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.

 

The Navy Sunk Japan's Top Secret Aircraft Carrier (And She Was Massive)

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS



 I just hope they are investing wisely.


It is a very fair and reasonable question.




posted on May, 14 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yep, see what you mean.
I briefly read: medium.com...

Any thoughts on that?

My "guess" is that anyone can come up with an endless series of complaints about a new weapons platform and that would be particularly true if they don't genuinely understand the the "how" of the intended deployment of the new weapons platform is supposed to work.

Last year, my wife and I got to go aboard the USS Kearsarge LHD-3; really impressive vessel. You can read about it at:
en.wikipedia.org...

One of the most impressive things they told us was:

Additionally, Kearsarge is fully equipped with state-of-the-art command and control (C&C) systems for flagship command duty, and her medical facilities are second in capability only to the Navy's hospital ships, USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy.


We get a lot of bang for the buck with these ships.



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

One of the problems with the F-35 is that a lot of people see things like it supposedly losing to an F-16, and compare it to existing aircraft. The F-35 isn't like other aircraft. They don't see how it's revolutionizing air combat in other ways.



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Exactly right. The Japanese loaded ordinance and fueled their aircraft in their hangar bays instead of on the flight deck. When their scout plane found the US fleet the order was given to change from bombs to torpedoes. The removed bombs were left in the hangar bays. When the US planes hit their carriers, the fueled aircraft caught fire and the fire set off the bombs.



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Sorry about that. My apologies for the excess amount of snark in that post.

The premise of obsolescence of aircraft carriers isn't exactly a new one. It began in the 50's. The Navy and Air Force had a real set to over that and other things. They lost a carrier--a proposed carrier called the United States. It also had to do with nukes and their delivery...

The Air Force used the argument that you mentioned. Essentially, a regurgitation of Billy Mitchell's argument against them back in the late 30's. That the argument hasn't changed all that much in almost a century is telling, and still just as wrong.



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Almost every war is started by a few nut-jobs at the top. Why mankind doesn't wish to save thousands/millions of lives by simply precision targeting those few nut-jobs, is beyond me.



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: steaming
a reply to: Archivalist
www.thenation.com...


revisionist history IMHO. Its easy to look back and say "oh they knew" but given the fanatical level of resistance and the waves of suicides attacks they had already experienced to that point, it would have resulted in untold casualties on both sides. The bombs were a means to an end and resulted in far fewer casualties in the long run



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

You only have to look to the change in tactics at the relatively insignificant island of Peleliu that set the stage for the rest of the island hopping campaign. They thought it'd be a four or five day mop up, and we took almost eleven-thousand casualties just under 25% in over two months (and the last Japanese guy came out of the tunnels in 47, I believe.) Gone forever were the bonzai charges and "easy" amphibious assaults after that.

The outcome of the war was not in doubt, but nothing suggested it would be easy or that Japan was throwing in the towel. I do think there absolutely was a not-insignificant political aspect to the decision at play re: Russia, but to try to peg that as the sole or even primary reason requires some mental gymnastics.
edit on 14-5-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: grey580

You know.............there's a message in that story for the US Navy and its forces moving against Iran at the moment.

I've been seeing several articles of late to the effect that the US Navy's Leadership is, in pursuing this Air Craft Carrier based attack groups is pursuing yesterday's strategy and that because of technological advances, missles and new long range torpedoes and tactical nuclear missile capabilities, Air Craft Carriers are as obsolete today as Battle Ships were after the invention and development of the Airplane after WWI.

Of course, because of the awesome sums of wealth generated by way of kick-backs from Naval contractors and the MIC, the Navy won't wise up until there's a catastrophe that embarrasses them into the dark ages.


This is a stupid assessment...

A US carrier damn near unassailable unless you've the right assets and capability. There's possibly one enemy and 3 allies that would even be capable of such a task.

Iran, Russia, nor China are not capable of sinking a US carrier with their current capability.



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

That's... Bold...



posted on May, 14 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: EternalSolace

That's... Bold...


Yet absolutely true.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: steaming

Revisionist history for the win...


At the beginning of '45, the US and it's allies controlled vast stretches of the Pacific. The war, in essence, was over, save for the island of Okinawa, and, of course, the Home Islands.

There were 3 options open to the Allies...

1) Invasion of the Home Islands of Japan. It was called Operation Downfall. Casualty estimates ranged upwards of one million to four million Allied casualties (between 400 to 800,000 dead~think about that for a moment...). Japan's were estimated at around 5 to 10 million (that's the population of Tokyo in the 21st century). Unthinkable, or was it? To call it a bloodbath wouldn't be too far from the truth.

2) Continue the submarine blockade, and bombing campaigns. Mass starvation was in the future for Japan, as oil and other necessities were being strangled, or cut off entirely. With starvation comes disease. God alone knows how many would have died.

3) The Atomic bombs. Savage weapons that we never hope to see used again... But, given the alternatives?? Actually, the lesser of three evils. Half a million people died, with thousands upon thousands of others dying or scarred in the aftermath. Still many fewer than would have died with the other two options.

Japan was not in any way "defeated". They still controlled large swathes of China, all of Korea, and Mongolia. Still had a very large army in mainland Asia, and, of course, in Japan itself. Also awaiting the allies were thousands of suicide craft, ranging from airplanes of all make and models, to boats of all sizes. The population was being taught how to fight.

Read about the civilians on Saipan, and what happened to them. That was a precursor of what would have happened in an invasion of Japan. Okinawa was bad enough...the mind quakes at what Japan would have been. I have a personal reason to be glad it never came to fruition...my Dad, at least one of his brothers, and all of my mothers brothers (3) would have been involved in an invasion. Odds are fairly good, they'd have been casualties.

As horrific as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, the other options were even more so.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Not sure I'd go that far...

Tough nut to crack? Certainly. But if you're willing to pay the butchers bill, it can be done.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Still had a very large army in mainland Asia, and, of course, in Japan itself. 


If I remember correctly when the war started (for us), they still had 85% of it's army deployed in China, SEA, Mongolia. The number slowly dropped as they sent divisions to hold their expanding island perimeter, but never below 70%. We had our hands full with 30%. I'll have to see if I can dig up the actual numbers later.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

I wouldn't be so sure. They won't just fire one carrier killing missile, but a barrage. The idea being that the defences are overwhelmed, only 1 needs to get through.
So carriers will be having to sit further and further off the coast than at present.
I am not saying that Western countries aren't working on new technologies to counter this. Just that at present, with what we are aware of carriers are extremely vulnerable to this new threat.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

That number jives with numbers I remember reading somewhere.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Here's the situation. I'm not saying that US aircraft carriers are invincible. They are most vulnerable in foreign ports or in restricted waterways. I can see a sneak attack damaging a carrier, but, I can only see it happening once. Attacking an alerted Battle Group looking for a threat is going to be extremely difficult. The problem is targeting. For the sneak attack, all that is needed is the position of the carrier. If it is in port GPS coordinates is enough, in restricted waters, a near by ship's radar or a laser designator.

The problem with all of these so called "carrier killer" missiles is targeting. Satellites don't work so well for reasons that have already been mentioned. So you are going to need "eyes on" targeting. That's the problem. Say you are attacking an alerted Battle Group. Odds are that they are going to be in "Emcon" (emissions condition) there's nothing radiating for your missile to home in on. You are going to have to find a way to tell your missiles where the carrier is. As soon as you start transmitting to your missiles, you become a target and a Standard or a HARM from a Hornet smokes your ass. There are ways to distract or spoof missiles, but, that's a subject that I'm not going into.

In open seas a carrier is very small. Sometimes it's own planes have a problem finding it and they know where it is supposed to be. (been there done that) One thing in common for these so called "carrier killers" is that they attack from extreme range, so something closer has to tell them where their target is. If you can't do that then your missiles are useless.

I've read about the subs getting close to a carrier. We were on an exercise in the North Atlantic. When we finished we went to the UK for liberty. One of the Brit sub commanders gave our ship a picture of it taken from their periscope. That much is common knowledge. What isn't is that the ASW Mod presented him with a copy of his track well beyond the range where he could have attacked. He turned a little white when he got that.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Here's the situation. I'm not saying that US aircraft carriers are invincible. They are most vulnerable in foreign ports or in restricted waterways. I can see a sneak attack damaging a carrier, but, I can only see it happening once. Attacking an alerted Battle Group looking for a threat is going to be extremely difficult. The problem is targeting. For the sneak attack, all that is needed is the position of the carrier. If it is in port GPS coordinates is enough, in restricted waters, a near by ship's radar or a laser designator.

The problem with all of these so called "carrier killer" missiles is targeting. Satellites don't work so well for reasons that have already been mentioned. So you are going to need "eyes on" targeting. That's the problem. Say you are attacking an alerted Battle Group. Odds are that they are going to be in "Emcon" (emissions condition) there's nothing radiating for your missile to home in on. You are going to have to find a way to tell your missiles where the carrier is. As soon as you start transmitting to your missiles, you become a target and a Standard or a HARM from a Hornet smokes your ass. There are ways to distract or spoof missiles, but, that's a subject that I'm not going into.

In open seas a carrier is very small. Sometimes it's own planes have a problem finding it and they know where it is supposed to be. (been there done that) One thing in common for these so called "carrier killers" is that they attack from extreme range, so something closer has to tell them where their target is. If you can't do that then your missiles are useless.

I've read about the subs getting close to a carrier. We were on an exercise in the North Atlantic. When we finished we went to the UK for liberty. One of the Brit sub commanders gave our ship a picture of it taken from their periscope. That much is common knowledge. What isn't is that the ASW Mod presented him with a copy of his track well beyond the range where he could have attacked. He turned a little white when he got that.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

I am talking about a war with China or Russia, something which is apparently considered to be one of the biggest defence risks to UK (the sources I read were with reference to the UK, Suwalki Gap being closed and Spratly Islands or Taiwan)
You're right to certain degree, out in the middle of the ocean a carrier will be safe. But the further out then the longer aircraft have to be in the air.
Nor does anyone know, especially not on this forum, what sensors and targeting capabilities China actually has. I too have anecdotes, in my case about RAF radar capabilities, but that's all just talk.
We do know that the Chinese missiles could have a range of up to 2500 miles.
A modern carrier costs $5-6billion? Compare that to the cost of missiles. This is what our adversaries have realised. How many missiles are worth firing to get a carrier?
It is a complete rethink and change of tactics which is called for, or next generation equipment such as lasers and interceptor missiles.
Believe what you want but at present a carrier isn't getting within reasonable strike range of the Chinese coastline.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join