China sells its drones using videos of them destroying US aircraft carriers

Libradex ^ | Libradex.com

[SeeSac]

How do you know you weren't being tracked by "other" means?

Because we won. But perhaps you are right. The carrier groups just let us win to make us feel good.

[central_va]

What makes anyone think that we are totally capable of protecting so large a target at all times?

By this logic a tank, costing 5 million dollars, is useless because a guy with a $2,000 shoulder fired missile can destroy it. I mean you people are ridiculous.

[SeeSac]

Maybe you're right, we should just scuttle our whole surface fleet and leave it up to the bubble heads you guys can do it all

I never said anything about scuttling the surface fleet. I just post as I see it. If you have problems with my opinions, put them out but don't put words in my posts that I have not opined.

[central_va]

There is a lot you don’t know, that is all I can say.

[central_va]

I never said anything about scuttling the surface fleet. I just post as I see it. If you have problems with my opinions, put them out but don't put words in my posts that I have not opined.

What I have to say cannot be discussed on open forums.

[SeeSac]

There is a lot you don’t know, that is all I can say.

I agree. There is a lot I don't know.

[Joe Brower]

"You are so smart; you might want to work for wikileaks."

And you are so kooky, judging from your posts, you may want to increase your meds. Really. Your comments are coming completely out of left field; complete non sequitiers.

You were a Naval officer? I'm damned glad I didn't serve with you.

[central_va]

I'm damned glad I didn't serve with you.

I share that sentiment about you.

[Venturer]

I love the you people remark, as though anyone who questions your logic is automatically an idiot.

The tank is not useless, but it CAN be taken out and it doesn’t hold 5,000 people.

You seem to think that it is an impossibllity and when I point out that it isn’t , I become a “You people”

Meanwhile you have decided that with their defense force they are impregnable.

The Titanic was unsinkable too.

[central_va]

To surrender air superiority because of perceived vulnerability when their is no alternative is stupid. Tell me, how to have air power in the middle of the ocean or against a hostile land force far away from any ally. There is risk yes, but what else is there? Sub launched aircraft?

[McGruff]

All it takes is one to get through.

[SeeSac]

I love the you people remark

And I didn't even see his reference to being a ring knocker.

[central_va]

So what? What do you suggest? Give up our Sea Power? Wusses all. I haven't heard one viable alternative to shipbourne fixed wing aircraft. You come up with another way to have air superiority at sea, I'm all ears.

PS: Re: that picture, you should of seen the other guys flattops.

[Joe Brower]

"you are on record as being in favor of foreign governments being superior in sea air assets"

Remember what I said about your meds.

[Joe Brower]

"Exocet and the Falklands"

Exactly. Or the U.S.S. Stark.

[Venturer]

I don’t remember saying we should do away with the Carriers, my only comment was that they make great targets, and that they can be hit.

Your argument was that their escorts would make that virtually impossible. I disagree , but I am no expert.

I also stated the possibility that modern weapons could make them vulnerable enough that they go the way of WW2 Battleships. I see that as a possibility in the future.

We have been lucky in the past 5 decades in that we have not fought anyone with weapons comparable to ours. If and when we do we will find the answer.

The British found in the Falklands that French Missiles made a mess of aluminum ships. I hope we never have to learn a lesson like that.

A few days ago an incident off our west coast described by some as a missile, by others as a contrail, shook up a few people. North Korea has Nukes ,Pakistan has Nukes. Iran is trying to build a Nuke. These outlaw countries are working together on platforms to carry these Nukes to their enemy, Their enemy is us friend.
China and Russia appear to have few qualms about delivering technology to these people.They learn from it and in Irans case are learning fast.

Just today Putin made a threat to build new Nukes if we didnt ratify a phony treaty that Obama screwed up and made.

The world is a dangerous place.

[jessduntno]

You are obviously enamored of Libraderm or what ever the hell the name of this blog is you are flogging ... why not just go there to read content that is already available here and let us use this forum for original content? This is what we do here - we find articles of interest to a conservative forum and post them. And we pay for the privilege of doing so, while keeping it interesting and blessedly ad free. Except for the blog pimps.

[rmlew]

The movie showed Tu-22M Backfire firing what I presumed to be AS-4 Kitchens ASM, or Kh-15 from what looked like 20 miles.

That is not how an attack would occur. For one thing, US carriers have E-2 Hawkeyes (naval AWACS) and keep a combat air patrol near enemy territory. Also, those SPY-1 radars on the Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burkes are not just for show.

The ChiComs have a copy of the Tu-16, not the Tu22m. I'd be more concerned with an ICBM and submarines.

[rmlew]

No aircraft carriers were sunk in the Pacific during WWII, the were burned and scuttled, but the battle damage itself didn't sink them.
I'm going to rule out the CVEs and other converted merchantment here and look at Fleet Carriers.
The HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle were torpedoed by UBoats and sunk. HMS Glorious was destroyed by German battlecruisers (the only fleet carrier to do so). HMS Hermes was sunk by Japanese naval aircraft. USS Wasp (CV-7)was sunk by a Japanese submarine. About a half dozen Japanese carriers were sunk outright by American planes our submarines including the fleet carriers Taiho, Zuikaku, and Shōkaku.
I'm sure I could find more. I'm sure you were thinking of the USS Lexington, USS Yorktown, and USS Hornet in 1942.

[Joe Brower]

Good info, thanks. Truth be told, that was my immediate thought when I saw the scene in question -- "Where's the CAP?". But we are talking Hollywood, after all...

My point was the "volume of fire" doctrine, and how well this ancient tactic still serves to overwhelm the latest, most cutting-edge technologies. It has served lesser forces on many continents in many ways.

One could even view a tactical nuke as an extension of the "volume of fire" concept -- one nuke delivered aboard something like a Shkval torpedo, and it's adios, carrier group.

And as for subs, well, we did have a ChiCom sub surface right alongside one of our carriers during an exercise three years ago. A carrier group needs to be able to detect that sort of thing at any time, not just when on a war-footing.