Or that even getting off a shot is extraordinarily dangerous?
That it is most certainly a suicide mission?
Read the entire article and be edified.
Rear Adm. Lou Yuan should read Admiral Yamamoto’s reaction to news of the Pearl Harbor Attack..................
Was the America loaded with fuel and bombs when she was used for target practice?
Aren’t out of control fires the vulnerability in carriers after taking damage?
Maybe our Navy FReepers can say.
Four weeks to sink a carrier that had no one onboard for damage control. Think about it.
“The fog of peace.”
Yeah, I was just thinking to myself: This mofo better be buried deep deep in a bunker cause the attack on a US carrier, let alone sinking one, is going to lead to hellfire nuclear war in most cases......
Methinks, Chinese want a military confrontation so bad with the US that they have to talk utter BS in an attempt to provoke said confrontation...not working so far.
Yeah, sink the US navy in a sneak attack. Then we will immediately sue for peace. They might wanna run that plan by their friends in Japan.
From the article:
“To even try to sink an American flattop, you first must hit it. That’s not easy, either. No carrier sails without an air wing with as many as 50 fighter aircraft plus several escorting destroyers, cruisers and submarines. A virtual wall of defensive weaponry surrounds the flattop out to a distance of several hundred miles.”
“But the observation that the enemy has a missile or torpedo that can kill a carrier only begins a conversation about carrier vulnerability,” Farley continued. “Shooting anything at an aircraft carrier is a costly, difficult operation.”
“The ship was pummeled by explosions both above and below the waterline,” The War Zone reporter Tyler Rogoway explained in 2018. “After nearly four weeks of these activities, the carrier was scuttled. On May 14, 2005, the vessel’s stern disappeared below the waterline and the ship began its voyage to the seafloor.”
—
A single nuclear-tipped cruise missile, and it’s game over for a carrier. Carriers were a game changer in WW2, they’ll be obsolete in WW3.
More so, I saw this: “What the United States fears the most is taking casualties”....he has a point up to a certain degree. I remember the Korean War and just like the Soviet Union during WWII, the Chinese always resorted to mass troop waves when they attacked positions. I remember an old ROTC Colonel who served in the Korean War tell the class that the Chinese mass wave attacked a machine gun position and that the two guys using the .30 cal fired so long and so many bullets that the gun barrel literally melted and stopped functioning before they had to retreat from the position.
I guess when you have nearly a 1/3 of the world population in one country, you can talk such sh*t.....
The carrier’s attackers could face withering counterfire from the vessel’s defenders. “Beyond the monetary cost, launching an open attack against an American carrier strike group, with its own cruisers, destroyers and submarines, is almost certainly a suicide mission.”
And if the United States’ reaction to the 9/11 terror attacks is any indication, Washington surely would deploy all its remaining military might, including its surviving eight or nine carriers, against country behind the sinking.
“So there are two questions that remain for anyone who thinks they even have a shot at taking down one of these enormous steel behemoths,” Farley explained. “Can you do it? And even if you can, is it worth it?”
Even a Nagasaki type nuke failed to sink one the test carriers in the post war Baker test in the Pacific. Granted nuclear technology has improved and delivering a nuke directly below the waterline of a carrier might well sink it. However, attacks with conventional weapons might not deliver a knock out blow. The Iranians delude themselves to think their small boats and commandos would knock out let alone sink a US carrier. The sinking of a US carrier would be a Pyrrhic victory as it would invite massive retaliation.
The *first* thing that would happen would be a Rods-from-God attack on the Three Gorges Dam.
I can attest to the difficulty in sinking even smaller destroyer/cruiser sized ships. Part of the difficulty lies in the preparation. Unlike scuttling, where holes are cut in the hull and water tight boundaries remain, during a “sinkex”, flooding boundaries, sometimes even “zebra” are set, all flammable and explosive material is removed. One time, while conducting a sinkex on an old Forrest Sherman class destroyer, the ship took several Harpoons, several Mavericks, numerous 500 lb bombs, and finally over 100 rounds of 5” before she broke in half and sank. I can only imagine what it would take to sink a newer Nimitz or Ford class super carrier.
As far as the “no explosive or flammable materials onboard”, there are also no damage control teams to erect shoring and stop flooding. There are no offensive or defensive weapons or countermeasures to counter attacking enemy aircraft, missiles, surface ships, etc. There are no ships in company to defend her, no friendly aircraft, no friendly subs. The ship is alone, unable to maneuver, unable to defend herself or fight back.
they’ve upped their game naming an oiler after harvey milk...
“Afloat” doesn’t mean capable of doing anything but float.
No carrier operations, it is only good for keeping the sailors out of the water.
Beijing could solve China’s existence by sinking two US Navy aircraft carriers.
You can't be serious.
Killing millions of innocent civilians in response to a (successful) attack on a military target in the open ocean, with zero collateral damage, is unthinkable.
Message for Rear Admiral Lou Yuan:
Everyone has plan until they get punched in the mouth.
—Mike Tyson