Printable View
In a regional conflict with North Korea, or China, it isn't needed other than to defend Japan from a possible end around by the new Chinese aircraft carrier. All these powers can cover the disputed waters from their land bases. An aircraft carrier is a projection of force beyond where their land units can reach in a timely manner.
Oh yes,,, it's one of its many uses!!.... But, it's definitely not a battle rifle even though it looks exactly like one and could be readily converted. After all, don't want to scare my neighbors,,, I mean who digs in the rose bed with a rifle???
Aragon243, yes all what you say is true. An open conflict in that region will be within range of fighter planes from land bases. Carriers are sitting ducks for missile attacks and torpedoes.
I guess it all depends on who it is that has the carriers and who it is that is against the carriers.Quote:
Originally Posted by seabot2
The United States has not lost an aircraft carrier since WWII and they were used extensively in Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan. In Korea and Vietnam, the two enemy nations had extensive support from China and the Soviet Union. I can't even recall a successful attack causing damage during any of those conflicts although self inflicted damage occurred a few times. Carriers were also vital in all of those conflicts.
Are they vulnerable today? Not really. The massive size alone makes them difficult to sink even with multiple hits from surface to surface missiles. Nuclear torpedoes would sink one but that opens an entirely different can of worms in which almost everything suddenly becomes obsolete and radioactive at the same time. Any ship can be sunk but doing so at present would be extremely difficult for any nation we are likely to face in conflict.
Does not look at all "stealthy" to me; lots of "flat" vertical and horizontal surfaces to reflect rather than redirect radar energy.
China could have sunk my ship, the Intrepid CVA11. at will. They did shoot down 763 F4 Phantoms and lost 13 Mig 21 doing it. They did not want to expand the war they won. They are far more powerful today. They conquered Wall Street.
That's what stealth ships look like. I can't explain it. They are designed to reflect in directions that prevent it from being bounced back to the radar installations.Quote:
Originally Posted by old crow
The United States lost a total of 461 F-4 Phantoms during the Vietnam war. Nearly all of them to ground fire. The Phantom had a kill to loss ratio of 3.73 to 1 in air to air combat. The North Vietnamese air force was very small and the US had near complete air superiority during the war. China did not commit much of anything to the war effort in the air losing only 3 Mig 17's. The North Vietnamese lost 90 Mig 21's in air to air combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by arado
That the Chinese could have sunk the Intrepid at will is opinion. The fact remains they did not, nor did they make the attempt. I'm sure there were much more promising targets than an old Essex class carrier that by that time was designated as an ASW carrier (CVS-11) and had a complement of A-4 Skyhawks and A-1 Skyraiders, which were used in the ground support role. Of note, one of her Skyraider pilots managed to shoot down a Mig 17 with his propeller driving ground attack plane.
The Chinese are attempting to project power today but aside from their massive manpower remain far behind the US in both power and technology. If we stopped funding them through Wallstreet, they wouldn't last long.
India launched their carrier today, due to be ready by 2018. The Vikrant, when operational, will be able to carry 25 to 30 aircraft, including Russian-made MiG-29K light combat aircraft and Kamov 31 multi-function helicopters.
Add to that giving them free access to our technology and their press (read military) access to our fleet. We live in very dangerous times do we not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243