Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: HM12460
Interesting thread. I don't know how anyone could have stated the need for Aircraft Carrier battle group's better than Astro 14 did. The time I spent on active duty onboard DD-963/CG-47 class platforms was very rewarding.
You need the battle group to protect and tend the white elephant
If you ever get the opportunity to observe a Carrier group in action it is beyond description. I went on a dependents cruise on the Missouri and the Missouri joined a carrier group I am still in awe.
Originally Posted By: HM12460
Interesting thread. I don't know how anyone could have stated the need for Aircraft Carrier battle group's better than Astro 14 did. The time I spent on active duty onboard DD-963/CG-47 class platforms was very rewarding.
You need the battle group to protect and tend the white elephant
If you ever get the opportunity to observe a Carrier group in action it is beyond description. I went on a dependents cruise on the Missouri and the Missouri joined a carrier group I am still in awe.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
B52's are out. USAF has less than 300 conventional cruise missiles in inventory and they can not be on station 24/7 and even figuring outfitting them B-1's there is not enough aircraft.
lol..we can build Cruise missles by the hundreds..what are you thinking??? Also military stupidity at work. There was a design to convert cheap 747's to carry 100 to 200 cruise missles....Based on East or West Coast. Obviously too cheap and too practical. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 What's wrong with this military option?? I'm dying to listen.
Quote:
OKAY go the sub route. The US only needs about 200 more to equal 10 carrier strike wings and to rearm them it will only cost 200 million each boat after one complete sortie. Not to mention the downtime to rearm just one ship/boat. Ammo on-load's for birds is not a few hour evolution. Again higher cost less efficient and not nearly as effective.
Oh please you are acting like its impossible for the U.S. to tie their shoes. You can't really be serious here. We have 100 fast attacks that can carry a couple thousand Tomahawks (yes we can build MORE Tomahawks if we need them...many thousands for the cost of a carrier) We can easily destroy any country in the world including Russia and China with these). In addition there are hundreds of ships in the USN that can carry them. Thinking appears to elude some folks.
Quote:
The US has tried to render the Aircraft Carrier obsolete since the end of the Second World War. Commanders would love a cheaper and less manpower intensive alternative. The problem is there is not a cheaper combination or single alternative in either terms of money or manpower or ease to defend.
The problem is the Military is not geared into thinking cheap alternatives.
Quote:
There are reports of about 3,800 conventional strike cruse missiles in the U.S. inventory. It would not take long to deplete this inventory if the US relied only on cruise missile strikes. This would take about a week against a prepared force like North Korea.
You really don't think a couple hundred cruise missiles would not totally destroy NK? ,,,But guess what..we can build thousands more...Ahead of Time!
Lets say a couple carriers attack NK. How many of those planes are going to get shot down??? How long would it take to deliver a thousand precision bombs? It would take 1/2 hour for 1000 Tomahawks to be launched. And if we planned ahead...many thousands in a short period of time.
Don't worry though..none of this will happen bc it makes too much sense.
B52's are out. USAF has less than 300 conventional cruise missiles in inventory and they can not be on station 24/7 and even figuring outfitting them B-1's there is not enough aircraft.
lol..we can build Cruise missles by the hundreds..what are you thinking??? Also military stupidity at work. There was a design to convert cheap 747's to carry 100 to 200 cruise missles....Based on East or West Coast. Obviously too cheap and too practical. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 What's wrong with this military option?? I'm dying to listen.
Quote:
OKAY go the sub route. The US only needs about 200 more to equal 10 carrier strike wings and to rearm them it will only cost 200 million each boat after one complete sortie. Not to mention the downtime to rearm just one ship/boat. Ammo on-load's for birds is not a few hour evolution. Again higher cost less efficient and not nearly as effective.
Oh please you are acting like its impossible for the U.S. to tie their shoes. You can't really be serious here. We have 100 fast attacks that can carry a couple thousand Tomahawks (yes we can build MORE Tomahawks if we need them...many thousands for the cost of a carrier) We can easily destroy any country in the world including Russia and China with these). In addition there are hundreds of ships in the USN that can carry them. Thinking appears to elude some folks.
Quote:
The US has tried to render the Aircraft Carrier obsolete since the end of the Second World War. Commanders would love a cheaper and less manpower intensive alternative. The problem is there is not a cheaper combination or single alternative in either terms of money or manpower or ease to defend.
The problem is the Military is not geared into thinking cheap alternatives.
Quote:
There are reports of about 3,800 conventional strike cruse missiles in the U.S. inventory. It would not take long to deplete this inventory if the US relied only on cruise missile strikes. This would take about a week against a prepared force like North Korea.
