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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


So you think one destroyer can take down all those aircraft while taking hits from the rest of the fleet? It's not like ducks flying in a row. Coming from all angles, launching on them also. It's a losing fight that is only used in a last stand to buy you time to flee.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


If it was so easy it would have been tried but nobody is foolish enough to even go up against it.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Troops are obsolete. But for the sake of discussion with some modifications to you can produce a tank bay and fit a tank platoon for amphibious operations with the main objective of securing beachheads after the destroyers have taken care of AA guns and enemy aircraft that could attack from the mainland.


Umm....Yeah this is what's done with a Marine Expeditionary Unit along side either an Expeditionary Strike Group or a Carrier Strike Group....I've done this...I was a Tank Mechanic in the United States Marine Corps and went on MEU....Anyways...Troops are obselete....what about the tankers....(?)Also...what about the infantry...I KNOW there are a lot of grunts out there that would bust your balls for saying they're obselete....In no way whatsoever are troops obselete.......Rely on technology and you're going to have to hire a lot of mechanics....Rely on brave men and you have yourself a force to be reckoned with...

A2D


edit on 23-4-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rowdyrich
 


The US has not picked on anyone with the capability as yet. They are vulnerable, always have been and everyone knows it! Some countries are in fact ready for it. The Chinese for one! That Chinese sub was so close there simply would not have been time for countermeasures. Some guy on the Carrier would have yelled "Incoming Torpedoes!" That statement would have been followed by the Torpedoes detonating.

P



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


So you think one destroyer can take down all those aircraft while taking hits from the rest of the fleet? It's not like ducks flying in a row. Coming from all angles, launching on them also. It's a losing fight that is only used in a last stand to buy you time to flee.


With a sophisticated command and control network I'd say it can. Why not... Destroyers can shoot in all directions.

Also the key here is that they work as a network. All the destroyers are there to protect the others. So in the event that one of them needs help with an incoming projectile one of the others can send a missile to help out.

It's not 1 against 70. They are all in for each other.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


only during the Cuban missile crisis has a carrier sailed alone...... they travel like most aquatic things in packs or battle groups that have destroyers cruisers subs and what ever else they see fit to bring with them so how do the destroyers get past the surface contacts let alone the subs (well technically destroyers were originally designed to sink subs) a carrier battle group has yet to be wiped out in combat(least American ones) to take out such a group you would have to take out the carrier immediately assuming its cap had not removed you from the sea by then ,its also a huge if but IF one gets taken out carriers are also issued their own zip codes so IF you managed to take out one im pretty sure who ever sunk the carriers home country will have numerous inbound missile's heading either to their ports at least if not their capitols ...the words Pyrrhic victory comes to mine you sink a carrier we destroy one of your cities...i mean hell 9/11 was just three buildings and we occupied at least two countries over the matter what do u think the response to sinking a carrier will have? and before you counter with well china can just use anti ship missiles.....well the main and most effective ones that china has are on ballistic missiles....the kind of thing that launching out of the blue tends to have much more sever consequences then standard missiles so lets say they launch one at a carrier...to the captain of the vessel it will look like china has launched a nuke and the president will be informed ...he/she has nukes on board the carrier and what do you think the initial response will be to a possible ICBM launch.....missile doors on silos and tubes on submarines will open now if they use super cavitation torpedoes like the Russian design not as much tension over a perceived possible nuclear launch



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


If it was so easy it would have been tried but nobody is foolish enough to even go up against it.


Well who wants war right...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


If it was so easy it would have been tried but nobody is foolish enough to even go up against it.


Well who wants war right...


You mean...who wants war with 11 CSGs? I sure as **** wouldn't...
a2d



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I don't think that I have seen a 4 page thread with only 1 F&S to the OP before. Hmm



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Jepic
 


Troops are obsolete. But for the sake of discussion with some modifications to you can produce a tank bay and fit a tank platoon for amphibious operations with the main objective of securing beachheads after the destroyers have taken care of AA guns and enemy aircraft that could attack from the mainland.


Umm....Yeah this is what's done with a Marine Expeditionary Unit along side either an Expeditionary Strike Group or a Carrier Strike Group....I've done this...I was a Tank Mechanic in the United States Marine Corps and went on MEU....Anyways...Troops are obselete....what about the tankers....(?)Also...what about the infantry...I KNOW there are a lot of grunts out there that would bust your balls for saying they're obselete....In no way whatsoever are troops obselete.......Rely on technology and you're going to have to hire a lot of mechanics....Rely on brave men and you have yourself a force to be reckoned with...

A2D


edit on 23-4-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)


Well I guess they can bust at it all they want. Make no mistake I have the ultimate respect for soldiers that are willing to put their lifes on the line for a cause they believe in. But I still think troops in modern warfare outside of special operations and securing areas already destroyed are obsolete. There is no reason why you should risk lifes when you can neutralize a threat with a missile strike.

