Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Anyone else think the U.S. will lose two aircraft carriers this summer?

  1. #1 Anyone else think the U.S. will lose two aircraft carriers this summer? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Maybe three. I think they have three carriers in the Gulf now .. and they're threatening China's supply of oil from Iran. China and Russia are BIG trading partners. Russia has 600 mph torpedoes and stealth subs. What do YOU think is going to happen? Local little war or ICBMs? Personally, I think a local little war with aircraft carriers doing the deep six.


    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't think anything will happen. Not one really has the ability to sink them unless they get very lucky (which is always a factor).

    We might loose a few to budget cuts over the next year or two. We really don't need ten anyhow and already have two more under contruction.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    China and Russia are BIG trading partners.
    China and the US are bigger trading partners, 457 billion dollars worth in 2010. That's larger than trade with Japan, Germany and the UK combined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Maybe three. I think they have three carriers in the Gulf now .. and they're threatening China's supply of oil from Iran. China and Russia are BIG trading partners. Russia has 600 mph torpedoes and stealth subs. What do YOU think is going to happen? Local little war or ICBMs? Personally, I think a local little war with aircraft carriers doing the deep six.
    I can not think when the last time an aircraft carrier was actually sank. You appear to live in hope.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,811
    'Pirots, fry prane way high in sky, then clash into Yankee airclaft callier, kirring yourself and all aboard. Any questions...ah, you in the back'

    'Honollable captain, are you out of your fucking mind'


    Advancements in weaponry has put the harakiri pilot out of work. That computer you're sitting in front of was probably obsolete equipment for the military 10 years before it hit the market. I would doubt very much that any aircraft carriers will be sunk in battle in the near future. WMD's are keeping the peace that really counts right now. Someday, if the species lives on long enough someone somewhere might developed an even nastier weapon thus tipping the balance of military might. Then it won't matter how many carriers go to the bottom.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    China and Russia are BIG trading partners.
    China and the US are bigger trading partners, 457 billion dollars worth in 2010. That's larger than trade with Japan, Germany and the UK combined.
    Except that the U.S. is buying on credit because they have nothing left to pay with, so what good is the trade to China?
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't think anything will happen. Not one really has the ability to sink them unless they get very lucky (which is always a factor).

    We might loose a few to budget cuts over the next year or two. We really don't need ten anyhow and already have two more under contruction.
    No one has the ability? Russians have 600 mph torpedoes, almost certainly with nuclear warheads, but now the Russians also have chemical warheads equal in power to nukes. The Chinese have ICBMs which can pinpoint anything. The French and Germans have the ability, and they are tired of having the U.S. in their economic face. Even the British would gain by knocking the U.S. out of the water. And of course. I just don't know which will happen first, the U.S. getting knocked out, or the international nuclear war.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Maybe three. I think they have three carriers in the Gulf now .. and they're threatening China's supply of oil from Iran. China and Russia are BIG trading partners. Russia has 600 mph torpedoes and stealth subs. What do YOU think is going to happen? Local little war or ICBMs? Personally, I think a local little war with aircraft carriers doing the deep six.
    I can not think when the last time an aircraft carrier was actually sank. You appear to live in hope.
    Good post, Dave. Wouldn't it be nice if ALL the weapons were sunk, with the weaponeers swimming to shore and being received by kind people who saved them all, much like what happened when the white man came ashore dying of scurvy in North America.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The French and Germans have the ability, and they are tired of having the U.S. in their economic face. Even the British would gain by knocking the U.S. out of the water.
    Have you ever been to Europe? American corporations have large stakes in the economies of many European countries. I, for one, would lose my job if the American economy collapsed.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Except that the U.S. is buying on credit because they have nothing left to pay with, so what good is the trade to China?
    The US government buys on credit (quite where the money is, is somewhat of a mystery to me). US corporations often have money.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't think anything will happen. Not one really has the ability to sink them unless they get very lucky (which is always a factor).

    We might loose a few to budget cuts over the next year or two. We really don't need ten anyhow and already have two more under contruction.
    No one has the ability? Russians have 600 mph torpedoes, almost certainly with nuclear warheads, but now the Russians also have chemical warheads equal in power to nukes. The Chinese have ICBMs which can pinpoint anything.

    And no means to deliver them or get close enough--even if it is true. Seriously, Russian equipment is generations behind and China further back than that. Neither has any motivation to try. We are so interlocked economically now days that's it's almost guaranteed we won't fight a direct war against each other. If there is conflict it will likely be in regional proxy wars, like it was during the cold war. Non of them seem realistic anytime soon.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't think anything will happen. Not one really has the ability to sink them unless they get very lucky (which is always a factor).

    We might loose a few to budget cuts over the next year or two. We really don't need ten anyhow and already have two more under contruction.
    No one has the ability? Russians have 600 mph torpedoes, almost certainly with nuclear warheads, but now the Russians also have chemical warheads equal in power to nukes. The Chinese have ICBMs which can pinpoint anything.

    And no means to deliver them or get close enough--even if it is true. Seriously, Russian equipment is generations behind and China further back than that. Neither has any motivation to try. We are so interlocked economically now days that's it's almost guaranteed we won't fight a direct war against each other. If there is conflict it will likely be in regional proxy wars, like it was during the cold war. Non of them seem realistic anytime soon.
    It's you who are generations behind, Lynx, the U.S. still can't land on Venus, something the Russians did 40 years ago. The Russians have titanium subs.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    The French and Germans have the ability, and they are tired of having the U.S. in their economic face. Even the British would gain by knocking the U.S. out of the water.
    Have you ever been to Europe? American corporations have large stakes in the economies of many European countries. I, for one, would lose my job if the American economy collapsed.
    Microsoft and corporations like that would still be in business in a U.S. stripped of overseas muscle. Corporations are not nations.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    It's you who are generations behind, Lynx, the U.S. still can't land on Venus, something the Russians did 40 years ago. The Russians have titanium subs.
    Not sure what events 30 years ago have to do with military technology--especially when your facts are wrong. We not only landed there in 1978, but have the longest surviving probe (Pioneer Venus 2) which survived over an hour.

    Russians have titanium subs.
    Not that hard to do, just damned expensive which is why the Russians stopped building them and scrapped them more than 20 years ago.

    They'd need capability and motivation--neither of which exist.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    It's you who are generations behind, Lynx, the U.S. still can't land on Venus, something the Russians did 40 years ago. The Russians have titanium subs.
    Not sure what events 30 years ago have to do with military technology--especially when your facts are wrong. We not only landed there in 1978, but have the longest surviving probe (Pioneer Venus 2) which survived over an hour.

    Russians have titanium subs.
    Not that hard to do, just damned expensive which is why the Russians stopped building them and scrapped them more than 20 years ago.

    They'd need capability and motivation--neither of which exist.
    I found only one mention of a U.S. landing on Venus, an accident if indeed the probe survived and transmitted, Historic Spacecraft - Venus Probes

    "The Pioneer Venus Multi-Probe was launched on an Atlas-Centaur rocket (right) on August 8, 1978. The spacecraft consisted of a bus, a large atmospheric probe, and three smaller atmospheric probes. Approaching Venus in November, 1978, the atmospheric probes were released from the bus. The probes returned data about the composition and environmental conditions in the atmosphere of Venus. Although the probes were not designed to survive landing, one of the smaller probes continued to transmit data for over an hour after reaching the surface." I suspect the report of transmitted data to be false, propaganda. The U.S. probes were atmospheric probes only. The Russians landed a few on the surface.

    Space exploration has everything to do with military technology. Also, even in something as simple as atmospheric aircraft the Russians are two decades ahead .. do you remember the airshow at which the Russian flighter flew circles around the Americans?
    Even the Europeans are ahead of U.S. in jet fighters. Unless the U.S. has some ultra top secret weapon, they're a dead duck. Even little Iran used radio and computer technology to take over one of the 'ultra sophisticated' U.S. drones and land it without damage. Does the U.S. have an ultra top secret weapon? I don't know. Can the U.S. hack into Russian and Chinese and European ICBMs and take them over? I have no idea. But until the Japanese K computer the top two supercomputers in the world were Chinese .. not U.S. Of course, we really don't know what any nation has up their sleeve, do we .. and whatever they have, it's going to be a real mess on this planet when the hour comes.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    China and Russia are BIG trading partners.
    China and the US are bigger trading partners, 457 billion dollars worth in 2010. That's larger than trade with Japan, Germany and the UK combined.
    Except that the U.S. is buying on credit because they have nothing left to pay with, so what good is the trade to China?
    Buying on credit means that your creditors want a return on their investment. Having a war tends to cancel out debts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I suspect the report of transmitted data to be false, propaganda.
    Wow, you'd rather accuse NASA of falsifying information than admit you're wrong? That's pretty astounding.
    NASA - NSSDC - Data Collection - Query Results

    And honestly I've got first hand knowledge of some of the Russian equipment. Their visual optics are about as good as our, their other sensors such as IR are way behind, and worst of all their sensors and communication systems are decades behind ours in integration. The machine tolerance of their equipment is horrible but this helps in for their few advantages, inexpensive, often easier to maintain, and more tolerant of operator abuse in the field.

    Everything I read suggest their Navy is in deplorable shape as well with very low levers of operational readiness and training. But, like a said earlier, someone could get lucky and bloody our nose--it would likely be the last things they'd do.

    A crude comparison might be an ironsight AK to the uniquitous M4s being carried by US soldiers. The M4 pretty much has every advantage...effective range, accuracy, and night/fog and ability to designate targets--unless it's dropped in mud or batteries die. The AK of course packs a hell of a whollop, if it's lucky enough to hit anything.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 5th, 2012 at 04:48 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    China and Russia are BIG trading partners.
    China and the US are bigger trading partners, 457 billion dollars worth in 2010. That's larger than trade with Japan, Germany and the UK combined.
    Except that the U.S. is buying on credit because they have nothing left to pay with, so what good is the trade to China?
    Buying on credit means that your creditors want a return on their investment. Having a war tends to cancel out debts.
    The U.S. has absolutely nothing left to repay with except stolen crude oil and a few trinkets almost any other nation can now produce. If the U.S. gains control of Iran's crude they can sell it to China for whatever price they want, thus, offsetting the tremendous advantage the Chinese enjoy in currency exchange rates, thus making any goods the U.S. does still produce worth more on foreign markets .. all for the price of a few tens of millions of Iranian men, women and children. Pleae remember, Iran has repeatedly allow international nuclear inspectors into all of its nuclear sites. If they were working on a bomb, which they don't need due to advances in chemical explosives, the bomb would have been found.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I suspect the report of transmitted data to be false, propaganda.
    Wow, you'd rather accuse NASA of falsifying information than admit you're wrong? That's pretty astounding.
    NASA - NSSDC - Data Collection - Query Results

    And honestly I've got first hand knowledge of some of the Russian equipment. Their visual optics are about as good as our, their other sensors such as IR are way behind, and worst of all their sensors and communication systems are decades behind ours in integration. The machine tolerance of their equipment is horrible but this helps in for their few advantages, inexpensive, often easier to maintain, and more tolerant of operator abuse in the field.

    Everything I read suggest their Navy is in deplorable shape as well with very low levers of operational readiness and training. But, like a said earlier, someone could get lucky and bloody our nose--it would likely be the last things they'd do.

    A crude comparison might be an ironsight AK to the uniquitous M4s being carried by US soldiers. The M4 pretty much has every advantage...effective range, accuracy, and night/fog and ability to designate targets--unless it's dropped in mud or batteries die. The AK of course packs a hell of a whollop, if it's lucky enough to hit anything.
    You have accepted the propaganda, Lynx, but please remember history. Who had the first satellite and the first ICBM .. and that was at a time when western propaganda painted Russians as illiterate potato farmers. Please don't give credit to the Germans taken prisoner by Russia, as the Russians were considering space exploration a doable, future reality in the late 1800s, which was one of the reasons U.S. and British money financed the so-called Russian revolution, to destroy a nation far more advance than their own. Please remember that Russia currently has muti-warhead ICBMs which, once those warheads are in individual flight, can detect anti-missile missiles and change course to avoid them. Which nation is a few short steps away from a manned mission to Phobos? Only Russia.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Even the British would gain by knocking the U.S. out of the water.
    Do tell. Submarines and Targets Poster
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Future Carriers
    By 15uliane in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 24th, 2011, 09:02 AM
  2. Summer/Daylight Saving Time
    By CrimsonViper in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 27th, 2010, 06:54 PM
  3. Managing mass mind: heads I win tails you lose?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2009, 09:06 AM
  4. Question to lab-people: what to do with Summer-School kids?
    By waveguide in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 10th, 2009, 04:53 PM
  5. Summer Project.. Need help from YOU!..
    By SuperMan91 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 9th, 2008, 02:04 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •