Ten Reasons A U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Is One Of The Safest Places To Be In A War

[LeGenD]

Yes last time seen it some place called 'Pearl Harbour'. Please don’t create unnecessary hype when USA never able to face the match in any war after WWII. Even then US licked the ground in against Vietnamese and now against Talibans.
US strategy was and is always to get behind coalitions even facing the weak ones. So is the Zionism.
Be remind, nothing in this world is safest or invincible

You are comparing WW-II era capabilities of USN to where it is at now? Roza lag raha hai aap ko shayed.

Japanese were able to surprise Americans in the Pearl Harbor because of following:

1. No spy satellites in space.
2. Radar systems were a new invention at the time, and provided very limited coverage of potential threats.
3. Ships were lacking in maneuverability, and most were caught off-guard while in the hangers.
4. SAM systems did not exist at the time.
5. No such thing as network-centric warfare and/or Cooperative Engagement Capability at the time.
6. No drones, helicopters and AWACS aircraft at the time.
7. Primitive submarines, and underwater surveillance capabilities almost non-existent.
8. Absolute lack of defenses against torpedoes at the time.

I am sure that a number of other points can be mentioned.

Japanese forces simply had good intel via spying (human agent) and were using negotiations as a cover to mask their attack on the Pearl Harbor.

Modern-era American CVBG is a networked force (a large number of powerful sensor systems working together to establish rich situational awareness for operators) with a vast array of defenses against a wide range of potential threats from torpedoes to ASBM. YOU cannot surprise it, and have a very very remote chance at defeating it unless YOU have offensive capabilities which defy laws of physics (imported from super-advanced aliens).

you know that Swedish sub locked on it multiple times in an exercise. carriers are becoming obsolete, there big structure is the biggest flaw.

Excercises are learning programs in which rules of engagements are relaxed for the participants. Otherwise, USN have technologies/assets which can unmask even supposedly stealthy diesel-fueled submarines.

Have you ever heard of Anti Ship Ballistic Missile

ASBM is PsyOps. Ever seen one striking a moving ship?

Now this:

- is real surprise.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Definitely sitting ducks. It has its advantages and disadvantages. To claim that a carrier is invincible is obviously BS.

Pakistan is a third grade country, what are you gonna do against 50 F-35Cs that can wipe out your entire air force? or carrier strike group that can wipe out your entire navy and air force before you even leave the port.

STFU stupid Indian fvck. You got humiliated on the 27th. Falseflagger piece of shit.

 

[XTQ1999]

STFU stupid Indian fvck. You got humiliated on the 27th. Falseflagger piece of shit.

Lol, Indian? I'm an Azerbaijani

 

[LeGenD]

A carrier is the easiest target of all.

Sheer ignorance.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Lol, Indian? I'm an Azerbaijani

LOL sure we believe you instantly. Now GTFO of this forum.

 

[LeGenD]

if it can float then it can sink! simple as that! end of the day, it is a fleet in the middle of the sea with a very VERY limited supply of intercepter missiles compared to the attackers who would most probably launching from land with huge warehouses full of anti shipping missiles! in a game of attrition against a smart adversary, it literally boils don't to the of minutes when the fleet runs out of intercepters...fail fail situation. there is a reason why the usn stays the hell away from Chinese shores.

Combat tactics are very important, and USN have ample exposure to and grasp of potential threats to its vessels from around the world. American CVBG is expected to attempt to eliminate coastal defenses of a hostile country through long-range precision munitions, drones and aircraft from a safe distance instead putting itself in harms way. Secondly, an American CVBG is never short on cutting-edge set-of-defenses and firepower - these are heavily funded strike platforms after all.

If these carriers are un war zone near china, russia , pakistan or turkey, these are sitting ducks and all the men and women onboard.

These are only safe against third grade countries.

Sheer ignorance.

 

[Oldman1]

Yes last time seen it some place called 'Pearl Harbour'. Please don’t create unnecessary hype when USA never able to face the match in any war after WWII. Even then US licked the ground in against Vietnamese and now against Talibans.
US strategy was and is always to get behind coalitions even facing the weak ones. So is the Zionism.
Be remind, nothing in this world is safest or invincible

Seems you forgotten the Gulf War as well considered by many as the mother of all battles and even worse than Vietnam. How did that go?

A carrier is the easiest target of all.

Actually an airbase on land would be.

you know that Swedish sub locked on it multiple times in an exercise. carriers are becoming obsolete, there big structure is the biggest flaw.

And yet countries like China are building them. Go mock them.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Seems you forgotten the Gulf War as well considered by many as the mother of all battles and even worse than Vietnam. How did that go?



Actually an airbase on land would be.



And yet countries like China are building them. Go mock them.

Just because China is building them doesn't make the carriers invincible. Like any weapons system, carriers have their strengths and weaknesses. Don't get angry when people dispute their invincibility. They can be taken out. Be it with difficulty, but it is certainly not impossible.

Today there are weapons systems that can easily overwhelm the most potent of platforms.

 

[Oldman1]

if it can float then it can sink! simple as that! end of the day, it is a fleet in the middle of the sea with a very VERY limited supply of intercepter missiles compared to the attackers who would most probably launching from land with huge warehouses full of anti shipping missiles! in a game of attrition against a smart adversary, it literally boils don't to the of minutes when the fleet runs out of intercepters...fail fail situation. there is a reason why the usn stays the hell away from Chinese shores.

Sure it can sink but its a lot harder to destroy than an airbase considering its constantly moving and protected by ships. An airbase would only have a few SAMs. You won't see any military deploying hundreds of SAMs to protect 1 base.

 

[GumNaam]

Sure it can sink but its a lot harder to destroy than an airbase considering its constantly moving and protected by ships. An airbase would only have a few SAMs. You won't see any military deploying hundreds of SAMs to protect 1 base.

your kiddin' right? I saw the first gulf war and witnessed 200+ patriot sams deployed around just one saudi air force base in dhahran!

 

[Oldman1]

your kiddin' right? I saw the first gulf war and witnessed 200+ patriot sams deployed around just one saudi air force base in dhahran!

You are exaggerating. No way we can deploy that many for 1 base. You counted?

 

[GumNaam]

You are exaggerating. No way we can deploy that many for 1 base. You counted?

4 sams per battery I counted 50 batteries getting deployed personally from the roof of our house near air base so in fact, 200 is probably an understatement. So not exaggerating at all. Point is that against a well armed coastal defence with a long reach, a carrier fleet could find itself hard pressed for survival.

 

[khail007]

Seems you forgotten the Gulf War as well considered by many as the mother of all battles and even worse than Vietnam. How did that go?

Sir, you didn't got the point. I am stressing that USA usually shields behind alliances/coalitions. Never met its match alone and always goes to war against weak forces. Even then Vietnamese and Talibans taught USA hard lessons.
If I recall correctly, in Vietnam war USA faced humiliated defeat.
In Talibans case, USA took 17 years to comprehend that Talibans are not terrorists and the matter to be negotiated with Talibans on table. All your modern technology and state of the art weapons, mother of all bombs seem duds.

 

[Oldman1]

Sir, you didn't got the point. I am stressing that USA usually shields behind alliances/coalitions. Never met its match alone and always goes to war against weak forces. Even then Vietnamese and Talibans taught USA hard lessons.
If I recall correctly, in Vietnam war USA faced humiliated defeat.
In Talibans case, USA took 17 years to comprehend that Talibans are not terrorists and the matter to be negotiated with Talibans on table. All your modern technology and state of the art weapons, mother of all bombs seem duds.

The U.S. doesn't shield behind alliances and coalitions. We do most of the fighting and shoulder the burdern. Past conflicts tells you that when nations want to be led by the U.S. Prior to the WW1 or 2 the U.S. was mostly fighting alone. Against the Brits or French or the Barbary Pirates, Spanish Empire, etc. Anybody helped us during the invasion of Panama?

You attempt to portray the U.S. as weak and fight against weak nations but yet you see other nations refuse to step up unless a strong military force comes up like the U.S. People thought the Gulf War would by America's next Vietnam and the mother of all battles which would lead to hundreds of thousands of American deaths.

 

[nahtanbob]

Have you ever heard of Anti Ship Ballistic Missile

heard of it. it won't work

Just because China is building them doesn't make the carriers invincible. Like any weapons system, carriers have their strengths and weaknesses. Don't get angry when people dispute their invincibility. They can be taken out. Be it with difficulty, but it is certainly not impossible.

Today there are weapons systems that can easily overwhelm the most potent of platforms.

yup an american aircraft carrier can be taken out. just be prepared for the mayhem that will follow