[quote=“Elegua”]Carriers are missile magnets, which is why the US puts a strike group around them. But for China, as others have mentioned, it is a good way to beat on the flips or others that might aspire to hold a piece of the Spratleys or other areas of “core national interest”.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, wouldn’t ships that were so expensive have some sort of anti-missile technology built into them? ie anything flying straight at the ship that is not supposed to be gets blown up?
[quote=“pqkdzrwt”][quote=“Elegua”]Carriers are missile magnets, which is why the US puts a strike group around them. But for China, as others have mentioned, it is a good way to beat on the flips or others that might aspire to hold a piece of the Spratleys or other areas of “core national interest”.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, wouldn’t ships that were so expensive have some sort of anti-missile technology built into them? ie anything flying straight at the ship that is not supposed to be gets blown up?[/quote]
They do, directly and indirectly. The defense is in concentric rings. The outermost ring are the submarines that are attached to the strike group. Then comes the bubble of cover provided by the carrier air wing. Then come the frigates and destroyers that make up the ASW defences. Then come the bigger AEGIS air defence cruisers. The last stage they have RAM missiles and CIWS, which are last ditch systems and chaff launchers. Anything that gets through all that, you’re screwed.
This all requires close coordination and complex communication systems and one more reason why there are not more countries with carrier strike groups.
[quote=“Lili”]
Sailors drive boats. Pilots drive planes lol
Unless you mean the pilots on the planes on the boat. …Ahhhhhhhh.
What is a “big yank”?[/quote]
pi·lot noun \ˈpī-lət\
1
a : one employed to steer a ship : helmsman
b : a person who is qualified and usually licensed to conduct a ship into and out of a port or in specified waters
c : a person who flies or is qualified to fly an aircraft or spacecraft
2
: guide, leader
3
: cowcatcher
4
: a piece that guides a tool or machine part
5
: a television show produced and filmed or taped as a sample of a proposed series
Lili, you should write less and read more. :loco:
That’s easy: because China is evil.[/quote]
Sorry, Guy, but I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking, exaggerating or telling it how you see it. Could you amplify on that?[/quote]
That’s the intention. The correct answer is “all of the above”. Most people here haven’t been able to figure out that someone can hold a position, and simultaneously mock both others (sharing such a position) and himself for the ridiculousness or seriousness of such a position.
That’s easy: because China is evil.[/quote]
Sorry, Guy, but I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking, exaggerating or telling it how you see it. Could you amplify on that?[/quote]
That’s the intention. The correct answer is “all of the above”. Most people here haven’t been able to figure out that someone can hold a position, and simultaneously mock both others (sharing such a position) and himself for the ridiculousness or seriousness of such a position.[/quote]
Sounds daft to me, sorry, no offense meant.
The trouble of carriers is that even with defense layers you just need to fire 10s of supersonic missiles and it’s likely a few will hit the target, once hit the carrier becomes a major liability rather than an asset. You’ve got 1000s of people in mortal danger stuck in open ocean, the support craft are going to be distracted too from the primary mission. The other problem is that adding all these defensive layers will make you go broke. You can think of other scenarios too. For instance swarms of mini drone torpedoes/drone boats/drone planes.
With long range drone tech you just need satellite co-ordination to target. Eventually drones (and I believe they already have) have AI built in meaning they can scan an area and hone in on the target independently even if communication with home base was cut off.
Yet another trend that is obvious is strike groups setting off long-range, either manned or unmanned, the need for a floating platform is reduced. All this makes carriers pretty redundant fighting against a country with advanced technology. You wouldn’t want to bank on them that’s for sure.
Its all just hot air. The only thing this thing will be good for is put-putting about around the Spratleys and the Pratas with some commie twat leaning over the side shouting at the Viet fishermen: “Hey! You! You no come heah! You NO COME HEAH! You go home! You go home NOW!”
[quote=“headhonchoII”]The trouble of carriers is that even with defense layers you just need to fire 10s of supersonic missiles and it’s likely a few will hit the target, once hit the carrier becomes a major liability rather than an asset. You’ve got 1000s of people in mortal danger stuck in open ocean, the support craft are going to be distracted too from the primary mission. The other problem is that adding all these defensive layers will make you go broke. You can think of other scenarios too. For instance swarms of mini drone torpedoes/drone boats/drone planes.
With long range drone tech you just need satellite co-ordination to target. Eventually drones (and I believe they already have) have AI built in meaning they can scan an area and hone in on the target independently even if communication with home base was cut off.
Yet another trend that is obvious is strike groups setting off long-range, either manned or unmanned, the need for a floating platform is reduced. All this makes carriers pretty redundant fighting against a country with advanced technology. You wouldn’t want to bank on them that’s for sure.[/quote]
Well for the American military all it would take is a tactical nuke. Or just a satellite and an ICBM.
I must delirious or something, because this is actually funny to me.
That’s still more useful than the THAI-tanic, aka the world’s most expensive royal yacht.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet#Role_and_operational_history