quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

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?

quote:

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”.

You obviously have some personal made up imaginary issue with me, as well as some sort of pipe dream of what it is that I do for a career or my knowledge base. You obviously don't know jack about the yachting industry or anything nautical from what I can see. In fact if you found out what my income from this yachting industry you keep ragging on, you'd fall right over in your arm chair. I don't go to yacht clubs, I don't work for owners that are members of yacht clubs, except maybe 1 or 2 in Ocean Reef. I work for a lot of manufacturers of some of the best yachts built in the world doing testing, do testing for some of the largest engine companies in the world, work for some of the largest yacht shippers in the world (including the ones that own the heavy lift ships that are shipping the USN destroyers on, and was standing on the deck of one of their ships Thursday night because they called me in for a job they weren't capable of doing themselves) and work for owners that could buy every yacht club they pass so why would they join one. I also work for a company that does a lot of military contract work in the marine shipping industry etc. My knowledge base is extensive in the marine industry as well as the scope of things that I do. I am not seeking ANY validation, especially from you. I am very secure in my career and self. And BTW the ultra millionaires and billionaires that I work for would NEVER think to ask me to make sure their toilet is going down, but I can fix that to if I chose to. They'd ask the mate/engineer. They hire me because I keep their entire family safe, because I assist in overseeing a lot of their major assets, etc. I stated my experience as background simply because you have some ill fangled idea of what it is that I do.

Notice how I haven't asked what you do? Because I don't care. Judging by your responses it's some pissant middle management position at a corporation where you go around making the employees under you miserable because you're the type that has to always institute meaningless changes to make yourself feel important. Sure I can hold my own against a personal comment or two, but quite frankly it's low class and a forum like this has no need for low blows to someone.

Because I'm NOT talking about the MILITARIES HISTORY. Which you seem to be stuck in. I'm talking about the HERE and NOW. Things change, and you and the military hasn't changed and adapted fast enough to keep up with the world, because you're so stuck in the past, the navy way, and how the navy has always done things.

I simply asked HOW effective today's aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. A rhetorical question, not a statement. How you instantly go on a personal attack on me as well as my career simply shows how insecure or jealous you really are. Anyways, back to aircraft carriers.

There are a lot of roles that the Aircraft carrier used to be necessary for that are now taken over by other means (B2 bombers, drones, missles, etc.) Are carrier's absolutely necessary in some aspects of warfare, absolutely. But, in not as many arena's as they used to be.

If carriers are such a necessity, why would Russia let their only carrier go to hell. I don't think that anyone will argue with me that Russia is a military super power and has been this decades largest military aggressor. Why did the UK go carrier-less for over a decade? They won't have a functioning carrier until 2021 and haven't had one for years. Hell, on our new carriers we have launch systems that can't even properly or reliably launch aircraft, so how good are they? Our 2 largest enemy countries that we'd have to get involved with would be either Russia or N Korea. We have enough ally countries to launch all of the aircraft we'd ever need to for Russia. North Korea, we could take out every Nuclear and strategic military base with a couple of B2 bombers, a couple of destroyers and a couple of subs. Same with Iran. China, all we'd have to do with them would be to default on all of their bonds, that would completely shut down their economy.

AND, when was the last time we used a carrier for anything important where it was a complete necessity???? Iraq in the early 90s in the first Iraq war. Why are we the only ones always footing the bill to police the world, yet none of our allies in NATO do anything. Why don't we make France, UK, AUS, and others send their military resources around and spend their money, why is it always us?

And, to the poster that mentioned the carriers can provide electricity to land. Yes, they can, but there are few places you can get a carrier into to provide power. Why do you think we sent 2 nuclear subs to Puerto Rico to provide power, because they can actually get into the port there whereas a carrier can't due to it's size. They're more effective at providing electrical power to land due to their size than a carrier.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
[QUOTE]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. ...

One more time:

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] "

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

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.

Not trying to get into a hair-splitting contest, but the majority of those 10 aircraft are for the RAF, and those are for their test and replacement squadron, to which the RN is also apart of. Most of them are going through test and familiarization flights at Pax River and Edwards with a few workups aboard our amphibs. Neither RAF nor, RN home bases in the UK are ready to receive them permanently as the facilities necessary haven't been built. It'll be awhile before they get their allotment and go to sea.

Among the bigger challenges for the RN is relearning how to do fixed-wing ops, figuring out the op-tempos the carriers can achieve and maintain, and of course having all the support elements in place. The RN's air wing mix will also be interesting as it's ability to do refueling, early-warning and electronic warfare are nowhere close to what the USN and French have for their carriers. The design of that carrier made a few interesting sacrifices that the USN will be keeping a close-eye on as certain elements in Congress are pushing for smaller carriers.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

"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] "

You sure think of other peoples cocks often.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

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.

Not trying to get into a hair-splitting contest, but the majority of those 10 aircraft are for the RAF, and those are for their test and replacement squadron, to which the RN is also apart of. Most of them are going through test and familiarization flights at Pax River and Edwards with a few workups aboard our amphibs. Neither RAF nor, RN home bases in the UK are ready to receive them permanently as the facilities necessary haven't been built. It'll be awhile before they get their allotment and go to sea.

Among the bigger challenges for the RN is relearning how to do fixed-wing ops, figuring out the op-tempos the carriers can achieve and maintain, and of course having all the support elements in place. The RN's air wing mix will also be interesting as it's ability to do refueling, early-warning and electronic warfare are nowhere close to what the USN and French have for their carriers. The design of that carrier made a few interesting sacrifices that the USN will be keeping a close-eye on as certain elements in Congress are pushing for smaller carriers.

RN / RAF will have some learning to do - it’s my understanding that they’ll be doing some cross training with USMC F-35B units until they get up and running again.

At the same time, the RN did quite welll with the original Harrier, while the USMC was chucking AV8As left and right - so they have a solid history of knowing what’s what with carrier ops, but it is a very perishable skill set.

Not gonna lie, I thought about my cock quite a bit. My cock never discriminated between drone or not drone, just who was there. To a man (or cock) , carrier air was always there within 15-20 minutes. And it was glorious!

I'm genuinely surprised Russia does not have that projection power. Just one more thing we have suppose. One that I never want us to let go of.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

"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] "

You sure think of other peoples cocks often.

It's an F-14 thing - those of with em understand.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:

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.

In 1929 the USN Lexington provided a quarter of the city of Tacoma's power
http://www.historylink.org/File/5113

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

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.'

True. However, recently they have apparently re-interpreted Article 9 of their constitution to mean they can protect themselves and their allies. When one takes on the possibility of "defending" ones allies, a bit of force projection and offensive ability becomes very real.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

True. However, recently they have apparently re-interpreted Article 9 of their constitution to mean they can protect themselves and their allies. When one takes on the possibility of "defending" ones allies, a bit of force projection and offensive ability becomes very real.

I'm glad to hear that. They need to make the NorKs and ChiComms nervous. . .

I just wish they had named their 'carriers' after the WWII classics - Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, and Zuikaku. . .

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

Because I'm NOT talking about the MILITARIES HISTORY. Which you seem to be stuck in. I'm talking about the HERE and NOW. Things change, and you and the military hasn't changed and adapted fast enough to keep up with the world, because you're so stuck in the past, the navy way, and how the navy has always done things.

Yes, this is talking about military history. However, you seem hung up on what you see as deficiencies in how the US Navy does things (as you made very clear in the two Destroyer collision threads), yet so seem to have no personal experience or knowledge about how the Navy really does stuff nowadays. And your persistent claims that "it's all the same thing" in regards to commercial and naval ops doesn't do much to bolster your credibility. Sure, a bit of commercial experience is relevant, but this doesn't make you an expert in modern US Navy ops. Just as, our civilian airline pilots here aren't always positioning themselves as 'experts' on military air ops, since 'they both fly through the air at 30K feet.' . .

quote:

If carriers are such a necessity, why would Russia let their only carrier go to hell.

Money. As in, they don't have enough.

Carriers are wickedly expensive; that is why so few countries have them. I think the fact that the Ruskies are still spending so much to maintain and operate their one carrier is a pretty good argument as to why carriers are so important today (if they really weren't important, they would spend this money elsewhere). The Ruskies have let pretty much EVERY branch of their military, to one degree or another, go to crap. Nobody in the Ruskie military has all the money they need to properly train, equip, and maintain their hardware. The only reason their space program survived is cash from the West (heck, their main spaceports actually had the power shut off several times because they weren't paying their electric bills, shortly after the collapse of the USSR).

quote:

Why did the UK go carrier-less for over a decade? They won't have a functioning carrier until 2021 and haven't had one for years.

Same reason. Money.

quote:

Hell, on our new carriers we have launch systems that can't even properly or reliably launch aircraft, so how good are they?

Are you talking about the new electromagnetic launchers (instead of steam)? Only ONE current carrier is so equipped (USS Gerald Ford), and they will work out the bugs soon enough, and then they will be more reliable than the old steam systems (the basic technology of which dates back to WWII).

quote:

Our 2 largest enemy countries that we'd have to get involved with would be either Russia or N Korea.

Everybody seems to 'know' with whom our next war will be with. NOBODY had Iraq on their minds until August 1990, when they invaded Kuwait. At that time, the 'next war' was going to be with the USSR/Warsaw Pact. Everybody *KNEW* this. Everybody was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:


I just wish they had named their 'carriers' after the WWII classics - Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, and Zuikaku. . .

I wish ours weren't named after presidents. Now that the Kitty Hawks are retired, we should have another Independence. At least there will be another Enterprise, but Yorktown, Lexington, Hornet, Saratoga would be better than Ford, Bush, Truman, Reagan.

^^^^^^^
Agreed. I like the fact we have Teddy Roosevelt, but beyond that we should have gone back to the classics. Enterprise, Indy, Hornet, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

You obviously have some personal made up imaginary issue with me...

Notice how I haven't asked what you do? Because I don't care. Judging by your responses...

Because I'm NOT talking about the MILITARIES HISTORY. Which you seem to be stuck in. I'm talking about...

I simply asked HOW effective today's aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. A rhetorical question...

There are a lot of roles that the Aircraft carrier used to be necessary...

If carriers are such a necessity, why would Russia let their only carrier go to hell. I don't think...

AND, when was the last time we used a carrier for anything important where it was a complete necessity????

And, to the poster that mentioned the carriers can provide electricity to land. Yes, they can, but there are few places...

Let the record reflect that I nailed the prediction down to the exact number of paragraphs in this thread back on October 8th.

< cue 8 paragraphs of back-pedaling and overly-long explanation of what jimmy really meant>

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>

Other way around. Carriers and their aircraft are more vital now rather than less.


Russia will probably never catch up to the US but China is putting a major effort in as are several other countries.

Aircraft carriers are THE component that allows the US to project power globally in a way no other nation can. We are not reliant on fickle allies for basing rights or land bases at all in a pinch.

All the other components of global projection would be useless or severely constrained without the ability to impose air superiority almost anywhere in the world within days.

Global range from the USAF is nice but aircraft carries provide the theater commander his own hip pocket Air Force, on call within minutes rather than hours.

quote:

carriers are such a necessity, why would Russia let their only carrier go to hell. I don't think...

Russia, and the fUSSR, is a regional land power with virtually no warm water ports. Historically it's only maritime interests have been securing its own sea borders and fisheries, and the Black Sea and to a lesser extent the Med. Even there its naval ambitions conform to and support its land based ambitions.

Russia's carrier, the fUSSR's carrier really, was impractical from the start. It was never really intended as a weapon of war, it was intended to show that the Soviets could field carriers too if they wanted.... A demonstration which failed miserably .

China is similarly a land power BUT has global ambitions, countrary to thousands of years worth of its own military wisdom... BUT if China wants to be a global player it must be able to project significant military power globally, and sustain that force during combat operations.

To be taken at all seriously in matters military one must be able to at least hypothetically put boots on the ground. All the logistical gymnastics that allow deployment and sustainment of a credible fighting force halfway around the globe from home START with providing and sustaining air cover in the area of operations. If you can't do that nothing else that you CAN do matters.

quote:

you obviously have some personal made up imaginary issue with me

No, you actually add some comic relief to the place - at least initially - but then it’s pretty much the ‘ol-Jimmy123 of stale mass media ‘facts’ backed up by ocean certifications, which is somehow supposed to bolster your position when it’s simply irrelavent.

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

You obviously have some personal made up imaginary issue with me...

Notice how I haven't asked what you do? Because I don't care. Judging by your responses...

Because I'm NOT talking about the MILITARIES HISTORY. Which you seem to be stuck in. I'm talking about...

I simply asked HOW effective today's aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. A rhetorical question...

There are a lot of roles that the Aircraft carrier used to be necessary...

If carriers are such a necessity, why would Russia let their only carrier go to hell. I don't think...

AND, when was the last time we used a carrier for anything important where it was a complete necessity????

And, to the poster that mentioned the carriers can provide electricity to land. Yes, they can, but there are few places...

Let the record reflect that I nailed the prediction down to the exact number of paragraphs in this thread back on October 8th.

< cue 8 paragraphs of back-pedaling and overly-long explanation of what jimmy really meant>

quote:

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

Aircraft carriers are very effective and haven’t been marginalized by UAS or drones per my understanding. The problem seems to be that carriers are more at risk due to advances in anti-ship missiles, area denial technologies, and swarms of small go-fast boats. So is putting so many expensive eggs in a basket a smart thing to do given the risk of one being taken out?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

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

Aircraft carriers are very effective and haven’t been marginalized by UAS or drones per my understanding. The problem seems to be that carriers are more at risk due to advances in anti-ship missiles, area denial technologies, and swarms of small go-fast boats. So is putting so many expensive eggs in a basket a smart thing to do given the risk of one being taken out?

That’s why the Navy made the Little Crappy Ship, I mean LCS...

Some light investigation will tell you how great that is working out...