North Korea News

[Ex-California]

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.

Does the US even have a near-peer adversary at this point?

[SuburbanFarmer]

We've seen this before, you know. The British ruled the waves for a century - as the Spanish had before them. In the end, it made absolutely no difference on the ground.

[Ex-California]

We've seen this before, you know. The British ruled the waves for a century - as the Spanish had before them. In the end, it made absolutely no difference on the ground.

But that had more to do with changes in the financial sphere than actual battles

Oh wait....

[The Conservative]

What actual military use do you see from 11 carrier groups sailing around the world in this day and age?

Do you see a terrible threat to our "shipping" lurking over the horizon that would be neutralized by naval air power? Do we need naval missile launchers to smite the remote airfields of the world?

Aircraft carriers are great at taking out naval threats posed by surface vessels since they can hit them while the surface ships are out of range and can't hit the aircraft carriers back.

On paper, super-battleships like the Bismark made a ton of sense too..

But.. when you build shit like that, your enemies tend to go out of their way to sink it, all hands lost.

Actually the ship made a lot of sense, what they didn't do till it was too late was ad AA guns to it... Also, it's technology was already out of date by the time it saw battle. The Allies already upgraded the explosive capabilities of their torpedos, which the Bismark designers didn't take into consideration.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

And it is well known how the pace of technological change has slowed considerably since the 1930s.

We are golden.

[The Conservative]

And it is well known how the pace of technological change has slowed considerably since the 1930s.

We are golden.

Ships today are retrofitted to deal with today's technology... at least in those countries that can afford to.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And it is well known how the pace of technological change has slowed considerably since the 1930s.

We are golden.

Ships today are retrofitted to deal with today's technology... at least in those countries that can afford to.

yeah, we should definitely keep running that treadmill for as long as possible.

Just a big chunk of MIC on the wrong side of history, at this point.

[DBTrek]

We've seen this before, you know. The British ruled the waves for a century - as the Spanish had before them. In the end, it made absolutely no difference on the ground.

Genius proclamation from Commander Commie Cat #171:

Naval forces make no difference on the ground!!!!



Man, I've missed this.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We've seen this before, you know. The British ruled the waves for a century - as the Spanish had before them. In the end, it made absolutely no difference on the ground.

Genius proclamation from Commander Commie Cat #171:

Naval forces make no difference on the ground!!!!



Man, I've missed this.

Here, let me help.

[SilverEagle]

Yawn.....The only real danger is an accidental launch. Little fat boy better be careful.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3370099/n ... ve-strike/