PappyMason:


Russia and China are not bothered by US Air carriers.

Even the Pentagon is considering scrapping them since drones are more effective and cheaper than launching conventional manned jets from carriers.

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/are-aircraft-carriers-slowly-becoming-obsolete/

What you dont know is,carrier is not only for warfair,its the only way you can deliever large number of troop,amunition,tanks and so on,go and watch world war 2 in HD you will understand what am saying

dinachi:
I really needed to see how russia was begging and I bet you were there and you saw it? Senior clown!

Junior clown you need to go and check google

bettercreature:
What you dont know is,carrier is not only for warfair,its the only way you can deliever large number of troop,amunition,tanks and so on,go and watch world war 2 in HD you will understand what am saying

PappyMason here, spambot is bugging...

How in the hell do you think the US will use ships or aircraft carriers to deploy troops in a war against Russia?

This is not world war 2. An aircraft carrier is a big and very slow target that can be spotted from space with satellites. Hell I can even identify ships from a weather satellite by spotting the ship trails left in it's wake.



With more sophisticated satellites that can read a licence plate, deploying aircraft carriers to a war zone as a transporter is totally and utterly daft. THIS IS WHY NATO EXISTS TO ALLOW US TROOPS A FOOTHOLD IN EUROPE.

I won't be debating over the applicability of aircraft carriers in the 21st century with you here since even the US Navy is even considering scrapping them.

Would have posted another link but don't want to get the spam bot bugging again but you can google this for yourself:

A former Navy captain just identified the biggest flaw in the US aircraft-carrier strategy

The actual strategic value of aircraft carriers, which are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, has been a recurring debate among military thinkers.

Now a retired Navy captain has offered one of the fullest arguments yet that the US needs to radically rethink its naval strategy and shift away from its focus on aircraft carriers.

Writing in the National Review, retired Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix makes the case that aircraft carriers are simply not suited to the future of naval warfare.

Instead, Hendrix believes that carriers have simply become so valuable that the Navy as a whole could not stand losing one.

"At $14 billion apiece, one of them can cost the equivalent of nearly an entire year’s shipbuilding budget," Hendrix notes. "Each carrier holds the population of a small town. Americans are willing to risk their lives for important reasons, but they have also become increasingly averse to casualties."

A single aircraft carrier today can be thought of as more like a small self-contained floating military base than an actual naval vessel. A Nimitz-class supercarrier can carry around 5,000 people onboard while having its own functioning internal economy.

The loss of a single carrier could conceivably lead to about twice as many US fatalities as in the entirety of the war in Afghanistan.

The obvious value of a carrier would make it a prime target for an enemy strike. Since World War II, the US has had relatively free access to the world's sea lanes. But the US is facing increasingly hostile maritime forces with China positioning itself as the naval hegemon in the Pacific.

Beijing has also invested heavily in anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and submarines capable of launching these missiles, that could target US aircraft carriers while evading the US Navy's Aegis Defense System. The existence of China's anti-ship weapons program, which has been designed especially to counter US influence, makes the specific value of carriers questionable and forces the US to make some very uncomfortable choices.

Either the US can refrain from positioning its carriers within strike of Chinese military assets, ceding influence, or it could hypothetically risk the lives of thousands of Americans by placing a carrier within range of Chinese assets.

"For this reason, the modern carrier violates a core principle of war: Never introduce an element that you cannot afford to lose," Hendrix writes.

CSTR2:
American aircrafts carriers are no sitting ducks. They are missile defence systems on its own.
Any threat that comes near 1000km would be countered by squadrons of F-16s and F-18s as a first line of defence.
There is only so much damage an ICBM can do unless we are talking about nukes. And it can be shot down anyway.
With an aircraft carrier, you can transport enough fighter jets to turn a nation into a complete wasteland.

Russia has an array of missiles that the US has no clue on how to intercept.

They travel at 30 meters altitude and reach supersonic speeds when approaching the target.

