American Navy Is About To Double It's Aircraft Carriers, Almost Instantly !, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 7-1-2013 @ 12:21 PM by Blue_Jay33

This video I was watching was average until I heard that statement, it involves the deployment of the F-35.

The undersecretary of the Navy makes the comment.

YouTube Link

22 Aircraft carriers, wow !

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 12:30 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

The Wasp and new America class will be able to fly the F-35s. In fact the first two America class won't even have a well deck for LCACs like the Wasp currently does. From the third America on, they'll have the deck, but the first two will be only capable of having aircraft. The current 10 Nimitz class will be able to operate them, as well as the 7 Wasp, and the new America. Obviously the new CVN will be able to as well.

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 12:44 PM by randomname

watching the american military, you see the wealth of the nation, you go to detroit, not so much.

it looks america is forcing poverty on those who don't want to be a cog in the machine.

you can easily join the military and live a 10x better life than working in a factory.

but then you've become a weapon of war, to kill on the command of others. as a means to an end for the wealthy elite class.

america is basically divided in 3 class, the politicians, the wealthy elite and the military. if you're not in one of them, your basically fighting for scraps, in america at least.

i think america is pretty much taken over by the military, who use the wealth of the nation on them selves and in conquest to further the power of the commander in chief who is also a politician and has access to that wealth to distribute to the military.

like in ancient rome, where the soldier class was showered with land, money and food in aid of conquest and in return for service and loyalty.

if not, it's a life of poverty unless you had access to other classes.

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 12:53 PM by jimmyx

yup, it sounds like the slow extermination of the poor....or maybe this is what is meant by global population control. make people so poor, that they die early, and in great numbers, due to inadequate food and water supply, untreated diseases, and inadequate shelter.

edit on 7-1-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:07 PM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by randomname

I am not Pro-American because of 9/11(another forum & discussion) but I really laugh at people who say their military is in decline or being challenged. Their military is totally designed for offense and true power projection.
Whereas other military's like Russia, China and India are designed for protection of the homeland. Sure they can project power with nukes, but that is MAD. Conventionally they have just about nothing.

edit on 7-1-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:10 PM by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by randomname
watching the american military, you see the wealth of the nation, you go to detroit, not so much.

it looks america is forcing poverty on those who don't want to be a cog in the machine.

you can easily join the military and live a 10x better life than working in a factory.

but then you've become a weapon of war, to kill on the command of others. as a means to an end for the wealthy elite class.

america is basically divided in 3 class, the politicians, the wealthy elite and the military. if you're not in one of them, your basically fighting for scraps, in america at least.

i think america is pretty much taken over by the military, who use the wealth of the nation on them selves and in conquest to further the power of the commander in chief who is also a politician and has access to that wealth to distribute to the military.

like in ancient rome, where the soldier class was showered with land, money and food in aid of conquest and in return for service and loyalty.

if not, it's a life of poverty unless you had access to other classes.

Actually, watching the American military, you see the DEBT of the nation... not the wealth

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:10 PM by Asktheanimals

What he says is that they can use the F35 to fly off the big amphibious ships effectively allowing them to use those to carry aircraft as well as the big flat tops. Makes a lot of sense to spread your assets around a bit. The day of big flattops may have come and gone already.
You say that Russia has no conventional capability against the US? We might have the newest and most technologically advanced weapons systems but they are hard to maintain under wartime conditions and come in very limited supply. The Germans had the best weapons in WW2 but sheer numbers of T34's and Shermans overran their positions. We are likely to lose the same way in a conventional war against the Soviets as they have large numbers of older but still reliable and battle-tested weapons systems.

edit on 7-1-2013 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:14 PM by MajorMayhem

We'll see.
Fiscal Cliff part II due back in two months
$500 billion in defense cuts is already on the boards.

so wanting a new toy and having the money to buy it??????
we'll see wont we?

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:19 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by Asktheanimals

The problem right now is the shape of the Russian military. It's improving, but it's in horrible shape still. The Su-34 fleet is a joke (all 16 of them, 2 of which can't even fly), and they're new equipment. They're spending a lot of improve their military, including buying at least two Mistral class helicopter carriers from the French, but they still have a ways to go to be in shape to fight a major war, unless someone invades them.

