waste, bigly
 

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:54:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:


...until it is slammed by a few missiles...

Air craft carrier are to scare 3d world dictators who don't have
missiles


Those numbers are dwindling

There are still plenty of countries with no real "over the horizon"
capabilities. A CBG is really a pretty capable projection of power
with missile ships all around it and a hunter killer sub or two
underwater. If we make up our mind nobody is going to get close, they
won't.
Firing a missile at a carrier will get your location cratered and if
we are ****ed enough a nuke crater.

Even my old rusty Coast Guard cutter was going to be like squashing a
wasp. You still had a real good chance of getting stung. We had 4-6
homing torpedoes on board and the first thing I did as mount commander
was to preset the last known position of any sub in range and if it
was "not a drill" I was supposed to pull the salt water plugs and the
tampions. When the 02 deck went under, those fish were going hunting,
if we were dead or not.


Firing a half dozen missiles from truck based launchers will do the job.

--
Posted with my iPad Pro

waste, bigly
 

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 7:42:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:10:41 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 7:22:23 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — With praise and a blessing for the military, President
Donald Trump helped hand over the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Navy on
Saturday and said the state-of-the-art aircraft carrier will send a
"100,000-ton message to the world" about America's military might when it
is ultimately deployed.

U.S. allies will rest easy, Trump said, but America's enemies will "shake
with fear" when they see the Ford cutting across the horizon.



...until it is slammed by a few missilea...

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

What is a "missilea"?

Plural for missilus?

Wouldn't that be 'missili?"

waste, bigly
 

On 23 Jul 2017 06:44:59 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:54:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:


...until it is slammed by a few missiles...

Air craft carrier are to scare 3d world dictators who don't have
missiles


Those numbers are dwindling

There are still plenty of countries with no real "over the horizon"
capabilities. A CBG is really a pretty capable projection of power
with missile ships all around it and a hunter killer sub or two
underwater. If we make up our mind nobody is going to get close, they
won't.
Firing a missile at a carrier will get your location cratered and if
we are ****ed enough a nuke crater.

Even my old rusty Coast Guard cutter was going to be like squashing a
wasp. You still had a real good chance of getting stung. We had 4-6
homing torpedoes on board and the first thing I did as mount commander
was to preset the last known position of any sub in range and if it
was "not a drill" I was supposed to pull the salt water plugs and the
tampions. When the 02 deck went under, those fish were going hunting,
if we were dead or not.


Firing a half dozen missiles from truck based launchers will do the job.

There is a real good chance that we can knock down a half dozen cruise
missiles in the 100 miles or so that a CBG would be standing off. If
they have nuke warheads it is WWIII anyway so losing the carrier is
preferable to San Francisco.

waste, bigly
 

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 05:26:37 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 7:42:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:10:41 -0700 (PDT), Its Me


...until it is slammed by a few missilea...

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

What is a "missilea"?

Plural for missilus?

Wouldn't that be 'missili?"

Dunno. When you are making up words, you get to choose the spelling.

waste, bigly
 

wrote:
On 23 Jul 2017 06:44:59 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:54:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:


...until it is slammed by a few missiles...

Air craft carrier are to scare 3d world dictators who don't have
missiles


Those numbers are dwindling

There are still plenty of countries with no real "over the horizon"
capabilities. A CBG is really a pretty capable projection of power
with missile ships all around it and a hunter killer sub or two
underwater. If we make up our mind nobody is going to get close, they
won't.
Firing a missile at a carrier will get your location cratered and if
we are ****ed enough a nuke crater.

Even my old rusty Coast Guard cutter was going to be like squashing a
wasp. You still had a real good chance of getting stung. We had 4-6
homing torpedoes on board and the first thing I did as mount commander
was to preset the last known position of any sub in range and if it
was "not a drill" I was supposed to pull the salt water plugs and the
tampions. When the 02 deck went under, those fish were going hunting,
if we were dead or not.


Firing a half dozen missiles from truck based launchers will do the job.

There is a real good chance that we can knock down a half dozen cruise
missiles in the 100 miles or so that a CBG would be standing off. If
they have nuke warheads it is WWIII anyway so losing the carrier is
preferable to San Francisco.


There are plenty of legit analyses extant that discuss the vulnerability of
our super carriers.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

waste, bigly
 

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 11:35:24 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On 23 Jul 2017 06:44:59 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:54:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:


...until it is slammed by a few missiles...

Air craft carrier are to scare 3d world dictators who don't have
missiles


Those numbers are dwindling

There are still plenty of countries with no real "over the horizon"
capabilities. A CBG is really a pretty capable projection of power
with missile ships all around it and a hunter killer sub or two
underwater. If we make up our mind nobody is going to get close, they
won't.
Firing a missile at a carrier will get your location cratered and if
we are ****ed enough a nuke crater.

Even my old rusty Coast Guard cutter was going to be like squashing a
wasp. You still had a real good chance of getting stung. We had 4-6
homing torpedoes on board and the first thing I did as mount commander
was to preset the last known position of any sub in range and if it
was "not a drill" I was supposed to pull the salt water plugs and the
tampions. When the 02 deck went under, those fish were going hunting,
if we were dead or not.


Firing a half dozen missiles from truck based launchers will do the job.

There is a real good chance that we can knock down a half dozen cruise
missiles in the 100 miles or so that a CBG would be standing off. If
they have nuke warheads it is WWIII anyway so losing the carrier is
preferable to San Francisco.


There are plenty of legit analyses extant that discuss the vulnerability of
our super carriers.

Not so much when you look at the 3d world people we tend to target
with them these days. I agree if China or Russia wants to kill a
carrier, they can but Somali pirates, ISIS fighters in Syria or frisky
North African dictators don't stand a chance.
The current bad guy is Kim but if he took a shot at one of our
carriers, it would end up being the end of N Korea as we know it and a
good chance of that WWIII I was talking about (depending on what China
does). In that regard a carrier is looked at more like a city than as
a ship. Nuking the USS Ford would have the same effect as Nuking
Seattle. It is unlikely that a few conventional warheads would sink a
carrier. These are not the small, thin skinned destroyers that have
taken missile hits or suicide attacks and even those lived to fight
another day.

waste, bigly
 

On 7/23/17 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 11:35:24 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On 23 Jul 2017 06:44:59 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:54:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:


...until it is slammed by a few missiles...

Air craft carrier are to scare 3d world dictators who don't have
missiles


Those numbers are dwindling

There are still plenty of countries with no real "over the horizon"
capabilities. A CBG is really a pretty capable projection of power
with missile ships all around it and a hunter killer sub or two
underwater. If we make up our mind nobody is going to get close, they
won't.
Firing a missile at a carrier will get your location cratered and if
we are ****ed enough a nuke crater.

Even my old rusty Coast Guard cutter was going to be like squashing a
wasp. You still had a real good chance of getting stung. We had 4-6
homing torpedoes on board and the first thing I did as mount commander
was to preset the last known position of any sub in range and if it
was "not a drill" I was supposed to pull the salt water plugs and the
tampions. When the 02 deck went under, those fish were going hunting,
if we were dead or not.


Firing a half dozen missiles from truck based launchers will do the job.

There is a real good chance that we can knock down a half dozen cruise
missiles in the 100 miles or so that a CBG would be standing off. If
they have nuke warheads it is WWIII anyway so losing the carrier is
preferable to San Francisco.


There are plenty of legit analyses extant that discuss the vulnerability of
our super carriers.

Not so much when you look at the 3d world people we tend to target
with them these days. I agree if China or Russia wants to kill a
carrier, they can but Somali pirates, ISIS fighters in Syria or frisky
North African dictators don't stand a chance.
The current bad guy is Kim but if he took a shot at one of our
carriers, it would end up being the end of N Korea as we know it and a
good chance of that WWIII I was talking about (depending on what China
does). In that regard a carrier is looked at more like a city than as
a ship. Nuking the USS Ford would have the same effect as Nuking
Seattle. It is unlikely that a few conventional warheads would sink a
carrier. These are not the small, thin skinned destroyers that have
taken missile hits or suicide attacks and even those lived to fight
another day.



You're ignoring arms trade. What's to prevent Russia from handing Syria
a few dozen anti-ship missiles? What are we going to do in return, nuke
Syria? Kill even more civilians? These large ships are nothing more than
movable targets.

waste, bigly
 

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 12:34:48 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/23/17 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 11:35:24 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On 23 Jul 2017 06:44:59 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:54:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:


...until it is slammed by a few missiles...

Air craft carrier are to scare 3d world dictators who don't have
missiles


Those numbers are dwindling

There are still plenty of countries with no real "over the horizon"
capabilities. A CBG is really a pretty capable projection of power
with missile ships all around it and a hunter killer sub or two
underwater. If we make up our mind nobody is going to get close, they
won't.
Firing a missile at a carrier will get your location cratered and if
we are ****ed enough a nuke crater.

Even my old rusty Coast Guard cutter was going to be like squashing a
wasp. You still had a real good chance of getting stung. We had 4-6
homing torpedoes on board and the first thing I did as mount commander
was to preset the last known position of any sub in range and if it
was "not a drill" I was supposed to pull the salt water plugs and the
tampions. When the 02 deck went under, those fish were going hunting,
if we were dead or not.


Firing a half dozen missiles from truck based launchers will do the job.

There is a real good chance that we can knock down a half dozen cruise
missiles in the 100 miles or so that a CBG would be standing off. If
they have nuke warheads it is WWIII anyway so losing the carrier is
preferable to San Francisco.


There are plenty of legit analyses extant that discuss the vulnerability of
our super carriers.

