-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Star Trek Voyager The Nanotech War Book Review
- “Star Trek: The Original Series: Living Memory” Review by Treknews.net
- Star Trek’s big 2025 storyline is “House of M meets Secret Wars” says editor
- “Star Trek Discovery: The Art of Glenn Hetrick’s Alchemy Studios” Review by Treknews.net
- Star Trek New Frontiers III “The Two-Front War”
- New Frontiers “Endgame” is just the beginning!
- Last Chance! Star Trek Book Deals For November 2024
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Melinda Snodgrass!
- “Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek” Review by Trekclivos79.blogspot.com
- Out Today: “Star Trek: Defiant #21”
- Movie Related Products
- The WWE Network Is Officially Shutting Down Ahead Of Netflix Move
- “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
- Music Video DB
Is this in response to the fact that the UK has ordered the construction of some new Aircraft carriers? Because they’re going to be sweeeeeeet!
Ours is the largest! Yay we win!
Large carrier = dead carrier.
They cannot turn fast enough and are submarine bait.
Throw in anti-ship missiles and zerg rush and you have a dead CAG. The navy is rethinking the way they project power, we will see what they come up with in upcoming years.
Don’t get me wrong, they are awesome instruments of power projection but super carriers have their problems.
The_Hanz:
Large carrier + rest of the strike group = very much alive carrier
DDGs + ASW helos + NIXIE = keep subs out of the vital area
CG’s AEGIS bubble + [classified] = no threat from missiles or zergs
Going up against modern CSG/ESG = epic lulz
True Howie true.
But just a few years ago a Chinese submarine surfaced just a few miles away from the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63. The Chinese knew what they were doing and the US knew what the Chinese were saying.
I fear our military is sometimes overconfident.
Since nobody’s said it yet:
USA USA USA USA!!!!11!!!!!1!!!one!!!!!!!!
and,
AMERIKA F@...$K YEAH!!!
Next time, why not just say fuck?
I know next to nothing about carriers. Why does it seem like there’s a bunch of repeats in the USA area?
Actually, the ships on the right are not aircraft carriers, they’re various types of amphibious warfare ships.
I’m sure there will be people who will say that they still carry aircraft and should be counted as carriers, but than every frigate and destroyer with a flight deck could also be counted as carriers. Amphib ships carry, besides landing craft, helicopters and a few ground support AV-8 Harriers, not F/A-18s.
As for the Chinese sub, it wasn’t even close before it was detected, and we had it our sights long before it surfaced. Their subs make more noise laying in port than ours do underway at sea (which is a big deal, if you are not familiar with sub warfare).
The repeats are different ships in the same class, Tarawa, Wasp, and Nimitz classes as well as Kittyhawk, JFK, and Enterprise which are, I believe, the only ships in their respective class.
Gor, about the Wasp and Tarawa classes not being aircraft carriers, I think you’re wrong. They count as carriers for three big reasons. 1) They have a large flat top with almost all the deck area devoted to flight operations. 2)They carry fixed wing aircraft which makes them different from every frigate and destroyer. 3)GlobalSecurity.org knowswhat the hell it’s talking about. Period.
I was a Naval Aviator for 20 years, the Wasp and Tarawa can not control the airspace, they only have ground attack aircraft. GlobalSecurity is not correct.
what no “Battleship” reference?
I’ve course I meant to say “…the ships on the LEFT are not aircraft carriers …”
Anywho, if there is still doubts about what is classified as a aircraft carrier don’t go some civilian website probably run by ex-Air Force geeks who doesn’t know the difference between port and starboard, instead go to a US Navy website. Here’s one
www.navy.com/about/shipsequipment/aircraftcarriers/types/
@gor
I WAS IN THE MILITARY FOR 50 YEARS, THUS I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MILITARY.
TRUST ME. I WAS MILITARY
I’m curious, this thing is showing two ships for the French, but I thought the Charles de Gaulle was the only serving carrier in the French fleet. What’s the other one?
Also, there seems to be one too many Invincible class carriers depicted for the British, we only have two, Ark Royal and Invincible, and the Ocean class landing platform, HMS Ocean.
LoL, “sub in their sights.” If a sub gets within five miles your carrier is dead. Face the Navy messed up.