It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Korean waters: How many minutes would an aircraft carrier stay afloat?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Our hunter-killer subs would eliminate their subs in very short order.

And there are more than a dozen of those ... just waiting.




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

North Korea superior super-fast powerful country!

Die yankee, die!



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Nothing will get inside the pickets.

Sinking a US carrier would cause a backlash none could handle.

Attempting to sink one...another kind of backlash.

For one carrier, the despot would lose his country and power.
No one knew where the carrier was, not China or Russia...think about that

mg



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
the only thing they can do.... is the same thing all the others have done....perish without having a chance to resist.
There is no enemy for them to shoot at.... no soldiers coming up the hill to engage in combat.

If there is another Word War, or if hostilities resume in Korea, it wont drag out over years. There wont be tales of extreme valor. There will be presses of buttons and cleanup crews.... soon they will have robots to clean up the mess.

Technology is king.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
There's a growing stack of evidence that the Norks will go "Casey Jones" on us again.

But this time around, there will be no turning back at the Yalu.



Buck



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

A Hornet combat radius is between 300 and 600 nm. They'd need tanker support, and not from a deck launched carrier to get farther than that.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Considering the Chinese bought most of their Navy from Russia (rust bucket and retired) then handed down their rejects to NK to build their Navy , what do you think ?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
The NK subs won't even be able receive their orders, which may not even get issued.

Nevermind a coordinated attack.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
Are they allowed to do maintenance? Because if they are allowed to do maintenance, it's going to stay afloat for about 20-25 years until it needs to be refueled.

NK submarines ARE a grave risk to navy personnel...North Korean personnel. They are tragic, pitiful contraptions barely better than the latest Colombian drug-lord's Cocaine Mule are and only designed to operate within sight of land.


This ^^^



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

If war breaks out, how long will North Korea stay afloat?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I think the North Koreans wold launch a nuke, either by sub or by missile,
and if it made it close to the target, the fleet would vaporize.

It wouldn't take but a second.

After that, NK would be turned to glass unless invaded by China and or Russia.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Darkblade71

The USS Independence was a half mile away from a 21 kiloton air burst atomic bomb, and slightly father away from a 21 kiloton underwater detonation during the Bikini Atoll tests during Operation Crossroads. She was scuttled off San Francisco, five years later. A Nimitz Class super carrier isn't going to "vaporize" from anything North Korea can throw at her.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Also. Dont be surprised if north korea finds that each and everyone of their subs was sunk by some odd underwater drones nobody knows about and were there keeping them secretly in checkmate this entire time.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well.
That is promising at least.
Don't underestimate the enemy though.




posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkblade71

I never have. But as I said in another thread, over estimating their capabilities is just as bad.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Um...no...they dont need to go anywhere near Korean Waters. You didnt know? They can fire anything, anywhere from hundreds of miles away...and its a deck for aircraft to land and take off...from hundreds of miles away.

They know it...and thats what scares them most. Remember bombing Iraq? They were shooting up at us when we dumped "shock and Awe" on them...and we werent even there. Gone in fast, high and low and were gone.....



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
In 2009 the US navy tested the GBU-43/B MOAB on there china lake test range.
www.bakersfield.com...

Now what would the navy use the GBU-43/B MOAB for?????

What would a bomb that size do to a NK sub 100 to 300 feet under water if a delay was used on the fuse of the bomb.

The worlds biggest air dropped depth charge??????



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Diesel loud and ancient submarines. They are for short range patrol. They are crap.

Also a floating airport doesnt need to be in anyones waters to attack.


edit on 4 23 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

A fuel-air type bomb isn't of much use underwater I'd think but there are nuclear depth charges. Woe betide whoever is first to use any sort of nuke in anger these days.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
There's no reason to think it would float differently in Korean water than any other water.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join