The world's newest aircraft carriers

The U.S. has clear overwhelming naval superiority over all the other navies on Earth combined.

 

The U.S. Navy has one of the stealthiest warships in the world.

It's a frigate, immune to magnetic mines, homing torpedoes and from passive sonars. Hard to detect and very quite. While the Arleigh Burke destroyers only have one freaking 5"/54 cal. pop gun, the USS Constitution has 52 guns.

The oldest commissioned warship in the world.

http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/constitution/

 

Russia, China, the U.S, France, the U.K. can all stick a nuke with a few feet of their target.

 

We don't even know if our nukes or anyone else nukes even work because we no longer test them to see if they'll pop.

We use computer simulators to test our nukes today.

And all you have to do is look at fighters, warships that were designed by using computers that break down, can't fight or just don't work the way the computers said they would.

 

Post a link from an unbiased source to prove it.

 

Sure 45 seconds is not long enough to stop missiles and that assuming that the top cover air patrols flying out for tens of miles are sleeping and you need to fall back on near threats weapons.

 

I think smaller, faster, CHEAPER carriers would be better today. They really are a big targets and easily destroyed with specialized missiles. Smaller boats with just a few planes could do the same job, are far less of a target, and in theory, far more versatile, being able to be in many places at once.

The Japanese toyed with the idea of Submersible carriers in WW2. Many more planes were needed for a battle back then, and small carriers were not practical. Today, one boat that could surface and launch just one advanced fighter-bomber would be a terror on the seas.

Carriers still provide a valuable strategic asset. But they dont need to be the size of a city to do it.

 

Interesting.

However, it can only go 13 knots (0+ knots in calm conditions), is detectable by modern radars and it's guns can only fire about 2 miles.

An Arleigh Burke could blow it out of the water with a Harpoon missile long before the Constitution got anywhere near in range...that is assuming the Arleigh Burke was travelling less then 13 knots (it's top speed is 30+ knots). Or send up a LAMPS III helo to blow the wooden ship out of the water with a few Hellfire's launched from 4 or 5 miles away.

But your point IS interesting.

 

But the Arleigh Burke's only have the range of 4,400 miles at 20 kts while the USS Constitution never needs refueling, just wind.

 

Fair enough (assuming the Arleigh Burke could not get provisions from a Navy supply ship).

 

The entire point of large aircraft carriers was a) to attack other ships out-of-range of opposing battleships' guns. B) to protect convoys with air cover. And c) to attack targets on land in distant countries/territories.

A) is pretty much gone now as long range missiles can now do the job much better and at less cost than carrier borne aviation can.
B) is still valid - to a point - but only against a foe that lacks long range strike capabilities. And against lesser foes, a small aircraft carrier would be FAR more suitable to the task.
C) is definitely still valid...but ONLY against targets that offer little risk to the carriers themselves. And again, smaller aircraft carriers suit the task better (along with guns/missiles from the fleet).
Shore based aircraft - along with airborne refueling - AND long range missiles (like Tomahawk cruise missiles) can often do the job that only carrier-borne aircraft could once do.

The days of the 'supercarrier' are numbered, in my opinion.

 

That only applies to the Minuteman III ICBM's. The Trident II SLBM's still have MIRV's.

 

Think about how miserable life on a sailing ship was back in the day.

No toilets, you hanged your butt over the bow of the ship and pooped.
No toilet paper back in the day, a rope was suspended from the bow of the ship extended into the ocean and was used as the communal ass wipe.
No refrigeration so no real fresh provisions.
No showers.

Modern warships actually had toilets on the weather deck near the bow of the ship.


The head on the beakhead of the 17th-century warship Vasa.
The toilets are the two square box-like structures on either side of the bowsprit.
On the starboard side, there are still minor remnants of the original seat.

 

Yes. But most Russian nuclear warheads are based on ICBMs. And MIRVed ICBMs are banned by treaty.

 

Many Russian ICBM's still have MIRV's as will future ICBM's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Missile_Troops#Numbers_of_missiles_and_warheads

'According to the Federation of American Scientists, for the foreseeable future, all new Russian ICBM deployments will be of MIRVed versions of the SS-27 "Topol-M", although a “new ICBM” and a “heavy ICBM” are also being developed.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Missile_Troops#Future

 

Well, there goes my appetite.

I guess that is why they call them the 'head'.

 

And no iran or north korea if they use nukes

But you’re correct to the extent that those two may not care if we wipe them out or not

 

Sorry I thought the post was by Dayton. My bad.

 

Don't blame me for you ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. Defense spending is only a part of "Total Military Spending".

 

Do you mean how do anti ship missiles target ships ?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/us-build-better-nuclear-missile-585686​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ICBMs​

Do you need more?

 

I mean how do you guide anti-ship missiles onto a target hundreds of miles away when you have no over the horizon guidance capability.

 

Anti ship missiles do have over the horizon guidance capacity ?

Obviously you have to know where a ship is located prior to sending a missile at it.

 

Well that is a new one on me. Can you explain with links from reliable sources and without the snarky condescension?

 

"Total Military Spending" and Defense Spending are different thigns. Defense spending is generally the term used for the DOD budget which is only a part of Total Military spending.

Click on the link below and you can see a button for "Defense Spending" (2017) click on this button and it will open up into various categories ... one of which is "Military Defense Spending" Note that for 2017 this was 599 Billion which is the number you are used to hearing.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2017_XXbs2n#usgs302

You will see that the total for 2017 is 821 Billion. You will also note that "Civil Defense", "R&D defense" and "Defense n.e.c" are not included in this total.

Factor in these and you get to over 1 Trillion.