Support NeoGAF

[mAcOdIn]

We would have won the war in less than a week.

Serious question, could a F-18 shoot down a zero? Seems like the speeds would be so mismatched, like would a Zero put off enough heat for a missile to even lock on to it. I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, any enemy WW2 fighters attempting to attack the carrier itself would get wrecked and they could bomb the hell out of any nation without fear of retaliation.

 

[99Luffy]

At this point the Navy would be better served going forward introducing a new line of Assault Battleship that can with escorts provide all the firepower needed for a Battlegroup that does not rely solely on airpower as its main force projection.
It was what was proposed in the 90s but it faced serious opposition because Naval Doctrine has become so Carrier focused and of course at the time the idea was centered around the already 40-50 year old Iowa Class Battleships we already had. Not everything requires an Aircraft carrier present and a Battlegroup based around a Battleship would be just as power projecting.

I Would take something like the Montana Class Battleship removed its 2 aft Guns and have that area completely replaced with Missile launch Systems. Its two forward Guns would be modernized for Rail Guns. Have a Healthy amount of firepower in traditional firepower and a significant Missile capability. Throw in its traditional Destroyer and Cruiser escort and it can do everything the Carrier can basically provide.

What would be the difference between 1 battleship and say.. 2 destroyers?

 

[anderyoung]

Damn that thing is cool, but just look at her EMALS!

(sorry, had to get it out of my system)

Actually the EMALS system is a bit of a mess still and is one of the factors thats holding back the ship from actually launching.

 

[Woorloog]

Serious question, could a F-18 shoot down a zero? Seems like the speeds would be so mismatched, like would a Zero put off enough heat for a missile to even lock on to it. I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, any enemy WW2 fighters attempting to attack the carrier itself would get wrecked and they could bomb the hell out of any nation without fear of retaliation.

This reminds me of an old plane, i think it was a biplane... can't recall the name right now but it got credited with a jet kill. A jet tried to shoot it down but slowed under its own stall speed and crashed.
EDIT Ah, it was a Polikarpov Po-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2
"The Po-2 is also the only biplane credited with a documented jet-kill, as one Lockheed F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing down to 110 mph – below its stall speed – during an intercept in order to engage the low flying Po-2."

But that was an early jet with guns. Modern fighters use missiles heavily, and those can be launched so far away speed may not be an issue.

EDIT And Zeros and other WWII planes were usually faster than biplanes.

 

[antonz]

What would be the difference between 1 battleship and say.. 2 destroyers?

Modern Destroyer has 1 5" Gun, 2 20MM CIWS, 96 Missile Tubes

A design made for an Assault battleship in the late 90s called for around 500 missile tubes and then some guns

 

[old manatee]

I'm hella glad that we have that thing instead of reliable access to health care.

 

[Syrus]

By Gawd America!!

 

[mAcOdIn]

This reminds me of an old plane, i think it was a biplane... can't recall the name right now but it got credited with a jet kill. A jet tried to shoot it down but slowed under its own stall speed and crashed.
EDIT Ah, it was a Polikarpov Po-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2
"The Po-2 is also the only biplane credited with a documented jet-kill, as one Lockheed F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing down to 110 mph – below its stall speed – during an intercept in order to engage the low flying Po-2."

But that was an early jet with guns. Modern fighters use missiles heavily, and those can be launched so far away speed may not be an issue.

EDIT And Zeros and other WWII planes were usually faster than biplanes.

My question's more related to how a modern anti-aircraft missile locks on to a target. If it's heat, does a WW2 era plane produce enough, if it's radar signature is it large enough, I want to look this up now. Related, do you think a soldier with a javelin missile could get it to track and hit a horse drawn carraige? Be kind of hilarious if something modern was transported back in time and had to sit out dogfights because the enemy aircraft don't register. But for all I know modern missiles have a low threshold to keep up with stealth capabilities of other aircraft.

 

[ponpo]

My question's more related to how a modern anti-aircraft missile locks on to a target. If it's heat, does a WW2 era plane produce enough, if it's radar signature is it large enough, I want to look this up now. Related, do you think a soldier with a javelin missile could get it to track and hit a horse drawn carraige? Be kind of hilarious if something modern was transported back in time and had to sit out dogfights because the enemy aircraft don't register. But for all I know modern missiles have a low threshold to keep up with stealth capabilities of other aircraft.

I think the javelin tracking is like tracking the portion of the FOV that the user defines, and then the tracker analyzes the video feed to see if whatever the user set as the target is moving or not. It's not heat seeking or anything I think, so you can basically set it to hit whatever.

 

[Woorloog]

My question's more related to how a modern anti-aircraft missile locks on to a target. If it's heat, does a WW2 era plane produce enough, if it's radar signature is it large enough, I want to look this up now. Related, do you think a soldier with a javelin missile could get it to track and hit a horse drawn carraige? Be kind of hilarious if something modern was transported back in time and had to sit out dogfights because the enemy aircraft don't register. But for all I know modern missiles have a low threshold to keep up with stealth capabilities of other aircraft.

Most WWII planes probably do generate large enough radar signature for radar-guided missiles. Even the wooden ones, though there are stories of some being difficult to detect. Modern radars are far better though.
Simple, small radar reflectors are enough to make stealth jets visible (usually used for safety where stealth is not relevant), and WWII planes are far bigger than those things.

Not sure about IR signature. Pretty sure IR-guided missiles home in on the engines of jets that are far hotter than a propeller engine, and hot flares can distract them. On the other hand, if there are no distracting signatures, perhaps WWII-era engines are hot enough for them.

It occurs to me that a jet plane could just fly in front of a WWII plane. If the jet engine exhaust doesn't do (enough) damage, the turbulence might drop the propeller plane. Risky move, of course, since cannons and machine guns can damage jet fighters.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

My question's more related to how a modern anti-aircraft missile locks on to a target. If it's heat, does a WW2 era plane produce enough, if it's radar signature is it large enough, I want to look this up now. Related, do you think a soldier with a javelin missile could get it to track and hit a horse drawn carraige? Be kind of hilarious if something modern was transported back in time and had to sit out dogfights because the enemy aircraft don't register. But for all I know modern missiles have a low threshold to keep up with stealth capabilities of other aircraft.

Newer jets can go really, really slow.

Radar guided AAMs would not have an issue at all.

Most modern IR AAMs are all-aspect, meaning they don't need to "see" the engine, so would probably work very well against something like a Zero. Hell, an AIM-9X took out a speedboat.

 

[Snowybreak]

Actually the EMALS system is a bit of a mess still and is one of the factors thats holding back the ship from actually launching.

Oh damn. I think the concept is pretty cool, I wonder what's causing the issues.

 

[WaterAstro]

Waste of money.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Sure, the government can just stop funding everything so we can feed everyone.

yeah man didn't you know that the choices are either a worldwide military empire or literally no government at all

get with it

why would you give up extremely necessary things like aircraft carriers just so you can feed everyone like some kind of idiot

 

[terencecah]

US Citizens: Where's our health care?

US Gov't: LOL 13 BILLION

 

[Media]

My sister commissioned the Gorge W, even shook his hand. She was was much less a spectical than she thought it would be.

(She was very much not a fan of him)

 

[antonz]

US Citizens: Where's our health care?

US Gov't: LOL 13 BILLION

The carrier cost only 0.24% of the Defense Budget over the 8 years it was Built. Its not an either or. Wasteful spending needs to be addressed not logical Spending. The Nimitz is 42 years old now. Its approaching its lifespan and will need to be replaced.

I would be more upset over the 125+ billion in wasteful Spending the Pentagon itself uncovered. The wasteful spending on its own could buy 10 Aircraft carriers or fund tons of social programs. Yet even acknowledging 125+billion in waste they want to boost the defense budget another 60-100 billion.

 

[mlclmtckr]

The carrier cost only 0.24% of the Defense Budget over the 8 years it was Built. Its not an either or. Wasteful spending needs to be addressed not logical Spending. The Nimitz is 42 years old now. Its approaching its lifespan and will need to be replaced.

I would be more upset over the 125+ billion in wasteful Spending the Pentagon itself uncovered. The wasteful spending on its own could buy 10 Aircraft carriers or fund tons of social programs. Yet even acknowledging 125+billion in waste they want to boost the defense budget another 60-100 billion.

your argument is that this ridiculous military expenditure is only a drop in the bucket of ridiculous American military expenditures, good job

 

[WaterAstro]

They should cut military to 5%. Spend money where we actually need it.

 

[SolarPowered]

Nice boat

*thumbs up*

People get pissed, but I feel like the Navy is one of our more practical tools for force projection and the cost is dwarfed by stuff like the F-35 program.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

13 billion us dollars.

While there are citizens rotting in tent cities and a lot more living off food stamps.

 

[Frozenprince]

These mega carriers are such a massive, needless drain.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

These mega carriers are such a massive, needless drain.

A war with a peer state will show how useless carriers are in the modern world.

 

[antonz]

your argument is that this ridiculous military expenditure is only a drop in the bucket of ridiculous American military expenditures, good job

It's an argument that there is a legitimate level of spending that we need. You can go after the illegitimate levels absolutely but its stupid to conflate the two of them.

We need our Aircraft Carriers and until a time comes that we do not that means we need to replace our aged ones when they are taken out of service. The fact the Pentagon was able to identify 125 billion in wasteful spending indicates there are problem area's to address so lets address those and quite whining about Military spending in general as if its all a problem.

 

[NH Apache]

Huntington Ingalls made a bunch of ships for the Coast Guard that weren't sea worthy and broke under the stress of their own weight.

I'm assuming you're talking about the nsc and also out of your ass. Majority of the issues are weapons related and third party equipment.

Lightship longitudinal strength not even close to an issue.

 

[orientalNoodle]

Showing the world that the US got the biggest dick.

 

[Kin5290]

At this point the Navy would be better served going forward introducing a new line of Assault Battleship that can with escorts provide all the firepower needed for a Battlegroup that does not rely solely on airpower as its main force projection.
It was what was proposed in the 90s but it faced serious opposition because Naval Doctrine has become so Carrier focused and of course at the time the idea was centered around the already 40-50 year old Iowa Class Battleships we already had. Not everything requires an Aircraft carrier present and a Battlegroup based around a Battleship would be just as power projecting.

I Would take something like the Montana Class Battleship removed its 2 aft Guns and have that area completely replaced with Missile launch Systems. Its two forward Guns would be modernized for Rail Guns. Have a Healthy amount of firepower in traditional firepower and a significant Missile capability. Throw in its traditional Destroyer and Cruiser escort and it can do everything the Carrier can basically provide.

Problem is, the Arsenal ship like that would have all of the aspects that made the battleship obsolete (being a big expensive target, the impossibility of armoring a vessel again antishipping missiles while having them remain seaworthy, the obsolence of gunnery against naval targets) and none of the benefits of it being a carrier (vastly increasing your striking range).

Hell, the US Navy can't even fill the VLS tubes of the surface combatants it has now. How are they going to fill all of the VLS tubes on a hypothetical arsenal ship? And considering that they will be the same VLS tubes carrying the same missiles as those any Ticonderoga- or Arleigh Burke-, what would be the point of building a new platform to carry loads of VLS tubes when you could just build more of existing classes?

Hell you're basically suggesting a Zumwalt without the radar defeating design, and the Zumwalt has already been deemed economically unviable.

 

[FLEABttn]

I'm assuming you're talking about the nsc and also out of your ass. Majority of the issues are weapons related and third party equipment.

Lightship longitudinal strength not even close to an issue.

No, the Island Class patrol boats conversion.

 

[darkinstinct]

With that launch system, can they actually launch any planes while driving? They would just crush the sled doing so, wouldn't they?

 

[bigmit3737]

Since people keep complaining about the cost...
Economic and military power are very much related. It is in the US's interests to keep massive power projection capability. The existence of massive military might alone is a reason to be friendly with the US, and that in turn profits both nations economically.
The US undoubtedly overspends on military but ultimately maintaining a global military presence is not waste.

Plus, as someone noted, the carrier will server half a century or so. Over time, it is pretty cheap military investment.

While this is true , are we spending the money efficiently ?
We spend almost 3x's (?) more than the next largest military budget for who knows how many years. We should be trumping their military.

 

[jchap]

13 billion that went to tens of thousands of US citizens working to engineer and build this monster.