You really don't think a couple hundred cruise missiles would not totally destroy NK? ,,,But guess what..we can build thousands more...Ahead of Time!
Lets say a couple carriers attack NK. How many of those planes are going to get shot down??? How long would it take to deliver a thousand precision bombs? It would take 1/2 hour for 1000 Tomahawks to be launched. And if we planned ahead...many thousands in a short period of time.
Don't worry though..none of this will happen bc it makes too much sense.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CT8
If you ever get the opportunity to observe a Carrier group in action it is beyond description. I went on a dependents cruise on the Missouri and the Missouri joined a carrier group I am still in awe.
Don't doubt it a bit.
But Grand Finalis of Fireworks displays are impressive.We are talking Carriers vs plain ol' unexciting/cheap jcruise/tomahawk missles.
If you ever get the opportunity to observe a Carrier group in action it is beyond description. I went on a dependents cruise on the Missouri and the Missouri joined a carrier group I am still in awe.
Don't doubt it a bit.
But Grand Finalis of Fireworks displays are impressive.We are talking Carriers vs plain ol' unexciting/cheap jcruise/tomahawk missles.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al
There was a design to convert cheap 747's to carry 100 to 200 cruise missles....Based on East or West Coast. Obviously too cheap and too practical. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 What's wrong with this military option?? I'm dying to listen.
You completely overstated the cruse missile capability of 70. There is no guarantee the fuselage design would be able to withstand the launch of a cruise missile. Factor in the maximum payload of 70 cruise missiles reduces the payload capacity and further degrades operational capability due to stress on the frame. This alone helped make the decision the conversion was not cost effective. If it was even possible.
Originally Posted By: Al
Oh please you are acting like its impossible for the U.S. to tie their shoes. You can't really be serious here. We have 100 fast attacks that can carry a couple thousand Tomahawks (yes we can build MORE Tomahawks if we need them...many thousands for the cost of a carrier) We can easily destroy any country in the world including Russia and China with these). In addition there are hundreds of ships in the USN that can carry them. Thinking appears to elude some folks.
Very simple. It takes about 200 more fast attack submarines fully loaded with only T-LAM's to equal the capability of 10 aircraft carrier strike wings for a single strike shortie. No ship only carries one missile payload so 200 more boats is understating the necessity. Thus the initial cost, maintenance, man power, and training is higher.
Originally Posted By: Al
The problem is the Military is not geared into thinking cheap alternatives.
Not quite the case there is a very finite budget to meet current and future requirements.
Originally Posted By: Al
You really don't think a couple hundred cruise missiles would not totally destroy NK? ,,,But guess what..we can build thousands more...Ahead of Time!
Nope over 700 just made a small dent against Iraq. The majority of the damage was done by aircraft and the figure was not close. It only took more than 2 decades to get the inventory we have.
Originally Posted By: Al
Lets say a couple carriers attack NK. How many of those planes are going to get shot down??? How long would it take to deliver a thousand precision bombs? It would take 1/2 hour for 1000 Tomahawks to be launched. And if we planned ahead...many thousands in a short period of time.
Don't worry though..none of this will happen bc it makes too much sense.
Funny 1000 tomahawks takes a lot more than 30 minutes to launch. Much more time. Try posting on topic you have experience with.
There was a design to convert cheap 747's to carry 100 to 200 cruise missles....Based on East or West Coast. Obviously too cheap and too practical. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 What's wrong with this military option?? I'm dying to listen.
You completely overstated the cruse missile capability of 70. There is no guarantee the fuselage design would be able to withstand the launch of a cruise missile. Factor in the maximum payload of 70 cruise missiles reduces the payload capacity and further degrades operational capability due to stress on the frame. This alone helped make the decision the conversion was not cost effective. If it was even possible.
Originally Posted By: Al
Oh please you are acting like its impossible for the U.S. to tie their shoes. You can't really be serious here. We have 100 fast attacks that can carry a couple thousand Tomahawks (yes we can build MORE Tomahawks if we need them...many thousands for the cost of a carrier) We can easily destroy any country in the world including Russia and China with these). In addition there are hundreds of ships in the USN that can carry them. Thinking appears to elude some folks.
Very simple. It takes about 200 more fast attack submarines fully loaded with only T-LAM's to equal the capability of 10 aircraft carrier strike wings for a single strike shortie. No ship only carries one missile payload so 200 more boats is understating the necessity. Thus the initial cost, maintenance, man power, and training is higher.
