Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon - Page 13




 
--
 
December 23rd, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
The 2012 Defense budget is the highest since WWII.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...udget-requests


...and that's a bad thing.
One never knows what is around the corner, like the Falklands. If Argentina had held off their invasion for a few months the British carriers would have been sold off, (despite warnings from the Admiralty) the Falkland Islanders would be learning Spanish today, and not out of choice. Britain were unprepared for WW2, all due to government defence cut backs. The British Army were so short of vehicles in 1939, civilian trucks were commandeered.

Defence cuts are dangerous, (as I said before) politicians should stick to what they know, getting drunk and shouting abuse at the opposition.
December 23rd, 2011  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
One never knows what is around the corner, like the Falklands. If Argentina had held off their invasion for a few months the British carriers would have been sold off, (despite warnings from the Admiralty) the Falkland Islanders would be learning Spanish today, and not out of choice. Britain were unprepared for WW2, all due to government defence cut backs. The British Army were so short of vehicles in 1939, civilian trucks were commandeered.

Defence cuts are dangerous, (as I said before) politicians should stick to what they know, getting drunk and shouting abuse at the opposition.
Except that was 30 years ago, a very different ballgame now. If anything, the Falklands proved just how dangerous an ASM can be, and that was 30 years ago when missile technology was at its infancy. Nowadays you have cruise missiles (like the Russian SunBurn) that can be launched hundreds of miles away from a land based tractor-trailer and because they fly at supersonic speeds they are currently impossible to intercept. As of right now, there is no air defense system capable of stopping a Kh-41 once its in flight. And the Kh-41 has plenty of operators including Iran, which is something the USN might want to think about if they are planning a military adventure over there.

The Argentineans had less than 6 Exocets in their entire arsenal. Of the 6, 2 destroyed their targets (HMS Sheffield and HMS Atlantic Conveyor) and one severely damaged another (HMS Glamoran).

If the Argentinean had they had a few more they very well might have blown the RN right out of the water. You were utterly defenseless against such an attack. And I am not saying that as a slam against the British, any Navy (including the US) in that situation would have been in mortal danger.


As for Defense Budget. Allow me to quote Dwight D Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron".

In other words: The money we waste on Defense could be better spent elsewhere, and this was from a person who was an expert in the field of military science.



Right now, America spends on Defense more than the next 15 countries do...combined..

Spending on defending your country is one thing, running the entire country's economy into the ground (as the US is now) to support the military supermachine is quite another.

And I haven't even got into how much is being wasted on utterly useless projects, hugely expensive White Elephants not worth a damn on an actual battlefield. What people don't understand about Defense is that it has nothing to do with defending your country and has to do with supporting a Multi-Billionaire dollar industry which employs thousands of people. What politicians are afraid of are defense cuts that can affect their re-election donations campaign from companies like (Lockheed, Honeywell, Boeing, GE) and also if their are cuts, that those cuts dont happen in their district as that creates unemployment which they will get blamed for.

And has nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with money and power.
December 23rd, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Except that was 30 years ago, a very different ballgame now. If anything, the Falklands proved just how dangerous an ASM can be, and that was 30 years ago when missile technology was at its infancy. Nowadays you have cruise missiles (like the Russian SunBurn) that can be launched hundreds of miles away from a land based tractor-trailer and because they fly at supersonic speeds they are currently impossible to intercept. As of right now, there is no air defense system capable of stopping a Kh-41 once its in flight. And the Kh-41 has plenty of operators including Iran, which is something the USN might want to think about if they are planning a military adventure over there.

The Argentineans had less than 6 Exocets in their entire arsenal. Of the 6, 2 destroyed their targets (HMS Sheffield and HMS Atlantic Conveyor) and one severely damaged another (HMS Glamoran).

If the Argentinean had they had a few more they very well might have blown the RN right out of the water. You were utterly defenseless against such an attack. And I am not saying that as a slam against the British, any Navy (including the US) in that situation would have been in mortal danger.


As for Defense Budget. Allow me to quote Dwight D Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron".

In other words: The money we waste on Defense could be better spent elsewhere, and this was from a person who was an expert in the field of military science.



Right now, America spends on Defense more than the next 15 countries do...combined..

Spending on defending your country is one thing, running the entire country's economy into the ground (as the US is now) to support the military supermachine is quite another.

And I haven't even got into how much is being wasted on utterly useless projects, hugely expensive White Elephants not worth a damn on an actual battlefield. What people don't understand about Defense is that it has nothing to do with defending your country and has to do with supporting a Multi-Billionaire dollar industry which employs thousands of people. What politicians are afraid of are defense cuts that can affect their re-election donations campaign from companies like (Lockheed, Honeywell, Boeing, GE) and also if their are cuts, that those cuts dont happen in their district as that creates unemployment which they will get blamed for.

And has nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with money and power.
Yes the Falklands was 30 years ago, and yes the Royal Navy were damn lucky that the Argentine's only had 6 Exocets (and thank God they didn't have more), and yes times have changed. During the Falklands War, Britain was so short of vital equipment and munitions they had to go cap in hand to the US (who thankfully were on our side). I have no doubt that some Americans thought "Here we go again, helping the Brits out." And quite frankly, I don't blame them.

Nonetheless, British military had been issued substandard equipment for years due to government cut backs. An SAS officer resigned because of poor equipment not too long ago in Afghanistan.

During my time we were issued trucks that were slower then Soviet Tanks, some men were even issued 1937 pattern webbing (I was lucky, I managed to score a 58 pattern set), during the Suez Crisis in 1956 British troops went in armed with Lee Enfields, while the Arabs were armed with AK47's, in the Far East up to 1968 or 1969 the general issue rifle to RAF erks was the Lee Enfield. It's criminal that governments put men in harms way without the latest and best equipment available, something successive British governments have been guilty of for years.

Britain was developing one of the finest aircraft of its time, the TSR2, until Duncan Sandy's published his white paper, "Manned aircraft are a thing of the past." Result, the TSR2 was scrapped along with other developments as well as the Canadian built Avro Arrow. What the hell did Sandys know about aircraft? Sod all. He was nothing but a Territorial Army Officer in a Royal Artillery Light Anti Aircraft Unit.
--
December 23rd, 2011  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
People seem to forget that the Fed. Govt. isn't supposed to be a be all/do all entity. It is the job of the Fed. Govt. to defend the country, not fix potholes.

That was a more figuritive comment. The potholes being a figuritive term for deficits across the board, central avenue being the country as a whole. (Bad anology it seems).

Yes I understand the imperitive need for defense, but some of the defense programs being funded are of questionable usefulness.

Some contracts seem to be getting federal funding simply for the sake of funding another contract, or Senator A has huge stocks invested in defense company B.

It's that kind of spending that bothers me.
December 23rd, 2011  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Except that was 30 years ago, a very different ballgame now. If anything, the Falklands proved just how dangerous an ASM can be, and that was 30 years ago when missile technology was at its infancy. Nowadays you have cruise missiles (like the Russian SunBurn) that can be launched hundreds of miles away from a land based tractor-trailer and because they fly at supersonic speeds they are currently impossible to intercept. As of right now, there is no air defense system capable of stopping a Kh-41 once its in flight. And the Kh-41 has plenty of operators including Iran, which is something the USN might want to think about if they are planning a military adventure over there.

The Argentineans had less than 6 Exocets in their entire arsenal. Of the 6, 2 destroyed their targets (HMS Sheffield and HMS Atlantic Conveyor) and one severely damaged another (HMS Glamoran).

If the Argentinean had they had a few more they very well might have blown the RN right out of the water. You were utterly defenseless against such an attack. And I am not saying that as a slam against the British, any Navy (including the US) in that situation would have been in mortal danger.


As for Defense Budget. Allow me to quote Dwight D Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron".

In other words: The money we waste on Defense could be better spent elsewhere, and this was from a person who was an expert in the field of military science.



Right now, America spends on Defense more than the next 15 countries do...combined..

Spending on defending your country is one thing, running the entire country's economy into the ground (as the US is now) to support the military supermachine is quite another.

And I haven't even got into how much is being wasted on utterly useless projects, hugely expensive White Elephants not worth a damn on an actual battlefield. What people don't understand about Defense is that it has nothing to do with defending your country and has to do with supporting a Multi-Billionaire dollar industry which employs thousands of people. What politicians are afraid of are defense cuts that can affect their re-election donations campaign from companies like (Lockheed, Honeywell, Boeing, GE) and also if their are cuts, that those cuts dont happen in their district as that creates unemployment which they will get blamed for.

And has nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with money and power.
The southern Europe economic crisis certainly isn't from excessive Defence spending, but excess Nanny State spending & The Democrats want the US to be more like Europe...absolutely brilliant.
December 23rd, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
The 2012 Defense budget is the highest since WWII.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...udget-requests


...and that's a bad thing.


To get back to the topic, a modern day ASM (like the Kh-41) costs about $1 million. A Modern Aircraft Carrier over a $2 Billion. Now considering that a single missile hit can utterly pulverize a large ship and the fact that most of Americans possible enemies (China, Iran, North Korea) all dozens of such weapons and that they are easily obtainable on the black market how wise is it for us to be building billion dollar barges filled with high octane fuel and munitions?
I agree. BTW the new Ford class carrier is to cost more than $9 billion. You can buy some good weapons with that and you free up to 4000 personel.

In modern warfare the AC is a magnet, and that's the last thing you want to have. Surely if you are betting on it.
December 26th, 2011  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
The southern Europe economic crisis certainly isn't from excessive Defence spending, but excess Nanny State spending & The Democrats want the US to be more like Europe...absolutely brilliant.
George

If we had the European model in the USA, no one would ever vote Republican ever again. I promise you that. People would take all the freebies that it has to offer and tell the Republican party to stick their fear mongering where the sun don't shine. And that ultimately is what you Republicans fear the most.

But what does the *nanny state* have anything to do with the actual topic? How come you always turn every subject into a bashing of the Democrats, you beginning to sound desperate. If I were you I'd stop worrying about the Democrats and start worrying about GOP campaign because if you have been watching the polls for 2012 the Republicans are in very serious trouble.

The fact reminds that we spent far too much on military spending, and namely on weapons like aircraft carriers which we don't need. You seem to confuse good defense as synonymous to the amount spent. Allow me to refer you to the Soviet Union who spent their whole economy on Defense, never used it in a hot war, and still lost the cold war.

$9 billion on a new AC than can be sunk by a $1 million AS missile.
$138 Million on a aircraft like the F-22 for a terrorist enemy that has absolutely no air force at all.
Building a billion dollar ABM system against Iran which even if hey do get a nuke (doubtful), they would be suicidal to use.
$7 Million a copy for a Maine AAAV (twice as much as a Abrams tank) which even the Marines admit can be easily destroyed by any number of older AT weapons. And seriously how many invasions of Omaha beach have the Marines done in the past 50 years to warrant such an expense.

These are the types of questions teabaggers should ask but strangely do not. Focusing their energy on cutting programs Americans actually both like and need. Which would explain why the TP polls have all nosed dived. Everthing Americans are for, the TP is against.
December 27th, 2011  
A Can of Man
 
 
Food for thought: It's the 21st century and the infantryman is still not rainproof.
December 27th, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
Food for thought: It's the 21st century and the infantryman is still not rainproof.
And they still walk everywhere!
December 28th, 2011  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
George

If we had the European model in the USA, no one would ever vote Republican ever again. I promise you that. People would take all the freebies that it has to offer and tell the Republican party to stick their fear mongering where the sun don't shine. And that ultimately is what you Republicans fear the most.

But what does the *nanny state* have anything to do with the actual topic? How come you always turn every subject into a bashing of the Democrats, you beginning to sound desperate. If I were you I'd stop worrying about the Democrats and start worrying about GOP campaign because if you have been watching the polls for 2012 the Republicans are in very serious trouble.

The fact reminds that we spent far too much on military spending, and namely on weapons like aircraft carriers which we don't need. You seem to confuse good defense as synonymous to the amount spent. Allow me to refer you to the Soviet Union who spent their whole economy on Defense, never used it in a hot war, and still lost the cold war.

$9 billion on a new AC than can be sunk by a $1 million AS missile.
$138 Million on a aircraft like the F-22 for a terrorist enemy that has absolutely no air force at all.
Building a billion dollar ABM system against Iran which even if hey do get a nuke (doubtful), they would be suicidal to use.
$7 Million a copy for a Maine AAAV (twice as much as a Abrams tank) which even the Marines admit can be easily destroyed by any number of older AT weapons. And seriously how many invasions of Omaha beach have the Marines done in the past 50 years to warrant such an expense.

These are the types of questions teabaggers should ask but strangely do not. Focusing their energy on cutting programs Americans actually both like and need. Which would explain why the TP polls have all nosed dived. Everthing Americans are for, the TP is against.
Democracy works untill the people figure out they can vote themselves benefits. Describes the European model. Liberalism works untill you run out of Other Peoples Money. Describes southern Europe. Think I saw where the new AAAv has been cancelled. F-22 Do you really expect that the only thing going on for the next 20 or so years is chasing cave dwellers? No possible confrontations with anyone of substance? Is M.A.D. really sane? Soviet Union. Communism doesn't work & high military spending meant it consumed itself faster. You & I both know that money taken from Defence will be spent, not saved & it'll be on vote buying(i e welfare) by Democrats. The T.P. want spending reduced, the rep Leadership is only talking about a reduction in the rate of increased spending & the dems don't even want to reduce the planned increases in spending.
 


Similar Topics
JF-17 Vs LCA Tejas
Virginia Lawmakers Launch Plan To Keep Aircraft Carrier
India to join select club of aircraft carrier designers
First-Family Name May Be Weapon In Carrier Battle
India begins construction of aircraft carrier