Aircraft Carrier to an artificial reef

[Neeraj Mathur]

MegaStructures - Sinking an Aircraft Carrier (National Geographic Documentary)

[video=youtube_share;-WJKOgJkZ7A]http://youtu.be/-WJKOgJkZ7A[/video]

 

[W.G.Ewald]

The carrier today:

USS Oriskany

 

[roma]

....... ....overwhelm it's defences with rapid fire of very low KT nukes warhead hypersonic missiles, aimed directly at the carrier yes it's an expensive job

but not as costly as the carrier and all its assets that will go down

...at least 10 % of the missiles will get through

and if the carrier is thousands of miles away from home, all the stuff it was carrying, planes and all are practically lost if they dont have fueland range to get to a friendly nation in large numbers

it's putting all or many eggs in an unsafe basket

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

....... is a relatively simple job ....overwhelm it's defences with rapid fires hypersonic missiles ....at least 10 % will get through

and if the carrier is thousands of miles away from home, all the stuff it was carrying, planes and all are basically lost

it's putting all or many eggs in an unsafe basket

the word here is "overwhelm it's defenses" which is very tough as it will be surrounded by its battle group and their defenses.

 

[roma]

the word here is "overwhelm it's defenses" which is very tough as it will be surrounded by its battle group and their defenses.

consider many appropriately missile -equipped submarines costing 20% the cost of the AC
and all its assets attacking the carrier ...... what would the defence of the carrier entail

the UK is about to build a "super-carrier" - intelligence sources can without too much difficulty,
estimate it's cost plus that of the assets fuel etc of

in preparing my defence against the UK ( soon to be england ) , i budget 20% into long-range nuke powered stealth submarines plus
an array of submarine -mounted hypersonic missiles ...

i think i'll win the cost-war and the actual war

and the cost of defending the carrier would be enormous wouldnt it ? .... a cost effective method ?

only if the carrier's objectives are well worth that enormous cost ......risk -reward ratio ? forget it i'd say,

it's an outmoded form of warfare , which many are maintaining past its use-bay date ..... we need to be more innovative

it's good only for policing ( bulllying ) relatively lower tech groups of nations ....eg PRC in south china sea . ......... if no other high-tech nations sends a fleet of those subs i mentioned

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Posts #3, 4, 5 do not reflect well on posters comprehension skills.

Somebody in another thread criticized me for talking down to others.

True, perhaps it's better just to ignore morons.

The USS Oriskany was deliberately sunk as an artificial reef.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

------------------------------------------------------

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It is very possible and perhaps even exercised in cold-war days by Soviets ..

But now, Things are much harder to be in range for a Cruise Missile attack on CBG, Harder but not impossible ..

Its depend upon situation around ..

....... ....overwhelm it's defences with rapid fire of very low KT nukes warhead hypersonic missiles, aimed directly at the carrier yes it's an expensive job

but not as costly as the carrier and all its assets that will go down

...at least 10 % of the missiles will get through

and if the carrier is thousands of miles away from home, all the stuff it was carrying, planes and all are practically lost if they dont have fueland range to get to a friendly nation in large numbers

it's putting all or many eggs in an unsafe basket

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It is very possible and perhaps even exercised in cold-war days by Soviets ..

But now, Things are much harder to be in range for a Cruise Missile attack on CBG, Harder but not impossible ..

Its depend upon situation around ..

....... ....overwhelm it's defences with rapid fire of very low KT nukes warhead hypersonic missiles, aimed directly at the carrier yes it's an expensive job

but not as costly as the carrier and all its assets that will go down

...at least 10 % of the missiles will get through

and if the carrier is thousands of miles away from home, all the stuff it was carrying, planes and all are practically lost if they dont have fueland range to get to a friendly nation in large numbers

it's putting all or many eggs in an unsafe basket

 

[roma]

morons.

equally post #6 reflects on poster's block-headedness and inabilty to think flexibly ,
to adapt to modern-day new ideas

poster is generally ignored unless makes specific reference to one's posts which was the case

discussion was about general PRINCIPLES regarding AC's and not in ref to USS Orisk....