Military spending, especially on Navy projects is pretty good for domestic jobs.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Complaints about a new aircraft carrier are a bit strange. Yes, it is expensive, but really not that massive as I would have expected at 13 billion. These things last decades and old models need to be replaced sometime. They are the backbone of US power projection around the world and considering the US has two massive coastlines it is pretty important to have a powerful navy anyway. Add to that the humanitarian use of them helping after natural disasters and such that other ships just can't provide on this scale.

Updating your forces with new equipment is not the wasteful part of US defense spending. It is the way they have been used over the years in useless wars that are the real problem.

 

[aspiegamer]

It's better money spent on this than wasted on useless jets or tanks nobody needs.

What a colossal waste of money.

I complain about absurd US military spending as much as the next guy (and then some), but carriers are a shockingly efficient projection of power per dollar versus the combined trillions of dollars in weaponry sitting around that will ever actually be used in combat + unknown billions in research on stuff the military says it doesn't need. "Efficient" by exaggerated US standards, at least. It's when you load billions upon billions of dollars in high-maintenance aircraft where it starts to go out of control on costs; The F-35/Cs in particular are a wreck.

11 active carriers is going to look silly by the end of the Trump administration when we have no overseas partners to work with us and we have nowhere to project our power toward, but we'll cross that bridge when we reach it I suppose.

I will continue to beg for a new SR-71 as the only "good" use of military dollars in this country.

 

[NH Apache]

No, the Island Class patrol boats conversion.

Ah, well I know Bollinger down in Lockport built them originally, but I have no idea about the conversion, that was before my time.

Sorry for going a bit overboard on the NSC. We've been busting hump on that project and others.

 

[mlclmtckr]

everyone in this thread brosplaining about how carriers are necessary for 'force projection'

as if the united states has felt the need to project force in any kind of productive way since the fucking 1940s

if the entire united states navy sank into the marianas trench the world would immediately become a safer and saner place

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

everyone in this thread brosplaining about how carriers are necessary for 'force projection'

as if the united states has felt the need to project force in any kind of productive way since the fucking 1940s

if the entire united states navy sank into the marianas trench the world would immediately become a safer and saner place

How exactly would the world be a safer place when the ability to supply and support our bases and installations around the world is gone.

Let alone the consequences of South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, strike that, the entire Middle East and Asian Pacific theater no longer being held in check.

Yes, that sure does sound like a safer world!

You completely mis-understand what "force projection" actually means.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

How exactly would the world be a safer place when the ability to supply and support our bases and installations around the world is gone.

Let alone the consequences of South Korea, Taiwan, Israel
, strike that, the entire Middle East and Asian Pacific theater no longer being held in check.

Yes, that sure does sound like a safer world!

Safer and saner for pirates!

 

[NH Apache]

everyone in this thread brosplaining about how carriers are necessary for 'force projection'

as if the united states has felt the need to project force in any kind of productive way since the fucking 1940s

if the entire united states navy sank into the marianas trench the world would immediately become a safer and saner place

Holy shit dude you are delusional, especially for someone with a sailing avatar. But since I don't do shitty trolling in threads, I'll provide a small sampling of humanitarian assistance performed by the US Navy over the years:

https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...ling-of-us-naval-humanitarian-operations.html

I was going to quote the whole thing to prove a point, but I didn't want to shit up the thread further. You truly have no concept of what you are talking about, especially considering 90% of trade travels by sea (https://business.un.org/en/entities/13).

Unbelievable.

Technically nuclear powered ships are steamboats, no? I mean, the turbines turn by the nuclear plants heating water, creating steam and thus powering the engines. As opposed to, say, diesel ones.

Yup, that's correct.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Technically nuclear powered ships are steamboats, no? I mean, the turbines turn by the nuclear plants heating water, creating steam and thus powering the engines. As opposed to, say, diesel ones.

 

[Occam]

Imagine how many schools you could have built and kept funded with that money.

 

[zoukka]

Showing the world that the US got the biggest dick.

I think you got that the wrong way.

 

[Dishwalla]

everyone in this thread brosplaining about how carriers are necessary for 'force projection'

as if the united states has felt the need to project force in any kind of productive way since the fucking 1940s

if the entire united states navy sank into the marianas trench the world would immediately become a safer and saner place

lmao

 

[Da-Kid]

Who approved this shit?

 

[Monocle]

Not enough money for single payer health care, education reform, the National Endowment for the Arts, or NASA though.

Imagine how many schools you could have built and kept funded with that money.

Spoken like some sort of liberal socialist nazi propagandist who wants to brainwash our children with the gay agenda.

 

[NH Apache]

Who approved this shit?

Fully fully funded in fiscal year 2008 with congressional approval.

CVN-78 was procured in FY2008. The Navy's proposed FY2018 budget estimates the ship's procurement cost at $12,907.0 million (i.e., about $12.9 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship received advance procurement funding in FY2001-FY2007 and was fully funded in FY2008- FY2011 using congressionally authorized four-year incremental funding. To help cover cost growth on the ship, the ship received an additional $1,374.9 million in FY2014-FY2016 cost-tocomplete procurement funding. The Navy's proposed FY2018 budget requests $20 million in additional cost-to-complete procurement funding. The ship was delivered to the Navy on May 31, 2017, and will be commissioned into service later this year.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

Not enough money for single payer health care, education reform, the National Endowment for the Arts, or NASA though.


Spoken like some sort of liberal socialist nazi propagandist who wants to brainwash our children with the gay agenda.

Whynotboth.jpeg

 

[TheCochese]

everyone in this thread brosplaining about how carriers are necessary for 'force projection'

as if the united states has felt the need to project force in any kind of productive way since the fucking 1940s

if the entire united states navy sank into the marianas trench the world would immediately become a safer and saner place

This is the worst post I've ever seen on this site.

In a thread filled with poor takes. Congratulations.

 

[Yeoman]

Also not to turn this into a trump thread but lol this part of the article

"Sir, we're staying with digital." I said, "No you're not. You going to goddamned steam.

Not only are Trump's negotiating skills tremendous™ but his knowledge of engineering and naval technology is bigly.

 

[ponpo]

everyone in this thread brosplaining about how carriers are necessary for 'force projection'

as if the united states has felt the need to project force in any kind of productive way since the fucking 1940s

if the entire united states navy sank into the marianas trench the world would immediately become a safer and saner place

That avatar....

Sail advocate anger post no doubt.

 

[Wag]

Why isn't this powered by [clean] coal?

 

[mlclmtckr]

Holy shit dude you are delusional, especially for someone with a sailing avatar. But since I don't do shitty trolling in threads, I'll provide a small sampling of humanitarian assistance performed by the US Navy over the years:

https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...ling-of-us-naval-humanitarian-operations.html

I was going to quote the whole thing to prove a point, but I didn't want to shit up the thread further. You truly have no concept of what you are talking about, especially considering 90% of trade travels by sea (https://business.un.org/en/entities/13).

Unbelievable.

Yes, it's great that the government responsible for a worldwide imperialist project and untold civilian deaths and misery also shows up to help when a tsunami hits. You're right, it's worth it, other countries are super glad that America spends three quarters of a trillion dollars a year on their ridiculous unnecessary dick-swinging.

The whole 'american navy makes ocean travel possible' thing isn't even true anymore btw, solo sailors have given up on East Africa / the Arabian Peninsula and would rather tackle a Great Cape than sail the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden. And that's with those totally necessary American naval ships bombing the shit out of Yemen right there in the neighbourhood.

Literally what you are telling me is that it's okay for one country to have a world-dominating innocent person killing government destabilising military project because they also fight pirates. It's okay for a country that's craven and broken enough to put Donald Trump in charge to spend more on their military than the next eight countries combined because they pretty much just cruise around protecting commercial shipping and delivering MREs to disaster zones.

How exactly would the world be a safer place when the ability to supply and support our bases and installations around the world is gone.

Let alone the consequences of South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, strike that, the entire Middle East and Asian Pacific theater no longer being held in check.

Yes, that sure does sound like a safer world!

You completely mis-understand what "force projection" actually means.

oh no without this Navy the united states would be unable to "supply and support our bases and installations around the world"

what kind of alternate dimension did I fall into where this isn't immediately deleted by an embarrassed gaffer who realised what the fuck they were saying two seconds after they posted it

oh no the Middle East won't be 'held in check' anymore, they said, as if the country responsible for the Iraq War and subsequent destabilisation of the region and rise of ISIS wasn't america's fault in the first fucking place

love the hillary avatar btw. last person with one of those to lecture me about 'pragmatic' liberal politics was amirox iirc.