The last cruise missile strike launched by Russia from the Caspian sea on ISIS targets in Syria and Russia (a thousand kilometers away) stunned the US military observers who were bewildered by its pin point accuracy.

[size=18pt]New Russian missiles used in Syria said to stun U.S. observers[/size]
In recent days, the Russian navy launched long-range cruise missiles at scores of targets in Syria, stunning Pentagon planners and Western military experts alike.

It wasn’t that Russia was demonstrating some unknown capability; Moscow’s military has long fielded cruise missiles.

What was noteworthy about the launches is that they originated aboard warships deployed in the Caspian Sea and successfully struck targets an astounding 1,000 miles away.

As reported by The Daily Beast (DB), on Oct. 7 Russia launched 26 high-tech SS-N-30s, missiles that were largely unknown to most of the outside world. The new missiles even surprised experts who closely monitor Russian military developments.

Another thing, the DB noted: The attack was highly visible, as if Moscow was sending a message to the U.S., the West and its own allies that Russia is back in the game and that the country’s missile developers are capable of producing some of the world’s most advanced systems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2TQ0wAfRts

dinachi:

Russia does not believe in wasting tax payers money on frivolous and foolish projects like the US. Aircraft carriers are a needless waste of money.No American Aircraft carrier can come within 1000 miles of Russia in a battle situation without being destroyed! Russia spends a tenth of Americas budget on defense yet have weapons that rival and sometimes surpass America. Single Russian S400 missile defense system costing less that a thousandth of the amount wasted on that big for nothing Nimitz will turn it to a smoking wreck in minutes. I stick with Russia on this. They are light years ahead of America in military technology.

The yank clankers sucking on Uncle Tom's dik here don't seem to understand that the biggest corrupt entity in the world is the US Military complex which has a highly overblown budget and which by and large depends on Hollywood to portray them as all powerful.

Lest I remind the popsicle generation that it took a $200 rocket propelled grenade launcher shot by a malnourished Somali illiterate high on Kat to bring down a $25million BlackHawk helicopter back in 1991.



A Russian Hind's downdraft from her rotors can easily deflect an RPG which by the way has effective straight path range of just 30m!

America is as overrated as their fat burgers

27

dinachi:
France building aircraft carriers for Russia? That wiil be the day!

I thought have seen it all.This comment proves most Nigerians are blind gay lovers to Putin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849342/France-delays-sending-two-new-aircraft-carriers-Russia-notice-Hollande-says-situation-Ukraine-does-not-allow-delivery.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070579/France-considering-scuttling-Mistral-aircraft-carriers-agree-sell-vessels-Russia-sanctions-brought-Ukraine.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/france-russia-mistral-deal-13-billion-settlement-reached-over-aircraft-carriers-2003044

Wake me up when Putin revives his dead navy.

CSTR2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqLn1wKJAw A fully stocked USS-Nimitz can defeat most militaries singlehandledly.

Wars are fought n won with brainz, Forget weapons.

mazeltov:
is it not funny to see how some people are posting irrelevances about this ship. Lolzz. As it stands now, no Carrier ship in the world can beat this USS Nimitz ship. To now think of Russian kuznetsov carrier which has a displacement capacity of 43,000-tonnes and Beam of 72 meters compare to Uss Nimitz carrier which has displacement capacity of 100,020-tonnes and 252ft of Beam, approximatelY 332meters. Ok if that is not enough. Russian Kuznetsov ship has 30ft/11m draught with a speed of 29km(54km/h) compared with Us Nitmiz which has 37ft/11.3m and a speed of 31.5km(58.3km/h). If that is not enough, Uss Nitmiz is capable of carrying over 90 aircrafts while Russian can only carry about 40 aircrafts. For now, No Russian ship can beat this USS NIMIIZ. Quote me anywhere, no Russian ship either dead or alive can match this ship

And what happened to the German Bismarck

Go n read war history biko.

CSTR2:
Feats like these are why americans are the most arrogant citizens in the world.
America is the greatest superpower of the past 3000 years and they know it.
God bless America.

Amen Brother. @ Team America.

PvtParts:
How in the hell do you think the US will use ships or aircraft carriers to deploy troops in a war against Russia?

ships are not only meant for deployment of troops alone, wars are fought on land, airspace and on sea so know the purpose of each warfare.

PvtParts:
This is not world war 2. An aircraft carrier is a big and very slow target that can be spotted from space with satellites. Hell I can even identify ships from a weather satellite by spotting the ship trails left in it's wake.

Yes you are right. The same thing is applicable to other enemies' ships. But don't forget that sophistication always come to play in war. Moreover this ship is bigger, heavier and faster than Russian Kuznetsov ship. It has speed of 58km/h- 31.5knots compared to Russian kuznetsov speed of 54km/h. Russian ship propulsion is steam turbined while Nimitz propulsion is Nuclear Reactor. I'm not saying it can outrun fighter jet or missiles but its capabilities is higher compared to other ships.

PvtParts:

Instead, Hendrix believes that carriers have simply become so valuable that the Navy as a whole could not stand losing one.

"At $14 billion apiece

it's not up to 14billion, it's estimated at about 4.5billion.

PvtParts:
The obvious value of a carrier would make it a prime target for an enemy strike

yes I agree with you on this. It would be a very big loss both in terms of lives and money.

PvtParts:
Beijing has also invested heavily in anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and submarines capable of launching these missiles, that could target US aircraft carriers while evading the US Navy's Aegis Defense System. The existence of China's anti-ship weapons program, which has been designed especially to counter US influence, makes the specific value of carriers questionable and forces the US to make some very uncomfortable choices. Either the US can refrain from positioning its carriers within strike of Chinese military assets, ceding influence, or it could hypothetically risk the lives of thousands of Americans by placing a carrier within range of Chinese assets.

I also agree with you on this. But there is something you don't understand. There is no super weapon that is not destroyable. No weapon is superb. China is not the only country that has anti-ship missile, in fact U.s has so many long range anti-ship missiles like Harpoon and this ship has its own misslie defense of its own.

PvtParts:
"For this reason, the modern carrier violates a core principle of war: Never introduce an element that you cannot afford to lose," Hendrix writes.

and what is the element that you can't afford to lose? Russia also has a similar ship but it is not as sophisticated as Nimitz, China also has its own Ship called Liaoning. Yes the ship is not stealth capable and can be easily detected by satelite but Weapons of the same class should be compared with each other. Nimitz has sophisticated sensors to be able to track down incoming weapons, it is equipped with AN/SPS-48E 3-D air search radar, AN/SPQ-9B target acquisition radar, Another AN/SPS-49(v)5 2-D air search radar , AN/SPN-46 air traffic control radars, 4xMK 91 NSSM guidance systems and another 4x MK95 radars. It doesn't end there. It has SLQ-32a countermeasures suite and another set of SLQ-25a Nixie torpedo countermeasures. i wonder if you were expecting such carrier to be exposed to external threat like that or were you expecting the defense company to build such ship without adequate and secured security system. This ship is capable of tracking and intercepting incoming weapons at about 800km away it it has successfully intercepted two Russian Tu-95 jets. However, all weapons have their own vulnerability so we shouldn't make mistake of comparing Russian S-400 with American Uss nimitz ship. I find some of your point interesting but I see most of them as lame excuses as why Russian couldn't have such.

dinachi:

Russia does not believe in wasting tax payers money on frivolous and foolish projects like the US. Aircraft carriers are a needless waste of money.No American Aircraft carrier can come within 1000 miles of Russia in a battle situation without being destroyed! Russia spends a tenth of Americas budget on defense yet have weapons that rival and sometimes surpass America. Single Russian S400 missile defense system costing less that a thousandth of the amount wasted on that big for nothing Nimitz will turn it to a smoking wreck in minutes. I stick with Russia on this. They are light years ahead of America in military technology.

I know you hate America but don't turn your hate to foolishness and ignorance. Military capabilities come from research and Russia cannot fund that. Even Putin knows where his strings end.

chuna1985:




And what happened to the German Bismarck

Go n read war history biko.

I know Bismark very well during world war 2 and I think it was sunk by British. Ok, are you now trying to compare German Bismark with Nimitz? Drop the argument please.

CSTR2 is absolutely right about America war superiority. I am an American who doesn't believe in America getting into any war unless America is attacked or about to be attacked. Everyone or country has the right to defend herself. The list of Peaceniks in US is multiplying. No good thing comes out of war. I am happy for Obama getting the hell out of Syria. Putin will find out that getting involved in the Middle East will wreck Russia's struggling economy. All this war songs and braggings doesn't make sense. Imagine what all this countries can do for their citizens with Trillions of dollars they spend on weaponries ?.

chuna1985:







Wars are fought n won with brainz, Forget weapons.

And your beautiful brain believes the Nimitz is packed with a bunch of dollop heads who don't know jack about war fare.

90% of its crew members are experts in various fields relating to the ships core duties on the sea.Only a handful are gun wielding naval officers,the rest are battle strategist and naval engineers(mechanical and electronically),there are onboard intelligence officers within the ranks.

The Nimitz is battle ready any day and can maneuover the very best Russian missiles worse case scenarios.

Such a massive weapon has its own peculiarities,America built a sea dragon that can spit fire and breathe water.

ValerianSteel:
And your beautiful brain believes the Nimitz is packed with a bunch of dollop heads who don't know jack about war fare.

90% of its crew members are experts in various fields relating to the ships core duties on the sea.Only a handful are gun wielding naval officers,the rest are battle strategist and naval engineers(mechanical and electronically),there are onboard intelligence officers within the ranks.

The Nimitz is battle ready any day and can maneuover the very best Russian missiles worse case scenarios.

Such a massive weapon has its own peculiarities,America built a sea dragon that can spit fire and breathe water.

lwkmd. Most of these trolls wouldn't have been posting these rubbish had it been that it was built by Russia.

dinachi:

Russia does not believe in wasting tax payers money on frivolous and foolish projects like the US. Aircraft carriers are a needless waste of money.No American Aircraft carrier can come within 1000 miles of Russia in a battle situation without being destroyed! Russia spends a tenth of Americas budget on defense yet have weapons that rival and sometimes surpass America. Single Russian S400 missile defense system costing less that a thousandth of the amount wasted on that big for nothing Nimitz will turn it to a smoking wreck in minutes. I stick with Russia on this. They are light years ahead of America in military technology.

your post shows the heighest point ignorance and you know nothing about weapons. How would you be comparing Surface-to-air ''SAM'' weapons like S-400 with Carrier ship that is operating on water. Tell me, when did Aircraft carrier ships start flying in the sky that would now make S-400 missile to shoot it down? If you are made a war General, I'm sure that you would be advising your troops to be launching surface-to-air missiles against ships operating in the pacific ocean. Please stop making dumb comparison here.

ValerianSteel:
And your beautiful brain believes the Nimitz is packed with a bunch of dollop heads who don't know jack about war fare.

90% of its crew members are experts in various fields relating to the ships core duties on the sea.Only a handful are gun wielding naval officers,the rest are battle strategist and naval engineers(mechanical and electronically),there are onboard intelligence officers within the ranks.

The Nimitz is battle ready any day and can maneuover the very best Russian missiles worse case scenarios.

Such a massive weapon has its own peculiarities,America built a sea dragon that can spit fire and breathe water.

Have u ever heard about the Bismarck

mazeltov:
I know Bismark very well during world war 2 and I think it was sunk by British. Ok, are you now trying to compare German Bismark with Nimitz? Drop the argument please.

I choose to believe u intentionally avoided my point. The Bismarck was by far the most powerful Destroyer to have roamed the ocean @ that time n what happened to it

It only served for 8 months in battle n was sunk.

