News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by adventured on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @12:42AM (#17906706)
There's only one nation that you can possibly be referring to: China. No other foes have naval force projection at all to threaten all of the US carriers. Even China doesn't have that, they can only do that in part of the Pacific. Maybe in a few decades they'll have a more global projection.

China isn't a real threat in the regards you're claiming they are. For 99% of all the scenarios of combat the US is likely to see, carriers make ideal sense. You're saying the 1% scenario, a world war 3 scenario, is a good reason to not have any carriers because they can be sunk. That makes zero sense in the present and for the next two decades. If a lot of carriers get sunk by China in a non-defensive attack, we're at a point of going to nuclear war, hundreds of millions will die. None of the weapons China has will matter then either.

The sole scenario worth considering seriously, in naval conflict, is China-Taiwan. There's realistically nothing the US can do to stop China if it decides to invade and take the island. It doesn't matter what tech the US has.

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by jabl on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @02:09AM (#17906955)
So essentially you're saying that in a real shooting war, carriers are useless. Isn't that essentially what all these carrier criticisms are saying as well?

If all they're good for anyway is bombing 3rd world countries into submission, hey, just buy a mothballed supertanker, pave it over and load it up with cheap turboprop planes carrying bombs. Equally good for bombing people armed with AK-47's and RPG's, and you'd save billions! :)

And the defensive capability is ultimately the same as a $$$ supercarrier, if the buck in any case stops with "if you touch these, we'll answer with nukes".

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by lmm on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @07:40AM (#17908289)
> If all they're good for anyway is bombing 3rd world countries into submission, hey, just buy a mothballed supertanker, pave it over and load it up with cheap turboprop planes carrying bombs. Equally good for bombing people armed with AK-47's and RPG's, and you'd save billions! :)

What parts of a modern aircraft carrier do you think are redundant? They still need to operate far away from bases and friendly ports (after all, that's the point of a carrier), so they still need nuclear power and to carry fuel for their own escorts. They still need all the radar/radio/command-and-control functions. They still need to be able to maintain their air wing, so they still need hangers, elevators, all of that. (I guess you're arguing for loading a carrier with rugged bush planes and assuming that you could reduce maintenance requirements by doing that, maybe getting to the point of just parking the planes on deck? It's an interesting idea but existing bush planes are generally designed to operate in savannah/desert. I don't know how possible it is to build a plane that can stand up to saltwater spray).

Re:Why the Navy Misses the Old F-14 Tomcat, Despite All of t... by runarb on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @03:19AM (#17907203)
> cheap turboprop planes carrying bombs. Equally good for bombing people armed with AK-47's and RPG's, and you'd save billions! :)

>

As I am understanding it the US is buying such a palne in the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa...

Many other countries also use planes like the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano[0] to fight insurgents and other that do not have any anti aircraft capabilities.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano