-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Who made this? What’s the advantage of this design over traditional carriers?
If I recall correctly the sharp corners make the carrier stealthier than normal carriers
But it’s a god damn aircraft carrier. The whole point is that it’s massive. Its stealthy qualities could be undone by someone sitting on the coast with a pair of binoculars.
Jagged edges and sharp corners tend to reflect the electromagnetic echoes from a radar in directions other than that of the transmitter. That, combined with coatings or materials that absorb electromagnetic radiation, makes a stealth vessel many, many times less visible to radar detection.
So far as being visible to the naked eye, that is not the primary purpose of stealth vessels at the moment, since radar is capable of picking up vehicles at ranges the eye is unable to detect.
“Stealth” is presently more of a tool to minimize the chances of giving the enemy advance radar warning of an approaching attack vessel. There are programs in the works for stealth technologies that include frequencies in the visible light spectrum, but we’re not quite there yet…
And all that stealth is kind of pointless when a Chinese submarine can surface in the middle of your carrier group undetected.
But if the carrier group is stealthy the Chinese submarine won’t know where it is.
First, this design is an OLD model (ten years?) done by NAVSEA, the Naval Sea Systems Command. There is a six foot long model of this ship in the building where I work. It’s cool, but I seriously wonder about the ability to conduct flight deck operations on that particular design. Doesn’t matter, of course, because they long ago decided not to build it (although follow-on designs might borrow from it).
Second, no, its stealthy qualities could NOT “be undone by someone sitting on the coast with a pair of binoculars,” because no CV is going to go anywhere near the coast unless it wants to be seen (for “showing the flag” purposes). And the oceans are SERIOUSLY huge in any event. And even if the Bad Guys did spot it, the question under discussion here is whether they can get a missile to radar lock on it.
Finally, all of the apocalyptic stories about the Chinese submarine and the KITTY HAWK battlegroup — especially the idiotic ones in early November, which didn’t bother out they were reporting an event which had occurred exactly one year earlier and was widely reported at the time — ignore a couple of issues, the most fundamental of which is that you have to actually be LOOKING for subs to FIND them. This particular story is akin to complaining about the low output of your lightbulbs when the reason for the low output is that the lights are switched OFF.
“the most fundamental of which is that you have to actually be LOOKING for subs to FIND them. ”
So as long as the Chinese announce that they will attack our carrier groups with submarines beforehand so that we can look for them, we’ll be alright? Great, ’cause no one would ever try to sneak attack the US Navy.
LOL no, as chrisweuve pointed out, a sneak attack could only happen if nobody is listening.
It’s my understanding that a carrier battle group will have sonar running full time, and sound carries hella far in water, so the chances of a sub “sneaking up” on anyone will be slim to none.
So ultimately, their main objective would still be to simply avoid long range radar detection.
No, Reboot, what it means is that it’s not surprising when somebody sneaks up on you when you are asleep. (Whether they should have been asleep — even in peacetime — is another question entirely.)
And, btw, a few of the other problems with your original comment is that it doesn’t take into account the differences between air and subsurface attacks, the inherent limitations of submarine (especially diesels) in terms of mobility, sensor range, endurance, and attack vectors, and a host of other issues that aren’t worth going into. To the professionals in this field, there are some very interesting aspects of the incident, but the unclassified reports in the media contain none of them.
In addition, the main threat from submarines these days are anti-ship missiles, so even if there was no ASW capability, the ability to prevent the missile from locking on would be an advantage.
Phyreblade said “It’s my understanding that a carrier battle group will have sonar running full time, and sound carries hella far in water, so the chances of a sub “sneaking up†on anyone will be slim to none.” It’s more complicated than that, but it’s complicated for both sides.
i like the color
THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO