The minute anybody launched a Ballistic Missile with a nuclear warhead, then you no longer have a conventional war, you have a nuclear war. And the missile would have to make it to the carrier fleet in the first place. The Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruiser has already been proven to be able to hit incomming ICBMs. And they are assigned to every carrier fleet. Please, listen to myself and the other military professionals in here that have been pointing out your many mistakes and errors. You are new here, but just those of us that have pointed out your shortcommings have over 50 years of military service, in just about every branch of the military. We are speaking from real world knowledge and experience. Because as long as you insist on ignoring us and claiming that F-22s can operate from your carriers, nobody is going to take you seriously at all.
But if China did hit a US carrier the war would go nuclear. You and others have said the current F22 couldn't fly off any current carrier, you are right, but to say a re made European F22 couldn't fly off a bigger carrier, is for me not look at what could be done. So what do you think of the other ship I would have defending the carriers?
If you modified an F-22 enough to work off of a carrier, it would no longer be an F-22. It is not like slapping on a coat of paint and new tires. The entire aircraft would have to be rededigned, form the engines, avionics, airframe, wings, landing gear, etc, etc, etc. By the time you were done making the thing capable of working off of a carrier, it would not be an F-22 anymore. Look, I am sorry, but basically this entire exercise has been entirely us experts shooting down all of your ideas. You are trying to recreate an entire Carrier Strike Group. And I am sorry, but your idea is simply not workable. All of your concepts and ideas are decades out of date, and would not last very long on a modern naval battlefield.
There is no such thing as "best" of anything, it is the best for the mission. This is why we have so many different types of ships. What was the best Battleship of WWII? Well, many would argue the Bizmark, or the Musashi/Yamoto, each of which had monster 18" guns. But how much did they get out of these ships? You are taking the same kind of approach that Hitler took. "Bigger is better", so you are trying to design the biggest ship. But that is not the case. Why not make subs the size of battleships, able to carry more missiles and torpedoes? Why not make a submarine aircraft carrier? And don't laugh, they actually tried that last idea. Each ship in a fleet has a specific design and purpose. And it is not all about size, or firepower, or speed, or ability to absorb damage. Each has it's mission, and all work together. And they composition has been determined by over 70 years of experience, trial, and error. You are trying to recreate that 70+ years by yourself, with no experience.
Because it cannot and it never will. Get that through your head. First of all, there will never be a European, Asian, African, South American, whatever F-22. Production line is closed and we will not sell it to any other country unless we completely strip it down, which includes a good amount of its frame and design. Secondly, our Air Force jets are not made to withstand the force of taking off and landing on a carrier. It does not just mean the landing gear needs to be changed. You have no idea how the frames are constructed nor do you know all the internal workings. You also severely underestimate the importance of takeoff and landing distance for these jets. Lastly, you have no idea how to factor in the mx costs of maintain an F-22, especially one that would be on a carrier. Sustainment only would eat your budget up and they will be permanently parked. We already had issues with rusting rods in the ejection seat because of drainage issues in the Craptor. And you want to keep them...near the water? OK.
Most people would say the US Iowa class battle ships of WW2 were the best ever. Bismark did sink Hood, so it wasn't a total failure. The Germans battle ships were the same weight as the US battle ship, it was the Japanese that went to far. I don't want to build the biggest ships, just the 4 biggest carriers to defend the main European overseas territories in the Pacific, southern Atlantic, Southern Ocean and Indian Ocean, as the main form of power projection, Google the words power projection and it comes up with aircraft carriers on Wiki. I want these 4 carriers to fly the 2 best fighters in the world the F22 and Eurofighter, even in you may not thing the Eurofight the best conventional fighter in the world, the Europeans don't want to dominate the world, like the US and Britain did, they just want to stand on there own to feet and stop getting treated like the runt of the litter, in military terms. I would build battle ships for attack shore line positions and hitting other ships with shells which can't be stopped like missiles. The Europeans don't have any crusiers so they would have to be built, the US is building a new 40,000 tons helicopter carrier so that isn't going over the top. The type 45 destroyer is proberly the best in the world at air defence, so I would just build more of them at 1 billion pounds each, I would bring forward production of the type 26 frigate and use that ship as 400 million pounds each, then the current Swedish corvette. So where am I going wrong, the navy would use the ship as it needed them, I would just make sure there is enough money to build the ship, and am say what I would do. With India, China, Russia and Brazil all having or building carriers, the Europeans need to build more carriers and a bigger navy.
Yes right now, but I am sure the US would share it with the Europeans if it ment they would be less needed in Europe and there companies that build the F22 would make more money.
The Europeans would be able to change it, and the US would sell it. Also the hyper carriers would be 400 metre plus in length. I would guess it would cost 1.5 million Euros a year for maintain 1 F22, so 60 would cost 90 million euros, around 1 billion euros over 10 years.
No you would not be able to change it and no we would not sell it. Are you a civilian? Not to impugn that title, but your head is so far up your arse that you are a borderline troll. 1.5 million Euros to maintain? That is fine if you only plan on allocating 100 flight hours for one F-22. That is just the basics. Not including system upgrades or carrier-born mx issues. You have no idea what the F-22 entails. You will never know because you are not supposed to. Stop talking about it.
So you are telling me that to maintain 1 F22 at sea, if it was able to fly at sea would cost more like 15-20 million euros a year. Ok then thanks for that. How much would 100 flying hours it cost in dollars? If I was trolling I would say that all the jets as F22's and fly them off all the carriers. How do you know it wouldn't fly of carriers, if nobody has tryed, because the US didn't need it for carriers. How do you know the US wouldn't sell them for economic reasons. As the US knows well if you spend enough money you can do just about any thing the Europeans would have enough money to re design and re build the F22. But the F22 isn't that important, getting the Europeans to put their military budgets up is.
Other countries have tried to buy the F-22, most notably Japan. The U.S. Congress has decided it will NOT sell the F-22 to any other nation. There is literally a Federal Law in the United States prohibiting the sale of F-22s to other countries. It cost the U.S. 66 Billion dollars to develop the Raptor.....Europe doesn't spend anywhere near what the U.S. does on defense.
*sighs* Big whoop-de-do. The biggest, baddest, most state of the art battleship of the German Navy sank a World War I relic. She failed to ever break out and do what the German Navy intended to do. Of course, it did not help that the ship was mostly built for ego, and had no real military mission. And the success of the Iowa class ships can be demonstrated mostly by their service life. 4 were completed for service during WWII, and all saw service into the late 1980's and early 1990's. That is an impressive service life for any naval ship. They are considered by many to be the "best battleship" for those reasons, among others. It is not all about weight. Germany also built "pocket battleships", which were essentially upgraded cruisers with battleship guns. And they were both quite effective. And aircraft carriers are the biggest ships in the fleet. And what "overseas territories" does Europe have? Enough to justify the cost of the 4 largest carriers in the world? South Atlantic? I can tell you right away all you will do there is (*)(*)(*)(*) off Africa and South America. Argentina still has not forgotten the last time that a "European Naval Force" went down in their direction. Start steaming it around Africa, and you will give all the kooks and nutcases excuses to start screaming that Europe is planning onreforming their colonies again. And that is the very problem. You do not want your carriers to fly the 2 best fighters in the world. Nobody with a carrier wants it to fly the best fighters in the world. They want them to fly the best Naval fighters in the world. This is what you just do not get, no matter how many times we tell it to you. No, the US is not building a new 40,000 ton helicopter carrier. What it is building are 2 45,000 ton America class Amphibious Assault ships. An Amphibious Assault Ship is not simply a "Helicopter Carrier". It is a multi-role specialized "baby flattop" that is designed mostly for supporting Marine aircraft to be used in supporting an Amphibious Brigade in combat operations. And they will be replacing the aged Tarawa class Amphibious Assault Ships. These are not designed as aircraft carriers, and they are not used as aircraft carriers. Essentially, they carry the air wing needed by the Marines in case they have to enter combat amphibiously. This way they have control of their own mini air wing, and do not have to take away any assetts in use by the Navy. It is not bad from what I have heard about it, another typical destroyer. Good for close in defense, which is it's main job. Fine, but you are endorsing the use of a ship which is still only on the drawing boards. They will not even be completed for at least another 9 years. However, it is also planned to be equiped with the RIM-66 SM-2 missile. Which makes it nowhere near as capable as the Ticonderoga class cruiser with SM-3 missiles. And yea, the Visby class corvette is definately unique. However, the thing is designed to go against other ships, pretty much a beefed-up torpedo boat. It has absolutely no air defenses at all, other then the single dual-purpose 57mm cannon. 8 anti-ship misiles, and 4 torpedo launchers. The SAM and anti-submarine parts of the ship were all cancelled. Essentially, you have a very expensive PT boat. Personally, I think it is a waste of a good ship. Good for defending coastal waters, no good at defending a carrier fleet. But you seem to totally miss the problem here with those carriers. Nobody ever took the Soviet carriers seriously. And nobody is going to take the Russian carriers seriously either. The Russians have never been known as an impressive Naval nation, not in the 19th, 20th, nor the 21st centuries. And the carriers of India, China, and Brazil are not really taken seriously either. All of them are basically antiquated cast-offs of other nations. India: INS Viraat, the former HMS Hermes, commissioned in 1959. Brazil: NAe Sao Paulo, the former French Foch, commissioned in 1960. China: Shi Lang, the former Soviet Varyag, commissioned in 1985. Interestingly enough, the Soviets never called the Varyag an "Aircraft Carrier". To them, it was classified in Russian as a "тяжелый авианесущий крейсер". Or in English, a "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Missile Cruiser". And the size of the ship tends to agree with that designation, as well as the armament it carried. I can't think of an aircraft carrier designed since WWII that came with such a large array of weapons (including 192 SAM missiles, 60 anti-submarine rockets, and 12 anti-ship cruise missiles). When the ship class was first announced to the public, we in the military joked about it. Especially because between keel laying and commissioning, it had multiple name changes. First the Riga, then the Leonid Brezhnev. Then it was changed to Tbilisi, then finally Admiral Kuznetsov. And it took 13 years from construction start to becomming fully operational. In that same time frame, the US has started and completed 3 Nimitz class carriers (Washington, Stennis, and Truman).
Well, maybe because most of those you are arguing against in here are military experts. Are you aware that 2 of us are military or former military pilots? Then you have those of us with Infantry experience. And some of us have experience in multiple branches of the military. As for me, I have served now for over 14 years. 10 of those in the Marines in the Infantry, currently and for the last 4 years in the Army in the Air Defense branch. Nobody needs to try, we know the capability of our own equipment, and that of other nations we work with and may come in conflict with. It is our job, and we do it for many reasons, not just because it might help keep us alive. Look at the aircraft used on carriers. You will see that since before WWII, they were not the same aircraft used by land based forces. The needs were totally different. You can make your carrier 10 times the size of the USS Nimitz, it still will never allow the F-22 to operate off of it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/27/us-japan-usa-fighter-exclusive-idUSN2727861320070427 Is the link above the article you are talking? This article was from 2007 befor the crash. Also one of the reasons why the US said it didn't want to export was because it would cost to much, because the US wants to keep ahead, ahead of who? China and Russia, Japan wouldn't have enough money to buy them the Europeans would, and they would be helping the US counter act China and Russia, I really don't understand how the US can say you spend more on your militaries so we can spend less, but we won't give you the weapons you need, so you have no need to spend more money. No doubt the same thing will happen with the new US destroyers. My point is the European should spend 2% of their GDP on defence or 320 billion euros, so the European could build their own weapons and technology, and share it with the US, the way the US don't share with the Europeans now.
No nation ever sells it's best military technology to outside nations. The Soviets did not, the UK did not, China did not, and the US does not. This is nothing unusual. Even when they sell their military technology, it is not the same thing they use themselves. All are degraded to one degree or another, for various reasons.
It just show how much money Britain lost fighting WW1 that it couldn't even build another battleship. There is thought to be up to 60 billion barrols of oil around the Falklands, plus there is the British Antarctic territory and south Georgia and the south Sandwich Island, also it would project power on to Brazil aswell as Argentina, having a hyper carrier in the south Atlantic and a super carrier in the Caribbean or French Guiana. The hyper and super carrier in the Pacific would many be for help Australia and New Zealand and defending the Islands the Europeans have there. The hyper carrier in the India Ocean would help against piricy, project power on to South Africa and make sure nobody would try and take back the Island the Europeans have there, the carriers in the southern ocean would just be for defending the islands the French Antarctic territories. The UK nearly lost that war, because we didn't have enough air power and the US woulldn't let us attack Argentina. There is a colonial war going on right now between the EU and US against China in Africa, it is the reason why the French wanted to go in so much. I see what you are saying, I always have, I just want the European to have the best planes, so I would just have to use the worse F35, Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale. Even so that still leaves a gap for a stealth fighter in the airforce, and I am not sure that the F35 is even better than the Russia or Chinese stealth jets, they look almost the same I wonder why? The Europeans wouldn't need an Amphibious Assault Ship they wouldn't be attacking anywhere, but still the helicopter carrier would have transport and attack helicopters so they could put troops in and heavy guns in. It should have been under production now and ready in 4-5 years, but the UK's navy budget has been cut, I also thing the FREMM multipurpose frigate is not far behind the type 26, so there could maby be a mix of the 2 types of frigates which are used for different things, I thought the type 26's would us the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile? But anyway how can you expect a frigate to have as much firepower as a crusier. Some of the corvettes would be used for coastal patrols, other would be fitted with air defenses. If the Europeans had the money then they would build better ships, this is what annoys me so much. The Indians are build 3 new carriers, and a new Indian jet, they are move forward as fast a China. China will also be building more carriers to keep up with India. Russia has a navy that would beat any European nation, I mean it's Arctic fleet alown could beat Norway and Canada. But you are still right about there carriers, and I am not sure if they have plans to build new carriers, they mainly build submarines. So the Varyag was a case of over doing it. What do you think of the UK's Astute class attack submarine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine
The Russian Navy is a shell of itself. It has a lot of ships and aircraft but only a fraction of them are fully operational. A lot of European navies, while small, are very well equipped and capable of being easily integrated into allies naval fleets.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything even remotely like that. You need to do some research. Now here is another thing you need to look up. The Washington Naval Treaty. The reason that the UK did not have any more modern battleships is that they followed the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Prior to signing this treaty, England had designed 2 very impressive classes of ships, the N3 Battleship and the G3 Battlecruiser. However, these were then outlawed by the treaty, so the plans were scrapped and they were never built. In order to follow the treaty restrictions, they built the Nelson Class of 2 ships. When the treaty expired in 1936, they immediately started work on the King George V Class of battleships, of which they built 5. The Prince of Whales was such a KGV class ship, and she was involved in sinking the Bismarck. So no, they were not broke. During the same period (1922-1939), she built multiple aircraft carriers (which are more expensive then battleships), cruisers, destroyers, and more. She simply built no real battleships because she had agreed to not do so.
It was the British Empire and US trying to control the world's sea by stopping others from building ship, thus saving the British empire money after WW1. And are you joking about the N3 it would have been far out classed by the French, German and Italian ship. The KGV's were very good ships, plus others the British built, in 1936 Britains economic had recovered enough so it could go into another arms race befor WW2, which it did. I mean why would Britain stop building battleships and just agree it with nations it was allied to, Britain needed the time to recover it's economy.
So you are telling me that Italy or Spain could be Russia in a naval war, the only nation that have any sort of a chance are the UK and France.
I'm saying that a coalition of Spain, Italy, Portugal, Framce. Sweden, and a few others would form a more than capable oppossing force.