Not so much when you look at the 3d world people we tend to target
with them these days. I agree if China or Russia wants to kill a
carrier, they can but Somali pirates, ISIS fighters in Syria or frisky
North African dictators don't stand a chance.
The current bad guy is Kim but if he took a shot at one of our
carriers, it would end up being the end of N Korea as we know it and a
good chance of that WWIII I was talking about (depending on what China
does). In that regard a carrier is looked at more like a city than as
a ship. Nuking the USS Ford would have the same effect as Nuking
Seattle. It is unlikely that a few conventional warheads would sink a
carrier. These are not the small, thin skinned destroyers that have
taken missile hits or suicide attacks and even those lived to fight
another day.



You're ignoring arms trade. What's to prevent Russia from handing Syria
a few dozen anti-ship missiles? What are we going to do in return, nuke
Syria? Kill even more civilians? These large ships are nothing more than
movable targets.

You keep assuming a missile hit will actually kill a carrier and that
we can't shoot down a missile, particularly the cruise type that most
antiship missiles are.
As for retaliation, when has killing a ****load of civilians been an
impediment? That stopped even being an issue almost 80 years ago.
WWII was a war that was mostly waged against civilians and that was
the "good" war.

What are ships? A huge "made in the USA" jobs program. That is why
they get so much congressional support. Virtually every district in
the country had a little pork from the Ford construction in one way or
another.

waste, bigly
 

On 7/23/17 12:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 12:34:48 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/23/17 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 11:35:24 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On 23 Jul 2017 06:44:59 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:54:05 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:


...until it is slammed by a few missiles...

Air craft carrier are to scare 3d world dictators who don't have
missiles


Those numbers are dwindling

There are still plenty of countries with no real "over the horizon"
capabilities. A CBG is really a pretty capable projection of power
with missile ships all around it and a hunter killer sub or two
underwater. If we make up our mind nobody is going to get close, they
won't.
Firing a missile at a carrier will get your location cratered and if
we are ****ed enough a nuke crater.

Even my old rusty Coast Guard cutter was going to be like squashing a
wasp. You still had a real good chance of getting stung. We had 4-6
homing torpedoes on board and the first thing I did as mount commander
was to preset the last known position of any sub in range and if it
was "not a drill" I was supposed to pull the salt water plugs and the
tampions. When the 02 deck went under, those fish were going hunting,
if we were dead or not.


Firing a half dozen missiles from truck based launchers will do the job.

There is a real good chance that we can knock down a half dozen cruise
missiles in the 100 miles or so that a CBG would be standing off. If
they have nuke warheads it is WWIII anyway so losing the carrier is
preferable to San Francisco.


There are plenty of legit analyses extant that discuss the vulnerability of
our super carriers.

Not so much when you look at the 3d world people we tend to target
with them these days. I agree if China or Russia wants to kill a
carrier, they can but Somali pirates, ISIS fighters in Syria or frisky
North African dictators don't stand a chance.
The current bad guy is Kim but if he took a shot at one of our
carriers, it would end up being the end of N Korea as we know it and a
good chance of that WWIII I was talking about (depending on what China
does). In that regard a carrier is looked at more like a city than as
a ship. Nuking the USS Ford would have the same effect as Nuking
Seattle. It is unlikely that a few conventional warheads would sink a
carrier. These are not the small, thin skinned destroyers that have
taken missile hits or suicide attacks and even those lived to fight
another day.



You're ignoring arms trade. What's to prevent Russia from handing Syria
a few dozen anti-ship missiles? What are we going to do in return, nuke
Syria? Kill even more civilians? These large ships are nothing more than
movable targets.

You keep assuming a missile hit will actually kill a carrier and that
we can't shoot down a missile, particularly the cruise type that most
antiship missiles are.
As for retaliation, when has killing a ****load of civilians been an
impediment? That stopped even being an issue almost 80 years ago.
WWII was a war that was mostly waged against civilians and that was
the "good" war.

What are ships? A huge "made in the USA" jobs program. That is why
they get so much congressional support. Virtually every district in
the country had a little pork from the Ford construction in one way or
another.


Yeah, I know. The money could best be used on infrastructure and other
expenditures that actually improve the quality of life for more
Americans. Infrastructure improvements put a lot of people in disparate
fields to work.

waste, bigly
 

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 12:52:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

What are ships? A huge "made in the USA" jobs program. That is why
they get so much congressional support. Virtually every district in
the country had a little pork from the Ford construction in one way or
another.


Yeah, I know. The money could best be used on infrastructure and other
expenditures that actually improve the quality of life for more
Americans. Infrastructure improvements put a lot of people in disparate
fields to work.

I agree but as long as we will not adopt the Libertarian concept of
minding our own damned business and stop being the policeman of the
world we will need those ways to project our power.
We do not want our wars to be a fair fight. We want overwhelming
superiority and a carrier battle group loitering over the horizon is
the best way to do that if we are not just going to use
intercontinental ballistic missiles.