Is it true that close to 95% of the worlds population is within striking distance of a CBG at any given moment? Also, as for the whole China vs. CBG, the CBG might be overwhelmed by sheer numbers IF China threw everything they had at it. Of course, if this ever were to happen, it would require time, time enough for 2 or 3 more CBG to move into the area. God help any nation that draws that attention (Afganastan comes to mind)
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 12,006
- 312
- 126
<<WRONG, Reagan is CVN76, CVN77 is last. It won't be launched til 2008. As I stated earlier, it will be transitional and incorporate some of the technology planned for CVNX1 and CVNX2.>>
hammer09 was right.
<<Tasked with a multi-mission attack/ASW role, the first of class, USS Nimitz, was commissioned in 1975. The latest, USS Harry S. Truman, was commissioned in July 1998. Other hulls are: USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN 69), Oct 1977; USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Mar 1982; USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Oct 1986; USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Nov 1989; USS George Washington (CVN 73), Jul 1992; USS John C Stennis (CVN 74), Dec 1995; USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), Mar 2003.
The tenth and last Nimitz Class, CVN 77, will be built by Newport News and will enter service in 2008. This will be the first transition ship to a new class of carriers (CVNX) and will incorporate new technologies including a new multi-function radar system, volume search radar and open architecture information network, and a significantly reduced crew requirement.>>
hammer09 was right.
<<Tasked with a multi-mission attack/ASW role, the first of class, USS Nimitz, was commissioned in 1975. The latest, USS Harry S. Truman, was commissioned in July 1998. Other hulls are: USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN 69), Oct 1977; USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Mar 1982; USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Oct 1986; USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Nov 1989; USS George Washington (CVN 73), Jul 1992; USS John C Stennis (CVN 74), Dec 1995; USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), Mar 2003.
The tenth and last Nimitz Class, CVN 77, will be built by Newport News and will enter service in 2008. This will be the first transition ship to a new class of carriers (CVNX) and will incorporate new technologies including a new multi-function radar system, volume search radar and open architecture information network, and a significantly reduced crew requirement.>>
<< u sunk my scrabbleship!
haven't u heard, the latest aircraft carriers can fly! >>
but then wouldn't you need another carrier to carry it?
how vulnerable is a carrier? Suffice it to say, if you started to swim up to one brandishing a balpeen hammer, the crew would probably not panic.
Holy Stink
<< Flight Deck/Air Wing:
Number of Catapults: 4
Number of Aircraft Elevators: 4
Size of Air Wing: From 9 to 10 squadrons, with more than 80 tactical aircraft: F-14 Tomcats, F/A-18 Hornets, EA-6B Prowlers, S-3B Vikings, E-2C Hawkeyes, SH-60 Sea Hawks and C-2 Greyhound. >>
according to the website, the Truman carries 80 tactical aircraft.. Our entire Canadian Airforce has under 100 fighters.
<< Flight Deck/Air Wing:
Number of Catapults: 4
Number of Aircraft Elevators: 4
Size of Air Wing: From 9 to 10 squadrons, with more than 80 tactical aircraft: F-14 Tomcats, F/A-18 Hornets, EA-6B Prowlers, S-3B Vikings, E-2C Hawkeyes, SH-60 Sea Hawks and C-2 Greyhound. >>
according to the website, the Truman carries 80 tactical aircraft.. Our entire Canadian Airforce has under 100 fighters.
<< we've put more money into that one technology than most countries put into their entire military. >>
I like to think of it less as a technology than an art. We have learned the 'art' of making a plane invisible to radar. Technology is something you build and interface together; stealth is a whole new design philosophy. Take the F-117 for example...
<< according to the website, the Truman carries 80 tactical aircraft.. Our entire Canadian Airforce has under 100 fighters. >>
lol, even Taiwanese has 600+ fighters.
