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.

 

China New US Carrier Killer

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Well, despite the circumstances, that does seem to be the case.

We have had a lot of practice hitting our targets lately, so there might actually be some truth there.




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Well till they are truly put to the test it`s all fantasy talk. We have they have proves nothing. To really know is insane to even think about. And honestly if it came down to the US and China finding this out for real one or the other is going to get their butt handed to them and at that time last measures will be used the failsafe Nukes sure to turn everyone into losers.

The only way China would attack us is supplying another country with what they got same in US attacking China it`s a no win War that will never happen.

What I find funny is I thought the China Sub was supposed to be so good they don`t need this type stuff or do they realize they really were not so slick that time.

I think the best weapon is the one kept secret not advertised as this one.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 

Yes and No.... Saddam had old junk and troops who were barely literate while trying to stay in the good graces of their C.O's or they may be shot. Libya never really fought like they meant it, for whatever reason....but we never saw Western weapon systems go nose to nose with what Libya had to offer from E.U. purchasing. Afghanistan isn't worth comment on. If we COULDN'T kick the tail off a 5th world "military" as we found there, we have no business claiming we have a military at all.


In actual fact, the last time we went nose to nose with Russian or Chinese weapon systems in a fight where both sides were fighting each engagement with everything they had was Vietnam...and contrary to popular myth..we did not win every battle. In fact.... We lost over 50,000 Americans to Chinese and Russian tactics and weapons. (anyone notice an indigenous arms industry in North Vietnam? Yeah..I didn't see one either.)

I HOPE everyone is 100% right on..and Iran is as suicidally stupid as everyone hopes...because China backs them and sells to them from one side...and the Gauntlet Air Defense System Iran is now sporting is of Russian Manufacture and their domestic version for Russian use is ranked equal to our Patriot System. I hope Russia crippled what they sold Tehran...but counting on that is how wars are lost. REALLY lost..not just given up like Iraq or Vietnam.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
From what i have heard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) could do 50 knots and did during the cuban missile crisis.
she was just passing gibraltar coming out of the med when the president ordered the blockade of Cuba

Less then 36 hours later she was off cuba.

During that run the enterprise left behind her carrier battle group because they could not keep up and the battle group was replaced by units from the US till they caught up.
Also during that run the Deck had to be cleared because of water coming over the bow would damage the aircraft.
Water from the bow wake hit the bottom of the flight deck causing minor damage.

The Enterprise was built with 8 reactors but during sea trials it was found that they only needed two and that was all they fueled. I understand that two others were fueled to use a new reactor core design. and the first two were taken out of service and mothballed..
No one knows how fast the Enterprise will go because the vibrations were so bad at full speed during the cuban missile crisis run. the limit on speed was vibration caused by the ships screws being slightly out of balance and water cavatation erosion makes it imposable to keep them in perfict balance.

Carriers do not need there hulls cleaned as often because a high speed run will tear off all the growth.

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is the third oldest ship in the US navy behind the three-masted frigate USS Constitution. and the USS Pueblo (AGER-2)(first commissioned at New Orleans on April 7, 1945,)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED

The Enterprise was built with 8 reactors but during sea trials it was found that they only needed two and that was all they fueled. I understand that two others were fueled to use a new reactor core design. and the first two were taken out of service and mothballed..


Interesting. I knew it had 8 reactors but did not know they were only using 2. I remember when it was getting refueled, I was next door to it on CVN-73 doing sea trials and waiting to get my plank when it was commissioned. That should have been 1991/92.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Actually we did win every battle in Vietnam and no we didn't go head to head with either Russia or China. The only battle that the US lost was won by our own back-stabbing media (I'm talking about you Cronkite). If we wouldn't have restricted ourselves so much with our Rules of Engagement that war wouldn't have lasted six months.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
First off have you seen the Chinese carrier it is an old Russian cold war carrier and there submarines are so load that they can be heard from almost 20 miles away with their diesel engines. They are no real threat here is a plane we are working on for our Navy and they do not have a prayer of seeing it in the air. It's completely stealth and flies at over 100,000 feet. XF-37A

edit on 5-1-2012 by tailchaser7 because: new photo
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 5-1-2012 by tailchaser7 because: see my post on the other subject.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The enterprise uses all 8 of its reactors, trust me. Enterprise is fast. I know its so fast that the keel is twisted. But alas next november shes being decommed.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Hey Jim,

It really comes down to how one defines 'battle' and given the fact that somewhere around one quarter million South Vietnamese, fifty odd thousand American soldiers, five thousand South Koreans and thirty Laotians the question is how much fighting the US must not have been involved in to avoid suffering the attrition suffered by the South Vietnamese forces. Fact is just like in Iraq and Afghanistan the US is not doing the majority of the patrols and actual fighting and can therefore pick where to apply most damage with least attrition and consequently no chance of 'losing' the size battles me or you would notice. The last time the US were involved in a stand up fight against a similarly armed&organized enemy was back in Korea and given the record there we thus all know that American soldiers are human and will retreat like any other when debilitating pressure is applied or when strategic/tactical necessity dictates that they do. Giving up the 'battle/battlefield' only says so much and there is no need to be very so very sensitive about it!


Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Actually we did win every battle in Vietnam and no we didn't go head to head with either Russia or China. If we wouldn't have restricted ourselves so much with our Rules of Engagement that war wouldn't have lasted six months.


Also the notion that the war against South Vietnam ( it was a counter insurgency war) could be won in 6 months by the expedient of destroying the country you were trying to 'protect' makes little sense and what destruction they did in fact wreak on South, and later North Korea, did not in my opinion ultimately win the war as much as simply sticking around and escalating it slowly did. Remember this was a time when reinforcing the east meant weakening Europe and perhaps inviting Chinese intervention in Vietnam, as in Korea, or worse, Russian Intervention in central Europe... As i understand it the US escalated the conflict in Vietnam about as quickly as it safely could while keeping the balance of it's forces in the ETO.



As for CVN top speeds nothing even remotely official claims more than 35 with normal design speeds stated at 30 -33 depending on class..

www.navweaps.com...

Mind you 60 Km/ph at sea is FAST and given the size of these things it must feel much more impressive onboard than watching...

Thats all i have to bother you with for now,



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Carriers can go faster than 35kts. Just throwing that out there. The US will never give the actual figures for their best stuff, because then no one can REALLY know whats coming. As its been said before, its hard enough to target a carrier accurately from a satellite. Throw in destroyers and cruisers, AND submarines, and the strike group is pretty much a floating multi part fortress.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


There's a reason for that.

www.rickety.us...

I'll sum it up for you.
Country $bil
United States 698.3
China 119.4
United Kingdom 59.6
France 59.3
Russia 58.7
Japan 54.5
Saudi Arabia 45.2
Germany 45.2
India 41.3
Italy 37.0



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by truttseeker
 


How can they can go faster than the highest designed speed of around 33 knots? Why would they need to go faster, than the very fast 33 knots, when they are already the fastest ship in a carrier battle group? They have higher design speeds than either the Tico's or the Burke's so where are they supposed to rush off to on their own with no escorts and certainly no support ships?

Stellar



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
From what i have heard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) could do 50 knots and did during the cuban missile crisis.
she was just passing gibraltar coming out of the med when the president ordered the blockade of Cuba.

Less then 36 hours later she was off cuba.


At it's design speed in excess of 33 knots if one makes generous allowances 850 miles per day is just about the best that can be expected of the type . If the Enterprise were to be able to reach Cuba in the timeframe stated a speed in excess of 90 knots would have been required to cover the 4000 miles from Gibralter and this bring it within 400 miles of Cuba.


The Enterprise was built with 8 reactors but during sea trials it was found that they only needed two and that was all they fueled. I understand that two others were fueled to use a new reactor core design. and the first two were taken out of service and mothballed..


Sadly they used the same turbines as in previously oil fired ships so despite these reactors being able to create truly massive quantities of steam the turbines provided a hard limit ( design indicates 280 000) to how much could be turned into shaft horsepower.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by D8ncer
 


This is a big problem for the US in the pacific. But then again once they use it we'll destroy them.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
reply to post by truttseeker
 


How can they can go faster than the highest designed speed of around 33 knots? Why would they need to go faster, than the very fast 33 knots, when they are already the fastest ship in a carrier battle group? They have higher design speeds than either the Tico's or the Burke's so where are they supposed to rush off to on their own with no escorts and certainly no support ships?

Stellar


I served on FFG 40 USS Halyburton, the published design speed was 29 knots or 33 mph (published) I can guarantee it went much faster than that as there were times we were not allowed top side so we didn't get blown off during speed trials. Just because they publish a speed does not mean that is the fastest it will go.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by N3kr0m4nc3r
 


Hi,

As long as it's not presumed that ships can go faster with machinery that as far as we know can not i am all for theories as to how the Navy can hide from us the specifications of the machinery installed. There were only so much you could do and in the end you had to trade something for something meaning that during speed trails the ship would be lightened as much as possible.

As for taking men below during speed trails would it not be a breach of protocol to keep many above deck with likely only open calm seas ahead? Wouldn't losing men overboard during speed trails be as bad, for the captain, as accidentally discharging his firearm and killing someone at a firing range?

Having said that i wont argue a couple knots difference but i do have a hard time with statements that suggests motive power increases of 30% - 50% ( as some suggest for carriers) without rather specific technical evidence.

Just because this is ATS does not mean we have to give too much credence to the attempts to turn super carriers into more than they already are!

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join