Are aircraft carriers outdated dinosaurs in today's modern warfare?

Crashk said:
Without a strong navy how would we protect Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil and BP's profits? Without the people of the U.S. paying for a strong navy how can big oil companies be secure in their profits? Business profits would suffer if we downsize the muscle that protects them.
Click to expand...
Yeah that too. Obviously maineman and the rest of this pro-carrier crew are war mongers and corporatists.

BP and Exxon will just have to make profits by drilling in the United States.
 
DamnYankee said:
Yeah that too. Obviously maineman and the rest of this pro-carrier crew are war mongers and corporatists.

BP and Exxon will just have to make profits by drilling in the United States.
Click to expand...

So you want to weaken America's military might? Earlier, I thought your proposal was to do away with aircraft carriers and replace them with squadrons of eternally orbitting B-52's armed with smart bombs.
 
My sarcasm was in response to your fellow libtard Crashk's sarcasm.

In truth I have two objectives. One is to save money. Reducing the carrier fleet does that. Five or 6 permanent war platforms is probably enough. If a conflict arises where we need to control more air space, then B-52s or similar aircraft can fulfill that temporary need.

Second, I don't think we need to be the world's cop.
 
And you have arrived at this "five or six" number how, exactly? Was it your vast knowledge of American defense policy, force structure, and platform maintenance, refueling and op tempo that rivals your knowledge of the Talmud?
 
Buehre said:
With the new HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2016, the British would be ahead of the French. Now factor in the new HMS Prince of Wales in 2018. The French have been one-upped, times 5. Currently, the French could not handle the British. The British have the HMS Ocean, the Helicopter Carrier, and due to the proximity of France and the UK, could launch the mighty RAF at France from the mainland. And then keep in mind, the Royal Navy has a lot stronger destroyers and frigates and subs. The British army is just overall superior too.
Click to expand...

Only one little problem, we were going for the F-35C until some bright spark discovered that the cats and traps would cost a couple of billion extra. So now we are waiting for the F-35B instead.
 
It's about half of what we have in operation now, and the generally theory that everything FedCo does is typically overkill by a factor of two.

When was the last time the US has any more that half of that, say three, actively engaged in a conflict?

Then there's positioning:

1. Mid Atlantic.
2,3. Indian Ocean.

??

You tell me, where else would we need a portable air base?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Only one little problem, we were going for the F-35C until some bright spark discovered that the cats and traps would cost a couple of billion extra. So now we are waiting for the F-35B instead.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's right, I forgot. It's 2020 now? Correct? Still, That improves the efficiency of the British and that is a can of whoop ass waiting to be unleashed.
 
maineman said:
So you want to weaken America's military might? Earlier, I thought your proposal was to do away with aircraft carriers and replace them with squadrons of eternally orbitting B-52's armed with smart bombs.
Click to expand...


Weaken US military might ?....Isn't that exactly what the Democrats have been trying to do for decades....?....

Thats a rhetorical question....of course they have....
 
DamnYankee said:
It's about half of what we have in operation now, and the generally theory that everything FedCo does is typically overkill by a factor of two.

When was the last time the US has any more that half of that, say three, actively engaged in a conflict?

Then there's positioning:

1. Mid Atlantic.
2,3. Indian Ocean.

??

You tell me, where else would we need a portable air base?
Click to expand...

Conflict? Are you really suggesting basing military asset decisions on past conflict levels versus future threat potentials?

We had three carrier battle groups in the northern arabian sea alone during the iranian hostage crisis and the first gulf war, and two there for the second Iraq debacle. That doesn't even begin to cover other potential hot spots that might occur. Savvy military planners - like you, supposedly - know that to keep one aircraft carrier manned up, trained up, loaded up, and on station requires two others in the pipeline behind it being, refitted, refueled, stood down after heavy op tempo, andI retrained for the next cycle. Also... We don't ever keep carrier battle groups loitering around in the mid-Atlantic. I would have thought that a talmudic scholar / military planning expert such as yourself would have known that. also, with the growing threat that the PLA poses to us, you would have thought that the northwest pacific might have made your list of places to position a carrier.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Weaken US military might ?....Isn't that exactly what the Democrats have been trying to do for decades....?....

