FLBear5630 said:
Oldbear83 said:
cowboycwr said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Oldbear83 said:
KaiBear said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Oldbear83 said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Oldbear83 said:
" Will be impressed if they have a new design that can withstand China's drones and super-sonic ICBMs."
Last I checked, all ICBMs are supersonic.
Fair enough - what is the new missile it has ... maybe it is hypersonic. Regardless, not sure an other big carrier makes sense.
depends on what it does besides the obvious.
Carriers are force projection, which drones/missiles cannot accomplish.
It's also important that new carriers do more than the older classes.
Anyway, a new carrier makes more sense than, say, the F-35 or DEI.
I'm definitely not an expert, but afraid China takes out all our carriers in a couple of days with those hypersonic missiles or massive drone attacks. Hope I'm wrong.
Carriers are hopelessly obsolete.
Easy to detect, a floating mega explosion loaded with jet fuel and bombs.
Multi billion dollar target for cheap drones and missiles.
And each CV is manned by approx 5000 sailors.
Unfortunately we are still fighting and planning for WW2 sea battles.
Even with the recent example of the Russians losing several warships in their Black Sea fleet to Ukranian drones.
Serious question, if you don't use carriers what would you use for force projection over a period of weeks in an area, say of a thousand square miles?
Again - not an expert ... but there is a lot of technology out there than can do this - drones just the beginning.
Seems silly to spend $1T on a boat that can be sunk with a drone from Best Buy.
I get your point but it takes a little bit more than a drone from Best Buy and the amount of explosives it can carry..
The USS Cole was hit by a speed boat with an expected 1000lbs of explosives and yet didn't sink.
Add to that the fact that the USN has wargamed attacks on carriers for my entire life. It's silly to imagine they have not prepared for drones, various missile attacks and all manner of unconventional attacks,
I agree with you, I am sure they have war-gammed. Now, what happens once things go live?
Is the US prepared for losses? No peer level war, is going to be pain free. Look at Ukraine and Russia, Russia will wear them down and get what they want. But Ukraine has gotten their shots in.
In a war with China or even Russia, we will lose carriers. Hell, with Venezuela we will take some loses. We did in Granada, Panama, and in Saudi and they were cake walks as far as wars go. Do we lose enough to become combat ineffective? War games are not set up for no losses, how do we position to continue mission with losses?
I think the question is political will. I don't see the US having the stomach for anything short of an invasion of the US. And, even then most it would depend on where the invasion occurred. Hawaii? There would be a portion saying we stole them so we deserve to lose them. Aleutians? What are a few frozen islands. Mainland? Others would say you go fight, as long as I have my lifestyle let them have it. I am sure the military can figure how to deal with the technical end of war, can and will the population handle it? Are you even allowed to ask without being called "Internet Rambo"?
This is why I focused on the efforts to
avoid a war.
As Kai loves to say, this is not WW2, and the effects of a hot war in the Pacific are not only global, they include severe economic and social consequences which in general will hurt the major participants.
You are correct that the US is not in a place to handle the costs of a major war. What gets missed is that
China cannot afford a major war, either.
No one seems to notice that, but it's important to notice the things said by leaders in Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and others.
None of this happens in a vacuum.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