Same will go with this your touted war machine, Its a massive threat n in a third world war event, it will be the priority of Russia, India n China to see it sink.

chuna1985:



Have u ever heard about the Bismarck

Oh please stop making a mockery of 21st Century US naval strength.

mazeltov:
lwkmd. Most of these trolls wouldn't have been posting these rubbish had it been that it was built by Russia.

Many talk trash these days it makes me wonder if it came from their brains or a Russian programmed microchip in the brain.

I see no reason why people are arguing on this! The Basic principles of the Aircraft Carrier is based on Power Projection...nothing else! the Nimitz like any other Aircraft Carrier NEVER deploys alone as it's defences are weak...Loads of Cruisers and Submarines form the peripheral Defences of this Behemoth...because the biggest threat to an Aircraft Carrier is a A single Torpedo..The Sneaking Up of a Chinese A-class submarine on a US Carrier within Torpedo during Joint exercises some years back leading to the review of US Fleet Convoys proves my point..

Packing a Punch of 80 planes, Hundreds of amphibious vehicles, Armoured Offensive and Defensive Platforms..thousands of Marines...the Force multiplier effect and power projection of a Nuclear Carrier still remains unparalleled in the world..
Russia in its entire History has never been much of a Naval Power, and that has been a major stumbling block to her power projection..

Even their so-called Precision Strikes against ISIL in Syria happened because Iranian Airspace was theirs to use..
The Russians are good with Avionics, Ballistics, and Armour but trust me, they are jo match for a Military designed to sustain a War on 6 Global Fronts for 20yrs!

chuna1985:




I choose to believe u intentionally avoided my point. The Bismarck was by far the most powerful Destroyer to have roamed the ocean @ that time n what happened to it

It only served for 8 months in battle n was sunk.

Same will go with this yourbtouted war machine, Its a massive threat n in a third world war event, it will be the priority of Russia, India n China to see it sink.

[b]let me tackle your quesrion from the base. China and Russia also have carrier ships that are similar to Nimitz, only that Nimitz is to some extent bigger and faster than the ones they have. Talk about sinking? This ship will not travel only. It will be so dumb to buld such ships without thug boats. Russia and China are not the only country that is capable of sinking ships. America too can sink the ass of any ship in the world. And talking about Bismark? How on hell will you be comparing a ship that was commissioned in 1940 during the era of second world war with Nimitz. Are you not part of civilization? German Bismark ship has a displacement capacity of 50,900tons and propulsion of wargner high-pressure steam turbine boilers and 3x three shaft blohm with voss geared steam turbines generationg 150,000 horsepower while Nimitz has displacement capacity of of 110,250 tons and propulsions capacity of washinghouse A4W nuclear reactors, 4x steam turbines, 4x shafts and generates 260,000 horsepower. I am really shock as you are comparing Bismark with Nimitz. You even said Bismarck is the most powerful destroyer ever roamed the ocean. Please stop comparing Scorpion with Python.[/b]

Other aspects of the Nimitz we are ignoring include its Electronic Warfare Capabilities! There has been yearly incorporation of Upgrades to the Nimitz which is way beyond public eye! I don't even wanna go there! Just pray not to have one close to your shores!
Even the Chinese are not too impressive in terms of Naval Capabilities, there one and only " indigenous" Carrier is not match for oldest US carrier..The Re-militarization of Japan should change the Balance of Power in Asia soonest. Anyone wonders why the US is winding up her campaign in the Middle-east and focusing on Asia? methinks the Russian involvement received tacit American Approval to fill the vacuum they will be leaving behind!

bettercreature:
You simply don't know what is going on around you,you need to see how russia was begging france not to cancel the contract while america insist that for france to deliever the carriers,russia must leave Ukraine

Do remember that one of those jet carriers has been delivered either last year to Russia. Its the 2nd one that is still in negotiation and since its a contract Russia can sue France if She breaches it.

Daliano:


Do remember that one of those jet carriers has been delivered either last year to Russia. Its the 2nd one that is still in negotiation and since its a contract Russia can sue France if She breaches it.

Actually,France is paying Russia back in full,they imposed sanctions on Russia for its actions against Ukraine last year,part of it is that France won't sell weapons to Russia amongst other things in the sanctions.Russia can kiss their aircraft carriers goodbye.

Actually the first one is still at a French dock,yet to be released to Russia Navy,France has been stalling the transfer of the carrier and even threatened to dismantle both of Russia acts out of line again.

That's why Putin ran to Paris a few weeks back when he started his Pro-Assad campaign in Syria to explain his actions in Syria cause he knows where the French have in stock for him.

bettercreature:
No missile is capable of reaching that carrier even if all her engineers are sleeping
Sadly Russia doesnt have the technology to build carrier
It can only be destroy by swarming of hundreds of small sub-marine boats as one Iran revolutionary guards quoted and usa military experts attest to it

RUSSIA WAS ABLE TO TURN THE "USS DONALD COOK"to "USS DONALD DUCK"(blinding all electronics in the destroyer).@the BLACK SEA''in april 2014.that destroyer was loaded with tomahawk missiles...an unarmed SU fighter jet,,flew round the destroyer 11 times ,simulating a missile strike each time...the ship had to quickly return to the romanian port which it took off..the future of naval warfare is one that wld be fough electronically...big ships are nothing but" FLOATING CASKETS"...what sort of defence do they have against an "ISKANDER"? Or a BRAHMOS supersonic cruise missile?

ValerianSteel:
Actually,France is paying Russia back in full,they imposed sanctions on Russia for its actions against Ukraine last year,part of it is that France won't sell weapons to Russia amongst other things in the sanctions.Russia can kiss their aircraft carriers goodbye.

Actually the first one is still at a French dock,yet to be released to Russia Navy,France has been stalling the transfer of the carrier and even threatened to dismantle both of Russia acts out of line again.

That's why Putin ran to Paris a few weeks back when he started his Pro-Assad campaign in Syria to explain his actions in Syria cause he knows where the French have in stock for him.

FRANCE made a fool of themselves...for your info,,the two mistra chopper carriers have been purchased by EGYPT(a russian ally),,,and guess what?russia has offered its radar and electronic services to equip the carriers for egypt ...FRANCE had to pay compensation for the ship,paying 1.31billion dollars (real cost plus compensation)..Russia has said it would build it own mistral ship to its taste...in all france remains the biggest looser..http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/161322/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-to-buy-Russian-helicopters-hardware-for-new.aspx

mazeltov:
[b]let me tackle your quesrion from the base. China and Russia also have carrier ships that are similar to Nimitz, only that Nimitz is to some extent bigger and faster than the ones they have. Talk about sinking? This ship will not travel only. It will be so dumb to buld such ships without thug boats. Russia and China are not the only country that is capable of sinking ships. America too can sink the ass of any ship in the world. And talking about Bismark? How on hell will you be comparing a ship that was commissioned in 1940 during the era of second world war with Nimitz. Are you not part of civilization? German Bismark ship has a displacement capacity of 50,900tons and propulsion of wargner high-pressure steam turbine boilers and 3x three shaft blohm with voss geared steam turbines generationg 150,000 horsepower while Nimitz has displacement capacity of of 110,250 tons and propulsions capacity of washinghouse A4W nuclear reactors, 4x steam turbines, 4x shafts and generates 260,000 horsepower. I am really shock as you are comparing Bismark with Nimitz. You even said Bismarck is the most powerful destroyer ever roamed the ocean. Please stop comparing Scorpion with Python.[/b]

Are u mad Or is it Mental problem that u have


Here is ma exact statement -

"" The Bismarck was by far the most powerful Destroyer
to have roamed the ocean @ that time""


Pls help ur self well, I can comfortably compare Bismarck with current war machines because as at 1940, The kind of missiles that exists were less powerful than the ones we have now, So are the missiles n guns we had in 1940.

A single 4th generation Russia cruise missile will end the career of this Nitmitz whatever.....