|
A US carrier is a strategic asset and if sunk by a Chinese missile thw situation would probably escalate to a limited nuclear strike.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
End the world over one carrier? That's comforting. And yes i'm aware how powerful a carrier battle group is. Still don't think it's worth the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
The same is true for an allied airbase that's reliable enough to host the latest and greatest US fighter, probably! If somebody is already bombing NATO airbases, then attacking US carriers can hardly make things much worse for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I knew we could find a reasonable compromise. A common ground, so to speak? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:End the world over one carrier? That's comforting. And yes i'm aware how powerful a carrier battle group is. Still don't think it's worth the apocalypse. Not the end of world just most of the Chinese coastline. Thats why putting conventional warheads on icbm's to launch at carriers is such a bad idea. Now the russian plan of a using bombers to cruise missle swarm a carrier is alot easier to walk back from the brink. If such a thing would be possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So use any of the other dozen or so bases in the neighborhood? That's what was done before getting access to Incirlik, and it meant two or three additional hours spent just flying to transit to destination because the other bases in the neighborhood are much more distant. Why do you think the US even wanted to use Incirlik in the first place when they were already using Abu Dhabi?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Where are you getting this from? What kind of conceptual breakthrough had been achieved in "the 90's-2000's" where people weren't running the gently caress away from launch-on-warning? Which doctrinal paper is there to be read about this? Are you describing a situation where the US isn't going to wait and check on the payload type of incoming RVs outside CONUS, but instead goes for an immediate WMD retaliation? Are you suggesting that the US will automatically escalate a theater conflict into global nuclear war? Allow me to simplify this. Rent-a-cop either doesn't know what the gently caress he's talking about or he's making up lies for fun. Take your pick. Rent-A-Cop posted:All the insistence in the world isn't going to save them if they decide to pop off a wave of IRBMs in the general direction of Japan. Nobody is going to wait for those suckers to land to see if they're ballistic kill vehicles or MIRVs. There's a reason the US and USSR both abandoned this idea in the 1980's (and again in the 90's-2000's). Launching IR/CBMs at things is a hyper-provocative move for a nuclear power in a conventional conflict. I mean, really, this is just laughably dumb and would require that the US and allies in the region were deliberately being misleading in sinking tens of billions of collars into defense against conventional ballistic missiles all for the express purpose of tricking the American people, America's allies' people, and America's potential foes into believing that we weren't just going to nuke the gently caress out of the most populous nation in the loving world if they launched a single ballistic missile packed with 1000 pounds of conventional high explosives. You would have to believe that the leadership of America and several of its allies are engaging in a totally secret and intentionally evil, fanatical, and irrational conspiracy to increase the likelihood of nuclear world war. If you think that, I've got some aluminum foil I can sell you. In this scenario are the generals and joint staff writing all the doctrine that says we absolutely won't just insta-nuke someone for launching a TBM evil members of the conspiracy or are they just a bunch of dupes? mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That's what was done before getting access to Incirlik, and it meant two or three additional hours spent just flying to transit to destination because the other bases in the neighborhood are much more distant. Everything you described sounds like an inconvenience, but significantly less so than the cost of purchasing and maintaining a dozen carrier groups and the associated fighters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
This is more of a general question, but on the topic of "where the US is allowed to operate from", have they ever/are they allowed to use Israel as a staging area?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:How exactly do you propose checking the payload of a missile in flight? It works just like the hit televison show Battlestar: Galactica where there's an AWACS and suddenly someone yells RADIOLOGICAL ALARM, right? The key defense is really keeping threats as far away from a carrier as possible. Things that go 200+ miles tend to be subsonic or ballistic, supersonic or hypersonic stuff is shorter-range. And of course, submarines or mines that get inside the group can probably bone you before you can respond. Mines are pretty advanced nowadays. Railguns are a purely kinetic projectile that's likely harder to destroy/redirect, and current-gen stuff can go out to 40-50 miles. Next-gen railguns are speculated to hit out to 200-250 miles, which will start forcing a longer standoff distance for carriers. Supercavitating torpedos can hit 230-250 miles per hour, that'd be a hell of a thing to arm an advanced mine with. Then there's the interesting stuff like space nukes. Missile launches are generally detected by their infrared signature, but you can't do that against fractional orbital bombardment. It's much more difficult to detect the deorbit burn than the launch burn. China is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty so nuclear satellites are theoretically out, but it would probably be difficult to enforce violations. And the OST doesn't cover FOBS missiles or Rods From God either. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Allow me to simplify this. Rent-a-cop either doesn't know what the gently caress he's talking about or he's making up lies for fun. Take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:...and ours will probably cost ten times as much money. Optimism is alive and well in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You're right! I didn't realize the Obama administration had revived PGS after Bush killed it for being the worst idea ever. So at least we are officially as dumb as the Chinese on this and ours will probably cost ten times as much money. This has nothing to do with my point. Also part of the cost of our development is treating workers like humans. At least Demi-humans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is more of a general question, but on the topic of "where the US is allowed to operate from", have they ever/are they allowed to use Israel as a staging area? We have a propositioned war reserve stock in Israel, although it's purpose mostly seems to be to facilitate easy transfers of arms to Israel in an emergency. There are also a handful of minor facilities, like a search radar facility for detecting ballistic missiles. But in general, because of the politics of the Middle East, the US and Israel both would rather not have Israel involved in most US interventions in that region. So we tend to operate out of other allied countries nearby, like Turkey, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar where we have several established air bases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I mean, really, this is just laughably dumb and would require that the US and allies in the region were deliberately being misleading in sinking tens of billions of collars into defense against conventional ballistic missiles all for the express purpose of tricking the American people, America's allies' people, and America's potential foes into believing that we weren't just going to nuke the gently caress out of the most populous nation in the loving world if they launched a single ballistic missile packed with 1000 pounds of conventional high explosives. You would have to believe that the leadership of America and several of its allies are engaging in a totally secret and intentionally evil, fanatical, and irrational conspiracy to increase the likelihood of nuclear world war. If you think that, I've got some aluminum foil I can sell you. How in the gently caress did you make the jump from "launching ballistic missiles is highly provocative and could trigger a strategic level response" to "We're going the full MAD the moment a single heat plume is spotted"? Also the idea that we're working on ballistic missile defense is pretty much irrelevant to his point, like I'm not even sure how you think that argument makes sense never mind how you think its iron clad enough to justify this hyperbolic nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:How in the gently caress did you make the jump from "launching ballistic missiles is highly provocative and could trigger a strategic level response" to "We're going the full MAD the moment a single heat plume is spotted"? I didn't. Try reading the posts I respond to next time. Rent-A-Cop posted:All the insistence in the world isn't going to save them if they decide to pop off a wave of IRBMs in the general direction of Japan. Nobody is going to wait for those suckers to land to see if they're ballistic kill vehicles or MIRVs. There's a reason the US and USSR both abandoned this idea in the 1980's (and again in the 90's-2000's). Launching IR/CBMs at things is a hyper-provocative move for a nuclear power in a conventional conflict. He didn't say it could trigger a strategic level response. He implied it would mean nukes. He also implied that the US is so loving stupid and/or evil that it will just assume any TBM fired in a volley is a nuke and would respond as such. I can assure you he is dead wrong. If by strategic level response you mean CVs and extra air defenses and massive USN/USAF operations and all kinds of other poo poo, yeah, I totally agree that lobbing a couple waves of TBMs at Japan would absolutely entail that sort of thing. If you mean a nuke automatically because a power decided for whatever reason to fire ballistic missiles at a regional ally, then nope. e: The idea that the US considers any TBM launch from a nuclear power to be a nuke is such a common, wrong, and stupid idea that I get a bit up in arms when it comes up. Which is all the loving time. I mean, we somehow manage not to assume every nuke-capable fighter or bomber is actually carrying nukes to launch. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:e: The idea that the US considers any TBM launch from a nuclear power to be a nuke is such a common, wrong, and stupid idea that I get a bit up in arms when it comes up. Which is all the loving time. I mean, we somehow manage not to assume every nuke-capable fighter or bomber is actually carrying nukes to launch. Like most stupid ideas regarding nukes launch on warning was actual US policy until the late 90s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I didn't. Try reading the posts I respond to next time. Strategic level response as in strategic level weapons like nukes Yes when nuclear powers start flinging volley's of ballistic missiles around people get twitchy and bad poo poo can happen, we've almost had nuclear exchanges over false positives on ballistic launches I'm not sure why you think volleys of them going off in the middle of a shooting war isn't risking escalating to a nuclear exchange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
His point is that since launch on warning has not been the policy of the US or Russia for literal decades at this point an ICBM launch or false positive would not potentially cause nuclear armageddon. The policy right now of all is nuclear powers is that they would launch a second strike after weathering the first strike.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Strategic level response as in strategic level weapons like nukes Let's just leave it at this: You have no idea what you are talking about. But going into great detail about what would or wouldn't trigger a nuclear response is not a thing I'm going to do. It would probably be a different story if we suddenly detected volleys of ballistic missiles targeting CONUS population centers, our silos, etc. Ballistic missiles targeting a regional ally is, shockingly, not the same as detecting a massive launch from Russia targeting DC. If you think the US military are such a bunch of chucklefucks that we'd nuke China or NK over a volley of as yet to be determined ballistic missiles being launched against a regional adversary, wow. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This has nothing to do with my point. Also part of the cost of our development is treating workers like humans. At least Demi-humans. How so? At Boeing commercial employees (maybe just those involved in manufacture) are only about five percent of the cost of a plane. Additionally I'd guess that those involved in aerospace technology are treated pretty well in most any country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Jago posted:How so? At Boeing commercial employees (maybe just those involved in manufacture) are only about five percent of the cost of a plane. Additionally I'd guess that those involved in aerospace technology are treated pretty well in most any country. I won't pretend to have a detailed analysis of the cost breakdowns, but if you only look at the cost of the labor that assembles them at the Boeing plants rather than every step along the way, it's going to make it look like almost all the costs are in raw materials and transportation costs. Apple can save a ton building i[things] in China, but we can't exactly have Chinese workers assembling military radars for us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
A parallel might be the fact that Intel still manufactures a lot of its' chips in the states because so much of the cost is related to IP and the actual facility itself. The price of an employee, proportionally is very small. Also, although Boeing has famously outsourced almost everything, a high percentage of interiors and a fairly surprising amount of the composites are in some part fabricated in house. I'm not sure how big a difference mil vs commericial makes as far as percentage of parts manufactured domestically makes tbqh. I know that I worked on a few 767 tanker parts in a commercial facility. LRADIKAL fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Everything you described sounds like an inconvenience, but significantly less so than the cost of purchasing and maintaining a dozen carrier groups and the associated fighters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I won't pretend to have a detailed analysis of the cost breakdowns, but if you only look at the cost of the labor that assembles them at the Boeing plants rather than every step along the way, it's going to make it look like almost all the costs are in raw materials and transportation costs. Apple can save a ton building i[things] in China, but we can't exactly have Chinese workers assembling military radars for us. US labor will cost more, sure However aerospace and mil grade components cost a ton more than the commercial equivalent. Low volume, much stricter performance req'ts, and harsher quality controls all stack up fairly quickly. More so than the labor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Let's just leave it at this: It's a super terrible idea for some serious full scale war poo poo that is never going to happen, and considering it's Chinese probably doesn't work/exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Also, ICBMs arn't exactly precision guided weapons and it's questionable whether you could even hit a moving target like a carrier with one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:My point isn't that Armageddon would happen, it's that conventional long-range ballistic missiles was an idea that was deemed too provocative when Donald "Let God sort 'em out" Rumsfeld was still in charge, and they were only talking about shooting them at mud huts, not a nuclear power. It may never happen, which would be cool, but every nation that doesn't have super badass naval aviation and air forces sees your position above as a lovely copout so that America and allies can keep stomping people out. "Missiles are too scary, keep getting straight bullied/blown up by my badass airforce oh noes  " doesn't really work for many nations. The fact of the matter is that a wide variety of nations have already and continue to invest heavily in ballistic missiles. See: Iran, Syira (though they've used a lot of their stock), Israel, China, North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. It's a deterrence factor. Iran doesn't have shitloads of conventional ballistic missiles just so they can sneak their first nuke into one, assuming they even develop a nuke much less one that would fit on a missile. They have them so they can credibly threaten US/GCC air bases, C2 nodes, and naval forces in the event of hostilities IOT either stave off hostilities entirely or to degrade targeting and sortie generation. China is doing the same thing on a larger scale. It's not so much building a bunch of SRBM/MRBM forces so they can just lob missiles at regional powers they have territorial conflicts with, but rather having a credible enough capability to severely jack up airbases, logistical bases, and C2 nodes such that they can keep foreign powers out of their poo poo while also projecting power into smaller regional powers' contested areas. If the US had to choose between Kadena AFB getting all kinds of jacked up by conventional warheads and starting a nuclear war, I wager they'd choose the former. Remember that we fully expected Iraq was extremely high risk to gas US forces with ballistic missiles in Desert Storm and OIF. They launched ballistic missiles at US/coalition forces and, during Desert Storm, at Israel. We sure as poo poo didn't just nuke them in return. We wore MOPP gear, bunkered up, shot down what we could, and continued with a conventional war. I still think you are treating as the same launching ICBMs at population centers with using SRBMs/MRBMs against tactical/operational objectives to shape the strategic picture. -Troika- posted:Also, ICBMs arn't exactly precision guided weapons and it's questionable whether you could even hit a moving target like a carrier with one. Yeah, no one in the whole world has claimed to have an ICBM that targets carriers. The DF-21 is an MRBM. When it comes to range SRBM<MRBM<IRBM<ICBM. Technically the name has been dropped, but this covers a lot of these ideas in depth: http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Also nations like China spent a lot of effort developing their nuclear capability in such a way that the US absolutely can't mistake their conventional ICBM's for nuclear. It's why it's a viable strategy for China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You've demonstrated that you aren't really capable of considering the factors involved, so you're going to have to trust me when I say that being able to put a fully supplied, high-throughput airfield anywhere there is an ocean absolutely makes logistical and financial sense when you are a country like the United States with global interests and a dependence on Air- and Sea- mobility. Every mile further you are forced to stage air assets away from the fight incurs significant operational and logistical penalties. You seem quite sure about the value of that spending while there are literally people going hungry, unable to attend college, dying from a lack of healthcare, and sleeping on the streets due to domestic budget cuts. Personally, I would argue it makes a lot more logistical and financial sense to suffer through having aircraft have to fly a few extra miles to their targets if that allows diverting the hundreds of billions of dollars from supporting floating death cities that make it somewhat easier to kill people abroad to helping people at home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Your basic assumption is that if the US were to suddenly decide to get rid of their Navy, the money saved would be used for free college or whatever, instead of being used on cutting the taxes paid by the higher X% of the population. In fact, said taxes would be cut for even more than the cost of the former Navy, resulting in increased, not decreased, debt, so social programs would unfortunately have to be cut some more as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You seem quite sure about the value of that spending while there are literally people going hungry, unable to attend college, dying from a lack of healthcare, and sleeping on the streets due to domestic budget cuts. Personally, I would argue it makes a lot more logistical and financial sense to suffer through having aircraft have to fly a few extra miles to their targets if that allows diverting the hundreds of billions of dollars from supporting floating death cities that make it somewhat easier to kill people abroad to helping people at home. Logistical and financial sense for who? From a humanitarian perspective, and from the perspective of the hungry and homeless, maybe. However, aircraft carriers suit the needs of the entities whose opinions actually matter, and therefore from the perspective of those entities they are a much better use of that money. Feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is certainly moral, but it doesn't safeguard the geopolitical interests of the US government. Dead Reckoning did not say that the aircraft carriers had absolute value or that they made sense in a vacuum - he said that they had value to the United States government and made sense for protecting the US government's interests. You can argue that the US government's interests are dumb, misprioritized, or shouldn't be the focus at all, but the US government is the one spending the money so it's not strange that it'd prioritize its own interests!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You seem quite sure about the value of that spending while there are literally people going hungry, unable to attend college, dying from a lack of healthcare, and sleeping on the streets due to domestic budget cuts. Personally, I would argue it makes a lot more logistical and financial sense to suffer through having aircraft have to fly a few extra miles to their targets if that allows diverting the hundreds of billions of dollars from supporting floating death cities that make it somewhat easier to kill people abroad to helping people at home. Great idea. Go ahead and elect enough socialist/communist politicians who can make this fantasy happen. Because I'm guessing even the vast majority of Democrats would laugh in your face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Your basic assumption is that if the US were to suddenly decide to get rid of their Navy, the money saved would be used for free college or whatever, instead of being used on cutting the taxes paid by the higher X% of the population. In fact, said taxes would be cut for even more than the cost of the former Navy, resulting in increased, not decreased, debt, so social programs would unfortunately have to be cut some more as well. Not only that, but the price of having the worlds largest economy means we're the ones that have to have a navy capable of maintaining safe and secure sea lanes, a job we inherited from the British after WW2. Suddenly not having a force that keeps those lanes secure would economically equivalent of the US defaulting... and no I'm not making that poo poo up since it would set global trade back at least 300 years. Like for real, we could probably loose 2-3 carriers overall but the ones that should go are the marine ones, not the navy ones. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Great idea. Go ahead and elect enough socialist/communist politicians who can make this fantasy happen. Because I'm guessing even the vast majority of Democrats would laugh in your face. Even shitholes like Mexico have free tertiary education subsidized by taxpayers. There's nothing socialist/communist about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Even shitholes like Mexico have free tertiary education subsidized by taxpayers. There's nothing socialist/communist about it I'm not sure I understand your point. No one but extreme leftists are going to accept gutting the military in order to fund a larger welfare state. Especially not with Russia, China and ISIS all becoming increasingly challenging. As has already been said. More likely that money would go to tax cuts or be paired with overall decreased spending across the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not only that, but the price of having the worlds largest economy means we're the ones that have to have a navy capable of maintaining safe and secure sea lanes, a job we inherited from the British after WW2. Suddenly not having a force that keeps those lanes secure would economically equivalent of the US defaulting... and no I'm not making that poo poo up since it would set global trade back at least 300 years. You may want to re-evaluate your assumptions, you may have gone off the deep end there. Not building additional carriers and not replacing all the F-18s on carriers today with F-35s will not suddenly lead to a mass emergence of piracy that turns the world's sea lanes into chaos. No one is talking about scrapping existing, functioning ships and planes. Even using some absurd scenario where the US decides to abandon naval aviation, I suspect the rest of the surface fleet could keep commercial shipping safe from a few people armed with RPGs and AKs on fishing boats and rubber dingies. Cat Mattress posted:Your basic assumption is that if the US were to suddenly decide to get rid of their Navy, the money saved would be used for free college or whatever, instead of being used on cutting the taxes paid by the higher X% of the population. In fact, said taxes would be cut for even more than the cost of the former Navy, resulting in increased, not decreased, debt, so social programs would unfortunately have to be cut some more as well. crabcakes66 posted:Great idea. Go ahead and elect enough socialist/communist politicians who can make this fantasy happen. Because I'm guessing even the vast majority of Democrats would laugh in your face. So you've abandoned even arguing that gimping the F-35 for naval operations and buying thousands to replace F-18s is a good use of money, and are basically resorting to saying that Congress is lovely so we might as well keep lighting money on fire?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So you've abandoned even arguing that gimping the F-35 for naval operations and buying thousands to replace F-18s is a good use of money, and are basically resorting to saying that Congress is lovely so we might as well keep lighting money on fire? quote:I am a strawman spewing, non listening, logic challenged douchebag supreme trolling TFR. Ignore me. A lot of people have snippy avatars just because they made someone mad. But I guess you really deserve yours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You may want to re-evaluate your assumptions, you may have gone off the deep end there. Not building additional carriers and not replacing all the F-18s on carriers today with F-35s will not suddenly lead to a mass emergence of piracy that turns the world's sea lanes into chaos. No one is talking about scrapping existing, functioning ships and planes. Not really. Piracy in the Strait of Malacca (arguably the most dangerous water way on the planet) was only cleaned up when Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore got India which has a fairly sizable fleet to help them patrol those waters, and the US navy being basically permanently stationed near the Strait of Hormuz keeps piracy there mostly in check. Without a pretty sizable naval presence it's really easy for piracy to flourish which seriously fucks up global trade. Really though, it would be super easy for the US to pay for it's current navy as well as enact massive social programs like universal healthcare, free college, and food for everyone if we actually made the rich pay taxes... you know like we did during the Johnson administration which ran both the war on poverty along with the war in Vietnam. And as I've said before I'm fine having a loving massive navy to patrol the worlds oceans since we'd all be very hosed if global trade was widely disturbed. Also, the US being the worlds ocean police means that regional powers don't really need to build up a naval force which also has the added side effect of greatly reducing navy dick waving between competing states leading to less regional conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You may want to re-evaluate your assumptions, you may have gone off the deep end there. Not building additional carriers and not replacing all the F-18s on carriers today with F-35s will not suddenly lead to a mass emergence of piracy that turns the world's sea lanes into chaos. No one is talking about scrapping existing, functioning ships and planes. The funny thing is that good CATOBAR aircraft are well adapted to land operations. The F-4, F-14, and F-18 come to mind. Also the F-111 was considered irredeemable garbage by the navy but was fine for the USAF. Do not confuse the F-35B and C.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 05:35
|
|