<< A few radical thoughts come to mind
Trained dolphin with explosives can keep up with a carrier on the move. Althought PETA will not allow it
I think its pretty naive for us to think that we are the only ones with stealth technology. If I where a 2nd or 3rd world country this is where i would invest my money since it would be fairly futile to fight a superpower ship for ship. Biological weapons is where future warfare is heading its cheap easier to deploy than conventional weapons. Once they are able to weaponize these bio agents no amount of defense or firepower can help us. >>
someones been playing too much redalert 2 =D, how about training a giant squid to rock the carriers back and forth
I think a "carrier submarine" would be way too heavy and would need a sealed landing strip (like cars, planes also must use caution while wet)
<< Is it true that close to 95% of the worlds population is within striking distance of a CBG at any given moment? >>
well the surface of the earth is something like 70% covered by water, right?
and the range of the planes is , i dunno 500 miles? 750 miles?
Last year, I read an interesting article in a news magazine (ie. Time, Newsweek) concerning a very senior and respected civillian military analyist in the Pentagon.
First off, the man was 60-70 years old and has been working for the Pentagon for decades. The article focused on his biography, expierence, but more importantly, his opnion on the future state of the american military strategy.
The controversy was surrounded by his professional opnion that aircraft carriers would be obsolete in the future. According the article, the analyist and his staff ran numerous futuristic battle simulations with countries such as China for the year 2010 and in every simulation, US aircraft carriers were destroyed.
His opnion, however, was not so easily accepted by US Navy Admirals. The article points out that the controversy is similar to a child not wanting to give up his favorite toy, with this case being admirals not wanting to give up their precious carriers.
First off, the man was 60-70 years old and has been working for the Pentagon for decades. The article focused on his biography, expierence, but more importantly, his opnion on the future state of the american military strategy.
The controversy was surrounded by his professional opnion that aircraft carriers would be obsolete in the future. According the article, the analyist and his staff ran numerous futuristic battle simulations with countries such as China for the year 2010 and in every simulation, US aircraft carriers were destroyed.
His opnion, however, was not so easily accepted by US Navy Admirals. The article points out that the controversy is similar to a child not wanting to give up his favorite toy, with this case being admirals not wanting to give up their precious carriers.
NEW YORK¡X The stand-off between China and the United States over an American reconnaissance plane detained after an emergency landing on Hainan Island last week is reminiscent of the Cold War confrontations of a bygone era.
The rhetoric is virtually the same, only the adversaries are different: the "sneaky Russians" have now been replaced by what American hard-liners call the "inscrutable Chinese".
Besides demanding the release of the 24 American crew members, the US is also seeking the return of sensitive surveillance equipment carried onboard the EP-3E Aries II aircraft which was on a routine aerial surveillance mission over the coasts of southern China.
But one comedian wondered last week why the Chinese would ever want to keep the spy plane for themselves: aren't all electronic equipment in the United States "made in China" anyway?
The right-wing Republicans are already threatening to penalise China even if the crisis is resolved: deny Chinese entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO), deprive them the privilege of hosting the 2008 summer Olympics and cut off trade ties.
Besides the negative political fallout, the current confrontation could have a devastating impact on the thriving two-way trade between the US and China estimated at over $160 billion.
In the field of consumer electronics, the "made in China" joke is more of a hard reality.
If you walk into any electronic store in New York, chances are that more than 80 to 90 of the products on sale are either made in China, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia or Thailand.
Perhaps the ultimate irony is that more and more Americans are now saluting their national flag which carries the label: "made in China" or "made in Taiwan".
For a long time now, American jobs have been exported overseas because of cheap labour in Third World countries. The Americans call them "sweatshops".
The result: A tidal wave of inexpensive consumer products which keep flooding the multi-billion dollar American consumer market every year.
A cut-off or even the downscaling of trade between China and the US could hurt both countries.
Last week the US put on hold a proposed $27 million contract for 480,000 black berets for the US army. Among the bidders, China had the inside track on the contract.
Currently, China is the world's third largest economy, ranking behind Japan and the US.
In terms of international reserves, China accumulated a hoard amounting to a hefty $162 billion last year, just behind Japan with $338 billion.
The US, on the other hand, was far behind with $55 billion in reserves, even though the American economy has remained more vibrant than that of the Japanese or the Chinese.