But other than that there is nothing better for securing and holding an area deep in the mainland than troops in tanks. Which brings me to another point in my philosophy. Troops nowadays should never be doing fighting in the open. They should be integrated in tank platoons. Infantry is a thing of the past. Only good if you want mass casualties.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Jepic
 


only during the Cuban missile crisis has a carrier sailed alone...... they travel like most aquatic things in packs or battle groups that have destroyers cruisers subs and what ever else they see fit to bring with them so how do the destroyers get past the surface contacts let alone the subs (well technically destroyers were originally designed to sink subs) a carrier battle group has yet to be wiped out in combat(least American ones) to take out such a group you would have to take out the carrier immediately assuming its cap had not removed you from the sea by then ,its also a huge if but IF one gets taken out carriers are also issued their own zip codes so IF you managed to take out one im pretty sure who ever sunk the carriers home country will have numerous inbound missile's heading either to their ports at least if not their capitols ...the words Pyrrhic victory comes to mine you sink a carrier we destroy one of your cities...i mean hell 9/11 was just three buildings and we occupied at least two countries over the matter what do u think the response to sinking a carrier will have? and before you counter with well china can just use anti ship missiles.....well the main and most effective ones that china has are on ballistic missiles....the kind of thing that launching out of the blue tends to have much more sever consequences then standard missiles so lets say they launch one at a carrier...to the captain of the vessel it will look like china has launched a nuke and the president will be informed ...he/she has nukes on board the carrier and what do you think the initial response will be to a possible ICBM launch.....missile doors on silos and tubes on submarines will open now if they use super cavitation torpedoes like the Russian design not as much tension over a perceived possible nuclear launch


There should be enough destroyer fleets and mainland silos ready to intercept any number of incoming missiles going towards the country.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Your right, like I have said before, everything is vulnerable. That sub came within about five miles or so and undetected, but I am sure that wouldn't happen again with new technology in tracking them. But you never know.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


If it was so easy it would have been tried but nobody is foolish enough to even go up against it.


Well who wants war right...


You mean...who wants war with 11 CSGs? I sure as **** wouldn't...
a2d


If it was for a righteous cause and I had 11 destroyer fleets, I would.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Nobody wants war or at least shouldn't, but that is the main purpose for these carriers, it's to bring the war to you and not have it in the homeland. Troops will never go away and they will only give them better protection to survive with.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by rowdyrich
 


The US has not picked on anyone with the capability as yet. They are vulnerable, always have been and everyone knows it! Some countries are in fact ready for it. The Chinese for one! That Chinese sub was so close there simply would not have been time for countermeasures. Some guy on the Carrier would have yelled "Incoming Torpedoes!" That statement would have been followed by the Torpedoes detonating.

P


The US doesn't have to pick on anybody with the capability, they are king of the mountain...it is up to everybody else to try and take the crown.

The Chinese are ready for nothing, they still cant even take on the Japs. Just because we let them pop up in our war games doesn't mean anything...stupid Chinese cant even build a US carrier and they have had the stolen plans to do so for a couple decades now...they failed every time & gave up, went with an inferior design for their "carrier"...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


Nobody wants war or at least shouldn't, but that is the main purpose for these carriers, it's to bring the war to you and not have it in the homeland. Troops will never go away and they will only give them better protection to survive with.


True. Although without a clear and detailed military consitution that power can be misused. We have seen that a few times, have we...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



Well I guess they can bust at it all they want. Make no mistake I have the ultimate respect for soldiers that are willing to put their lifes on the line for a cause they believe in. But I still think troops in modern warfare outside of special operations and securing areas already destroyed are obsolete. There is no reason why you should risk lifes when you can neutralize a threat with a missile strike.

But other than that there is nothing better for securing and holding an area deep in the mainland than troops in tanks. Which brings me to another point in my philosophy. Troops nowadays should never be doing fighting in the open. They should be integrated in tank platoons. Infantry is a thing of the past. Only good if you want mass casualties.


You sir, have just blown my f'n mind.

Troops in modern warfare...okay let me break it down barney style here...

While missile and aircraft technology are advancing rather rapidly....the same can be said of anti-air capabilities...As far as dropping light infantry for MBT's(tanks) it can't be done. MBT's are actually SUPPORTING the infantry. If there's one thing the US military has learned from it's foreign endeavors, it's that light infantry is a must.

You see...the last few wars have been guerrilla warfare style....guerrilla warfare is most efficient when used by a country that is less technologically advanced than its foe...and in order to combat this warfare technique...you have to have.......you guessed it....INFANTRY! The tanks on the other hand...are that initial !BANG! that the infantry needs to push through the front lines....

This comes from experience....tried bombing Vietcong into submission.....did it work? Tried sending attack helo's without ground support.....did it work? Missiles and air strikes....Collateral damage anyone? Who secures that ground? Iraq...Afghanistan...Vietnam...Korea...."Infantry is obsolete" Said no one(sane)...EVER.

A2D



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Brainpower2theMax
 


If I'm right, it wasn't even war games yet, they were just transiting to them and to thier mistake, probably not paying that much attention.

Your right about them going with terrible design for thier carrier which won't pose much of a threat to anyone except themselves.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I have been a lurker on this site for many many years and I had to sign up for the 4th time, an account I hope to keep active lol...


First of all I cant tell if this guy is trolling or not. He has blunt answers that arnt very thought out and seem to repeat themselves.


But here is what I think would be a great fix to the "inferiority" of a carrier.

This is from a Japanese game called metal gear solid 2 it is shooter/stealth based on being a spy for the american an russian governments from the cold war all the way up to 2015 and has ALOT of blatant NWO references there is so much that I could make a very good thread from it. Now on the matter of this post.


Here is a weapon that is developed in metal gear solid 2. It is a different form of metal gear and it is called. Metal Gear Arsenal it is a ship that a outer shell that opens on command and has a huge deck that could easily house ships and a landing strip.

metalgear.wikia.com...

I think this would definitily be a interesting idea to protecting ships. Its totally fake in every way but intresting to say the least.
edit on 23-4-2013 by Exoh92 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2013 by Exoh92 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Exoh92
 


It's not that far out, the Japanese had a submarine that held about three planes with folded wings that they could launch from it's deck once it surfaced. But nothing that I know of that is big to house a lot aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join