their head is completely lost up their bottoms.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  21. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are making a huge error here. I can only assume you are getting your information from a source like Wikipedia, and not fully understanding what you are reading.

    You are confusing the missile velocity (4,500 mph, MACH 5.9) with maximum target velocity (11,000 mph, MACH 14).

    These are not the same thing. Target velocity is how fast the inbound target can be traveling and the missile/RADAR not loose it or be unable to track. At this rate of speed, it is obviously predicting that it can track and intercept an ICBM in the final ballistic portion of it's trajectory.

    The missile itself does not travel that fast, it does not even come close to traveling that fast.

    Excuse me while I laugh, at the thought that you honestly seem to believe that the S-400 actually flies at MACH 14.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What, are we talking about a ballistic missile, or a magic wand here?

    OK, now for some technical talk. The DF-21D is a ballistic missile, that travels as all such weapons do in a ballistic track. In other words, it is going to fly almost straight up to an altitude of around 100 km, and also traveling a distance of around 1,000 km.

    Total flight time, between 10-15 minutes. Time traveled by the carrier and it's task force during that time? Between 6-10 miles.

    Sorry, we are talking real world here. The DF-21D is not a flying broom with Harry Potter on it screaming "Avada Kedavra" with immediate results.

    One of the beautiful things about ballistic missiles, is that we know of them being launched long before they are actually a threat. AEGIS, satellite, AWAC, we detect their launches in many different ways.

    And as soon as they are launched, all potential target ships are going to make a radical course change in order to avoid it's predicted trajectory. Most experts actually tend to launch at the very idea of such a missile being of any real threat short of having a nuclear payload.
     
    Tim15856 and Dayton3 like this.

Share This Page