The disputed island of Taiwan, another potential flashpoint for China, had the world's third largest stockpile of international reserves amounting to $106 billion.
As of January, Japan's reserves amounted to a hefty $295 billion, ranking ahead of China ($160 billion), Taiwan ($110 billion), Hong Kong ($95 billion), South Korea ($77 billion) and Singapore ($76 billion).
By way of comparison, Sri Lanka's international reserves averaged about $1.5 billion last year. The wide gap indicates the magnitude of the world's giant-sized economies.
As one of world's five major nuclear powers with a veto-wielding permanent seat in the UN Security Council¡X along with the US, UK, France and Russia¡X China is an Asian superpower in its own right.
But in the world's arms bazaars ¡X where there is a thin line of distinction between friends and enemies¡X China has been on a shopping spree building a massive arsenal of weapons despite the fact that the US has refused to sell state-of-the-art armaments to Beijing.
The Chinese weapons have come not only from Russia but also from some of America's staunchest allies, including Israel, France and Britain.
The right-wing Republicans have argued that these weapons ¡Xairborne early warning systems, aircraft carriers, submarines and anti-missiles systems ¡X threaten US strategic interests in the region and possibly the US itself.
A country with over 1.3 billion people, China has the world's largest military with a total strength of more than 2.5 million.
Back in 1994 and 1995, the US Naval War College conducted two computer simulations of battles in Asia between China and the US in the year 2010.
"To everyone's surprise," the New York Times reported, "China defeated the US in both."
According to the Times, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) too conducted its own simulation of a battle set in the year 2005 ¡X and China won that too. Simulations, of course, don't prove anything. But what the US has to figure out is: Is the Chinese threat real ¡X military or otherwise?
<< If any of you Navy guys have read Red Storm Rising, how plausible do you think those scenarios are? >>
Sorry to join the thread late... is that where the Indian navy "accidentally" disables a couple of the US's aircraft cruisers?
<< How bout a nimitz class (of course), 2 Ticonderoga class crusiers, 2 burke class destroyer, 2 spruance class destroyers, 2 perry frigates, and 2 Los Angeles Class subs? Wait...i could've just said 2 of everything except for the carrier >>
According to US Navy, it would take AT LEAST 4 carrier battle groups to face-off with China, that's assuming US is helping defending Taiwan. It would take more to attack China.
About a giant submarine carrying many carrier based planes (F14, and so on).
There is a small problem - a submarine is a terrible weapon while it is hidden - deep-down, slow-moving but
ready to launch deadly torpedoes and missiles.
A surfaced submarine - capable of launching deadly torpedoes and missiles - is just as dangerous as any
normal destroyer - anyone could see him, anyone could hit him - even the large guns on a battleship.
And a surfaced sub launching his planes would be an even more appealing target. There is a reason why
no guns, machine guns, miniguns are now on submarines - think at 2nd World War submarines, some armed
with 2x4inch cannons, anti aircraft artillery and so on.
And the worst, the sub must be surfaced when the aircrafts returns. So it would need an escort just as big
as one "float-over-the-sea" carriers.
Another thing - the shape of a submarine is forced by the water that surrounds it. The underwater shape of
a carrier is forced by the water, but the over-water area takes no matter what form a designer wants.
And one more thing - the huge submarine would have such a great sonar signature that would be easily
detectable at tens of miles away.
Update: to keep his flying escort in air, it should be surfaced all the time Not a very bright idea for a submarine
There is a small problem - a submarine is a terrible weapon while it is hidden - deep-down, slow-moving but
ready to launch deadly torpedoes and missiles.
A surfaced submarine - capable of launching deadly torpedoes and missiles - is just as dangerous as any
normal destroyer - anyone could see him, anyone could hit him - even the large guns on a battleship.
And a surfaced sub launching his planes would be an even more appealing target. There is a reason why
no guns, machine guns, miniguns are now on submarines - think at 2nd World War submarines, some armed
with 2x4inch cannons, anti aircraft artillery and so on.
