North Korea News

[StCapps]

Hence: Bismark.

Can't sail out into the open sea, because they will send everything to sink you. Keep it at port, tucked away and safe if a real war breaks out.

What exactly did we pay for then? Times 11, by the way.

Yeah but Bismarck didn't have the most powerful navy in the world to escort them, the US is in a much different situation and no navy can bottle them up in port. Talk to me when the Russians and Chinese anti-aircraft carrier defenses are so fearsome that US aircraft carrier groups can't even leave US ports. That isn't happening anytime soon.

[Speaker to Animals]

Hence: Bismark.

Can't sail out into the open sea, because they will send everything to sink you. Keep it at port, tucked away and safe if a real war breaks out.

What exactly did we pay for then? Times 11, by the way.

Yeah but Bismarck didn't have the most powerful navy in the world to escort them, the US is in a much different situation and no navy can bottle them up in port.

You are just grasping at every little branch and twig as you slide down this cliff.

Carrier groups are mostly a show for the MIC. They have some use when we go to war with places like Iraq and Syria (which is why the MIC has a hard on for attacking places like those), but not real value in a world war.

[StCapps]

You are just grasping at every little branch and twig as you slide down this cliff.

Projecting. The US navy isn't getting bottled up at port because they are afraid to get sunk on the open seas by a superior navy like the Germans were in WWI. The US would have to worry about operating with complete impunity in the South China Sea before they knock out China's A2/AD capabilities in the region, but that doesn't make aircraft carriers obsolete or close to it. Get real dude.

[DBTrek]

I think you fell into the trap, Capps.
GCF is saying we don't need a Navy at all, which is patently ridiculous. You were right to laugh that off.
StA is only arguing that carrier groups are going to be obsolete in a decade. . . a considerable step back from "we don't need a Navy".
Is he right?
No way to tell - we'll have to pick the discussion up in ten years to be sure. But until then you're not going to be able to prove him wrong.

[Okeefenokee]

Save the date.

[StCapps]

No way to tell - we'll have to pick the discussion up in ten years to be sure. But until then you're not going to be able to prove him wrong.

My point is that it's unfounded assumption on his part, not that it can be proved either way until the future is here. I can say nukes are going to be obsolete in a decade, but I'm going to be wrong, though you won't be able to prove me wrong for a decade. That's a pretty shitty argument though.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I think you fell into the trap, Capps.
GCF is saying we don't need a Navy at all, which is patently ridiculous. You were right to laugh that off.
StA is only arguing that carrier groups are going to be obsolete in a decade. . . a considerable step back from "we don't need a Navy".
Is he right?
No way to tell - we'll have to pick the discussion up in ten years to be sure. But until then you're not going to be able to prove him wrong.

Like I said, I have to concede that the boomers are still useful. But I see no utility in fabulously expensive and vulnerable surface ships. Maybe a few destroyers or something, just to kick the tires, but that's about it.

[Smitty-48]

If you get into a full scale shooting war with a near peer adversary, you're going to lose ships, maybe you'll lose an aircraft carrier or two, but that's the reality of a shooting war with a near peer adversary, that doesn't mean you lose the war, they're not going to sink all your carriers in one fell swoop, and in the event of such a war, everything is expendable downrange, including aircraft carriers, and $14 billion would be a drop in the bucket, so there's nothing obselete about an aircraft carrier, just because no ship is unsinkable, nor any ship the difference between winning and losing, and if you survive the war, as in it doesn't escalate to a countervalue nuclear exchange, you can always build more carriers, so what's the big whoop?

The US lost five aircraft carriers in World War Two, Hornet, Lexington, Wasp, Princeton, and Yorktown, all sunk by the Japanese; how'd that work out for them?

Could the Russians sink some of the carriers with their submarines? Sure, no doubt they would, but America would be sinking Russian submarines left and right, why do you assume that America is going to run out of aircraft carriers before the Russians run out of submarines? Virginia Class SSN right up in your baffles, Ivan, last thing you're ever going to see, is that aircraft carrier in your periscope, as this Mk.48 blows right through your keel, sayonara.

If a shooting war starts on the high seas, make no mistake, America will not be playing defense, when it comes to Russian subs, America will be on the offense, most of them will never survive long enough to even get a sniff of an aircraft carrier, they'll be running for their lives, and the one or two lucky ones who do close with a Strike Group, will be on a suicide mission.

If the mission was "do not lose any aircraft carriers at all", then that would likely be mission impossible, but as soon as you are in a shooting war with a near peer, that would not be the mission, and in the event of, the mission comes before the carrier, even unto being expended downrange.

Maybe you send a carrier round the North Cape into the Barents, and maybe the Russians sink it, but odds are they only sunk it, after the Air Wing sunk the entire Red Banner Northern Fleet, and in a shooting war, that's actually a win.

[C-Mag]

True Naval Warfare was never for me, I'm a ground pounder.
Since WWII, the Navy has been cake service for the US. Sailors get all the pros for being in a combat zone, with very few of them actually being in any real danger. That won't last forever. Sooner or later, the U S Navy will be in a real naval war.

[Smitty-48]

Another misconception about aircraft carriers is that they are "big slow sitting ducks", which is actually not the case at all, when a Carrier Group goes into Battle Group mode as opposed to Strike Group mode, as in fighting a Shooting War on the high seas rather than sitting offshore for Gunboat Diplomacy, it's actually very difficult to find fix and destroy them, it's one of if not the fastest warships there is, they're surprisingly maneuverable, capable of being far more stealthy than most would surmise, and on the high seas, is actually a tiny needle in giant liquid haystack.

If an aircraft carrier needs to get out of trouble, they can put the pedal to the metal, 35 knots, nuclear powered, so it can maintain that indefinitely, and the reality is, most warships would have trouble keeping up to even get into a position to take a shot, and any submarine which tried, would be heard from very long range, a submarine going that fast, is detected with ease.

If you catch an aircraft carrier in a chokepoint, going slow with no room to maneuver, then they are vulnerable, but in a Shooting War, they're going to go into Beast Mode, they're not going to be hanging around chokepoints nor sitting on station just off the coast, they're going to be out on the high seas, as a Hunter-Killer, fast, long ranged, maneuverable, and very difficult to find, they can dissapear, cover great distances at speed, and then reappear out of nowhere, closed up without warning, you never saw them coming; sayonara.

When the Eisenhower Battle Group suddenly went radio silent and crossed the G-I-UK gap on the way to the Barents in 81', the Soviets pooped their drawers, because it just disappeared without warning, they sent special sattelites up to look for it, they sent planes out to look for it, they had subs out looking for it; couldn't find it... until it showed up on their doorstep, point blank, out of nowhere.