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.

 

Aircraft Carriers have been obsolete for a long time

page: 24
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
How many times has a US carrier group gone to the aid of a country after a hurricane, earthquake or other human disaster?




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Imagine a stealth sub that could deploy about 20 stealth attack UAVs, surfacing just long enough for them to launch, then submerge, then surface to allow them to land after a sortie.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


while he is apparently either a troll or just ignorant of most things naval it has been a good source of stars for a lot of members(not him of course) but from the shear fact that i have learned a few things i didnt know before his thread i can say its not a total loss and hey i think we all needed a chuckle with all the darkness going on in the world these days

and hey how many trolls get to 24 pages this has been comedy gold!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



Alright I'm willing to take some good professional experience if it is true that some of you served.

I thought a few books might have given me a bit too much of an ego boost.


No worries. There is some good information in this thread, and the discussion is probably way more valuable than any books you'll read on the subject.
You gained the direct feedback of those who have worked, studied, and or served in these forces, and that is far more informative.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

1. We are talking of distance of 2000 km. Any extra speed from the aircraft that the missiles gain are insignificant.
2. Even with all aircraft airborne the group gets hit overwhelmingly with help of satellite guidance.
3. Rotations is the answer as I said.

No problem. Fleets can rotate. While one is in dock the other is active.


See, you don't understand weapons. It has nothing to do with an aircraft "adding speed" to the missles. It has to do with increasing RANGE. If we can keep our ship far away from yours and stay out of your range, but still deliver ordnance on you, you will lose, no matter how many magical satellites you have.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


At least some US subs either have or are getting the ability to launch small UAVs through their VLS tubes.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


i assume u ment a jet engine sucks in air to provide combustion for the engine to create thrust as im pretty sure jet engines and water do not mix


I was talking about a jet turbine installed on ships. They suck in water and displace it to create thrust.

Airplanes use the same principle but instead of sucking in water, they suck in air and displace it.

Basically its a tubed-in propeller design which creates the vortex.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Jepic
 


shows you how limited the enemies of america are in sattelite forces and numbers of such?


It does. But have you ever thought for what the monstruous gap in military expenditure serves in modern times?


If you take a minute to think about it, there is no way that such a huge gap has been created just to attack 3rd world countries. There has to be something more to it. Something that they have in store perhaps that they don't want to let us in on? Something that would justify that expenditures over the decades.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


www.esa.int... you mean europes gps? and how many nations of europe that have access to said sattelites are americas enemies right now?


Once this is achieved, the Galileo navigation signals will provide good coverage even at latitudes up to 75 degrees north, which corresponds to Norway's North Cape - the most northerly tip of Europe - and beyond. The large number of satellites together with the carefully-optimised constellation design, plus the availability of the three active spare satellites, will ensure that the loss of one satellite has no discernible effect on the user. Two Galileo Control Centres (GCCs) have been implemented on European ground to provide for the control of the satellites and to perform the navigation mission management. The data provided by a global network of Galileo Sensor Stations (GSSs) will be sent to the Galileo Control Centres through a redundant communications network. The GCCs will use the data from the Sensor Stations to compute the integrity information and to synchronise the time signal of all satellites with the ground station clocks. The exchange of the data between the Control Centres and the satellites will be performed through up-link stations.
key part of that is once this is achieved meaning it has yet to be in effective service it seems they only have 4 of the 40ish they wanted



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yeah, I came across that in my research...more search and destroy type though, vs. aircraft. I just think that kind of surprise air attack has a pretty good mission profile, and with smaller stealth UAVs and without the requirements of size due to a pilot, this is actually much more realistic now.....



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by howmuch4another


With the military budget of 700 billion you could get as many missiles as you want AND THEN SOME!! And when I say and then some, it means a big AND THEN SOME!


but we choose to have 11 carrier strike groups with that 700 Billion and not focus on solely on missiles. I wonder why??? I little critical thinking will show your above statement to invalidate your entire argument. people a lot smarter than you and I have played out scenario after scenario for decades and have come to the conclusion that carriers = military superiority in theatre.


I doubt it. Most officers are dumb as a rock. Have no clue what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. Prove? The hate shown worldwide toward the USA is your prove. Absolute disgrace all they have done since WW2.


Shrug. Unless you've wornthe uniform, you don't know what youa re talking about when it concerns "most officers." How many have you worked with?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


The hope is an Aegis class boat accompanying the carrier will protect it. Guided missiles float in, the Aegis tracts them from 500 miles out and blows them up. aircraft are launched against the carrier. the Aegis tracks them from hundreds of miles out, and then blows them away. perhaps not true, but not utterly implausible either.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


actualy in standard naval vernacular submarines are called boats where as surface ships are usualy refered to as ships



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Now just imagine what UAV they could put into an SSGN tube.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



Something that would justify that expenditures over the decades.


Being the self-appointed world police force....

Actually, there is a very good reason for it...Geographical isolation. The reason we have foreign bases and carrier groups is that we are THOUSANDS of miles away from areas where we have interests to protect. The logistical challenges facing an enemy trying to invade US soil are staggering. But, it hinders us as well in the same way. So, we spent money on being able to project that power where it is needed, to overcome this double-edged sword.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


not even the usa has that many satellites and i am unsure on this but i dont think there are even that many in teh world at least active......



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Gazrok
 


while he is apparently either a troll or just ignorant of most things naval it has been a good source of stars for a lot of members(not him of course) but from the shear fact that i have learned a few things i didnt know before his thread i can say its not a total loss and hey i think we all needed a chuckle with all the darkness going on in the world these days

and hey how many trolls get to 24 pages this has been comedy gold!


A troll? Says you who registered when? Is a troll someone who disagrees with you or isn't the troll really the accuser rather than the accused.

I would say you behave quite like a troll when you accuse someone with a different opinion in frankly slightly rude way.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


the space based systems is where the money goes, only thing that makes sense



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by howmuch4another


With the military budget of 700 billion you could get as many missiles as you want AND THEN SOME!! And when I say and then some, it means a big AND THEN SOME!


but we choose to have 11 carrier strike groups with that 700 Billion and not focus on solely on missiles. I wonder why??? I little critical thinking will show your above statement to invalidate your entire argument. people a lot smarter than you and I have played out scenario after scenario for decades and have come to the conclusion that carriers = military superiority in theatre.


I doubt it. Most officers are dumb as a rock. Have no clue what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. Prove? The hate shown worldwide toward the USA is your prove. Absolute disgrace all they have done since WW2.


Shrug. Unless you've wornthe uniform, you don't know what youa re talking about when it concerns "most officers." How many have you worked with?


I should have specified. Top officers in the US armed forces I meant. The ones in the lower ranks just follow orders.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Holy crap, those are bigger than I thought they were...yeah, some interesting possibilities there. 2.2 meters in diameter?

Check this out.. (sub launched UAV)

www.liveleak.com...
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join