Are aircraft carriers outdated dinosaurs in today's modern warfare?

DamnYankee said:
We could get rid of about half the carriers we have and retire their crews. We don't need all that floating shit anymore. No need for us to be the world's cop. What arrogance to assume otherwise.
Click to expand...

Of course we could. Not because carriers are obsolete but because when we stop being the global cop we can drastically cut every branch except the Coast Guard.
 
Of course we could. Not because carriers are obsolete but because when we stop being the global cop we can drastically cut every branch except the Coast Guard.
Click to expand...
So you agree that the concept is dated.
 
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...

Plenty of us have been saying this for years.

But this is simply you diverting the topic away from your comments about carriers, and ultimately from your comments that the Navy is where wimps go.

Nice try. But still a fail.
 
DamnYankee said:
So you agree that the concept is dated.
Click to expand...

Not at all. With our current commitments, and with what we are doing, the carriers are needed. And they are still a vital part of our military force.

If we scale back what we do, we would still need the carriers, just not the same number. But then we wouldn't need as many of anything.

So this does not prove your point. In fact, scaling back our military was not what you were talking about.



Actually, considering the evolution of modern warfare, having a mobile platform from which to command and provide close air support is more important than ever. The battlefield in today's world changes far more rapidly than it did in the past. Having air support closer provides a very real advantage. And having control of the AWACs in a much closer location makes a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
DamnYankee said:
It's dated because we don't have threats that require us to have such a large fleet of them.
Click to expand...

If we were to back off the commitments we have made and were to quit being the world's police force, that would be true.

But as our foreign policy stands right now (and has for decades) we do need them.

Also, the number of carriers needed must also take into account the fact that you have to have downtime for maintenance. And that is not a quick thing. Overhauling a ship can take a yaer or so, and even heavy maint. can take months.



And DY, just for clarity, are you claiming that, when you made your initial remarks about carriers, that you meant we didn't need so many of them if we changed our foreign policy?
 
Buehre said:
I'm well aware of the costs. Also, that is factually incorrect, The French Charles De Gaulle is powered by reactors AND Diesel. Also, the aircraft carrying capability is overall quite similar from many nations to that of us. With replenishment ships in their fleets, the conventional carriers can go practically anywhere as they can be refueled as they go... The British super carriers won't be conventional either.
Click to expand...

Its apparent that you haven’t a clue. There is no military, no navy on planet earth that has anywhere near the military capability, the redundancy and the waste of the American military. Nor does any other nation spend anywhere near what America does on national defense. America is the world’s military patsy, foreign policy fool, self-appointed world police force and the Neo-Roman Empire.
 
I've long advocated for a change in foreign as well as fiscal policy. Ex-Navy libs here are upset because I want to take away some of their expensive toys. LOL
 
DamnYankee said:
I've long advocated for a change in foreign as well as fiscal policy. Ex-Navy libs here are upset because I want to take away some of their expensive toys. LOL
Click to expand...

So your opening statement had nothing to do with reality, only your preferences? You weren't actually saying that carriers are less important now than they were in 1960. What you were saying was that, if you were the king of the forest (not prince, not duke, not earl) that you would demote them from their current status - which is, of course that of being MORE important than they were in 1960. Thank GOD cowardly lions like you are NOT king of the forest!
 
maineman said:
It would seem to me, that beyond CL and DY, most everyone else is in agreement that the aircraft carrier is a vital defense asset and has grown more so as its mission has evolved, so that it is much more important to our national defense structure and our foreign policy than it was in 1960.
Click to expand...

Well at least it explains some of our national debt. Our foreign policy is like to stomp around the world supplying military police forces in over 120 countries, dictating who can and who cannot have particular weapons like some God Of War died and left America as the world’s conductor and God of weaponry. We stick our political and military noses into everybody else’s affaires, promote the idiocy and folly of nation building on our taxpayer’s dime and get involved in foreign civil wars We piss-off the middle east and make the Chinese and Russians jealous and leery of our military power so they hate our guts and most of Europe ,the Japanese and South Korea just let us spend our money to protect them while they spend minimal amounts on national defense.

And guess what, the majority of folks in America think this horseshit is sound foreign policy and think they’re some kind of chest pounding patriot because they’re supporting and voting for the fucking insanity. Apparently we’re a nation of historical idiots who likely also think the Roman Empire was a GREAT success.
 
This is bullshit too:

America's Navy - A Global Force for Good: Navy.com

Are we a global charity now? Fuck that.
 
DY, you started out attacking MMB y calling he Navy a place for wimps. Then you try and claim carriers are outdated and not needed.

Now you dance away claiming your statements were about our need to cut defense spending and stop being the global police?? LMAO!!

I have long called for huge cuts in defense spending. Many of us have. Your attempt at diversion is transparent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top