« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: No Carrier At Sea  (Read 3356 times)

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,079
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2017, 04:23:49 AM »
Quote from: Hawkmoon on January 02, 2017, 12:29:48 AM
How much can we up the count if we include those amphibious assault ships? They have squadrons of Harriers or F-35s on them. Here's a video of the F-35 doing carrier landings and take-offs, and the flight deck is parallel to to the keel, not angled off like on the modern carriers. That suggests to me that the video was shot on an AAS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxT78JsLJBY

That video is on USS Wasp.  So our smallest "carrier"
Report to moderator   Logged

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2017, 07:59:22 AM »

With our sub fleet, I'm not concerned in the least. Ragging on Obama for this is petty.

With 11 full sized carriers (all of which are super carriers) and 16 pocket carriers (all of which are nearly 'full sized' for any other country on the planet), I'm REALLY not overly concerned.


As for battleships, I've changed my mind on that. Sure, we could have kept them around for longer but at the moment I don't think they're really needed. Give it a couple years and I've love to see nuclear battle ship hull with rail guns and good missile batteries. But the tech isn't there yet.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

freakazoid

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,243
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2017, 06:48:10 PM »
I've heard that China is working on having more carriers than us in the not really so distant future, and apparently they recently sailed their current one past Okinawa.
Report to moderator   Logged
"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic

never_retreat

  • Head Muckety Muck
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,158
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2017, 09:49:38 PM »
Quote from: freakazoid on January 03, 2017, 06:48:10 PM
I've heard that China is working on having more carriers than us in the not really so distant future, and apparently they recently sailed their current one past Okinawa.
The Chinese have plenty of ship yards and sip building skills.
Why have they been screwing around with that old USSR piece of junk?
Report to moderator   Logged
I needed a mod to change my signature because the concept of "family friendly" eludes me.
Just noticed that a mod changed my signature. How long ago was that?
A few months-mods

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2017, 10:03:55 PM »
Quote from: freakazoid on January 03, 2017, 06:48:10 PM
I've heard that China is working on having more carriers than us in the not really so distant future, and apparently they recently sailed their current one past Okinawa.

Of course, the instructions will make no sense and it'll break in a week, but they can turn them out by the billions.
Report to moderator   Logged

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,389
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2017, 10:05:40 PM »
Quote from: never_retreat on January 03, 2017, 09:49:38 PM
The Chinese have plenty of ship yards and sip building skills.
Why have they been screwing around with that old USSR piece of junk?

It's a test mule. They're still trying to figure out how to land an aircraft on a carrier.
Report to moderator   Logged
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2017, 09:55:52 AM »
Quote from: never_retreat on January 03, 2017, 09:49:38 PM
The Chinese have plenty of ship yards and sip building skills.
Why have they been screwing around with that old USSR piece of junk?

Test bed to save on R&D costs. Figure out their requirements. It's at least decent 1980's tech, and would probably save couple years and a couple tens of billions. It adds up.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

erictank

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,410
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2017, 08:45:07 AM »
Quote from: Warren on January 01, 2017, 02:02:24 PM
I am a proponent of bringing back the BBs.  Just need to get extra range out of their guns.

Need 16" versions of the new rocket-boosted rounds.

Or 16" railguns.

Nuclear-powered battleships with railguns and lasers!!
Report to moderator   Logged

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: No Carrier At Sea
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2017, 10:29:05 AM »
Quote from: Hawkmoon on January 03, 2017, 10:05:40 PM
It's a test mule. They're still trying to figure out how to land an aircraft on a carrier.

Probably shouldn't have bought all those surplus Ki-115s from Japan to train in.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »