And be honest about the other nations “aircraft carriers” - they are basically the equivalent of US LHA / LHD ships - ie, they can launch some helos and have a minimal fixed wing compliment consisting of 8-12 aircraft (normally VSTOL type).

Not really an apples to apples comparison to a US CVN, with 50-ish VFA/VAQ F-18s plus other support E-2 / H-60 assets.

Obsolete?

Hardly.

Disproportionately dominant?

Definitely.

Is that a problem or a waste?

Nope.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
I guess if our carriers are obsolete, we need to ask why there are always 2-3 of them deployed and why the Navy has to buy more airplanes since they are wearing them out on deployments as it is, from all the flight hours and arrested landings they are making.

Because we're the world police.

The USA is the only one really concerned with force projection at this point. Almost every other military is more focused on their specific sphere of influence.

That's also why China and Russia sink more and more money into weapons specifically made to counter carriers. The US Navy is pretty much the only think checking China's influence around the Pacific.

Another reason why the South China Sea islands are so important to them.

Read this a while back, don't know if still accurate. There are 3 classes of Navies - brown water, gray water and blue water.

Brown water is what most countries have, i.e. small Navy/CG fleet mainly to protect its territorial waters and EEZ boundary.

Gray water is what the Chinese have now - the ability to project power regionally, such as southeast Asia Spratly islands etc. but cannot venture too far outside the range of heavy land-based bombers and support aircraft and fleet.

Blue water Navy is what we have - the ability to project power anywhere in the world with self contained, self sustained Expeditionary Strike Group and Carrier Strike group which comprises of surface destroyers, cruisers, subs, carriers, Marines Expeditionary Unit, tanks, armored vehicles, support ships, etc. (like a whole nation's armed forces rolled up into one battle group, anywhere in the world).

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
I guess if our carriers are obsolete, we need to ask why there are always 2-3 of them deployed and why the Navy has to buy more airplanes since they are wearing them out on deployments as it is, from all the flight hours and arrested landings they are making.

Who said anything in this entire thread about the U.S. carriers being obsolete???? There is a HUGE difference by questioning how EFFECTIVE they are, and saying they're obsolete. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. So they're wearing them out from practicing? OK, what does that have to do with how effective they are??? The Navy is wearing the asphalt out on Boca Chica;s runway, but as an offensive Navy base it really doesn't seem to be high on the necessity list. Unless St. Martin or Costa Rica are secretely building Nukes we don't know about. Then again the Colombian drug lords are getting pretty good at building submarines.

Germany took over half of the world in World War II without any aircraft carriers...they crippled the worlds shipping with just submarines...So in that region, I don't think they're (carriers) as big of a necessity as they were to us in the Japan theater in WW II or currently in other parts of the world. If we weren't the world police, meddling in every other countries business. We wouldn't need carriers either just to defend our homeland most likely. Taking Sadaam out and destabilizing that entire region was a huge mistake on our part. We should let Europe and China police their own regions rather than US spending our money doing it. But that's a different topic entirely.

BTW I ran a brand new, first model. hull #1, $10 million yacht yesterday that's going to the FLIBS too . I also was the only Captain another century old builder trusted to run their brand new state of the art all electric boat, it literally came right off of the truck from the factory and launched to make the show, to the Fort Lauderdale Boat show (the largest boat show in the world) on Wednesday. I don't have anything to do with Shrimp boats, so again, I have no idea where you even dreamed up that nonsense. There isn't even 1 shrimp boat within 150 miles for Fort Lauderdale. SO, You must be getting confused again. Or, it too revolves around your reading comprehension issues.

Ok. Pass the popcorn and soda. Here we go again.

Carriers are very effective. They allow us to project strategic (and sustained) air power anywhere in the world on short notice. The other options are to ferry combat aircraft to a land base...but you need the base in the right place close enough to your hot spot. That means a ground force to take and hold one or a nearby country that will let you set up an APOD (Air Port of Debarkation).

The fact that we can operate drones and B2 bombers from the US and back lessens the need, especially for small, single strikes.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
Read this a while back, don't know if still accurate. There are 3 classes of Navies - brown water, gray water and blue water.

Brown water is what most countries have, i.e. small Navy/CG fleet mainly to protect its territorial waters and EEZ boundary.

Gray water is what the Chinese have now - the ability to project power regionally, such as southeast Asia Spratly islands etc. but cannot venture too far outside the range of heavy land-based bombers and support aircraft and fleet.

