Support NeoGAF

[El_Presidente]

But for me, it was just Thursday

But how?


and we need 11 so we can fight 11 wars at time.

 

[speculawyer]

Aircraft Carriers per Country

Country	/	In service
 United States	11
 [B]Spain		2
 Italy		2
[/B] United Kingdom	1
 France		1
 Russia		1
 India		1
 Brazil		1
 Thailand	1
 China		1
 Japan		0
 Canada		0
 Australia	0
 Argentina	0
 Netherlands	0
 Germany	0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

Why do Spain & Italy have 2 aircraft carriers? No wonder they are going bankrupt.

(And why does the US need 11 of them! No wonder we are going bankrupt.)

 

[industrian]

And I have to hand it to Bohemia Interactive, they've certainly done a great job with viral marketing for the new Carrier Command game.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

US Navy response:

"lol"

"lol" no, like it or not the south china sea won't be a de facto US lake for much longer.

What did I say? I said we developed countermeasures. The Pentagon isn't stupid at all. That's a 10+ Billion dollar piece of equipment, with a shit ton of lives and additional equipment on board at stake, not even considering the strategic implications.

If the Pentagon senses a potential threat to its carriers, it will rapidly devote millions in R&D to countering said threat. By the time the press is reporting it, you can be damn well sure someone there is working on it.

These boats are surrounding by battle groups at all times, and their locations are top secret for a reason - they are absolutely key to the strategic projection of power. They are the piece you keep surrounded and defended at all time, and the Pentagon isn't about to let some remote launch cheap missile system wipe out a carrier.

So that's why a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a US naval exercise, A noisy diesel electric piece of shit no less. Your toys aren't as invulnerable as you think.

it took you decades to counter the SCUD, which is essentially a lumbering flying dump truck.

 

[Rentahamster]

Why not reduce the number of US carrier to like 6?
They'd still have three times or more aircraftcarriers than everyone else, but the savings of not having to run the remaining 5 ones could be put towards implementing public healthcare (or given to NASA).

That's a good point but you must also consider how many lives were saved due to a carrier being dispatched to Indonesia after the tsunami to provide supplies, medical care, and purify water.

 

[rkn]

"lol" no, like it or not the south china sea won't be a de facto US lake for much longer.





So that's why a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a US naval exercise, A noisy diesel electric piece of shit no less. Your toys aren't as invulnerable as you think.

it took you decades to counter the SCUD, which is essentially a lumbering flying dump truck.

Could have been one of those, can't let them know that we know situations, why tip your hand if the enemy thinks they've got you, but you've known they were there all along?

 

[shinobi602]

(And why does the US need 11 of them! No wonder we are going bankrupt.)

Because we need to show everyone else in the world who's boss mang.

 

[vaelic]

what a waste of money

 

[dalin80]

Do they even need a catapult with that ramp design?

In theory no but it depends on the aircraft, with a long enough run way and a plane that can take the load of a ramp launch then you can put any craft in the air without the mighty expense and complication of catapults, the ramps used on the UK's invincible's allowed allowed the UK harrier to take off with a extra 2000lbs of payload over the USMC which had flat decks for launch.

Russian carriers have been used for years with non cat launches instead just using the ramp so it works but you lose the whole deck space to the launch of one aircraft, a cat system allows the rear half of the deck to continue operations like helo activity or preping the next plane. The UK CVF carriers currently being built have ramps with no catapults and they (maybe) use the F-35B VSTOL, adding the ramp on the carrier allows the B to take off with full load using ~250ft less runway then a non ramp launch, allowing non cat launches without using up the rear half of the deck, best of both worlds although you have to take the compromise on the shorter range B variant and less options in other aircraft to launch but the UK has been pretty heavy in helicopter usage for decades and pretty good at it.

In theory other craft like the osprey and possible future variant of the bronco could also be used as well as other STOL planes but at the moment the Royal navy has a very tight budget and a government who simply don't operate in the same reality as the rest of the world.

 

[numble]

The Chinese are not innovators and so long as they continue to suppress speech, personal liberties and enforce state ideologies, then they limit the critical thinking of their people.

It would be like expecting a theocracy to be a technological powerhouse. The Chinese can adapt to existing technology by way of stealing them or reverse engineering them, but they're still a loser when it comes to innovating.

The biggest threat to US military supremacy is their own failing education standards as compared to other Western nations.

You need thinkers to develop technologies capable of rendering your old ones, and the ones mimicked by others, obsolete.

Take a look at the make up of foreign grad students at Western universities:
http://chronicle.com/article/Chinese-Students-Account-for/131416/

Heck, take a look at the foreign student make-up at "elite" private high schools and colleges.

I think that the US benefits more from multiculturalism and brain drain than it does ground up education of individuals, but China is starting to have its own brain drain, Chinese go back for high paying jobs after studying abroad, and universities recruit researchers and academics with salaries and nice labs. Look at the amoun of patents and science articles being published, I don't think you'll see there is that much hinderance in the sciences.

I've been in Peking University classrooms where different Chinese professors criticize tons of things about the system, from one professor talking about how Tiananmen was the point when the people were disconnected from the party, a criminal law professor talking about eliminating the death penalty and his arguments he used to have with Tiananmen dissident Wang Dan, a Ph.D-J.D from Yale talking about judicial independence/legal professionalism versus the current Supreme Court's views, etc.

Anyway, US military supremacy and innovation will be maintained simply by wont of the massive spending (versus the fraction spent by China) and actual operational usage. The last time China really saw a full scale war was what, the Korean War? The Sino-Vietnam skirmishes probably don't mean much.

 

[twobear]

Man the Royal Navy in a sad state. Italy and Spain have more and not just helicopters.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Why do Spain & Italy have 2 aircraft carriers? No wonder they are going bankrupt.

(And why does the US need 11 of them! No wonder we are going bankrupt.)

They're effective.

It's a nice little ad, reminds me of the ones I saw in the Metro near Pentagon City in DC. Sure beat seeing ads for shitty movies when you could see one for an F-35!

 

[not_so_special]

t.

(And why does the US need 11 of them! No wonder we are going bankrupt.)

they got these long time ago,nothing to do with the actual crisis

 

[Pimpwerx]

I don't see where there's a catapult on this thing. Does China field a lot of VTOL jets? PEACE.

 

[shinobi602]

they got these long time ago,nothing to do with the actual crisis

The money needed to maintain them is astronomical too.

 

[industrian]

They're effective.

It's a nice little ad, reminds me of the ones I saw in the Metro near Pentagon City in DC. Sure beat seeing ads for shitty movies when you could see one for an F-35!

Yup. That and if you control the oceans then you can effectively control the world. There's a reason why some tiny-ass island in the North Atlantic was able to dominate nearly 1/4 of the planet. That reason was so obvious we even sang about it.

 

[zchen]

I don't see where there's a catapult on this thing. Does China field a lot of VTOL jets? PEACE.

No VTOL, ski jump ramp conventional take off only. What they are working on is J-15, which is based on the Russian Su-27K/Su-33 frame with improved Chinese avionics.

 

[throwawayname]

China does care.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Why not reduce the number of US carrier to like 6?
They'd still have three times or more aircraftcarriers than everyone else, but the savings of not having to run the remaining 5 ones could be put towards implementing public healthcare (or given to NASA).

How do you get rid of an aircraft carrier though? You could destroy it but that seems like a waste of money. You could turn it into a museum but then youd still be paying for the upkeep. You could sell it but then youd be selling an aircraft carrier to a rival country.

 

[Jezbollah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) two of these to enter commission in 2018. they don't quite have the freudian value of the nimitz class but are much more advanced.

Add to that the Type 45 Destroyers and the Astute class Submarines and the British Navy is pretty fucking capable.

 

[gryz]

Why not reduce the number of US carrier to like 6?
They'd still have three times or more aircraftcarriers than everyone else, but the savings of not having to run the remaining 5 ones could be put towards implementing public healthcare (or given to NASA).

because the people in charge of the us military have more experience and knowledge about what is necessary than you do?

 

[SUPREME1]

Yup. That and if you control the oceans then you can effectively control the world. There's a reason why some tiny-ass island in the North Atlantic was able to dominate nearly 1/4 of the planet. That reason was so obvious we even sang about it.

I think it was Gen. MacArthur who said something like 'whoever controls the Pacific controls the world'.

 

[Jezbollah]

How do you get rid of an aircraft carrier though? You could destroy it but that seems like a waste of money. You could turn it into a museum but then youd still be paying for the upkeep. You could sell it but then youd be selling an aircraft carrier to a rival country.

Aircraft Carriers have been known to have been sunk and used as artificial reefs.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Im actually surprised we only got 11.

 

[prwxv3]

I am not a fan of pre-emptive strikes on China/Iran without significant evidence and over the top military spending but the US should not underestimate these countries. China has nukes and Iran could be have nukes in the future. And these countries at some point could have leadership that are crazy enough to use them. The US(and other countries) to to be ready should such a event would occur.

 

[DarthWoo]

I am not a fan of pre-emptive strikes on China/Iran without significant evidence but we the US should not underestimate these countries. China has nukes and Iran could be have nukes in the future. And these countries at some point could have leadership that are crazy enough to use them. The US(and other countries) to to be ready should such a event would occur.

Yeah, because talk like that (when made by actual people in power) never ends up escalating things.

 

[not_so_special]

The money needed to maintain them is astronomical too.

believe me,they spend all the day on the harbour XD spanish navy is not a big thing british navy is a lot capable and powerfull in comparasion

the problem with the spanish economy is not the military budget

 

[Dreams-Visions]

They're effective.

