Building the World's Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier

schizrade said:
Oh and it is NOT a waste. The last time the leading nations disarmed, we got WWII. Peace through superior firepower is a time tested, historically validated maxim. Peace through disarmament is a time tested, historically validated way to war.
Click to expand...

Yep, there will always be someone ready to take your place when you decide its time to be nice and peacefull. It never fails.

No matter how peacefull we want to be, we have to remember that there are others that do not share that feeling.
 
What we should do is astound the world with a "Galaxy" class carrier. Take the biggest and newest one we have and double the size. Make it a monster of a carrier.

Imagine seeing a 2000+ foot long mega carrier off your coast or how about a couple of them while your trying to stir up trouble.
 
Nice boat. If I'm rich like Bill Gates, can I have one? :p

I'm waiting to see the friction/heat problem for railguns to be solved.

motomonkey said:
there have been supersonic antishipping missiles around since the 70's. The long range Phoenix Air to Air missile was developed partially in response to the threat of long range Soviet bombers that carried these missiles (kill the bomber before it releases its weapons =easy kill) the main threat from chinese weapon designers at this point is the incorporation of a seeking warhead on top of an ICMB, designed to kill if with a direct strike on an aircraft carrrier with a Kinetic weapon. or just go old school and leave the nuke on top of it...

no surprise that the Navy has an in service weapons capable of hitting ICBM;s at this point.



the most worrisome threat is the development of very advanced deisel electric Subs that are extremely ahrd to detect.
Click to expand...

Diesel subs? That sounds like a step back to the old days. Diesel implies smoke and exhaust. Am I missing something? I must be

stealthy123 said:
what is the point of having those interests again?

explain to me how this aircraft carrier is going to get he terrorists that are the only threat to our country?
Click to expand...

Carriers help keep the terrorists from having their own aircraft. They allow us quick access to bomb random regions. Quick response. They provide the backbone for other people fighting terrorists. You ask a Navy General that question, and he could probably list 30+ reasons.

stealthy123 said:
and even still, name the country that threatens our current fleet? hell name the country that threatens half our current fleet.
Click to expand...
We don't need to make carriers because China or Russia might hose half our fleet. We need carriers in order to better protect our country's interest around the world. We have a lot of interests to keep up with. A carrier isn't built as a backup plan in case our other carriers get killed. They don't serve that purpose. Whether China is able to kill 1%, 10%, 20%, 50% of our fleet doesn't significantly affect our need to continue building new air craft carriers.
 
We need two Iowa class battleships to be taken out of mothballs, refurbished, and put off the Somali coast. I don't think the US even has the ability to make the hulls for one of those anymore. They may not be as cost effective as a carrier group, but they'd certainly scare the hell out of any pirates in that area.
 
Met-AL said:
Yaa, that's just great. Yeehaw. At 700 billion a year, we spend more than all other countries in the world put together.

Howabout we NOT have the super duperist carrier and cut my taxes a little instead?
Click to expand...

I think a better place to cut spending would be from the "rebuild the country we just torched" fund. How about instead of taking a week to wipe out the threat and then 10 years trying to rebuild the country into a little America, we just wipe out the threat and then let them pick up the pieces. Maybe next time they'll think twice about attacking us. Of course some of them won't get the message the first time and when they try it again we'll have a new generation of Kickass hardware to beat them into the stone age with.
 
Parmenides said:
Carriers help keep the terrorists from having their own aircraft. They allow us quick access to bomb random regions. Quick response. They provide the backbone for other people fighting terrorists. You ask a Navy General that question, and he could probably list 30+ reasons.
Click to expand...

Not to mention aircraft carriers are great ways of having a base nearby when surrounding countries deny American military access. When the Iraq invasion was underway, a lot of surrounding countries wanted nothing to do with American invasion forces.
 
Soggy said:
I think a better place to cut spending would be from the "rebuild the country we just torched" fund. How about instead of taking a week to wipe out the threat and then 10 years trying to rebuild the country into a little America, we just wipe out the threat and then let them pick up the pieces. Maybe next time they'll think twice about attacking us. Of course some of them won't get the message the first time and when they try it again we'll have a new generation of Kickass hardware to beat them into the stone age with.
Click to expand...

