The world's newest aircraft carriers

And how do they do that?

 

To reach the totals you suggest you have to add things that a reasonable person would not include as part of "defense spending".

You mention civil defense. Very little American civil defense spending is related to military threats but to natural disasters (flooding, fires, hurricanes, tornados, and so forth).

Much of Research and Development is not directed for military uses either.

You might as well be one of these that figures in Veterans benefits 50 years down the road as "defense spending" or interest on debt payments (which might as well be allocated as paying for social programs as defense).

 

Most anti ship missiles are targeted by airborne surveillance.

 

Assuming a Carrier can hide from enemy sensory capability (a claim you have failed to prove) - you can always use a satellite and watch them directly.

 

That’s what I’m waiting for him to say. Conceding the Russians would have to get a reconnaissance aircraft within the combat radius of a carrier group to launch a long range missile attack.

 

So you launch based on satellite imagery and by the time the missiles arrive, the carrier and its group are miles away.

Anti-ship Missiles can maneuver some, but not that much.

 

I am not the one that put it under the "Defense Spending" category in the link !

Regardless ... There is considerable amounts of money that goes to organizations such as the Department of Energy for defense related research. This is part of Total Military Spending

The idea that when we go to war, taking care of our vets is not part of "Total Military Spending" is nonsensical.

Defense n.e.c = Defense Overseas contingency operations. this is obviously part of Total Military Spending.

Homeland Security, NSA, DIA, CIA, and so on are part of the Total Military Spend.

Anything we do to defend the homeland from foreign threats is "Defense Spending" and as such is part of the Total Military Spend.

 

That's ridiculous.

You have to take care of Veterans when they get old regardless of whether they fight in a war or not.

 

I would hope you know that satellites once they are launched

1) Have paths that are completely predictable.
2) Can do little to change the areas they monitor
3) Do not monitor the same area of the ocean continually.

If the Chinese launch a satellite to track U.S. ship movements in the western Pacific, thanks to the orbit it follows its going to spend most of its time not remotely near the western Pacific.

 

I don't have to prove it. It has been done before. Using much more primitive technology than we have today in fact.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.php

 

????? Veterans affairs is different than Social Security. Further, when you send people to war, people get injured (both physically and mentally) and the costs of this are high.

 

You can not hide a carrier from Russia.

 

In your link the fellow is talking about WW2.... come on.

 

Don't joke. He is talking about operations in the 1980s.

In NORPAC 82 using these and other tactics the CV force operated close enough to support each other, but far enough and randomly dispersed to avoid identification by anyone. One night in bad weather a man went overboard when the ship was within 200nm of a Soviet airfield in the Kuril Island chain. Despite launch of helicopters and active search methods by several ships in the successful SAR, including clear voice UHF transmissions, the force is not detected because no Soviet asset was above the radar horizon. No overhead system was cued. The force continued on.

 

I have a feeling they care. Dying is probably not at the top of their list.

 

Of course the common people care

But the mullahs really dont care

And neither will kim if he cant remain in power

 

Its pretty hard to hide a carrier given today's technology.

At the end of the day the point is mute as soon as the Carrier attacked anything it would light up like a xmas tree.

 

How do you figure? You don't have to use your radars and radios to conduct flight operations. If you read up on carrier operations you would know this.

And what technological advance since the 1980s has occurred that has made aircraft carriers more detectable? And please don't say the internet as that is a ridiculous claim.

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2013/05/31/1983-revisited

and more recent information about the difficulties involved in detected, tracking and attacking a U.S. supercarrier.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-to-sink-a-modern-aircraft-car-1794182843

Giftedone, I've provided multiple links to sources to back up my claims about modern U.S. supercarriers.

You need to do the same to support your claims about their vulnerability. From an unbiased source.

 

The only thing you need from your link is this:

 

Nice shifting of goalposts. But I don't think anyone intended this thread to be about a nuclear war. And if the Russians or Chinese are shooting nuclear warheads at naval forces I say more power to them.

Less to use against targets in the U.S.

 

Google Exocet and HMS Sheffield to see how maneuverable and effective missiles are.

 

There was no "shifting of the goal posts" The topic under discussion is related to the obsolescence and value of our aircraft carriers.

I have been arguing that in the case of non nuclear countries the relevance of floating ships of metal is decreasing due to the spread of anti ship missile technology.

In the case of a nuclear nation - these carriers were obsolete long ago. We can go into the weeds over whether or not these massive ships can avoid detection but, this does not change the fact that if a carrier was used to try and project power against Russia or China directly it would be quickly liquidated.

 

The Exocet that his the Sheffield didn't even detonate. The Sheffield was doomed by the combination of fire and poor damage control procedures. Something unlikely to happen on an American warship where firefighting and damage control has been taught fanatically to every American who serves aboard ship to the point where they have the saying "Every sailor is first and foremost a fireman".

 

That is not a fact. You've offered no evidence to support that claim.

 

Even your own link said as much. The idea that a carrier strike group can hide from Russia is far fetched to begin with but lets assume this is true. As soon as it attacks anything it lights up like a xmas tree.

If the Carrier is out of range (your idea that a Carrier can strike in any significant way is unsupported but ok) then planes will be launched from all directions getting those missiles in range.

And if that were to fail ... they would nuke the USA.

Any way you slice it or dice it ... its lose lose. These carriers serve no point in an attack against Russia. Why ? because we can not attack Russia without destoying ourselves. That was the whole point of "MAD" and that doctrine is only more true today than in the 1980's.