It's a nice little ad, reminds me of the ones I saw in the Metro near Pentagon City in DC. Sure beat seeing ads for shitty movies when you could see one for an F-35!

very effective indeed.

each is a mobile city with more fixed-wing planes (90!) than most countries have in their entire armada.

and we have 11 with more on the way.

Im actually surprised we only got 11.

extraordinarily expensive and take years to construct.

really, how many do you need. 11 = ~1,000 planes floating out on the ocean.

 

[SUPREME1]

Im actually surprised we only got 11.

Each carrier has like a dozen or so ships associated with it.

 

[NH Apache]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) two of these to enter commission in 2018. they don't quite have the freudian value of the nimitz class but are much more advanced.

While the propulsion and hull dynamics may be more efficient, the weaponry and electronics on all US Navy ships are upgraded after a set period.

Gotta say that I hate the ramped lip of the Chinese carrier. If they spent all that time refurbishing her, they should have installed some system for assisting take-offs. So many downsides to that lip: Increased drag, visibility, and reduces the ability to cut through waves in yough seas. Additionally, you have a restriction on projectile weapons, i.e. now machine guns will have to be at a set altitude on the ship to have foward visibility.

Additionally, you have to remember that these ships travel in "packs." While the carrier is a good platform for aircraft, the quality of the pack depends upon defensability.

And somewhat random, this gives me a chance to post one of the coolest vessels, The US Navy LCS-2 (Littoral Combat Ship):

 

[Pimpwerx]

I am not a fan of pre-emptive strikes on China/Iran without significant evidence and over the top military spending but the US should not underestimate these countries. China has nukes and Iran could be have nukes in the future. And these countries at some point could have leadership that are crazy enough to use them. The US(and other countries) to to be ready should such a event would occur.

The 1980's called. They want their posturing back. PEACE.

 

[TacticalFox88]

That being said, I'd love for the Navy to build this bad boy:

 

[NekoFever]

Add to that the Type 45 Destroyers and the Astute class Submarines and the British Navy is pretty fucking capable.

The ships we have are decent as well. I remember this from when Argentina was posturing over the Falklands earlier in the year:

Argentina would fare badly in a war with Britain in any case. The U.K. has one of the world's strongest militaries, with nearly 230,000 active personnel and a yearly budget of $53 billion. The British Daily Telegraph reported that the Dauntless alone can destroy Argentina's entire air force before it takes off.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10077158

 

[Jezbollah]

The ships we have are decent as well. I remember this from when Argentina was posturing over the Falklands earlier in the year:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10077158

Yep, the Dauntless is one of those Type 45s. And we're making more of them (and the Astutes)

 

[raindoc]

all right - it's an aircraft carrier...

...but i can't take it seriously.

 

[titiklabingapat]

This is gonna be primarily used to project power in the Southeast Asia and the seas aroun China, so no worry for the USA, but thier allies in the region should be nervous.

 

[Waaghals]

USA has already developed countermeasures for said missile.

Come on now, we aren't going to let our multi-billion dollar pieces of floating American soil get taken down by some POS Chinese missile.

Really? Last time I read the pentagon threat report on China it said nothing on working CM, rather the opposite. Though that was obviously the public version.

 

[Kiraly]

Im actually surprised we only got 11.

They cost like 4.5 billion USD a pop, and that is only construction.

 

[equap]

They cost like 4.5 billion USD a pop, and that is only construction.

that's cheap for peace on earth.

 

[Atrus]

Take a look at the make up of foreign grad students at Western universities:
http://chronicle.com/article/Chinese-Students-Account-for/131416/

Heck, take a look at the foreign student make-up at "elite" private high schools and colleges.

I think that the US benefits more from multiculturalism and brain drain than it does ground up education of individuals, but China is starting to have its own brain drain, Chinese go back for high paying jobs after studying abroad, and universities recruit researchers and academics with salaries and nice labs. Look at the amoun of patents and science articles being published, I don't think you'll see there is that much hinderance in the sciences.

I've been in Peking University classrooms where different Chinese professors criticize tons of things about the system, from one professor talking about how Tiananmen was the point when the people were disconnected from the party, a criminal law professor talking about eliminating the death penalty and his arguments he used to have with Tiananmen dissident Wang Dan, a Ph.D-J.D from Yale talking about judicial independence/legal professionalism versus the current Supreme Court's views, etc.

Anyway, US military supremacy and innovation will be maintained simply by wont of the massive spending (versus the fraction spent by China) and actual operational usage. The last time China really saw a full scale war was what, the Korean War? The Sino-Vietnam skirmishes probably don't mean much.

Yet the Chinese are still under-represented when it comes to scientific advances despite such a large population and look to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_Nobel_laureates

None of the Nobel Laureates in science listed above were Chinese nationals when they won their award. The one Chinese national who did win one (for Peace), was imprisoned by the Chinese themselves.

