Teh Gerald R. Ford Supercarrier - Mankind's First!

We already spend enough on the military. If people really cared about 'defense' we'd be investing in things that'd actually defend our nation from attack.

"Gotta defend our freedom" is code for "Gotta have dat oil"

Our military is big enough- we need to stop spending on this like this.
 
every measure has a counter measure or soon will

how tech works

Mi-24 helicopter said fuck you Afghanistan

Stinger shoulder fired missile said fuck you Mi-24

also said fuck you to US helicopters two decades later

soooooooooo.....countermeasures

first flares

then DIRCM......etc, etc,

but this is like saying that helicopters shouldn't exist and serve no purpose

now is this supercarrier a good deal or even needed? that is a better question/concern
 
absent said:
Surface ships are fish food in the age of the diesel-electric submarine. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I read the link Capt. provided this was in 2005:

In 2005, USS Ronald Reagan, a newly constructed $6.2 billion dollar aircraft carrier, sank after being hit by multiple torpedoes.
Fortunately, this did not occur in actual combat, but was simulated as part of a war game pitting a carrier task force including numerous antisubmarine escorts against HSMS Gotland, a small Swedish diesel-powered submarine displacing 1,600 tons. Yet despite making multiple attacks runs on the Reagan, the Gotland was never detected.

This outcome was replicated time and time again over two years of war games, with opposing destroyers and nuclear attack submarines succumbing to the stealthy Swedish sub. Naval analyst Norman Polmar said the Gotland “ran rings” around the American carrier task force. Another source claimed U.S. antisubmarine specialists were “demoralized” by the experience.
Click to expand...
:lolwut:

Surely they've made gains in mir or sonar?
 
Over the years, US carriers (yes, always in carrier groups) have repeatedly been sunk by subs. Usually diesels. British, French, Canadian, Dutch, Swedish, Australian.. even Chilean subs have all taken turns sending the pride and glory of the US fleet to the bottom in wargames. From the 80s, right through to 2015 is the latest example I can find (a 30 year old French nuclear sub, that time).

IMO The Aircraft Carrier in 2020 will be what the Battleship was in 1940. Sub-launched cruise missiles allow for sudden deep strikes, drones can operate from much smaller amphibious assault craft, which can follow up to land the required ground forces to go along with an operation, not just be a floating airport. Smaller UAVs can be operated individually by battlefield units, larger ones from FOBs and semi-prepared advance airfields. Air defence can be provided by ground units, recon & ELINT by UAVs & satellites, strike missions by UAVs & cruise missiles. Navy doesn't do strategic bombing, and naval CAS is generally done by Marines off amphib ships, with rotary and V/STOL (Harriers & F-35B).

I really can't think of anything that a carrier can do and will be doing in the near future that can't be done by something else, and that justifies the price tag.

Though yes, they're still cool as fuck.
 
Sure in total war you would lose carriers, just like you did in WW2. But that's not really the point of a Carrier at the present time. It gives the US the capability to do whatever it wants in every part of the world. In a real war scenario we probably wouldn't send Carriers into danger zones immediately, you would see large forces of smaller ships and subs go in neutralize the enemies submarine force first.

The difference between the war game and real life is a lot as well. At any given time we have a general idea of where every submarine is in the world. You simply don't deploy your carrier into the areas where you know the subs are. With modern day surveillance and intelligence the Navy can tell you the location of every Russian/Chinese submarine within a 100 miles.

We also have ways to detect them. Now you let the submarine inside your 50 mile radius, you're going to have problems, you've already lost. You counter the current submarine threat by knowing where they are from the time they leave port until they return. You send out hunter killer groups of MH-60s, P-8's, and LA Class Attack Subs. You eliminate the submarine threat and then you move your carrier into the area for sustained operations.

How many jobs did the government provide in building that carrier? Or do we not care about that either?

People always want to bitch about the military industrial complex, but it provides jobs to millions of people, good paying jobs they wouldn't have otherwise.
 
