The world's newest aircraft carriers

If the news tell the truth and Russia is selling Turkey S-400 with the technology and right of production it is quite modern and will be enough for another decade or two. Of course Russia introduces a new system but even sales of S-300 (older generation) were blocked to sell to Iran, because they could stop a possible attack of Iran and even S-125 in Serbia managed to shoot down the newest B1...

The geopolitical way is obvious. Turkey is not allowed in EU and doesn't get protected within NATO. (I mean not a hypothetic clash with Russia or China but the war where the US preferred kurds at the end of the day. Turkey needs nothing more but some support to play for its own interests. Anti-air missiles is something which just is needed to Turkey to feel safe.

 

The russians come on this forum and spread lies such as shooting down a B1 bomber

It didnt happen

 

When 'didn't it happen'? I don't remember any such claim?

 

Hizbollah used a Chinese anti-ship missile. They are reasonably equipped, althought many years behind the most advanced powers.

The fleet's best (and last) line of defence against incoming missiles are currently CIWS like this one:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

It makes like a "ppffffft" sound as it disintegrate incoming projectiles that interception missiles may have missed. If I were a sailor on a naval ship and hear the fart sound it makes, I would be nervous, I think.

 

Thanks for correcting me. I confused B 1b with F-117. Strategic bomber and Attack Aircraft. Huge mistake. Sorry.

 

Both the Titanic and the Bismarck were "un-sinkeable" (and arguments tends to show that Bismarck was indeed scuttled). Any big ship is hard to sink, so I figure 60000t ships don't go down easily.

Sinking a ship is quite extreme; relatively few few were sunk in the technical sense. Most were disabled, then scuttled. Some exploded. Others were beached. Those who could be towed back took months/years of repair, effectively knocking them off the war.

 

It isn't just the interception that's difficult with an hypersonic missile, but also its detection. Ships armed with CIWS and SRBOC are relatively well protected against missiles (and other sizeable projectiles) as long as these can be detected early enough.

 

Yep. Plus, I think it's the first time I actually hear of a Turk who likes and count on his Russian neighbour, in a solid display of detente. Who's next, the Greeks?

 

You are nonetheless doing quite fine, sir. Always a pleasure.

 

Hypersonics are no big deal. Don't worry...

 

Saudi Arabia made a deal for S-400s as well what's your point?

How about you putting the right parentheses first and then yandex?

 

I am not the one who should.

 

Start with corruption. Then add the other obvious ingredients to the stinky noxious pile.

In the weapons industry - and I have some experience in that - paying bribes and kickbacks is standard. In the case of the Saudi's they tend towards overpaying for imported weapon systems in order that part of the excess they pay for said systems is kicked back to them individually, to offshore accounts - see for example BAE's "Red Diamond Trading" (HERE) set up in the BVI to handle "commissions" (the polite word used instead of kickbacks). One American company I used to know called is "SOX" for "Social Expenses".

There are any number of ways of doing it too. In the case of the Al Yamamah Arms Deal, it is pretty evident that a very large sum went to the Conservative Party and their "Three Rivers" accounts in Swiss banks at the time (although you'll have to search hard to find reference to it now - but a clue HERE). The sum I heard was very, very large and some of it went to the Thatcher family (HERE).

 

"They've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age. And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces"
General Curtis LeMay, 1965, Vietnam.
You are supposed to learn from history, especially the failures.

 

It's a pleasure when people recognize the history explained a little bit differently... It can't be 'googled' It should have been read.

 

For the thousandth time:

You don’t need to sink a ship to kill it. You mission kill a ship and leave it in dry dock for months when the war only lasts weeks and it doesn’t matter if you sink it or not.

 

I haven't heard about a fixed deal. Only of interest. The Saudis already promised to buy S-300 if Russia doesn't deliver those to Iran. So now they have to pay in advance and wait for their turn after China, Turkey and probably India. At the moment Baghdad has better chances to purchases it IMHO.

 

Denouncing aircraft carriers as "obsolete" and "death traps" due to the supposed effectiveness of anti ship missiles......when no carrier has yet to be struck by an anti ship missile ever seems very premature.

Carriers have proven over the years to be fully capable of returning to operation within hours even after suffering massive explosions and fires aboard.

 

It took sixteen days for the Yorktown to limp back to Pearl after the Battle of Coral Sea. Nimitz ordered it repaired in 3 days. Finally somebody among the stunned said, "Yes sir."

She was dry docked and made ready to fight and launch in 3 days. Honolulu was blacked out to provide enough power to the welding machines. The Yorktown sailed in 3 days. The first estimate had been 90 days. The Yorktown was ugly, but it could fight.

Yamamoto had to do some expulsive physiology when told that the Yorktown had been spotted off Midway.

 

Russia knows where every US Carrier is at all times.

 

Yeah, the Bismarck was scuttled.

The British still have a problem dealing with that.

 

The Hood was just as good, that was sunk . The British had a problem dealing with that to, and it points out that where the strike takes place is an important factor on a ship.

 

We have never been tested so you cannot with integrity say such things. We simply do not know what we do not know. We will find out only in such a battle. But no ship is missile proof. Unless we have ET technology and keeping it secret.

 

No, goody, General Patton made his comment about 'fixed fortifications' during World War II, on land. I am asserting that now, all these many decades later, an aircraft carrier is TODAY'S equivalent of a 'fixed fortification'.

Top speed of one of our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is listed as 30 knots (less than 35 miles per hour) -- "balls-to-the-wall". It would accurate, I suppose, to say "that's not a fixed fortification". I will concede that obvious point, and counter with the fact that even the Tomahawk cruise missiles of ten years ago (which were not even designed to be super-fast) had an operational speed of 550 miles per hour.

Were you with us during the Falklands War back in 1982? Even back in those now-'ancient' days, the effectiveness of a relic like the Exocet missile was, uh, stunning. TODAY'S missile technology, 36 years later, is quite a bit more advanced, and powerful....

I loved the wonderful, old battleship, USS Missouri... still, we don't build vessels like that anymore... for very good reasons, but we continue to pour billions into aircraft carriers. But, hey, we've got money to burn... right?

. Image of an aircraft carrier after a missile attack....

 

Only because the U.S. Navy isn't on a war footing. Otherwise concealing a carrier battle group from aerial and satellite observation is a well established ability by the U.S.