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:22 PM by OptimusSubprime

Amphibs already have Harriers, so the capability is already there and used often.

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:24 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

But the Harrier can't carry nearly the payload, or have the range of the F-35, without tanker support. The F-35 is head and shoulders above the Harrier, and it will give a real full deck capability to a Wasp, or an America.

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 01:55 PM by schuyler

The vid is rather overstated. We don't have 22 carriers. We have 10 operational CVNs and nine operational LHD/A's. Also, to compare a 40,000 ton LHD with a 100,000 ton CVN and call them "equal" is an overstatement. We won't be back up to "22" until 2018, if then.

A current LHD carries a whopping 6 Harrier jets, which these F-35B's will replace. it also carries about 21 helicopters of various types, from Ospreys to Sea Kings. Now maybe they can cram a few more F35's on these small deck ships, and that's great, but a CVN carries 90 aircraft, including several squadrons of F-18's. In other words it would take several LHD's to equal the firepower and capabilities of a single CVN.

As far as Detroit is concerned, you can blame that on a series of anti-business, and anti-white all Democrat city administrations that were and are completely corrupt and interested in feathering their own nests. Starting with Coleman Young in 1974, continuing through the corrupt felon, Kwame Kilpatrick. When yiou hate half your population, and they are the ones who are productive, they just might leave. Maybe Bing can turn it around. We can only hope. But the only reason Detroit is in its financial position is because of incompetence.

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 02:31 PM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by schuyler

True, but unless they are in a all out war situation like Iraq, they don't need all those planes for small missions, 6 F-35's will work fine for specific target missions. For example 1 target to clear the way for a Seal team, or a special forces strike team. Different applications.

But your point puts a more realistic tone on the comments made by the secretary of the Navy.

edit on 7-1-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-1-2013 @ 04:42 PM by randomname

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

your debt, their wealth.

everything they have is already paid for.

reply posted on 8-1-2013 @ 04:34 PM by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This video I was watching was average until I heard that statement, it involves the deployment of the F-35.

The undersecretary of the Navy makes the comment.

YouTube Link

22 Aircraft carriers, wow !

I could be wrong but from what I gatherthe video says that the F-35B is smaller than the F-18 so the 11 Carriers can carrier doulble F-35s than F-18s.

reply posted on 8-1-2013 @ 04:53 PM by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by randomname

I am not Pro-American because of 9/11(another forum & discussion) but I really laugh at people who say their military is in decline or being challenged. Their military is totally designed for offense and true power projection.
Whereas other military's like Russia, China and India are designed for protection of the homeland. Sure they can project power with nukes, but that is MAD. Conventionally they have just about nothing.

edit on 7-1-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

Russia can take on and OUT the U.S. in a conventional war, the U.S. is just a bully that fights smaller weak nations, then stands on top of the hill screaming how strong it is.

Read these links it's been prooven 4+ years ago: "The S-400 system is intended to engage current and future air threats such as tactical and strategic aircraft, Tomahawk cruise missiles and other type missiles, including precision-guided ones, as well as AWACS aircraft, at ranges of up to 400 km. It can also detect stealth aircraft and other targets at all altitudes of their combat employment and at maximum ranges" warfare.ru...

"The Antey-2500 is designed to combat aircraft and tactical missiles, including ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2,500 kilometers. The Antey-2500 mobile complex, developed on the basis of the well-known S-300V [SA-12] air defense complex, is a new-generation system, capable of autonomous combat action. It can simultaneously engage 24 aerodynamic targets, including stealth targets, or 16 ballistic targets with a RCS of up to 0.02 meters, flying at speeds of up to 4,500 m/s. Improved characteristics of the radar information facilities and optimization of radar signal processing technics make it possible to combat high-speed ballistic targets with a small radar cross section. Antey-2500 can effectively protect an area of up to 2,500 sq. km and engage targets at altitudes of 25 to 40,000 m."
www.globalsecurity.org...

