Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

The sun is about to set on their empire. Actually, the UK stopped being a world power many years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... Royal.html

They could have sold it to China and made more money.

Sad, I hope I never have so see that day in America.

If people keep voting for Democrats, you will see that day in America.

I have to wonder if we will be pressed into service to save Britain again.

There is a reason for the decline of the aircraft carrier. The cost to utility ratio is out of whack and the USN has long known that along with the other huge glaring issue. My guess is that the Navy will not be able to keep throwing band-aids on the faults of an aircraft carrier (Phalanx for example) to counter growing threats.

I am against the idea of an aircraft carrier in general. I subscribe to George Washington and Thomas Paine's idea of non-interventionism and building relationships through our economy. After WWII the aircraft carrier has been the biggest tool working against that policy.

Blacklidge,we got rid of the battleships because they were too expensive and now you're after the carriers,are we supposed to fight invaders from the shores of va beach?

In a world where you can push a button in Bejing or Tehran and drop a nuke on Washington or Chicago, I think it is naïve in the extreme to assert that the USA can protect its national interests from the continental US. Even Jefferson acknowledged that a viable navy was essential to the national interest back in then (when you couldn't attack and destroy anything you couldn't see). The Nimitz class carriers are supposed to have a service life of 50+ years, and cost a "war debt" to build. Unless the Chinese (or somebody) sink one or more for us with cheap technology we can't beat, I look to see them hang around for a while; even if they are standing way offshore and flying drones. Also, remember that the aircraft carrier was declared dead once already; back in the late 1940s just after nukes came on the scene. There is just no way to know how the cookie will ultimately crumble. And when they are rendered obsolete by new technologies (as the battlewagons were by the advent of the aircraft and aircraft carriers), there will be some other (probably also obscenely expensive) means of projecting US power abroad - until we no longer have any to project.

@dusterdude The carrier is an offensive weapon, not defensive. It is meant to be essentially a floating military base off the shore of the enemy. Its not like anyone has plans to roll a carrier in front of an enemy strike group.

Defensively... Cruisers/Destroyers/Subs/P3s... all suffice to detect, stop incoming missiles, ships, subs, aircraft before they reach a range at which they can deploy their weapons.

For me, I obviously stand in the minority... the carrier did die in the 1950s.

Haha the next great thing will be that flying aircraft carrier from the Avengers movie.

The carrier I agree is a great tool to project power... I am just against doing that as much as has been done in the name of defending against communism. Communism is awful, it doesn't need any help failing.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:Sad, I hope I never have so see that day in America.

Their carriers were of very limited capability anyways.

As impressive as carriers are, I suspect like battleships, their days are numbered. A carrier was a great way to project air power, but in order to do so you must commit immense resources to run it, to protect it, etc. A carrier battle group is not a trivial expense and the technology now exists to nearly make them irrelevant or at least a lot harder to defend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ ... ic_missile). The threats to a carrier are getting more numerous, more advanced, and are vastly cheaper than the defensive countermeasures...that's never a good sign for the longevity of a weapon system.

Also, as drones and "space" based weapons merge, we'll be able to project "air" power without the costs associated with a carrier group. Think of it this way. If I can hit any target in the world within minutes to hours with a hypersonic aircraft, the carriers proximity to the battle field becomes a liability, not an advantage. This says nothing of the near certainty that the fighter pilots days appear numbered as well.

I am sure that gunderwood is right and the carrier's days are numbered, but i don't think it will be anytime soon. Remember the first gulf war, it was navy planes that destroyed iraq's tanks, planes and other weapons. I would much prefer two carrier groups bomb a country till they give in, to the option of sending in ground forces where we would lose to many american lives.

gunderwood wrote:

Jakeiscrazy wrote:Sad, I hope I never have so see that day in America.

Their carriers were of very limited capability anyways.

As impressive as carriers are, I suspect like battleships, their days are numbered. A carrier was a great way to project air power, but in order to do so you must commit immense resources to run it, to protect it, etc. A carrier battle group is not a trivial expense and the technology now exists to nearly make them irrelevant or at least a lot harder to defend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ ... ic_missile). The threats to a carrier are getting more numerous, more advanced, and are vastly cheaper than the defensive countermeasures...that's never a good sign for the longevity of a weapon system.

Also, as drones and "space" based weapons merge, we'll be able to project "air" power without the costs associated with a carrier group. Think of it this way. If I can hit any target in the world within minutes to hours with a hypersonic aircraft, the carriers proximity to the battle field becomes a liability, not an advantage. This says nothing of the near certainty that the fighter pilots days appear numbered as well.

Needless to say they have always been quite a symbol of technology innovation. If such a thing does happen in America I hope its because its being replaced with something even more advanced and interesting.

graybeard321 wrote:I am sure that gunderwood is right and the carrier's days are numbered, but i don't think it will be anytime soon. Remember the first gulf war, it was navy planes that destroyed iraq's tanks, planes and other weapons. I would much prefer two carrier groups bomb a country till they give in, to the option of sending in ground forces where we would lose to many american lives.

I will take it one step further... if we HAVE to bomb someone I prefer it be those new carrier launched drones.

http://gizmodo.com/the-navys-x-47b-dron ... -505732511

It is truly incredible how far ahead of the game the US is.

graybeard321 wrote:I am sure that gunderwood is right and the carrier's days are numbered, but i don't think it will be anytime soon. Remember the first gulf war, it was navy planes that destroyed iraq's tanks, planes and other weapons. I would much prefer two carrier groups bomb a country till they give in, to the option of sending in ground forces where we would lose to many american lives.

Maybe, maybe not. These things tend to appear to happen rapidly, but hindsight always says we should have seen it coming.