MC Hamster said:
Over the years, US carriers (yes, always in carrier groups) have repeatedly been sunk by subs. Usually diesels. British, French, Canadian, Dutch, Swedish, Australian.. even Chilean subs have all taken turns sending the pride and glory of the US fleet to the bottom in wargames. From the 80s, right through to 2015 is the latest example I can find (a 30 year old French nuclear sub, that time).

IMO The Aircraft Carrier in 2020 will be what the Battleship was in 1940. Sub-launched cruise missiles allow for sudden deep strikes, drones can operate from much smaller amphibious assault craft, which can follow up to land the required ground forces to go along with an operation, not just be a floating airport. Smaller UAVs can be operated individually by battlefield units, larger ones from FOBs and semi-prepared advance airfields. Air defence can be provided by ground units, recon & ELINT by UAVs & satellites, strike missions by UAVs & cruise missiles. Navy doesn't do strategic bombing, and naval CAS is generally done by Marines off amphib ships, with rotary and V/STOL (Harriers & F-35B).

I really can't think of anything that a carrier can do and will be doing in the near future that can't be done by something else, and that justifies the price tag.

Though yes, they're still cool as fuck.
Click to expand...

Most air strikes done in Iraq and Syria have been done from CAGs.
 
lol. WarButtha thinks the USN keeps embarrassing itself in these war games on purpose (and also let the Chinese sub surface within kill distance in 06 for the same reason), but really the US always knows where every sub is. Delusional, totally brainwashed by the MIC propaganda they're feeding him 24/7 I am sure. Fact is, you can't detect modern subs. The USN has no idea where they are. That's why the subs always win the war games.
 
I wonder what it does to a military drone's psyche to know that fucking Sweden has a superior weapon of war capable of sinking your super expensive welfare dollhouse any where, any time? Must suck. Hooah.
 
absent said:
lol. WarButtha thinks the USN keeps embarrassing itself in these war games on purpose (and also let the Chinese sub surface within kill distance in 06 for the same reason), but really the US always knows where every sub is. Delusional, totally brainwashed by the MIC propaganda they're feeding him 24/7 I am sure. Fact is, you can't detect modern subs. The USN has no idea where they are. That's why the subs always win the war games.
Click to expand...

War Games puts a sub you know is in the area against a CSG. You have already lost in that scenario as I've already stated. The only way to defeat modern submarines to to track them from the moment they leave port until they return to port. That is your only shot.

What propaganda? You're an idiot. Go look up magnetic anomaly detectors you stupid fuck.
 
Modern submarines counteract magnetic anomalies with degaussing, you mouth breathing welfare leech. Don't they teach this shit to you naval grunts? I guess knowing about it would shatter your propaganda. :lol:
 
That only reduces it you retard, it doesn't completely eliminate it. I wonder who probably has seen submarines be tracked in this thread?
 
No, it totally eliminates the magnetic signature, which is why these submarines continue to pop up right smack dab in the middle of your prestigious carrier battle groups, you dull fuckface. I love your logic by the way: yeah, they can't track them within 50 miles, but once they're 200 miles out, we can see them where ever they are in the world! :rofl:
 
Looks like you don't know your job. I wonder what wires went wrong in your brain to think that a carrier battle group that can't detect a submarine within 50 miles with all of their ASW systems running at full speed trying to find the fucking thing just means that the sub can be easily caught when it's not that close? :rofl:

What a dummy.
 
Why don't you try reading what I said?

You ever think maybe you don't know everything about our capabilities?

But I'm sure some random Finnish Nazi knows more :lol:
 
I tell you what, you find me one article in the world that says degaussing completely eliminates a submarines magnetic field I'll say I'm wrong.

Here's a prediction, you won't, because it doesn't.
 
Yep, they can't eliminate the magnetic signature, which is why a Swedish sub can sink your multibillion dollar welfare dollhouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top