The battle of Lepanto taught us that when you kick major muslim butt in a navel battle they run home with their tail between their legs and STFU for a good long while.
The carrier isn’t a lost cause if the US can get some anti-missile defenses going. We could have thought that urban vehicles were worthless in Iraq/Afghanistan due to IEDs. Then we improved our measures and released the striker and things got better.
My thought is the US needs to get their rear in gear with deploying lasers that knock down missiles and artillery shells. Surely a nuclear powered carrier and it’s nuclear powered fleet have the power to be equipped with these defenses that can shoot down the missiles.
China is playing catch-up. They send their best students to the US to learn and guess what they learn?
That living in the US is pretty darn good.
It’s the same thing that Iranian students learn.
First, NOBODY has ever even seen a TEST of the DF-21 against a stationary target, much less a mobile one at 30kts.
Secondly, does anyone really believe the US would not first neutralize any strike capability before coming in range of it...during a known time of conflict? Does anyone really believe the combined strike capability of Naval Air, US Airforce and Naval missiles would not be able to neutralize a ballistic strike capability? A DF-21 is not a small target.
Thirdly, everyone seems to forget: The Price of a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is Total War. Nukes and all.
And, who wants to go there against the USA?
Cheap submarine = noisy submarine = dead submarine
“To wage war, you need first of all money [for the welfare payments]; second, you need money [for the interest payments], and third, you also need money, [for the military]”
From the Middle Ages for all the ages.
“To wage war, you need first of all money; second, you need money, and third, you also need money,”
The guy who ran JFK’s campaigns said the same about politics.
I used to have a Russian military operations research textbook (lost when my house was flooded). It referred to this argument as a "capitalist fallacy." I don't know if it's capitalist, but it is a fallacy. It should be clear that the comparison is not between the cost of the weapon you use and the cost of the target you destroy, but between the cost of the weapon you use and the cost the target will inflict on you if you don't destroy it. Granted, if it takes an expensive weapon to destroy an inexpensive target, you better have lots of money, but if not destroying the target costs you even more than destroying it does, you better destroy it.
Nothing new here.
Kipling: Arithmetic on the Frontier
A scrimmage in a Border Station-
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.
The Crammer’s boast, the Squadron’s pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm
I’m still thinking subsurface drone carriers with swarm capability.
I came across that first quote two weeks ago when I was reading “Makers Of Modern Strategy From Machiavelli To The Nuclear Age.” It immediately rang a bell.
Greek fire works well against Moslems.