Thats a rhetorical question....of course they have....
Click to expand...

Not THIS democrat. I am, and always have been a hawk on defense. Wanna pick an argument with me? Go after my positions. Wanna go after the DNC? Find a better forum.
 
maineman said:
Conflict? Are you really suggesting basing military asset decisions on past conflict levels versus future threat potentials?

We had three carrier battle groups in the northern arabian sea alone during the iranian hostage crisis and the first gulf war, and two there for the second Iraq debacle. That doesn't even begin to cover other potential hot spots that might occur. Savvy military planners - like you, supposedly - know that to keep one aircraft carrier manned up, trained up, loaded up, and on station requires two others in the pipeline behind it being, refitted, refueled, stood down after heavy op tempo, andk retained for the next cycle. Also... We don't ever keep carrier battle groups loitering around in the mid-Atlantic. I would have thought that a talmudic scholar / military planning expert such as yourself would have known that. also, with the growing threat that the PLA poses to us, you would have thought that the northwest pacific might have made your list of places to position a carrier.
Click to expand...

Since those conflict are over and as you insist, ill-conceived, apparently all these war machines are no longer needed. Moth-ball them.
 
DamnYankee said:
Since those conflict are over and as you insist, ill-conceived, apparently all these war machines are no longer needed. Moth-ball them.
Click to expand...
Did DY just say that? Mothball them? I am beyond offended. What MM was saying is that usually in conflicts, mulitiple carriers are used in a specific area. Thus, we need others to maintain our interests where others usually do.
 
Buehre said:
Did DY just say that? Mothball them? I am beyond offended. What MM was saying is that usually in conflicts, mulitiple carriers are used in a specific area. Thus, we need others to maintain our interests where others usually do.
Click to expand...

Why do we need carriers to maintain our interests?
 
DamnYankee said:
Since those conflict are over and as you insist, ill-conceived, apparently all these war machines are no longer needed. Moth-ball them.
Click to expand...
the next conflicts may not be ill-conceived. To assume the world is a safer place today, with no real justification for that assumption, is foolhardy at best. Doesn't the Talmud directly address that?
 
Threedee said:
How about the Koran? There's a pretty powerful weapon for you!
Click to expand...
i would assume that DY is as internationally recognized as a koranic scholar as he is a talmudic scholar...watch out! You might get schooled bigtime by the world's greatest authority!
 
maineman said:
the next conflicts may not be ill-conceived. To assume the world is a safer place today, with no real justification for that assumption, is foolhardy at best. Doesn't the Talmud directly address that?
Click to expand...

When Bush was Prez, wasn't your Party's line that our presence, especially military presence, causes animosity? Why does your tune change now?

Who, exactly, is capable of harming US territory that we need to have all this bristling weaponry?
 
DamnYankee said:
When Bush was Prez, wasn't your Party's line that our presence, especially military presence, causes animosity? Why does your tune change now?

Who, exactly, is capable of harming US territory that we need to have all this bristling weaponry?
Click to expand...
again... Don't take your argument with doves up with me. I have always been a hawk. I served this nation in arm's way for a quarter of a century, and even volunteered to go BACK on active duty after 9/11. There are a myriad of threats and potential threats that face our nation. For you to advocate unilateral disarmament in the face of them is treasonous. I would gladly direct the firing squad that sent you to the devil.
 
maineman said:
again... Don't take your argument with doves up with me. I have always been a hawk. I served this nation in arm's way for a quarter of a century, and even volunteered to go BACK on active duty after 9/11. There are a myriad of threats and potential threats that face our nation. For you to advocate unilateral disarmament in the face of them is treasonous. I would gladly direct the firing squad that sent you to the devil.
Click to expand...
Who, exactly, is capable of harming US territory that we need to have all this bristling weaponry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top