Damn right, F them up then leave and let them rebuild their own country themselves. Serves them right for attacking us. Next time they attempt/do it then all bets are off, total destruction if you get my drift.

Azhar said:
Not to mention aircraft carriers are great ways of having a base nearby when surrounding countries deny American military access. When the Iraq invasion was underway, a lot of surrounding countries wanted nothing to do with American invasion forces.
Click to expand...

And that is the "PRIMARY" reason on why we have these bad boys. We can put 4.5 acres of "sovereign" U.S. territory anywhere on the face of this planet. When the crap hits the fan the first thing that is asked is where is all the super carriers.
 
Parmenides said:
Diesel subs? That sounds like a step back to the old days. Diesel implies smoke and exhaust. Am I missing something? I must be
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. They are actually diesel-electric subs. They have a diesel engine to charge massive batteries on board. When they run the diesel engines, they must be in "snorkle" depth, which is 150ft or less I believe. They are loud and make the subs easy targets. However, once the batteries are charged, the subs may dive and go deep and quiet. I think they can get several hours to several days off battery power depending upon speed.

Under electric power, these subs are quiet. If they keep under three knots, they are dead silent. Even nuclear subs generate some noise compared to diesel-electrics. Nothing short of mistakes on the part of the sub commander or active sonar can find these subs if they want to hide. There are ways to hunt them, but if a good diesel-electric sub commander was patient and careful, he may be able to penetrate a carrier battle group. If you want to know more, the book Nimitz Class by Michael Robinson gives a worst case scenario.

Soggy said:
I think a better place to cut spending would be from the "rebuild the country we just torched" fund. How about instead of taking a week to wipe out the threat and then 10 years trying to rebuild the country into a little America, we just wipe out the threat and then let them pick up the pieces. Maybe next time they'll think twice about attacking us. Of course some of them won't get the message the first time and when they try it again we'll have a new generation of Kickass hardware to beat them into the stone age with.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way. You may hate them, but we need the Muslims/Arabs. I think a lot of people are almost like your typical American - they want a decent job and the freedom to get on with their lives. In order to win this war, America and its allies need to give the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the greater Middle East that freedom. I am not suggesting taking down every country that disagrees with America, but using this as a strategy to turn the majority of people world wide against the Muslim fanatics. If you simply bomb them back to the stone age, that solves nothing and actually helps the terrorists. Think about it: there's not a whole lot in Afghanistan TO bomb in terms of technology and infrastructure. However, by putting in a stable, sustainable government that has the backing of the people and the power and authority to hold sovereignty, you deny the terrorists the ability to use that country as a safe haven to train and then deploy to our own country and kill us in our own backyard.
 
Met-AL said:
Yaa, that's just great. Yeehaw. At 700 billion a year, we spend more than all other countries in the world put together.

Howabout we NOT have the super duperist carrier and cut my taxes a little instead?
Click to expand...

Bootleg Usher said:
How about cut the debt? Some day the US won't be able to pay the interest let alone the actual debt.
Click to expand...

stealthy123 said:
and fuck cutting taxes, spend the money on stuff that will actually provide for my kids, the days of massive armies and out of control cold war defense spending shoulda ended a long time ago

I don't want to save money, but fuck man, our kids are idiots, the teachers are idiots, people are freaking out about health care costs, there is no need to be spending the kind of money we do on stuff that might matter, and refusing to spend money on stuff that absolutely matters.
Click to expand...

The national defense is actually one of the federal governments jobs, taking care of your kids is not, that is your job. The federal government does an ok job with things it is actually supposed to do, defense etc, and does a horrible job on the entitlements you are advocating dumping more money in to. For instance, things not specifically enumerated as jobs of the federal government such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, misc entitlements, account for 20%/21%/14% of federal spending. It seems if the government was doing less of what it wasn't supposed to your taxes would be considerably lower. However, because of people who expect the government to take of their (your) kids your taxes will never be lower and the federal government still has to provide for the common defense. Like it or not defense spending is not the problem with our federal government, vote buying through entitlements and doing things that is not part of its job are the problems but changing that policy is politically unfeasible currently.
 
Cajunheat said:
I know this is going to stir up the fire but, is building super-carriers the way to go? True they are bigger and badder than anything else on the sea but, if one goes down you just lost a major resource and made a huge hole in our military might. Wouldn't building two smaller carrier at the same or near cost be a better expenditure of resources? My way of thinking is in this case, if one goes down then the lost resources are only half what a super-carrier would be and there would also be the benefit of being to spread these resources a little wider, kind of like the pocket carriers of the WWII era.
Click to expand...

