291–300 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is china building carriers then? Hypersonic weapons still need to know where to go. Theres a reason an ICBM which flies upwards of mach 20 is ineffective against carriers
They are good at projecting power against lesser foes in a sub-nuclear confrontation. I think if we went to all out war against Russia and/or China our carriers would be some of the first casualties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean... assuming the Russians have anything that works is probably not a great assumption based on their performance in Ukraine. But I think they provide overlapping, but different, roles. But missiles and torpedoes is why aircraft carriers travel in carrier groups that have defensive capabilities against torpedoes and missiles.
Yes, Russia has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, they absolutely work and it's unwise to base your opinions on their nuclear and tactical capabilities based on their slow advance into Ukraine. The Poseidon is a 100 megaton nuclear torpedo. It doesn't need to get anywhere near a carrier group to knock out the entire group. It is twice as powerful as the largest nuke ever detonated (at 57megatons) and a Russ…
Not by much, not per capita (of the obvious target), and both sides are treaty-limited to the same number of 'ready' weapons.
> Poseidon is a 100 megaton nuclear torpedo
You're getting your information from Russian propaganda sources. Credible estimates put it at more like perhaps 2MT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I'm a tenth generation American. Pointing out facts is called being a realist. And I'm not impressed with a bunch of armchair generals that think that war with Russia would be easy because their Tik Tok feed told them so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are good at projecting power against lesser foes in a sub-nuclear confrontation. I think if we went to all out war against Russia and/or China our carriers would be some of the first casualties.
How long would an all-out war with Russia last? Couple hours?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The pilots are trained Fraver (not sure he was one of the ones in this incident) has a history of UFO pranks, shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them, explicitly to give a UFO experience, and someone found a contemporaneous report of him doing it, so it wasn't just a story.
As a former member of USMC Aviation, it's valid to point out that skilled navy pilots can have some of the same range of differences in belief, action and motivation that the general populace does. I flew with a pilot on a transport helicopter that was blasting Eye of the Tiger and taking every turn at maximum bank, constantly looking for AA to get to fire at us so he could call in F-18s and watch the fireworks. Some…
BTW that like sounds like the crazy pilot guy from A-team
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a common assumption made by layman that the existence of a weapon that can kill a system means its now obsolete. That is incorrect. Systems do not become obsolete because they can be killed. They become obsolete when they no longer serve utility. Either something else does the job better, more efficiently or effectively or the nature of war has changed to the degree that its now irrelevant. This mistake is most o…
I hope you'll excuse some pushback from another layperson--isn't the situation with Aircraft Carriers categorically different? In the examples you provided above (Cavalry, Tanks, and Battleships), there has never been a push-button solution to eliminating every single unit in the service of the enemy. Given the technology mentioned by GP, the small number of Carriers in service and the utter impossibility of hiding t…
Strategic nuclear weapons, which one of the items you are referencing is, have been the “make it all go away” button for lots of things since they were created, but…MAD.
As for conventional anti-shipping missiles, people have been arguing that about carriers since weapons like the Exocet were available, but today, as then, remain at best highly speculative.
> So while it seems to be true that Aircraft Carriers are not obsolete in peacetime or in a conflict with minor powers, aren't they obsolete in the context for which they were created--namely, war with another great power?
Maybe, but so what? MAD has made war between great powers even more the exception among wars involving great powers than it was in the past, and it's almost always been the exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has) If you use nuclear weapons on another nuclear power, carriers are going to be the least of your concerns.
And thus the old quote about sticks and stones being used to fight world war 4. I'm not sure about Russia's or China's anti ballistic technology. I know their hypersonic tech is superior to our own currently. But what if a country could deploy nuclear weapons against another nation and defend themselves against incoming missiles, due to a temporary technological advantage? It changes the game. I'm not sure if that's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spoken like a true none believer. I shun thee. Even the pentagon said they can't explain the UFOs, clearly they are preparing society for a big reveal. ;) Edit: I'm betting half the downvotes are from people not picking up on my sarcasm, and the other half is from people picking up on my sarcasm.
From the Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
True believers rarely retaining their senses of humor was the point I was trying to make. I promise not to make fun of UFOs again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Christopher Mellon served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. He is a private equity investor and an adviser to the To the Stars Academy for Arts and Science” Equity investor. No conflicts there! “in our restricted military airspace” In fact, they’re actually the most heavily instrumented research, development, test and training areas on the pl…
> Let me repeat that: research, development and test. >What an incredible coincidence. Alien trolls or Occam’s razor? The ODNI specifically stated in the 144 cases of UAP they were not able to identify that exactly none of them were from testing US Special Access Programs technology. This is in the official report http://dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-As... >“Christopher Mellon served as deputy as…
I’m going to be extremely generous and assume you have actually not read the report you state says exactly none of them were SAPs.
What your source actually says:
“USG or Industry Developmental Programs: Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected”