Message Board Archives

Sailing through the English channel is a joke, the Carrier is a smoke bomb lol fueled on coal perhaps?

In reply to Runs
you got evidence and pics?

In reply to Curtis

All over d internetta

In reply to Runs

Maybe they have ass kicking Nuclear subs underneath..

In reply to Khaga

Yeah they have nukular subs

In reply to Runs

Just saw the clip on BBC..

Germany and Japan had much larger fleets during second world war

In reply to Runs

I seriously don't think navy fleets are too relevant today,they're all basically sitting ducks in this world of modern warfare with precise GPS tracking etc,a cruise missile can come out of nowhere and destroy any ship in any sea. Sure the US or any other power can pull up some ships on a small country or invade some one-legged country, or even support a situation in part of a divided or war torn country such as Syria,but imagine an all out war between 2 well equipped medium to super powers,ships wouldn't stand a chance,especially aircraft carriers chock full of vulnerable jets and personnel.

In reply to Runs

Building Nuclear Carriers are a waste for a Nation like Russia that is not looking to invade other countries or project Hegemonic power around the world==Plus they are sitting ducks.

Waste of mney

In reply to buds

You really think they are not? Crimea, Georgia, Ukraine? Navies have very formidable systems in place to neutralize threats and go on the offensive, go do some research. The US Navy has 11 nukular class Carriers, and it is arguably the strongest branch of her military with the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. If Navies are not relevant why are many nations beefing up theirs?

Because of its size, weapons technology, and ability to project force far from U.S. shores, the current U.S. Navy remains a potent asset for the United States.

In reply to bravos

Nonsense I suggest you visit and do some research on naval strength and warfare. That is why they have carrier groups, these ships do not sail alone.
very formidable support and protection.

The U.S. Navy was one of the first to install nuclear reactors aboard naval vessels;[69] today, nuclear energy powers all active U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines. In the case of the Nimitz-class carrier, two naval reactors give the ship almost unlimited range and provide enough electrical energy to power a city of 100,000 people.[70] The U.S. Navy previously operated nuclear-powered cruisers, but all have been decommissioned.

In reply to Runs

Massive overreaction by the Brits

The English Channel is international waters...ships sail there all the time. When I took a week's holiday in the Isle of Wight, I used to lie there on the beach and idly count the number of big ships sailing past....

The Russian fleet is just travelling from north Russia, around Europe and into the Mediterranean towards Syria. Do we expect Spain to carry on the same paranoid way when the ships sail past Gibraltar?

In reply to mikesiva

The Brits are indeed overeacting and feel vulnerable. They are beefing up their once formidable navy, carriers in production. The media are making money from sensationalizing and military are using to push for more money in budgets.

In reply to Runs

You think it's WW2 still,arite..Buds is correct also..

In reply to bravos

Nope, you guys are opining I am stating facts.

In reply to Runs

Fact is any ship in any ocean is a sitting duck..FACT!

It isn't like WWII where a couple gunners and sentries could defend a ship,no plane or gunner can stop a precision cruise-missile.. Imagine cruise missiles delivered from 30,000 feet locked on to some ships hundreds of miles away...lol you don't understand warships are only as relevant and effective as the abilities of an enemy makes them,I explained all of this above already.

I repeat,in 2016 a big fleet is limited in a real war situation and is more a show of force and just basic transport tools than anything else..the US fleet as big as it is would be sitting ducks against an enemy with long-arm technology..

Your postings are a confirmation of the main function of a big fleet today,in other words as small as the Russian fleet is in comparison it is enough to take on and conquer any enemy without appropriate technology which happens to be most countries,and as an observer from such a country you are impressed with the US show of force but in reality the Russians possess more than enough to cause the same problems to a similar unworthy enemy and at the same time possess the other but more relevant tech to decisively wipe out the entire US navy in a couple hours. There would be no repeat of battles of the Pacific etc,totally different dynamics today,the battles are now fought on computer screens and any slow moving or stationary asset is simple target practice even for a trained teenager.

Unless parties of war agree that they gonna limit a war to a particular type then I repeat the US fleet is obsolete in all out war against a worthy opponent. You could seriously picture the US sending hundreds of ships to say blockade China or Russia?? Lol...

It's like a Billionaire and a hundred-millionaire,there's nothing the Billionaire can do that the hundred-Millionaire can't,apart from some fetish desire of owning some custom made billion dollar yacht or some other impractical self obsoleting asset,but they all own Gulf-Stream jets which for a fraction of the price are more efficient ,practical and decisive..

As expensive and unique your glass yacht may be,I would be in Paris enjoying wine and cheese with the chicks within a couple hours while you take days to cross the Atlantic in your cushy slow tub,so much so that you may even take a private jet to Paris while your billion dollar yacht lumbers over only to take it's rightful place as an impressive but impractical harbor/coastal poser..

Unless a ship can be completely stealth in 2016 it's no different to a ship in 1945,only difference is all other offensive tech has evolved around many more efficient decisive and flexible platforms,even trucks thousands of miles away can destroy any aircraft carrier filled with planes,lol.

In reply to bravos

School him Bravos--

The Russians have some amazing missiles that would give the US or any enemy fits/
The US have to depend on the Russians to send their Astronauts in space because the US cannot build a rocket capable of going into space to the Space Station-

Plus their Kalibar weapons and S-300,S-400 & S-500 render so-called stealth fighters obsolete--Each Fighter at almost 30 million-

In reply to buds

Huh? Seriously? You actually post that?

So who need schooling now?

In reply to JOJO

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/22/why-does-the-usa-depend-on-russian-rockets-to-get-us-into-space.html

In reply to buds

Is it because they cannot build a rocket to get to the ISS?

In reply to JOJO

Do not show your ignorance--




http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526

In reply to buds

You stated that the US cannot build a rocket to go to the ISS. Is that the case?

In reply to JOJO

Did you read the link?

In reply to buds

Just answer the question.

In reply to JOJO

Like Bravos was saying at what price?

In reply to buds

Okay. So you realize you talking nonsense. Good for you.

In reply to JOJO

Keep living in your fantasy world dude--I just giving you the facts--

In reply to buds

Dude. Give up.

You post nonsense and trying to defend it. I'm sure you've heard about the space shuttles and the uniqueness of these craft--take off like a rocket, orbit, dock to the ISS, then land like an aircraft.

Now go read up on why NASA took the decision not to continue the shuttle program.

In reply to JOJO

Dude I live in America and was in the US Navy..

Yuh showing your ignorance

In reply to buds

What does living in America and being in the Navy have to do with being smart and a subject matter expert? You and Bravo are chatting sheer bollocks I refuse to educate you two.

In reply to Runs

SMH of the ignorance on this subject..
You guys stay in that bubble..
It's called perspective ..

In reply to Runs

thought you were an Actuary?

You graduate from Navy or Air force Academy?

In reply to camos

He would never let them insure a US aircraft carrier,lol!

In reply to buds

Our friend is swimming in the koolaid..we all love the US most times,but only some of us can be objective on US subject matter any of the times,or view any US issue from a broader perspective or neutral platform,kinda reminds me of 'World-Series' Baseball.

In reply to buds

BFD...

What does that have to do with the price of rice? I'm from the Caribbean and the Earth is round.

Like JOJO said...
.

NASA is bored. They are concentrating their efforts beyond the Space station and the Moon. yes the Moon. Remember that small space venture in the late sixties and seventies?

Besides Russia needs the money. The US is just hitching a ride and it is considerably cheaper than building a rocket for the same venture

Also bear in mind that it is not a United States Space station. It is an International Space Station. Russia would be going there anyway whether or not the US decided to send Astronauts up there.

You claim you know so much. How is it that you are not talking about the private companies such as SpaceX that NASA will eventually hand over responsibilities for taking payloads to the Space Station?

Stop running your mouth if you don't know what you are talking about. Shit will come out.

In reply to embsallie

Where did you cut and paste that?

In reply to buds

Why don't you try to help yourself by getting the information (facts) without the need for spoon feeding?

There is a lot of things to be learned out there. Open your mind buddy.

In reply to camos

Do I need to in order to state facts? Philosophy 101 remedial perhaps?

In reply to Runs


why are you so confident about military "facts" what is your level of security clearance?

In reply to camos

Dispute what I stated, it is that simple.
This is common information bro one does not need to be accredited to know. You can source these, " facts" from the web.
Like yuh deh pun skunt or trying to be one?
Here, facts.
http://www.military-today.com/navy/top_10_aircraft_carriers.htm

Allyuh gone off bad with all that irrelevant to the topic NASA talk,the topic is a ship in the sea in 2016 is a sitting duck to a worthy opponent,and 1000 ships in the sea in 2016 are 1000 sitting ducks..

Man the same goes for tanks,no tank can survive an all out hi-tech war with a well equipped adversary..lol even rebels have made tanks almost obsolete in Syria with US supplied equipment...

These old war platforms are nothing but tools of intimidation to the masses and the weak.

These ships are very technologically advanced dude. Without her Navy do you really think the US would be the Superpower and militarily strong nation it is? They spend billions on developing advanced systems on them for a reason. Do you think the points you and Bud are making are unique to just you 2? Why they did not scuttle and not spend the money that they do on them? Just ponder on that.
They can fight wars anywhere on earth.

Why are India and China spending billions developing their navies?

In reply to Runs

@ 7:27..

I wasn't searching for this but just watching a vid about the general war situation...wasn't looking for this vindication..I always stand independently and on any of my comments,common-sense and the truth cannot be disputed..

In reply to Runs


Russia and the USA have different defense needs, Russia is a inward looking country. r

In reply to camos

Really? Remove the cottonwool over your eyes, examine recent and past history of Russia.