And the worst, the sub must be surfaced when the aircrafts returns. So it would need an escort just as big
as one "float-over-the-sea" carriers.
Another thing - the shape of a submarine is forced by the water that surrounds it. The underwater shape of
a carrier is forced by the water, but the over-water area takes no matter what form a designer wants.
And one more thing - the huge submarine would have such a great sonar signature that would be easily
detectable at tens of miles away.
Update: to keep his flying escort in air, it should be surfaced all the time
Not a very bright idea for a submarineCarriers of the future will likely be based on RPVs carrying out missions since the limits of human beings are so spurious for such sophisticated weapon systems.
yup, kinda like protoss carriers but i think u meant ucavs right?
And one more thing - the huge submarine would have such a great sonar signature that would be easily
detectable at tens of miles away
not to mention 3000 crew on a sub that could easily go down with one good torpedo=bad idea wet landing strips.. icacn't be good
yup, kinda like protoss carriers
but i think u meant ucavs right? And one more thing - the huge submarine would have such a great sonar signature that would be easily
detectable at tens of miles away
not to mention 3000 crew on a sub that could easily go down with one good torpedo=bad idea
wet landing strips.. icacn't be goodI doubt the military would be foolish enough to just launch carriers against china. That would be downright foolish. A Carrier wing of aircraft is 80, china has 4000 planes. The CBG would be grossly outnumbered. But toss in some stealth bombing runs before hand to cripple the ability of planes to take off and the picture would radically change. The carrier is far from obsolote and far from the only peice of the strategic puzzle.
Of those 4000 planes, less than 45 are 5th generation, the rest are 50s and 60s tech.
<< I doubt the military would be foolish enough to just launch carriers against china. That would be downright foolish. A Carrier wing of aircraft is 80, china has 4000 planes. The CBG would be grossly outnumbered. But toss in some stealth bombing runs before hand to cripple the ability of planes to take off and the picture would radically change. The carrier is far from obsolote and far from the only peice of the strategic puzzle. >>
<< I doubt the military would be foolish enough to just launch carriers against china. That would be downright foolish. A Carrier wing of aircraft is 80, china has 4000 planes. The CBG would be grossly outnumbered. But toss in some stealth bombing runs before hand to cripple the ability of planes to take off and the picture would radically change. The carrier is far from obsolote and far from the only peice of the strategic puzzle. >>
<< They also have to go through all the destroyers and the rest of the battlefleet. I think it takes more then one bomb to take down a carrier. >>
You know, I think you just might be right.
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
<<
<< If any of you Navy guys have read Red Storm Rising, how plausible do you think those scenarios are? >>
Sorry to join the thread late... is that where the Indian navy "accidentally" disables a couple of the US's aircraft cruisers? >>
No, Red Storm Rising involves a full-scale war between the Soviets and NATO in Europe. The Soviets take Iceland early (watch your back, Czar
), and use it as a jumping point to wreak havoc on shipping in the North Atlantic. They use massive bomber attacks, launching a couple of hundred air-surface missles at a time, which is basically what a lot of people here seem to think would be the big threat to a carrier group. A few missles might be no big deal, but obviously, the more incoming targets you have, the harder it is to get them all.That's what they'd like. They Navy is being conservative. We're not talking about a land war. I think they could get away with 1 CBG. Our subs would need to move quick lay to take out their subs esp the Hans and the Songs. I don't know what the Russians sold them other than their old Kilos. Once those are taken out, they would have to quickly take out the Kirovs the Russians sold them. That's the Russian counterpart to our aegis cruisers. After that the only real threat would be the the Chinese AF. They aren't going to lanch all 4000s at once. It's impossible. That means will take be able to take out a lot of the groud using our TLAMs.
I think its doable with 1 CBG.
<< According to US Navy, it would take AT LEAST 4 carrier battle groups to face-off with China, that's assuming US is helping defending Taiwan. It would take more to attack China. >>
I think its doable with 1 CBG.
<< According to US Navy, it would take AT LEAST 4 carrier battle groups to face-off with China, that's assuming US is helping defending Taiwan. It would take more to attack China. >>
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter