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: 25
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorrosenbaum
 


There are plenty of earth based less than white world projects that need money. I know of about seven off the top of my head.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 




Do you see the water jetstream at the back of the boat?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
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.
Sure. That might be the reason. But it's also about controlling resources and economies to fit interests.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 


well yeah in theory you could take out a carrier with a massive barrage of missiles but as that has yet to be acheived(but was russian doctorine for years) it then brings up the point well congratulations you killed a carrier.....now what is going o happen to your country? unless your russia its not a good fate. aircraft carriers are basicly mobile cities and if you destroy and american city you will have hell to pay when we occupy your country and then charge u war reparations and make u pay us for the carrier u sunk.....or do what we did to the japanese bomb you fire bomb you then nuke the frak out of you,remove your leaders and re-write your constitution so you cant have an offensive military....so by all means enjoy the bragging rights of taking out the fist super carrier while your nation burns around you and your people are killed as stated earlier the term Pyrrhic victory comes to mind as by killing that many Americans you pretty much give us cart Blanche to respond how ever we like...hell 911 killed what 2,900 people and injured 6000 and we bombed the crap out of iraq and afganistan over the matter what you think happens when you take out a carrier?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Exactly. Wanna bet they're working on a small scale foldable Avenger?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Hopechest
Seeing a fleet of ships that size is extremely intimidating when they are parked off your coast.

It is a very effective propaganda tool because they represent the military power that the US holds over any given country.

What can do that better?


Nothing can intimidate a well prepared and equipped general. A smart general will see a big chunk of steel that he can blow up nicely with destroyers.

Keyword, destroyer. A destroyer is much more intimidating.


Generals do not start wars however. Politicians do.

Politicians realize that they cannot compete with the US might when they see our carrier fleets surrounding their country. It motivates them to the peace table...that is more powerful than any explosive.


Correction: Politicians realize that they cannot compete with the US might when they see our carrier fleets surrounding their country. It motivates them to give up their natural resources quicker.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



Sure. That might be the reason. But it's also about controlling resources and economies to fit interests.


What nation DOESN'T try to do that?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Jepic
 


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


I was referring to the dictionary definition.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
dbl post sorry.

server gateway timeout
edit on 24/4/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

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)


Why not launch UFOs directly from area 51? It would be A MUCH FASTER sortie I guarantee you.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



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.


The OP has reconsidered the argument after weighing the input from other members who have more firsthand knowledge of the subject. Hardly the actions of a troll. He should be applauded for showing wisdom in accepting that his preconceived notions may have been incorrect...not beaten down for it.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Why not launch UFOs directly from area 51? It would be A MUCH FASTER sortie I guarantee you.


Check my link above, seems that my idea is already being done! (yeah, I was surprised too).



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


so now its drone nuclear powered destroyers....... cant you at least stick with one hypothesis and stick to things that exist in this day and age no one has nuclear powered destroyers at this time let alone autonomous ones



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
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)


Yes indeed. First hand knowledge is best.

I personally learned all my combat "knowledge" from playing Lock-On, Rogue Spear, Warzone, etc.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


yeah nuclear cruisers have been done and if my memory serves me the russians also have atomic ice breakers as well correct? you might know this what was the smallest vessel ever equipped with a nuclear power plant?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Exactly. Wanna bet they're working on a small scale foldable Avenger?


Yeah, I could see that, the real trick is getting the wings and tails to unfold after launch and then stay stealthy. Maybe if they were stored lengthwise, and could then extend.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


are not diesel submarines of the German design supposed to be quieter or more stealthy then their American counter parts? sub tech has gone along way since the ww2 days so i think that as stated by numerous members that the greatest naval threat to a carrier bg is a submarine.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


en.wikipedia.org... this is a pretty good read on the matter and yeah i think if we could find a way of making an CV submersible it would truly be a game changer...think the japanese tried something along these lines after we sunk most of their flat tops.

en.wikipedia.org... list of fictional ones



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I feel that people think that simply because a weapon has a counter or a vulnerability it makes it worthless.

every piece of equipment has weaknesses and short comings. there is no ultimate weapon without a weakness.

I keep reading about hypothetical situations on how a carrier can be sunk... well hypothetically speaking any of their proposed attacks on a carrier can be thwarted. so all of the points are moot.
edit on 24-4-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


eh to be fair (im not sure on this so dont take it as gospel) but i think the russians were working on some kind of mine/torpedo that sits on the bottom of the sea before it gets activated and then shoots up into the keel of the ship and is designed to take out the backbone of the ship but i am unsure if this is a real device or just tom clancy talk if that makes sense,but it does seem like if not real that kind of tech could have a drastic effect on a naval ship and researching into it could prove to be usefull in future naval combat



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join