Is Russia Now the World's Leading Military Power?

[Deadstick]

Hey Deadstick......................hate to tell you, but carriers aren't as fragile as you seem to think. It would take a hell of a lot more than just a single missile hit to bring them down.

Several reasons that just one missile hit wouldn't do much. First, there is what is called "watertight integrity". That means that each and every space onboard can be sealed from each and every other space. When General Quarters is called, all those hatches are closed and dogged down, with the only access through them being the scuttle hatch which can be closed and dogged down in a matter of seconds. A missile might be able to breach the hull, but that hole is going to be surrounded by numerous spaces that are sealed to limit the damage and stop flooding. They are also heavily armored and have pretty thick hulls.

Then, there is the manning of General Quarters itself. That means that each and every person onboard has 5 min. or less to get to their assigned battle stations, outfitted and ready to go, with all the damage control gear laid out and ready.

And, even on small ships, there are several repair lockers (places where serious damage control equipment is located).

Combine that with all the teams having communications with Damage Control Central (the hub for information concerning the ship and crew's welfare), there are numerous systems onboard the ship to make sure it survives.

Carriers aren't nearly as fragile as some seem to think. Not only were they designed with survivability in mind, the crews that are on those ships are highly trained and run drills constantly. Whenever we transited the pond (crossed the Atlantic), we could look forward to at least 1 General Quarters drill every other day, with many time being one each day (ya gotta do something to overcome the boredom).

Who said anything about one missile? also there is the Sub threat..

 

[Deadstick]

You're right, missiles can take out a ship IF they are able to get to them.

Going against the stuff that the U.S. Navy has makes it very unlikely though. Still don't see why you think carriers are outdated, especially since you're British and don't know that much about the U.S. Navy.

Me? Served 20 years USN, and have been on 2 different carriers. They're not as much of a target as you seem to think. Especially with the ships around them guarding them.

Well i respect your service knowledge but lets hope you never find out.

 

[Deadstick]

Mistakes were made in that conflict, one of the worst was leaving hundreds of Welsh Guardsmen aboard the Sir Galahad, some clown high up was responsible for that carnage, those men should have been brought ashore much sooner, i believe the Argentine forces had information about the location of that ship and launched aircraft very quickly they came in very low and it was all over in a flash.

Falklands War: The bombing of the Sir Galahad

Survivors and bereaved families remember the biggest loss of life in the Falklands War, 40 years on.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[themagadon]

I love Russia now.. all because of how zelansky has acted

 

[Deadstick]

I love Russia now.. all because of how zelansky has acted

Don't be too hard on the clown, he is just following Washingtons orders,if he stops following them he will be liquidated.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Who said anything about one missile? also there is the Sub threat..

You said if one missile got through the carrier would be toast. Here is a C&P from YOUR post 128: "I know all that but there would be a swarm of missiles it only needs one to get through and a carrier would be gone," As for subs, conventional subs don't have a chance of engaging a carrier in wartime. They are limited in both speed and range. A conventional sub has an underwater endurance of about twenty-four hours at less than five knots that means the maximum distance it can travel submerged is about one hundred twenty miles. Battery usage goes up geometrically as speed increases shortening submerged time but the range stays about the same. At eighteen to twenty knots a D/E sub has just a couple of hours of battery endurance. Having a D/E sub in the right place to engage a carrier task force would be a matter of luck since during combat conditions, warships don't steam a steady course. Carrier task forces would also be scouring the areas near their course with ASW aircraft, helicopters and the nuclear attack sub or subs attached to the task force.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Who said anything about one missile? also there is the Sub threat..

IF a sub was able to get close enough to fire a torpedo you mean. Sorry, but carriers also travel with a sub. And, the subs that the US has are much better than most of the stuff other nations have.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well i respect your service knowledge but lets hope you never find out.

Might not have ever had it happen in real life, but rest assured, with all the drills and training we went through, even if someone was stupid enough to attack a carrier, we'd be able to get through it. The crews are trained for defending and repairing the ship, and the escort vessels REGULARLY run battle drill scenarios to make sure they are ready to defend the carrier as well.

Like I said, carriers aren't as fragile or vulnerable as some people out there might think. If a carrier was to deploy without an air wing or escort vessels, and be on the water all by itself, then and only then, you might have a point. But, that is a scenario that is never gonna happen.

 

[SavannahMann]

Might not have ever had it happen in real life, but rest assured, with all the drills and training we went through, even if someone was stupid enough to attack a carrier, we'd be able to get through it. The crews are trained for defending and repairing the ship, and the escort vessels REGULARLY run battle drill scenarios to make sure they are ready to defend the carrier as well.

Like I said, carriers aren't as fragile or vulnerable as some people out there might think. If a carrier was to deploy without an air wing or escort vessels, and be on the water all by itself, then and only then, you might have a point. But, that is a scenario that is never gonna happen.

From the British point of view Warships are vulnerable. This is understandable. Their history is one where they learn the lessons that we all apply so frequently.

Take the experience in World War One where they lost several ships at anchor to Submarine Torpedo attack. Or where the Battle Cruisers were damaged and destroyed. The loss of the Hood. So many others.

But we all learned the lessons. Keep the sectioned doors closed between the Magazine and the Gun. Keep water tight integrity at all times.

Compare it with the loss of Yorktown at Midway. The Japanese reported it sunk twice before it was finally lost.

The lessons learned were already posted above. Damage Control. Construction Materials. Fire, stress out about fire. The Japanese didn’t drain fuel lines while being attacked. They learned that these lines would be flamethrowers if they were damaged during the attack. By comparison we drained ours and filled them with Carbon Dioxide.

The American Practice is everyone nearby would fight the fire. Attack the fire immediately. Don’t wait and don’t keep it a secret.

I’m an old Soldier who has only ever read books and watched documentaries. The closest I came to Naval Service was training in Amphibious Warfare with the Marines as some cross training our unit went through. We slept in Naval Bunks on a transport to get used to the idea in case we ever did for real.

But the books and documentaries are supplemented by a friend from work. A retired Chief Petty Officer who was a mechanic for F-14’s until they were retired. Then he worked on Helicopters down at Jacksonville. Then he retired.

Like everywhere. Veterans at Work tend to congregate together. We all understand each other and of course it is an opportunity to continue the inter service rivalry that has been going on for centuries.

I understand the most basic issues regarding damage control. I can’t get my head around counter flooding. I understand why, it just feels wrong. But I’m no sailor.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

https://www.globalpoliticsreview.com/publications/2464-9929_v06_i1-2_p057.pdf

Could it be actually true in a strategic sense?

Or is it redundant to speculate considering that any major conflict will soon turn to a nuclear war?

Still, the question should be asked for a war that is restricted to only conventional weapons.

I've placed this topic here in Military in hopes of a serious discussion that doesn't belong in the Badlands. Moderator cooperation would be appreciated.

Who ever thought such a thing?

 

[BothWings]

Russia tried a military action but it failed due to US interference which prevented the agreed upon Minsk settlement to be implemented.

The future is the question now for Russia and the human race. Russia will not accept losing.
Currently, the odds are hugely favourable for Russia.

So the question remains, will the US continue supporting its whores in the Ukrainian government, and continue cultivating their anti-Russian posture?

 

[BothWings]

Thanks for you version of an analysis!
I hear it as saying the same as how I've simplified the story.

America can't reign as global lone superpower if Russia and China stay intact and form an alliance against US aggression.

The elimination of Russia from the equation is the only way forward for America. This is all a thousand times bigger than America's feigned concern for the Ukraine's people.

America's feigned concerns of saving the victim country's people has to sound very familiar by now!

We were doing ok before we started shit with Russia.

 

[Concerned American]

We were doing ok before we started shit with Russia.

The duck is a commie globalist who is bent on destroying the leading world powers. In so doing, it leaves a void that he and the commie globalist democrats seek to fill with a one-world totalitarian government. He thinks he's being sly, but many on this forum have his number.

 

[Blaster]

So the question remains, will the US continue supporting its whores in the Ukrainian government, and continue cultivating their anti-Russian posture?

I prefer Russian whores.

 

[Deadstick]

We were doing ok before we started shit with Russia.

I said way back in the Balkan wars of the 90s that's when all this US aggression went into overdrive, Russia was on it's knees, a drunken Court Jester Yeltsin was in charge in Russia, he allowed local gangsters and Oligarchs along with their Western Corporate jackals to rape Russia, scumbags like Bill Browder, then Putin came along, at first they thought he was the same and it would be business as usual, then they found out he was hell bent on restoring his Country and dealing with those Oligarchs, many who lived in Paris and expensive parts of London like Mayfair with their stolen loot, when Nato/US attacked Yugoslavia they chose that time because Russia was in no position to do much.

 

[Donald H]

So the question remains, will the US continue supporting its whores in the Ukrainian government, and continue cultivating their anti-Russian posture?

All the superpowers will continue to compete, but military means to win the remaining resources of the world is not the solutiion.

That can only be pursued up to a point at which the nuclear threat becomes too risky.

The current US proxy war against Russia is a demonstration on how America's military might cannot be applied to conquer Russia. And when it doesn't happen that way, the Brics alliance will rise.

 

[ABikerSailor]

All the superpowers will continue to compete, but military means to win the remaining resources of the world is not the solutiion.

That can only be pursued up to a point at which the nuclear threat becomes too risky.

The current US proxy war against Russia is a demonstration on how America's military might cannot be applied to conquer Russia. And when it doesn't happen that way, the Brics alliance will rise.

WTF is a "Bric"? Did you mean to say "Brit"? I've seen you call them "Brics" a few times. Is that some new slang term for British people?

 

[AZrailwhale]

All the superpowers will continue to compete, but military means to win the remaining resources of the world is not the solutiion.

That can only be pursued up to a point at which the nuclear threat becomes too risky.

The current US proxy war against Russia is a demonstration on how America's military might cannot be applied to conquer Russia. And when it doesn't happen that way, the Brics alliance will rise.

The US isn't trying to conquer Russia. The entire western world just wants to ensure Russia stays inside it's internationally recognized borders. Something it has proven unwilling to do for almost two decades.

 

[Deadstick]

The US isn't trying to conquer Russia. The entire western world just wants to ensure Russia stays inside it's internationally recognized borders. Something it has proven unwilling to do for almost two decades.

Those morons don't think Russia should have borders, they want to Balkanize Russia, they tried it before when they suppprted Islamist terrorist in the Caucuses and ame as they do in Syria called them moderate Rebels.

 

[Donald H]

The US isn't trying to conquer Russia. The entire western world just wants to ensure Russia stays inside it's internationally recognized borders. Something it has proven unwilling to do for almost two decades.

See RFK junior's expose' of the true facts.
But beware of communism melting your brain.