 

[W.G.Ewald]

equally post #6 reflects on poster's block-headedness and inabilty to think flexibly ,
to adapt to modern-day new ideas

poster is generally ignored unless makes specific reference to one's posts which was the case

discussion was about general PRINCIPLES regarding AC's and not in ref to USS Orisk....

You are at best semi-literate and incapable of comprehension, in this case that USS Oriskany was deliberately sunk as an artificial reef.

Your posts in this thread were off topic in the first place and ignorant in the second place.

 

[Anonymouse]

You are at best semi-literate and incapable of comprehension, in this case that USS Oriskany was deliberately sunk as an artificial reef.

Your posts in this thread were off topic in the first place and ignorant in the second place.

Smitten by love? Seems like you two cant be without each other. :cool2:

 

[roma]

You are at best semi-literate and incapable of comprehension, in this case that USS Oriskany was deliberately sunk as an artificial reef.
Your posts in this thread were off topic in the first place and ignorant in the second place.

the title of this thread reads " Sinking an Aircraft Carrier "
folks here can judge for themselves who is semi-literate and incapable ....a reflection of your ignorance " ( to quote you )

i repeat that you are unsuitable for moderation in this forum - you might do well elsewhere ( i guess )
when you lose the argument - as you do and nowadays it's quite often that you do -
you resort to personal attacks

all can plainly see that we were discussing this topic fine - until you came along
cant we persuade you to try some other forum ? you might be happier ?
unless spoiling peaceful discussions is your forte ?

 

[roma]

Smitten by love? Seems like you two cant be without each other. :cool2:

not true yaar ....i have always ignored his posts , since the first time that he made personal attacks,
but if he deliberately targets my posts - then i have little choice but to reply , right ?

 

[rvjpheonix]

the title of this thread reads " Sinking an Aircraft Carrier "
folks here can judge for themselves who is semi-literate and incapable ....a reflection of your ignorance " ( to quote you )

i repeat that you are unsuitable for moderation in this forum - you might do well elsewhere ( i guess )
when you lose the argument - as you do and nowadays it's quite often that you do -
you resort to personal attacks

all can plainly see that we were discussing this topic fine - until you came along
cant we persuade you to try some other forum ? you might be happier ?
unless spoiling peaceful discussions is your forte ?

Actually if you see the video its not about how you can sink an aircraft carrier but about making an artificial reef by correct detonation.it does show how difficult it is to sink one though.

 

[roma]

Actually if you see the video its not about how you can sink an aircraft carrier but about making an artificial reef by correct detonation.it does show how difficult it is to sink one though.

so - that justifies personal attacks ?

Sir - i dont have time to go thru a 44 min video - i have business to run and family
besides - there are many aspects to discuss - and we were doing fine , until ......

 

[W.G.Ewald]

i repeat that you are unsuitable for moderation in this forum

Are you on drugs? I am not a moderator, so you can repeat all you want. Every post of yours reveals you are incapable of thinking.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

so - that justifies personal attacks ?

Sir - i dont have time to go thru a 44 min video - i have business to run and family
besides - there are many aspects to discuss - and we were doing fine , until ......

You don't have time to watch a video, only time to comment on something you know nothing about. Perfect.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Smitten by love? Seems like you two cant be without each other. :cool2:

thank you.

 

[bennedose]

....... ....overwhelm it's defences with rapid fire of very low KT nukes warhead hypersonic missiles, aimed directly at the carrier yes it's an expensive job

but not as costly as the carrier and all its assets that will go down

...at least 10 % of the missiles will get through

and if the carrier is thousands of miles away from home, all the stuff it was carrying, planes and all are practically lost if they dont have fueland range to get to a friendly nation in large numbers

it's putting all or many eggs in an unsafe basket

It is better to use up those nukes on the country whose aircraft carrier one wants to sink, because they will nuke you back double quick and you lose everything in exchange for one aircraft carrier.