Chinese Nimitz Class Carrier

[Fritzo]

Concrete proof of China's naval ambitions.

 

[IronWing]

I could float some suppositions, which might pave the way to an answer, but I have a sinking feeling that the posters in question missed the total lack of even macadam-based airplanes desperately trying to get airborne.

This thread has inspired me to design the Internet Chair for Men. It would be styled like one of those cool gaming chairs but any time the user's hand strayed from the mouse to the keyboard a retractable bolt in the seat would smack the user in the nutsack.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Nothing weird about it.

Well, other than the fact that it looks ridiculous anyway...

 

[IndyColtsFan]

aircraft carriers are dumb, big targets. how is it protected from someone dropping a bomb from high up in the air?

Are you serious?

 

[JulesMaximus]

The project started in 2005 but ran out of money in less than a year. The unfinished hull stayed empty until 2008, when a restaurant and bar opened on the upper deck. Things were looking bright for a short period, but the businesses closed down eventually due to high costs and safety concerns about sitting on top of an unfinished concrete structure.

LOL!

 

[Perknose]

This thread has inspired me to design the Internet Chair for Men. It would be styled like one of those cool gaming chairs but any time the user's hand strayed from the mouse to the keyboard a retractable bolt in the seat would smack the user in the nutsack.

For the Numbnutz class of internet forum poster. They look like normally intelligent adults, but their brains are made of concrete!

 

[TheSiege]

Carriers operate primarily in carrier strike groups or CSG, for example the US deployed CSG-5 to the Philippines to help with the relief effort, CSG-5 consists of 1 Nimitz-class supercarrier, 2 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, 7 Arleigh-Burke class destroyers, 4 Strike Fighter Squadrons, 1 Electronic Attack Squadron, 1 Airborne Early Warning Squadron, 1 Fleet Logistics Support Squadron, 2 Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadrons, and 1 Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron.

Something tells me that the carrier is fairly safe...

Let me preface this with saying that I am aware I know nothing and these are honest questions.

How often are these CSG utilized for military operations? That seems like a shit load of equipment/personnel. Obviously it helped out in the Philippines, but thats not what it was intended for. Yes I am sure it can be beneficial in a war, but are they of any use in the wars we fight now? Will they be outdated before they are ever fully utilized. I just get the impression that America is in a race with itself for the biggest army.

 

[Phoenix86]

Let me preface this with saying that I am aware I know nothing and these are honest questions.

How often are these CSG utilized for military operations? That seems like a shit load of equipment/personnel. Obviously it helped out in the Philippines, but thats not what it was intended for. Yes I am sure it can be beneficial in a war, but are they of any use in the wars we fight now? Will they be outdated before they are ever fully utilized. I just get the impression that America is in a race with itself for the biggest army.

Moving a carrier group into a region makes a significant political statement. You can argue the cost/benefit, but to say they aren't used is just silly.

In early September we moved the Nimitz into the Red Sea. 3 weeks later Syria agreed to give up it's chemical weapons. Yes, there were other factors but you can bet this was a big one.

 

[DrPizza]

Yes, I know in the OP it's a statue.

Back to carrier groups. If you considered one of our carrier groups as its own country, it's the second or 3rd most powerful country in the world.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Let me preface this with saying that I am aware I know nothing and these are honest questions.

How often are these CSG utilized for military operations? That seems like a shit load of equipment/personnel. Obviously it helped out in the Philippines, but thats not what it was intended for. Yes I am sure it can be beneficial in a war, but are they of any use in the wars we fight now? Will they be outdated before they are ever fully utilized. I just get the impression that America is in a race with itself for the biggest army.

Afghanistan originally was with carrier support; there were no land bases near by.

The same with Bosnia.

The CSG allows a force projection in a quick timeframe.

Having a CSG in the Persian Gulf area helps keep a damper on Iran intentions with the Gulf and her neighbors to the west.

 

[TheSiege]

Moving a carrier group into a region makes a significant political statement. You can argue the cost/benefit, but to say they aren't used is just silly.

In early September we moved the Nimitz into the Red Sea. 3 weeks later Syria agreed to give up it's chemical weapons. Yes, there were other factors but you can bet this was a big one.

I didn't say they weren't used, I just questioned if they were utilized. Like wiping your ass with a $100 bill, yeah its used, but its not being utilized for its purpose. With that being said Is there really a need for 10 of them then? At a cost of $7 million a day per AC.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Moving a carrier group into a region makes a significant political statement. You can argue the cost/benefit, but to say they aren't used is just silly.

