No Fly Zone

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,022
5,615
113
If they can find the carrier and get close enough to it to take a shot, AND if that country is willing to endure the never ending glow that would be the response..... you don't want to forget that there is no place on earth that the US can't rain massive precision guidance on - tomorrow, directly from the show me state.
they are not hard to find. But taking one out is only the option, if you have similar capabilities, i.e. we are in the old MAD territory. The russians may still have a MASD capability, and I suspect China will have it within a decade.
 

hinz

New member
Nov 27, 2006
5,672
1
0
Here is what the USN faces that has Admirals so worried. Those Admirals ain't twirling your pom-poms. Surely enhancements/upgrades HAVE been made to these anti-ship missile systems since their inception, which give USN Admirals even more to worry over.

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

Who knows how many countries have missiles like this, or better, secretly tucked away ready to launch......
LMAO. Didn't USN acquire the sunburn derivatives for evaluation purpose in 1995? Shouldn't the MIC have already figure out how to defeat bulky anti-ship missiles with reasonable confidence?

Another proof that the Admirals are wearing another hat, namely shilling for MIC say Boeing, Ford CEO former employer. :cool:

WRT Iran rumor to possess the sunburn, the Iranians could con us they have dozens of them all they want but I don't recall they have corvettes like this one or frigates to handle the "monsters". Their less than half a dozen, "not junkie" frigates arm with "Chinese design but assembled in Iran" missiles, not the Russian products.

Plus, I don't recall the Iranians use MAZ-543 8x8 artillery trucks family as mobile launchers for anti-ship missiles or something.

BTW, those so-called enhancements/upgrades are symbolic since their ramjet engines are bulky as usual compared to the French and hence vulnerable to attack. Moreover, I could not recall the Russians have Glonass as an option.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,755
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
LMAO!!! Yeah right

You and bottie should get a room and share your delusions together while twirling his pom-poms....:rolleyes:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
they are not hard to find. But taking one out is only the option, if you have similar capabilities, i.e. we are in the old MAD territory. The russians may still have a MASD capability, and I suspect China will have it within a decade.
They are very hard to find, it's a big ocean and they move at 45 knots..... you can't find them by aircraft because they will be jammed and then shot down, you need real time satellite to find one, who has those?

OTB

OTB
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,022
5,615
113
They are very hard to find, it's a big ocean and they move at 45 knots..... you can't find them by aircraft because they will be jammed and then shot down, you need real time satellite to find one, who has those?

OTB

OTB
I will tell you, OTB OTB. The same ones that have MAD capabilities.
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
finding a carrier battle group is difficult, it requires air assets of some kind or another , sattelites are best but even with real time data transfer there is a time lag between locating and launching. Add in the travel time of a ballistic missile and if it does not have a nuclear warhead it will be of limited value. Even with a nuclear warhead it needs to get close, and if it gets close it can be shot down. Nuclear subs are of limited value against a carrier battle group the russian and in particular the chinese subs are relatively easy to track, and the Americans have put generations of work into the perfection of the art of ASW.

As tot eh question of how many countries have less firepower than a carrier its over 90% of the planet... and that is without the MEF that is usually attached
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I will tell you, OTB OTB. The same ones that have MAD capabilities.
So that's Russia and current allies - in that list I'd say the French are the most dangerous. I don't think the Russians have the Navy to hit a Carrier even if they can find one.

OTB
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,022
5,615
113
So that's Russia and current allies - in that list I'd say the French are the most dangerous. I don't think the Russians have the Navy to hit a Carrier even if they can find one.
I don't know any reason an ICBM would not do the job nicely and cleanly?


PS: I am happy for you that you are proud of the military capabilities of your country. You are sacrificing general education, welfare and health [for the other half] in order to project unlimited military power around the globe. Speaking for myself, I regard achievements in social welfare and eduication for the entire population as greater achievements than military superiority. A chacun son gout.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I don't know any reason an ICBM would not do the job nicely and cleanly?


PS: I am happy for you that you are proud of the military capabilities of your country. You are sacrificing general education, welfare and health [for the other half] in order to project unlimited military power around the globe. Speaking for myself, I regard achievements in social welfare and eduication for the entire population as greater achievements than military superiority. A chacun son gout.
Oh I don't know, we spend more per student on K-12 education than all but 3 countries and you come here for the healthcare, which is the same care the old and poor get as well as me and my family, it's just you have to pay a LOT more for it.

