yeah pretty much what i would sayTigerXtrm wrote:
In terms of military? I think both the Brits and the US have extremely strong fleets, obviously the aircraft carriers being the sea's fortress.
Tiger
Even though I'm assuming the above us meant as a joke, an Essex class carrier has two or three AA guns at most. Modern class carriers have at least 8 + at least a dozen machine guns mounted all around the ship. And they have two runways, can hold more planes, ect. So... no .The USS Essex.
Looking in aspect of direct combat, where the ship is actually the one with the fire power, I guess it would be a destroyer or a cruiser class ship that would rank high at the top.Well I'd say the carriers are capable, but those capabilities are fairly narrow - limited mostly to combat air patrol and strike warfare which are really just attributes of the embarked air wing, not the ship itself.
Last edited by TigerXtrm (2007-02-18 15:49:00)
Last edited by mcgid1 (2007-02-18 15:48:58)
Well, in all honesty, the Essex is an amphibious assault ship, meant for carrying soldiers, tanks, and their landing craft. The only aircraft they'd have are close support vehicles, like Harriers or Cobras. Also, aircraft carriers don't truly have runways, although some of the newer ones can launch 3 planes and land 1 at the same time.TigerXtrm wrote:
Even though I'm assuming the above us meant as a joke, an Essex class carrier has two or three AA guns at most. Modern class carriers have at least 8 + at least a dozen machine guns mounted all around the ship. And they have two runways, can hold more planes, ect. So... no .The USS Essex.
Tiger
Or the USS George W. Bush... can't believe the named a ship after the cunt... ah well. It's not in active commission yet but it has been launched.nlsme wrote:
USS Ronald Reagon. The U.S. latest and greatest.
Please, do elaborate. What attack aircraft? Carrying what weapons? The range of destroyer-borne weapons & sensors (of the American flavor, anyways) far exceeds that of any aircraft-borne system...k30dxedle wrote:
destroyers are screwed when faced with attack aircraft
It's actually named after Bush senior, not W.TigerXtrm wrote:
Or the USS George W. Bush... can't believe the named a ship after the cunt...
Last edited by Aegis (2007-02-18 16:20:20)
Is that even still in commision?Skorpy-chan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser
Missile spam FTW.
VspyVspy wrote:
Carriers are great platforms but subs kick their arse on a daily basis.
Carrier battle groups are constantly infiltrated by submarines because they are so hard to detect. Don't get me wrong, the subs do occasionally get found, but more often than not they get through, simulate unloading a large number of Mark 48's torpedoes and then sneak out without anyone knowing they were there. Then they usually surface and send pictures of the carriers propellers to everyone as proof!! Happens all the time..........Fancy_Pollux wrote:
VspyVspy wrote:
Carriers are great platforms but subs kick their arse on a daily basis.
Explain.
i think someone would realize something was amiss when ships started blowing...lolVspyVspy wrote:
Carrier battle groups are constantly infiltrated by submarines because they are so hard to detect. Don't get me wrong, the subs do occasionally get found, but more often than not they get through, simulate unloading a large number of Mark 48's torpedoes and then sneak out without anyone knowing they were there. Then they usually surface and send pictures of the carriers propellers to everyone as proof!! Happens all the time..........Fancy_Pollux wrote:
VspyVspy wrote:
Carriers are great platforms but subs kick their arse on a daily basis.
Explain.
You do realize that carrier battle groups consist of attack subs as well, right? That said, an attack submarine simply cannot sink a Nimitz class carrier. The ship is compartmentalized so well that you could literally blow out the entire lower decks of a Nimitz class and still not sink it (even having such an opportunity is non-existent considering the number of escorts). The amount of conventional weaponry it would take to sink one makes attacking one impractical. It's nuke or bust. You will not see a Nimitz class sunk by conventional weaponry in your lifetime. This is why the Soviets were prepared to nuke carrier groups during the Cold War era.VspyVspy wrote:
Carrier battle groups are constantly infiltrated by submarines because they are so hard to detect. Don't get me wrong, the subs do occasionally get found, but more often than not they get through, simulate unloading a large number of Mark 48's torpedoes and then sneak out without anyone knowing they were there. Then they usually surface and send pictures of the carriers propellers to everyone as proof!! Happens all the time..........Fancy_Pollux wrote:
VspyVspy wrote:
Carriers are great platforms but subs kick their arse on a daily basis.
Explain.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2007-02-18 17:20:50)