Originally Posted By: Al
The problem is the Military is not geared into thinking cheap alternatives.
Not quite the case there is a very finite budget to meet current and future requirements.
Originally Posted By: Al
You really don't think a couple hundred cruise missiles would not totally destroy NK? ,,,But guess what..we can build thousands more...Ahead of Time!
Nope over 700 just made a small dent against Iraq. The majority of the damage was done by aircraft and the figure was not close. It only took more than 2 decades to get the inventory we have.
Originally Posted By: Al
Lets say a couple carriers attack NK. How many of those planes are going to get shot down??? How long would it take to deliver a thousand precision bombs? It would take 1/2 hour for 1000 Tomahawks to be launched. And if we planned ahead...many thousands in a short period of time.
Don't worry though..none of this will happen bc it makes too much sense.
Funny 1000 tomahawks takes a lot more than 30 minutes to launch. Much more time. Try posting on topic you have experience with.
Deleted
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CT8
WWIII will be interesting, you would think.
The last interesting thing to happen.
How can any nation with significant nuclear capability NOT launch his nukes when they're losing the battle? It all ends in a draw, or it's the end of everything....
WWIII will be interesting, you would think.
The last interesting thing to happen.
How can any nation with significant nuclear capability NOT launch his nukes when they're losing the battle? It all ends in a draw, or it's the end of everything....
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: CT8
WWIII will be interesting, you would think.
The last interesting thing to happen.
How can any nation with significant nuclear capability NOT launch his nukes when they're losing the battle? It all ends in a draw, or it's the end of everything....
I think what nukes do, is insure that the battles never get too serious and certainly never occur on the combatants home soil. NK isn't dumb in that respect, nukes mean they will very likely never suffer a ground invasion, unless their nuclear capability is taken away.
Why hasn't the west flooded the Ukraine with weapons? It would be really nice give Putin a good thumping there but its too close to Russia's door step if Russia gets pushed too much they might do something crazy... Its not worth the risk to get seriously involved, for Russia too, as they haven't tried to take the whole country.
I guess nukes take away the concept of total war so we won't see a WW3 unless one side thinks they can eliminate the others nuclear option somehow.
Originally Posted By: CT8
WWIII will be interesting, you would think.
The last interesting thing to happen.
How can any nation with significant nuclear capability NOT launch his nukes when they're losing the battle? It all ends in a draw, or it's the end of everything....
I think what nukes do, is insure that the battles never get too serious and certainly never occur on the combatants home soil. NK isn't dumb in that respect, nukes mean they will very likely never suffer a ground invasion, unless their nuclear capability is taken away.
Why hasn't the west flooded the Ukraine with weapons? It would be really nice give Putin a good thumping there but its too close to Russia's door step if Russia gets pushed too much they might do something crazy... Its not worth the risk to get seriously involved, for Russia too, as they haven't tried to take the whole country.
I guess nukes take away the concept of total war so we won't see a WW3 unless one side thinks they can eliminate the others nuclear option somehow.
After Vietnam on of my friends finished out his enlistment at SAC as a crew chief on a B52. We had some fun conversations. One was if some one nuked a country lets say the U.S. for example nuked Iran and then claimed see we told you that Iran built a bomb and look the idiots blew themselves up, what morons. What would any one say? What would they dare to say or do the country was crazy enough to use a nuke! Wait the U.S did just that.
After Vietnam on of my friends finished out his enlistment at SAC as a crew chief on a B52. We had some fun conversations. One was if some one nuked a country lets say the U.S. for example nuked Iran and then claimed, see we told you that Iran built a bomb and look the idiots blew themselves up, what morons. What would any one say? What would they dare to say or do the country was crazy enough to use a nuke! Wait the U.S did just that. Drop a 6 pack on some country and the country wouldn't be happy.
Quote:
Very simple. It takes about 200 more fast attack submarines fully loaded with only T-LAM's to equal the capability of 10 aircraft carrier strike wings for a single strike shortie. No ship only carries one missile payload so 200 more boats is understating the necessity. Thus the initial cost, maintenance, man power, and training is higher.
An Ohio-class refitted as a SSGN (there are four) carries 154 Tomahawks in its missile tubes.
Very simple. It takes about 200 more fast attack submarines fully loaded with only T-LAM's to equal the capability of 10 aircraft carrier strike wings for a single strike shortie. No ship only carries one missile payload so 200 more boats is understating the necessity. Thus the initial cost, maintenance, man power, and training is higher.
An Ohio-class refitted as a SSGN (there are four) carries 154 Tomahawks in its missile tubes.
- Status