Our military is very expensive, that is true, and I think there are areas where we should begin drawing down our investment (starting with troops in Europe and Asia) where it's not yielding any advantage.

OTB
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,022
5,615
113
Oh I don't know, we spend more per student on K-12 education than all but 3 countries and you come here for the healthcare, which is the same care the old and poor get as well as me and my family, it's just you have to pay a LOT more for it.
Not well spent, obviously. It is the welfare you are missing. And don't lie. You know that not all americans have access to the healthcare I get here in Canada, and in Cuba, and in the US.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,755
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
... and you come here for the healthcare, which is the same care the old and poor get as well as me and my family....
Wrong again bottie.
You forgot about those couple Red States where GOPers have recently put 'death panels' in place for the poor....:rolleyes:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Not well spent, obviously. It is the welfare you are missing. And don't lie. You know that not all americans have access to the healthcare I get here in Canada, and in Cuba, and in the US.
No, just about 85%... but no one has to leave because of lines or inadequate care.

OTB
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,022
5,615
113
No, just about 85%... but no one has to leave because of lines or inadequate care.
You just lost 40,000,000 people, and you are right, they are at the lowest rung on the social ladder, so they are not going anywhere. Please worry about them instead of worrying about me. I can get firsty class medical service in any number of places. I happen to like the Mayo clinic, maybe because most of the nurses have danish names, and because of the PH lamps.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,755
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
No, just about 85%... but no one has to leave because of lines or inadequate care.

OTB
So you don't care a rat's ass about that 15%???
Just ignore them and let them die???.....:rolleyes:
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
No, just about 85%... but no one has to leave because of lines or inadequate care.

OTB
No they leave because they cannot afford the care. That is why there will be billions of dollars flowing out of the US this year in medical tourism.

Not a good sign.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
I'd say the better question is (and much more telling) what country (first world, a world I would not yet put China in, or otherwise) has been willing to take on a carrier..... no one is that stupid.

I wonder what % of countries have less firepower than is resident in a single carrier battle group.... and we have a dozen I believe.

OTB
You can have as many as you want, but to my recollection they have not been a significant factor in a US military success in about 50 years or so.

Still too expensive, and too vulnerable.

Perhaps the best example of generals fighting the last war.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
No they leave because they cannot afford the care. That is why there will be billions of dollars flowing out of the US this year in medical tourism.

Not a good sign.
I was talking about Canadians coming to the US for care because they don't want to wait in line or they can't get the care they need....

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
You can have as many as you want, but to my recollection they have not been a significant factor in a US military success in about 50 years or so.

Still too expensive, and too vulnerable.

Perhaps the best example of generals fighting the last war.
They've been engaged in: (80s): Lebanon, Libya and in both Iraq wars, Afghanistan- there is one parked off Libya right now

This current disposition is:

Washington - Home port
Lincoln - South China Sea
Vinson - Arabian Sea
Enterprise - Suez Canal
Reagan - Japan
Bush - Just returned from Afghanistan deployment - surge ready for redeployment
Truman - Just returned from Afghanistan deployment
Stennis - maintenance
Eisenhower - maintenance
Nimitz - maintenance
Roosevelt - maintenance

Ford - being built

but don't take it from me, take it from bubba himself:

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that
the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:
'Where's the nearest carrier?'"


President Bill Clinton
March 12, 1993
aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,022
5,615
113
This current disposition is:

Washington - Home port
Lincoln - South China Sea
Vinson - Arabian Sea
Enterprise - Suez Canal
Reagan - Japan
Bush - Just returned from Afghanistan deployment - surge ready for redeployment
Truman - Just returned from Afghanistan deployment
Stennis - maintenance
Eisenhower - maintenance
Nimitz - maintenance
Roosevelt - maintenance
Treason alert!!!!! Calling Aardvark, Calling Aardvark, Calling Aardvark,

OTB is aiding and abetting the enemy by disclosing the positions of US carriers. (remember he said they are hard to find).
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
If you weren't trying so hard to be funny by half you might be informative some time. This is not even close to secret information. Don't give up your day job.
 
Toronto Escorts