In early September we moved the Nimitz into the Red Sea. 3 weeks later Syria agreed to give up it's chemical weapons. Yes, there were other factors but you can bet this was a big one.

Bolded for importance.

One carrier strike group holds enough arms that it could completely wipe a country off the face of the earth within an hour WITHOUT nuclear bombs.

And then you can factor in subs carrying warheads....

 

[dud]

Whats scary about this is not how ridiculous it is to build a concrete aircraft carrier within an artificial lake ... but that the Chinese have the money (probably our money from buying their crap) to do something this ostentatious. It is quite remarkable ...

 

[noobsrevenge]

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group.htm

..."an aircraft carrier is extremely valuable. And without protection, an aircraft carrier is extremely vulnerable. That's why aircraft carriers never leave home alone. They are always escorted by an extensive flotilla of other ships. The aircraft carrier plus the flotilla is known as the carrier battle group. A modern carrier battle group is nearly invincible..."

 

[Dari]

Afghanistan originally was with carrier support; there were no land bases near by.

The same with Bosnia.

The CSG allows a force projection in a quick timeframe.

Having a CSG in the Persian Gulf area helps keep a damper on Iran intentions with the Gulf and her neighbors to the west.

Italy is right there and we have a huge naval fleet in that country...

 

[Blackjack200]

One carrier strike group holds enough arms that it could completely wipe a country off the face of the earth within an hour WITHOUT nuclear bombs.

What a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement. We dropped 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, 70 times the weight of a Nimitz, and that country was quite clearly not wiped off the face of the earth.

 

[Phoenix86]

I didn't say they weren't used, I just questioned if they were utilized. Like wiping your ass with a $100 bill, yeah its used, but its not being utilized for its purpose. With that being said Is there really a need for 10 of them then? At a cost of $7 million a day per AC.

It's like you completely missed my point. I gave you the most recent use, which if you look at a dictionary is a key point in defining utilization. That was waaaaay back in September, about 3 whole months ago.

They are used in just about every conflict in recent history.

Back to my point, they are used to prevent conflicts, as demonstrated in Syria. This is their most effective use, as no (or very, very few) lives are lost.

 

[Markbnj]

What a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement. We dropped 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, 70 times the weight of a Nimitz, and that country was quite clearly not wiped off the face of the earth.

Johnson never wanted to hit the important stuff, but anyway, that statement definitely is hyperbole. Countries don't get subdued by air power alone. But what a single U.S. carrier strike group _can_ do is completely dominate the air over an entire theater of combat. That renders the enemy's ground and naval forces, such as they are, ineffective.

Interesting, although not necessarily relevant to the subject of landlocked concrete aircraft carriers:

http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a...e-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states

 

[Phoenix86]

What a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement. We dropped 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, 70 times the weight of a Nimitz, and that country was quite clearly not wiped off the face of the earth.

Nukes in the subs would disagree, but realistically that's not an option. At any rate 1 group could deal significant early blows to a county's defenses giving the rest of the military time to mobilize and deploy.

 

[irishScott]

I can tell no one (oops, except for darkswordsman) even clicked on the link or had a moment of thought with "concrete" in the title....

I read it. I just thought Perk was being serious regardless.

 

[stlc8tr]

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-01/fortress-sea-carrier-invulnerability-myth

Don't bother posting anything with real information.

It won't change anyone's opinion. Everybody clinches to their beliefs with a death grip.

 

[SolMiester]

I dont expect you to understand, but theres at least 10 ships surrounding it, an unknown amount of subs, and several planes following and leading at any given time.

Any bomber going towards it is getting picked off on 8+ radars and is royally getting fucked up.

Bomber...Any plane up high could guide a missile down onto it.....all the surround ships could do swat!

 

[Newbian]

Bomber...Any plane up high could guide a missile down onto it.....all the surround ships could do swat!

Except any plane would had been long detected before it got above the fleet to be able to drop a bomb down on it.

 

[Perknose]

I read it. I just thought Perk was being serious regardless.

Are you seriously admitting to being that clueless and dense?

See if, in hindsight, you can spot the clue in the only sentence in my entire OP. Go on, give it your best shot.

Concrete proof of China's naval ambitions.

 

[noobsrevenge]

Concrete proof of China's naval ambitions.

I could float some suppositions, which might pave the way to an answer, but I have a sinking feeling that the posters in question missed the total lack of even macadam-based airplanes desperately trying to get airborne.

Can't tell if serious or...