Us Carriers

[Hugo]

Utter crap. The RN is a fully functional blue water navy.

Not in the same sense as the US Navy or even the former Soviet Navy. It does not have the numbers, the range or the firepower to maintain a sizeable overseas presence anywhere, and basically can operate as a task force or as homeland defence, but cannot conduct operations in more than one ocean anymore.

[Boydfish]

The definition of a "blue water navy" is a navy that conduct warfare operations unsupported beyond the littoral areas of their own or near coastline. A "brown water navy" is one that can't or is optimized for littoral operations.

As for the RN not being able to operate in more than one ocean, the facts do not support your theory. They do not routinely do so, but are more than able to do so. They are certainly able to self-deploy at will to the entire Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, as well as the entire Med Sea, Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.

It does not have the numbers, the range or the firepower to maintain a sizeable overseas presence anywhere

Didn't a much smaller and scaled back RN conduct an invasion of the Falklands in 1982? Did you happen to notice the Royal Marine Brigade that stomped around Iraq recently? There is literally no coastline in the world that the RN cannot deploy in force to.

In comparison to the former Soviet Navy, especially in power projection, the RN was at least their equal, if not outright superior in several critical areas. The Soviet Naval Infantry simply could not have mounted the Falklands Invasion. It's also doubtful that the Soviet era carriers could have stood up to the Mirages like the RN's FAA did. On a strict unit type to unit type comparison, the RN beat the Soviets hands down in nearly every instance. The I-class is a much superior unit to the Soviet VTOL carriers. The T-class SSNs were light years ahead of the Soviet counterparts. The U-class SSKs were so far ahead of the Soviet versions, it's almost impossible to compare them.

[Hugo]

The RN can operate in any ocean, but only one! This is what I meant by not really a blue-water navy. It can deploy to another sea, but its range and forces are strictly limited. The US has at least one carrier battle group in each ocean, I believe, and in some spots, more. Those battle groups are really fleets in their own right. The RN does not have that, and since the demise of the Empire it no longer has a reason to do that either.

The RN had better equipment and men than the Soviet Navy, but not the numbers, and in a naval conflict the RN would simply have been overwhelmed. The Soviet Navy might or might not have been able to undertake a Falklands-esque marine assault, but that was not what the Red Fleet was designed for. The USSR envisaged a land war in Europe, which the Navy would support by interdicting shipping routes between Europe and the USA. That's what the Soviet Navy was built for, anti-shipping, which is why they laid so much emphasis on submarines and not on aircraft carriers.

[Boydfish]

I believe that the RN can reasonably maintain two task forces indefinately in any ocean in the world, depending on composition. In a pinch, they could deploy three seperate independent task groups for up to six months.

That aside, the RN is by accepted definition, a "blue water" navy. The USN is a blue water navy, but is certainly not the definition of what a blue water navy is. By accepted definition, even the Canadian Navy qualifies as a blue water navy, as proven by their deployment to the Persian Gulf.

In terms of the Soviet Naval Infantry capabilities, they were not in the "might" category of doing a Falkland scale operation. They lacked the required amount of fast combat support ships to operate that distance from friendly ports.

[Derek]

200 miles is a bit overexergated. And they might not be sending F-14s in the next 2-6 years. They'll be sending Superhornets. Tomcats are scheduled to be decommishened. The JSF should be entering production, if it already hasn't. Now if only the comanche would enter production, we can get rid of these Cobras.

No its not. If it is an ship no. But when it is an airborne plane etc. They send a welcoming party. They take a security of an Aircraft carrier force very seriously. They send planes (usually in International waters,) This is after radio contact fails etc. Does anybody know when the F-22 raptors are coming into the navy?

What about the joint strike fighter?

[nova_satori]

They are making Sea Raptors? That sounds rather funny. JSFs should be here within a few years.

In that case, you are replacing one super-carrier with four small carriers and four supply ships. That's far more expensive than building one super-carrier, especially if you want them all nuclear-powered!

Not in manpower costs. And training. You don't need to build 4, two will suffice. And you could cut the number of escorts.

The SU-27 is a great plane from a WWII perspective, but compared to an F-15, F-16 or F-18 it's dead meat.

hardly

Dead Meat? More like a challenge

Flanker 2

It's inaccurate and has very high kickback due to the large 7.62mm round, which still doesn't do as much damage as the M16 does with a 5.56mm NATO round. Let's not even bother comparing it to the H&K G11, which is around 200% more accurate, carries almost 4 times the magazine capacity while weighing over a kilo less and has to be stripped and cleaned far less often.

yes, but most guns are inaccurate on a long burst. However, it matters very little due to the extreme amount of lead you're throwing into a small area.

US troops in Iraq favor the AK-47 over their M-16s,

Iraq 1

The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.

Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better ''knockdown'' power and can kill with fewer shots.

the H&K G11 is much more expensive then a standard AK-47s

The hind was never designed to fight other helios. It can kill infantry at faster rates then the Apache. However, incompetent Soviet pilots, hoving next to trees learned the lesson that the afgans gave. RPGs are perfectly capable of destroying helos. you can't expect a tank to do a plane's job. You can't expect a anti-ship missile to knock jets out of the air. Things were designed for a reason. usually a few.

Foxbat's speed is enough to warrant its use. Can you find a faster interceptor?

Not really. After all, many of those crew could be expected to survive a sinking (unless it was actually vaporised), and the Navy could put together another crew without too much trouble. Like I said, it would cost a few billion, but it could be taken out of the existing budget, even. Higher costs have been borne in war.

How the heck are you suppose to survive a nuclear blast? if the blast doesn't kill you, the fallout will quickly kill you or render you non-combantant, and most likely attachted to a bed for live. Most of the crews will be killed in the inital blast. Not only will they die, but the military will be forced to pay the families of those crews. Double whammy. Not only did vast amounts of capital disappear, but the payouts of that many crews will be astronomical.

[nova_satori]

bbc link that i forgot.

bbc

[Boydfish]

yes, but most guns are inaccurate on a long burst. However, it matters very little due to the extreme amount of lead you're throwing into a small area.

US troops in Iraq favor the AK-47 over their M-16s,

Um, at first I was going to ask if you've ever fired any of the guns you're discussing, but will go for a broader question before that, based on your statements: Have you ever fired a gun?

The hind was never designed to fight other helios. It can kill infantry at faster rates then the Apache.

Except the Hind wasn't designed to kill infantry as a primary mission either; it is meant to hunt armor and soft skinned vehicles. Which is also the mission of the Apache, BTW. I suppose the fact that your entire statement is bogus could also be pointed out, as killing infantry is not an equation of rate, rather of effectiveness, but why make logical arguements?

However, incompetent Soviet pilots, hoving next to trees learned the lesson that the afgans gave. RPGs are perfectly capable of destroying helos.

Yes, but before we go over the finer plot points of "Red Dawn", perhaps the MANPAD Stingers might have also been a factor?

Foxbat's speed is enough to warrant its use. Can you find a faster interceptor?

Yep. The AIM-120 Pheonix ballistic AAM. They tend to fly in very tight formation with F-14's.

How the heck are you suppose to survive a nuclear blast?

Which part of the blast are you referring to? The pulse? The flash? The shockwave? That's probably not fair, as you have no idea what you're talking about.

if the blast doesn't kill you, the fallout will quickly kill you or render you non-combantant, and most likely attachted to a bed for live.

Except that fallout is created by environmental dust having radioactive elements bind to it and then be lofted airborne in the blast. That's why airburst nukes have less fallout than impact nukes...and those over water have next to none. After the Trinity test, troops marched thru the blast crater less than an hour later with few ill effects.

[Mr. Chater]

Why does the US keep building more carriers? Russian weapons comming on the black market make the US carrier group a huge sitting duck.

haha..hmmm, now that would be a war..but i don't think Russia will get into a conflict anytime soon with the US of A. And if they do..it will be their worst mistake..

[Hugo]

Not in manpower costs. And training. You don't need to build 4, two will suffice. And you could cut the number of escorts.

First, if you cut back on escorts you make the whole thing more vulnerable, which was your beef in the first place. So let me get this straight: you will solve the problem of carriers being too vulnerable by making them more vulnerable?

Secondly, HMS Illustrious carries 21 aircraft, most of them helicopters. USS Nimitz carries over 80 aircraft. Hence the fact that I said you'd need to build 4. That's 4 nuclear reactors, not 2, 4 hulls, not 1, 4 electronics suites, not 1, and so forth. That's going to work out much more expensive.

hardly... Dead Meat? More like a challenge... Flanker 2

These are amateur websites from people who've never flown any of the aircraft in question or seen them up close. I tell you that an F-16 pilot and a Major in the USAF, who has flown thousands of hours in an F-16 and has seen an SU-27 up close and watched it perform, would have no problem bringing an SU-27 down and this is your response?

US troops in Iraq favor the AK-47 over their M-16s,

No, it said they were using AK-47s because there was a shortage of M16s. Read what you cite!

Regardless, the AK-47 may be reliable but it's reliably inaccurate as well. Stopping power doesn't matter because it's inaccurate! Here's the basic rule to remember with guns: a bb-gun that hits does more damage than a 120mm smoothbore that misses! All the power in the world is useless if you can't put the round on target, and the AK-47 is lousy for that. The M16 is highly accurate, though, and the 5.56mm round is very cleverly designed to tumble which makes it actually do more damage than the 7.62mm round.

Videogames don't have all the answers.

The hind was never designed to fight other helios. It can kill infantry at faster rates then the Apache.

Yeah, and as we saw in Afghanistan and Chechnya it can get killed by infantry at faster rates.

Foxbat's speed is enough to warrant its use. Can you find a faster interceptor?

Why would you need one? The Foxbat is based on an old and flawed philosophy of aircraft design.

How the heck are you suppose to survive a nuclear blast? if the blast doesn't kill you, the fallout will quickly kill you or render you non- combantant, and most likely attachted to a bed for live.

Not at all. If you're in a hardened structure (like an armoured warship) you could expect to survive a 500Kt blast as little as 2-3 miles away relatively intact. Nuclear bombs are not as incredible as laymen tend to think. For example, not even a massive 50Mt warhead from an SS-18 could expect to level all of New York.

Yep. The AIM-120 Pheonix ballistic AAM. They tend to fly in very tight formation with F-14's.

That's funny.

[nova_satori]

Hugo: JSF. You don't nessarily need to put 80 planes divided on 4 ships.

No, it said they were using AK-47s because there was a shortage of M16s. Read what you cite!

They also said they like the AK-47 better for multiple reasons over the m-16s, some prefer the Ak-47 then the M-16! Read what I cite!

These are amateur websites from people who've never flown any of the aircraft in question or seen them up close

Sorry, I forgot you stand with Craig on the BBC issue.

The M16 is highly accurate, though, and the 5.56mm round is very cleverly designed to tumble which makes it actually do more damage than the 7.62mm round

A gun that jams frequently is useless no matter how accurate it is. You're pretty much down to rifle-whipping them. That's a GREAT weapon. Now if we have Iraeli Uzis....

Yeah, and as we saw in Afghanistan and Chechnya it can get killed by infantry at faster rates.

Apaches and Blackhawks have been lost in Afganistan, Iraqi, Somalia. You're point?

[Hugo]

You don't nessarily need to put 80 planes divided on 4 ships.

80 JSFs on a Nimitz will outgun 40 on a pair of light carriers. What you are talking about is either increasing vulnerability, decreasing firepower or increasing costs.

They also said they like the AK-47 better for multiple reasons over the m- 16s, some prefer the Ak-47 then the M-16! Read what I cite!

It said that some do. "Some" can technically be two of them. Furthermore, all soldiers are required to be able to fire their weapons, but not necessarily well. Cooks and network administrators can shoot. Now, if you were to tell me that most SEALs or Green Berets prefer AK-47s, that's something, because spec ops have far better weapon handling skills, fire thousands of rounds a day in training and make it their business to know how to handle every gun made.

Sorry, I forgot you stand with Craig on the BBC issue.

Why? Because when it comes to testimony on aircraft performance I prefer that of a career fighter pilot to an amateur, civilian website author?

A gun that jams frequently is useless no matter how accurate it is.

All automatic weapons (don't call them guns, please) "jam" frequently. I know that Hollywood doesn't show you that, but it happens to be true. The barrel gets hot and can cook off, or gets fouled, a malformed round can fail to fire or the casing can jam in the ejection port, etc. The more rounds you fire and the faster you fire them, the greater the chance of a stoppage.

The M16 is a better weapon than the AK-47. That is final, and you can't prove otherwise because it simply is not true.

Apaches and Blackhawks have been lost in Afganistan, Iraqi, Somalia. You're point?

My point is that Apaches have given a very good account of themselves in combat, whereas Hinds generally get whipped.