Rest assured this argument was brought up several times. It had to be. Didn't it? Knowing the power of our defense contractors you never know lol.

I'm just an Army guy. I'll take a shot at it...

I'm thinking It has more capabilities in bad weather and refueling/rearming aircraft options at it's current large size. Maybe being so large its hard as hell to sink. Just a guess. I could be dead wrong.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
The national defense is actually one of the federal governments jobs, taking care of your kids is not, that is your job. The federal government does an ok job with things it is actually supposed to do, defense etc, and does a horrible job on the entitlements you are advocating dumping more money in to. For instance, things not specifically enumerated as jobs of the federal government such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, misc entitlements, account for 20%/21%/14% of federal spending. It seems if the government was doing less of what it wasn't supposed to your taxes would be considerably lower. However, because of people who expect the government to take of their (your) kids your taxes will never be lower and the federal government still has to provide for the common defense. Like it or not defense spending is not the problem with our federal government, vote buying through entitlements and doing things that is not part of its job are the problems but changing that policy is politically unfeasible currently.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather live in a country that buys meals for the poor before bullets for the army. Providing for the common defense is well and good but what's the point if citizens die in the streets from starvation? A country that isn't decent enough to care for those in need isn't worth defending.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
I'd much rather live in a country that buys meals for the poor before bullets for the army. Providing for the common defense is well and good but what's the point if citizens die in the streets from starvation? A country that isn't decent enough to care for those in need isn't worth defending.
Click to expand...

America has the fattest poor people ever (except for Mexico). People dont starve to death in America en masse.

Still, I am concerned about how much money we spend on these things. Do we really need so many carriers? Its one thing to have the most capable Navy in the world, but how far ahead of second place do you really need to be?

And these things are sill vulnerable to mass anti-ship missile attacks, or just one nuke.
Keep updating the design, yes. Build a few, yes. Having a huge number of these budget draining monsters? Yikes.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Why, when no one else can compete against what you already have?
Click to expand...

These days more and more countries are anti American and are less whilling to help.The carrier group is about projection of power being able to sit off somones coast without anyones help and survive while whipping there ass is the only reason we needed a carrier battle group in the first place. Haveing multiple groups on alert around the world lets everyone know were watching you.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
I'd much rather live in a country that buys meals for the poor before bullets for the army. Providing for the common defense is well and good but what's the point if citizens die in the streets from starvation? A country that isn't decent enough to care for those in need isn't worth defending.
Click to expand...

Who the fuck is dying in the streets from starvation in America?
 
Hamish Campbell said:
I'd much rather live in a country that buys meals for the poor before bullets for the army. Providing for the common defense is well and good but what's the point if citizens die in the streets from starvation? A country that isn't decent enough to care for those in need isn't worth defending.
Click to expand...

Food stamps. Can't forget that if you have no money, you STILL get medical treatment right now anyways. Our bullets are preventing wars and famines as well as keeping international trade alive and strong.


Monkey God said:
America has the fattest poor people ever (except for Mexico). People dont starve to death in America en masse.

Still, I am concerned about how much money we spend on these things. Do we really need so many carriers? Its one thing to have the most capable Navy in the world, but how far ahead of second place do you really need to be?

And these things are sill vulnerable to mass anti-ship missile attacks, or just one nuke.
Keep updating the design, yes. Build a few, yes. Having a huge number of these budget draining monsters? Yikes.
Click to expand...

Well, at this point our purpose isn't to have the best navy. We aren't trying to be 2x or 3x times as powerful as the 2nd place navy. Instead we just need a navy that does our many jobs as efficiently as possible.

I'd wager that these monsters pay for themselves in economic benefit. They also save perhaps millions of American lives. Plus it gets expensive having military bases in other people's countries. It's nice to have air bases with no string attached.

the anti-ship missile thing is a major concern and I hope we are spending top dollar in research and development protecting ourselves against missile threats. Maybe it's a risk/reward thing. Like a billionaire investor we put our eggs in many baskets, not just the navy. Some have higher risks and reward potential. Some have lower risks and reward potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top