This difficulty is hinted at in many articles including this one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3953902...-faces-hurdles-amid-quest-nobel/#.UGIIV1HheR4

China is currently posting an inferior model that will never 'catch up' as it stands and the change required to do so will result in an internal social change that will nullify them as an opponent, in the sense that the technological advancement of the UK or France is not to be considered a threat.

 

[jstevenson]

So that's why a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a US naval exercise, A noisy diesel electric piece of shit no less. Your toys aren't as invulnerable as you think.

It wasn't running on diesel when it snuck up on the Kitty Hawk (the US's favorite snafu carrier), and yes, you can sneak up on a US Carrier during peacetime if you really have intention to try to send that message.

During wartime, good luck. Those subs can't run on electric forever, and once they go diesel, you could hear them from halfway across the pacific. And once we know where they are, they are easy to track

 

[Phoenix]

Call me when they can sink a nuclear submarine or carrier.

The USN would manhandle this without breaking a sweat.

It would be the height of lunacy to assume that they can't. China builds and runs a decent sized fleet of small diesel green-water boats (i.e shallow coastal water designed). The US has for decades employed larger nuclear blue-water boats (i.e. deep water designed). China will fight their boats more inland in their sphere of influence, not in the open ocean where the US has a marked advantage. The diesel subs are quieter and in a region filled with traffic just finding them (or ours) is more problematic.

The tactics involved in getting to the carrier won't be the same as blue water confrontations, they are more likely to take place within range of the mainlands airfields and missile batteries which can provide support in any real confrontation, making this boat more a tactical threat than a strategic one. Where China will have more issues is that it doesn't have a complete complement of support ships to protect their carrier and most of their sonars are at least a generation behind ours. Hell even for our surface fleet, once you get over 12-15 knots you might as well take your sonar gear off because you won't hear shit.'

For China's doctrine of regional conflict and power projection to satellite states, that carrier is more than enough.

 

[Phoenix]

It wasn't running on diesel when it snuck up on the Kitty Hawk (the US's favorite snafu carrier), and yes, you can sneak up on a US Carrier during peacetime if you really have intention to try to send that message.

During wartime, good luck. Those subs can't run on electric forever, and once they go diesel, you could hear them from halfway across the pacific. And once we know where they are, they are easy to track

Well most of their more combat ready subs are AIP propulsion/diesel based and they aren't the same pushovers as a raw diesel sub. But in a noisy lane, even a diesel can be difficult to track.

 

[tino]

Not nearly as much as we're investing.

Are we allowed to but not anyone else?

I think a lot of people don't understand the purpose of the US carriers. The US spend godzillion of money of military in order to keep US Dollars as the global currency. China spend money on miltary in order to project power in far east Asia, plus a little bit in the south Asia.

The goals are completely different.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Not to mention that carriers ALWAYS have submarines under the ocean guarding them at all times.

The only way to sink a US carrier is a to strike it with a nuclear missile killing it and the battle groups around it.

And we all know how THAT scenario, if it happen, would go down.

Haha. How submarine will shoot incoming missiles, which is the the big threat? The submarines protect against any submerged vehicle but not incoming missiles. Submarines can´t do shit against incoming missiles.

 

[tino]

That's a good point but you must also consider how many lives were saved due to a carrier being dispatched to Indonesia after the tsunami to provide supplies, medical care, and purify water.

Do you seriously need a carrier to do that. You can do it with a decently fast ship. More like the military was trying to score some free PR points.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Do you seriously need a carrier to do that. You can do it with a decently fast ship. More like the military was trying to score some free PR points.

Do you have any idea how many people a carrier group can help?

 

[R2D4]

Do you seriously need a carrier to do that. You can do it with a decently fast ship. More like the military was trying to score some free PR points.

Only the military has the equipment and the logistics to launch a large scale humanitarian effort. You sound like one ship with cases of water bottles on it is enough to help after a devastating tsunami.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Do you seriously need a carrier to do that. You can do it with a decently fast ship. More like the military was trying to score some free PR points.

Umm yes. Carrier servers as an airbase, control hub, medical facility, water desalination, tonnes of personnel, long range surveying of damage, mass supplies on board. A "decently fast ship" could only do a fraction of that.

 

[shinobi602]

I think a lot of people don't understand the purpose of the US carriers. The US spend godzillion of money of military in order to keep US Dollars as the global currency. China spend money on miltary in order to project power in far east Asia, plus a little bit in the south Asia.

The goals are completely different.

Huh? Explain that to me...

Whenever things happen that don't appeal to us, we just send a carrier or two over to that area of the world and act like we own the place. The biggest purpose of these massive carriers and the huge number of them we sustain is exactly to project power across the entire globe.