Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon

[BritinBritain]

The 2012 Defense budget is the highest since WWII.
http://articles.businessinsider.com..._1_defense-budget-budget-cuts-budget-requests


...and that's a bad thing.

One never knows what is around the corner, like the Falklands. If Argentina had held off their invasion for a few months the British carriers would have been sold off, (despite warnings from the Admiralty) the Falkland Islanders would be learning Spanish today, and not out of choice. Britain were unprepared for WW2, all due to government defence cut backs. The British Army were so short of vehicles in 1939, civilian trucks were commandeered.

Defence cuts are dangerous, (as I said before) politicians should stick to what they know, getting drunk and shouting abuse at the opposition.

 

[mmarsh]

One never knows what is around the corner, like the Falklands. If Argentina had held off their invasion for a few months the British carriers would have been sold off, (despite warnings from the Admiralty) the Falkland Islanders would be learning Spanish today, and not out of choice. Britain were unprepared for WW2, all due to government defence cut backs. The British Army were so short of vehicles in 1939, civilian trucks were commandeered.

Defence cuts are dangerous, (as I said before) politicians should stick to what they know, getting drunk and shouting abuse at the opposition.

Except that was 30 years ago, a very different ballgame now. If anything, the Falklands proved just how dangerous an ASM can be, and that was 30 years ago when missile technology was at its infancy. Nowadays you have cruise missiles (like the Russian SunBurn) that can be launched hundreds of miles away from a land based tractor-trailer and because they fly at supersonic speeds they are currently impossible to intercept. As of right now, there is no air defense system capable of stopping a Kh-41 once its in flight. And the Kh-41 has plenty of operators including Iran, which is something the USN might want to think about if they are planning a military adventure over there.

The Argentineans had less than 6 Exocets in their entire arsenal. Of the 6, 2 destroyed their targets (HMS Sheffield and HMS Atlantic Conveyor) and one severely damaged another (HMS Glamoran).

If the Argentinean had they had a few more they very well might have blown the RN right out of the water. You were utterly defenseless against such an attack. And I am not saying that as a slam against the British, any Navy (including the US) in that situation would have been in mortal danger.


As for Defense Budget. Allow me to quote Dwight D Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron".

In other words: The money we waste on Defense could be better spent elsewhere, and this was from a person who was an expert in the field of military science.



Right now, America spends on Defense more than the next 15 countries do...combined..

Spending on defending your country is one thing, running the entire country's economy into the ground (as the US is now) to support the military supermachine is quite another.

And I haven't even got into how much is being wasted on utterly useless projects, hugely expensive White Elephants not worth a damn on an actual battlefield. What people don't understand about Defense is that it has nothing to do with defending your country and has to do with supporting a Multi-Billionaire dollar industry which employs thousands of people. What politicians are afraid of are defense cuts that can affect their re-election donations campaign from companies like (Lockheed, Honeywell, Boeing, GE) and also if their are cuts, that those cuts dont happen in their district as that creates unemployment which they will get blamed for.

And has nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with money and power.

 

[BritinBritain]

Except that was 30 years ago, a very different ballgame now. If anything, the Falklands proved just how dangerous an ASM can be, and that was 30 years ago when missile technology was at its infancy. Nowadays you have cruise missiles (like the Russian SunBurn) that can be launched hundreds of miles away from a land based tractor-trailer and because they fly at supersonic speeds they are currently impossible to intercept. As of right now, there is no air defense system capable of stopping a Kh-41 once its in flight. And the Kh-41 has plenty of operators including Iran, which is something the USN might want to think about if they are planning a military adventure over there.

The Argentineans had less than 6 Exocets in their entire arsenal. Of the 6, 2 destroyed their targets (HMS Sheffield and HMS Atlantic Conveyor) and one severely damaged another (HMS Glamoran).

If the Argentinean had they had a few more they very well might have blown the RN right out of the water. You were utterly defenseless against such an attack. And I am not saying that as a slam against the British, any Navy (including the US) in that situation would have been in mortal danger.


As for Defense Budget. Allow me to quote Dwight D Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron".

In other words: The money we waste on Defense could be better spent elsewhere, and this was from a person who was an expert in the field of military science.



Right now, America spends on Defense more than the next 15 countries do...combined..

Spending on defending your country is one thing, running the entire country's economy into the ground (as the US is now) to support the military supermachine is quite another.

And I haven't even got into how much is being wasted on utterly useless projects, hugely expensive White Elephants not worth a damn on an actual battlefield. What people don't understand about Defense is that it has nothing to do with defending your country and has to do with supporting a Multi-Billionaire dollar industry which employs thousands of people. What politicians are afraid of are defense cuts that can affect their re-election donations campaign from companies like (Lockheed, Honeywell, Boeing, GE) and also if their are cuts, that those cuts dont happen in their district as that creates unemployment which they will get blamed for.

And has nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with money and power.

Yes the Falklands was 30 years ago, and yes the Royal Navy were damn lucky that the Argentine's only had 6 Exocets (and thank God they didn't have more), and yes times have changed. During the Falklands War, Britain was so short of vital equipment and munitions they had to go cap in hand to the US (who thankfully were on our side). I have no doubt that some Americans thought "Here we go again, helping the Brits out." And quite frankly, I don't blame them.

Nonetheless, British military had been issued substandard equipment for years due to government cut backs. An SAS officer resigned because of poor equipment not too long ago in Afghanistan.