"In 1999 trials began at the test range of a new surface-to-air missile, the S-400 Triumf. This fourth generation system used S-300 missiles, but possessed capabilities against low RCS stealth aircraft, small cruise missiles, and future low-RCS re-entry vehicles. The electronics were on a completely new technical basis and used new solutions to the detection, tracking, and guidance problems. The system actually represented a bigger step from third generation systems (S-300PMU, S-300PMU-1, S-300PMU-2) than third generation systems represented to first generation systems."
www.astronautix.com...

"Russia has developed a new anti-aircraft defense system capable of hitting targets up to 250 miles away and engaging stealth aircraft, according to a report.

The journal Military Parade, a respected source on the Russian military, provided details of the new S-400 system of missiles and radar, saying it could hit advanced warplanes and cruise missiles. It can also engage and shoot down stealth aircraft, built to avoid normal radar detection, the report said.

The system, named Triumph, is also capable of hitting radar reconnaissance airplanes at extended range, including the AWACS airborne command system used by the United States and NATO, the journal said"
www.gbad.org...

"The S-300PMU2 Favorit variant is a new missile with larger warhead and better guidance with a range of 200 km, versus the 150 km of previous versions. Unveiled at the MAKS'97 exhibition in August 1997, it represents a thorough modification of the S-300PMU1. The first tests were performed on 10 August 1995 at the Kapustin Yar firing range. One new element is the entirely new 96L6E autonomous mobile radar, which works in conjunction with the 83M6E2 control post and S-300MPU2 launchers. The new 48N6E2 missile, developed by MKB Fakel, weighs 1,800 kg, and is 7.5 m long and 0.5 m in diameter. After a cold start in the upright position with help of a catapult, the 48N6E2 accelerates up to 1,900 m/s in 12 sec time, and then approaches the target from above. The 48N6E2 differs from the older 48N6E in having a new warhead specially designed for destroying ballistic missiles, with a warhead weight of 145 kg versus 70-100 kg."
www.fas.org...

reply posted on 8-1-2013 @ 06:19 PM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by ATSWATCHER

Those are some interesting points, and I agree Russia has some formidable weaponry. But it is designed to protect not to project at it's core. And it's serves it's country very well in that respect, no doubt. Other than submarines and some bombers, it has nothing logistically to attack with boots on the ground across the ocean.
Very few countries do, and the ones that do are in NATO they get help from there allies, they pool there resources.

reply posted on 8-1-2013 @ 07:07 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by ATSWATCHER

With regards to the carriers, he was talking about the L class carriers, along with the CVN class carriers. The L class will be able to project more power, with a similar number of aircraft that they carry now.

With regards to the Russian anti-air systems, just like American systems, they can talk all they want, but until there is an actual shooting war, you don't know if it works as advertised. The S-300 and S-400 have never been tested against any full up, combat system engaged stealth aircraft. They may have been tested against the remains of the F-117 from Serbia, but that is as different from today's stealth, as a 1966 Mustang is from a 2014 Corvette.

reply posted on 8-1-2013 @ 07:34 PM by MastaShake

The russians cant possibly be showing all their cards right now. they prob have some secret weapon stashed away incase something really bad happens. the only problem is that the U.S likely has 10x as many secret weapons with all the money thats thrown at "black" projects.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 02:11 AM by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
What he says is that they can use the F35 to fly off the big amphibious ships effectively allowing them to use those to carry aircraft as well as the big flat tops. Makes a lot of sense to spread your assets around a bit. The day of big flattops may have come and gone already.
You say that Russia has no conventional capability against the US? We might have the newest and most technologically advanced weapons systems but they are hard to maintain under wartime conditions and come in very limited supply. The Germans had the best weapons in WW2 but sheer numbers of T34's and Shermans overran their positions. We are likely to lose the same way in a conventional war against the Soviets as they have large numbers of older but still reliable and battle-tested weapons systems.
edit on 7-1-2013 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

Enlighten me on the large numbers of Naval ships the Russians have. I must have missed that. Feel free to include the rotting hulks rusting away.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^