Blue water Navy is what we have - the ability to project power anywhere in the world with self contained, self sustained Expeditionary Strike Group and Carrier Strike group which comprises of surface destroyers, cruisers, subs, carriers, Marines Expeditionary Unit, tanks, armored vehicles, support ships, etc. (like a whole nation's armed forces rolled up into one battle group, anywhere in the world).

You're on the right track. (Also keep in mind that these classifications are informal, and there's some gray areas between the three categories.)

A "brown water navy" is typically defined as a navy that is only capable of operations in interior waterways and coastal waters nearby their home country. (These navies are basically defensive, designed to protect the country's exclusive economic zone.)

"Green water navy" (not gray) is typically used to describe a navy that's capable of regional force projection/offensive operations, but cannot operate globally on its own, requiring support from a nearby friendly country or more capable allied navy when operating away from their home region.

A "blue water navy" is capable of long-range/global independent sustained operations.

Countries like the US, France, and the UK are blue water navies.

Countries like India, Italy, Russia, and China are arguably green water navies, but have limited blue water capabilities, or are approaching blue water status.

Countries like Brazil, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Canada are green water navies.

Countries like Israel, Mexico, and Finland are brown water navies.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
Just so you don't loose focus, there are other things carriers do besides launch aircraft during war. Back during the tsunami in Indonesia we sent a carrier. The stupid French (the ones without carriers) complained about it. Our response was we had on an on board hospital, fresh water generators, and the ability to launch and recover helios in volume. Maybe the most effective thing that can be moved. Even some of our democrats didn't understand (like the frenchies).

And a nuclear power plant that can provide power to shore.

quote:

If we weren't the world police, meddling in every other countries business. We wouldn't need carriers either just to defend our homeland most likely. Taking Sadaam out and destabilizing that entire region was a huge mistake on our part. We should let Europe and China police their own regions rather than US spending our money doing it. But that's a different topic entirely.

So we should let China "police" their own region because they are likely to follow and enforce maritime laws and freedom of navigation? What was it Twain said... " Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

And a nuclear power plant that can provide power to shore.

Please excuse my limited point of view. My longest extension cord is 100 feet. Not sure how it would work, but I'll take your word for it. I bet Jimmy's yacht has a nuclear power plant.

Jimmy123, you seem to seek validation quite often here on the forum. That is probably why you are often disappointed in the outcome of most of the discussions you involve yourself in.

You probably know a lot about yachting, the country club, and ensuring the shitters are empty for your clients. If this discussion had anything to do with those things, you’d probably hit it right out of the park.

But you are a poorly read armchair historian - sure the Navy sucks at driving ships these days, I freely admit that. But when it comes to what Navies of the world do for a living and the method in which they do it, “you know nothing JimmyBoy”.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
Yes Great Britain has 2 coming online, but as far as I know don't have any planes that can fly off of a carrier anytime soon.

They're using F-35Bs. They've already received a small quantity of these aircraft for training, with more set to be delivered shortly. The UK's F-35B units are expected to be ready by the time the first carrier is operational.

sort of...

The HMS QE will be off the US coast Fall of next year to get her flight deck certified for fixed wing aircraft operations using USMC F-35's.
2020 she's supposed to declared fully operational
2021 her first deployment will have an air wing of USMC F-35B aircraft, likely flown by a mix of USMC and RN pilots and maintainers.
2023 she'll have an air wing of at least 24 RN F-35B's...she's designed to handle up to 36.

US Marine F-35B Fighter Jet Deployment Onboard British Warship Made Official

RN won't be getting their initial F-35's until 2021 at the earliest and their full buy of 48 aircraft won't be available until 2024 delivery.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
RN won't be getting their initial F-35's until 2021 at the earliest

According to https://ukdefencejournal.org.u...ry-10th-f-35-128-go/ they've already received 10, will begin test flights with these British F-35Bs from the QE next year, and plan to have a full carrier squadron operational by no later than December 2020. The first carrier deployment is scheduled for the following year.

That article also talks about the USMC F-35Bs being operated on the newly completed carrier alongside the British F-35Bs.

Nice slam on yacht captains RHINO.
I've had my share of opinions about things Jimmy has said on here but kept my mouth shut.
Why did you have to come right out of the gate with a personal comment?
I'm a yacht captain and I don't know dick about country clubs. I do know about busting my ass to do a job YOU obviously don't know dick about.
Do you eat shrimp?
What do you have against shrimp boat captains?

TE]Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Jimmy123, you seem to seek validation quite often here on the forum. That is probably why you are often disappointed in the outcome of most of the discussions you involve yourself in.

You probably know a lot about yachting, the country club, and ensuring the shitters are empty for your clients. If this discussion had anything to do with those things, you’d probably hit it right out of the park.

But you are a poorly read armchair historian - sure the Navy sucks at driving ships these days, I freely admit that. But when it comes to what Navies of the world do for a living and the method in which they do it, “you know nothing JimmyBoy”.

[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Have drones and UAVS marginalized carriers?

Navy has requests out for a UAV tanker which is carrier based. Companies are designing it now.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
Ok. Pass the popcorn and soda. Here we go again.

Okay, let's sign it!

"My cock is bigger than your cock
"My cock is bigger than yours
"Oh, my cock is bigger than youuuur cock
" [fill in the rest] "


Hey RHINO, did you hear about the F-18 that crashed?


Seems the tanker accidentally picked his buddy store and the FAG followed it straight into the ground trying to get the last bit of gas.

How do you shoot down six F-18s with one missile?

Drones have their place, but there is nothing like having your FAC talking to the air on station and telling them where to lay it in....

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. England doesn't have any functioning ones. Russia only had 1 that was never reliable. With missle technology launched from either subs or destroyers, are aircraft carriers and their aircraft as necessary as we once thought>

They've been asking that question for 40 years. . .

quote:

I wouldn't count Japan out of the game either with the completion of the enormous "helicopter carrier" they just built.

Japan is limited by their constitution to having only "Defensive" capabilities. A 'real' carrier is considered an "Offensive" weapons system, so their carriers are 'helo carriers.'

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
Germany took over half of the world in World War II without any aircraft carriers...they crippled the worlds shipping with just submarines...So in that region, I don't think they're (carriers) as big of a necessity as they were to us in the Japan theater in WW II or currently in other parts of the world.

Germany never tried to project power *OVER WATER*. They couldn't even make it across the 26 miles of the English Channel. Their subs were good at blockade, but could not *project power*. Carriers, since 1941, have been essential for a major power in this regard.

quote:

If we weren't the world police, meddling in every other countries business. We wouldn't need carriers either just to defend our homeland most likely. Taking Sadaam out and destabilizing that entire region was a huge mistake on our part. We should let Europe and China police their own regions rather than US spending our money doing it. But that's a different topic entirely.

Oh, PLEASE, drag politics into this thread. I can't get enough of the endless bickering over our Middle East policy. . .

quote:

Originally posted by BOATTRASH1:
Nice slam on yacht captains RHINO.
I've had my share of opinions about things Jimmy has said on here but kept my mouth shut.
Why did you have to come right out of the gate with a personal comment?
I'm a yacht captain and I don't know dick about country clubs. I do know about busting my ass to do a job YOU obviously don't know dick about.
Do you eat shrimp?
What do you have against shrimp boat captains?

No need to get emotional about it.

If this thread was about yachting, you likely wouldn't find me commenting on it. Because I'm not a yachter.

It's your personal choice to keep shut (your words), or to comment. It's a forum, last time I checked it was to chat, exchange information, and (GASP) bust each others ballz from time to time. What I'm saying is I don't think this is a safe space for snowflakes.

I think Jimmy123 can hold his own with a (OMG) personnel comment or two. I mean, since he threw in his vast yachting experience as some sort of 'street cred' in this conversion, irrelevant as it is. Then there is his ignorance of the subject at hand (i.e., Aircraft Carriers, who has them, what they do, etc) and his attempt to weave between the buoys telling us how much yachting he's done - it just doesn't hold water with me. Last time I checked yachting has pretty much dick to do with aircraft carriers, other than they are both activities that occur on water.

If my comments about yachting, country clubbing and shitters hurt your feelings, please fill out a complaint form. Post it to FaceBook and I'll have Customer Service look into it. We may be able to send you a free box of Kleenex to replace any you might have needed as part of this tragic thread.

I have no issues with Shrimp Boat Captains - in fact I'm glad they exist, because I like to eat shrimp.

It was a halfhearted attempt at humor using a "Forrest Gump" reference, i.e. LT DAN and SHRIMP BOAT CAP'N. But I can see humor is lost on you; thin skin apparently???

Have a nice evening.