During my time we were issued trucks that were slower then Soviet Tanks, some men were even issued 1937 pattern webbing (I was lucky, I managed to score a 58 pattern set), during the Suez Crisis in 1956 British troops went in armed with Lee Enfields, while the Arabs were armed with AK47's, in the Far East up to 1968 or 1969 the general issue rifle to RAF erks was the Lee Enfield. It's criminal that governments put men in harms way without the latest and best equipment available, something successive British governments have been guilty of for years.

Britain was developing one of the finest aircraft of its time, the TSR2, until Duncan Sandy's published his white paper, "Manned aircraft are a thing of the past." Result, the TSR2 was scrapped along with other developments as well as the Canadian built Avro Arrow. What the hell did Sandys know about aircraft? Sod all. He was nothing but a Territorial Army Officer in a Royal Artillery Light Anti Aircraft Unit.

 

[Yossarian]

People seem to forget that the Fed. Govt. isn't supposed to be a be all/do all entity. It is the job of the Fed. Govt. to defend the country, not fix potholes.

That was a more figuritive comment. The potholes being a figuritive term for deficits across the board, central avenue being the country as a whole. (Bad anology it seems).

Yes I understand the imperitive need for defense, but some of the defense programs being funded are of questionable usefulness.

Some contracts seem to be getting federal funding simply for the sake of funding another contract, or Senator A has huge stocks invested in defense company B.

It's that kind of spending that bothers me.

 

[George]

Except that was 30 years ago, a very different ballgame now. If anything, the Falklands proved just how dangerous an ASM can be, and that was 30 years ago when missile technology was at its infancy. Nowadays you have cruise missiles (like the Russian SunBurn) that can be launched hundreds of miles away from a land based tractor-trailer and because they fly at supersonic speeds they are currently impossible to intercept. As of right now, there is no air defense system capable of stopping a Kh-41 once its in flight. And the Kh-41 has plenty of operators including Iran, which is something the USN might want to think about if they are planning a military adventure over there.

The Argentineans had less than 6 Exocets in their entire arsenal. Of the 6, 2 destroyed their targets (HMS Sheffield and HMS Atlantic Conveyor) and one severely damaged another (HMS Glamoran).

If the Argentinean had they had a few more they very well might have blown the RN right out of the water. You were utterly defenseless against such an attack. And I am not saying that as a slam against the British, any Navy (including the US) in that situation would have been in mortal danger.


As for Defense Budget. Allow me to quote Dwight D Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron".

In other words: The money we waste on Defense could be better spent elsewhere, and this was from a person who was an expert in the field of military science.



Right now, America spends on Defense more than the next 15 countries do...combined..

Spending on defending your country is one thing, running the entire country's economy into the ground (as the US is now) to support the military supermachine is quite another.

And I haven't even got into how much is being wasted on utterly useless projects, hugely expensive White Elephants not worth a damn on an actual battlefield. What people don't understand about Defense is that it has nothing to do with defending your country and has to do with supporting a Multi-Billionaire dollar industry which employs thousands of people. What politicians are afraid of are defense cuts that can affect their re-election donations campaign from companies like (Lockheed, Honeywell, Boeing, GE) and also if their are cuts, that those cuts dont happen in their district as that creates unemployment which they will get blamed for.

And has nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with money and power.

The southern Europe economic crisis certainly isn't from excessive Defence spending, but excess Nanny State spending & The Democrats want the US to be more like Europe...absolutely brilliant.

 

[VDKMS]

The 2012 Defense budget is the highest since WWII.
http://articles.businessinsider.com..._1_defense-budget-budget-cuts-budget-requests


...and that's a bad thing.


To get back to the topic, a modern day ASM (like the Kh-41) costs about $1 million. A Modern Aircraft Carrier over a $2 Billion. Now considering that a single missile hit can utterly pulverize a large ship and the fact that most of Americans possible enemies (China, Iran, North Korea) all dozens of such weapons and that they are easily obtainable on the black market how wise is it for us to be building billion dollar barges filled with high octane fuel and munitions?

I agree. BTW the new Ford class carrier is to cost more than $9 billion. You can buy some good weapons with that and you free up to 4000 personel.

In modern warfare the AC is a magnet, and that's the last thing you want to have. Surely if you are betting on it.

 

[mmarsh]

The southern Europe economic crisis certainly isn't from excessive Defence spending, but excess Nanny State spending & The Democrats want the US to be more like Europe...absolutely brilliant.

George

If we had the European model in the USA, no one would ever vote Republican ever again. I promise you that. People would take all the freebies that it has to offer and tell the Republican party to stick their fear mongering where the sun don't shine. And that ultimately is what you Republicans fear the most.

But what does the *nanny state* have anything to do with the actual topic? How come you always turn every subject into a bashing of the Democrats, you beginning to sound desperate. If I were you I'd stop worrying about the Democrats and start worrying about GOP campaign because if you have been watching the polls for 2012 the Republicans are in very serious trouble.

The fact reminds that we spent far too much on military spending, and namely on weapons like aircraft carriers which we don't need. You seem to confuse good defense as synonymous to the amount spent. Allow me to refer you to the Soviet Union who spent their whole economy on Defense, never used it in a hot war, and still lost the cold war.

$9 billion on a new AC than can be sunk by a $1 million AS missile.
$138 Million on a aircraft like the F-22 for a terrorist enemy that has absolutely no air force at all.
Building a billion dollar ABM system against Iran which even if hey do get a nuke (doubtful), they would be suicidal to use.
$7 Million a copy for a Maine AAAV (twice as much as a Abrams tank) which even the Marines admit can be easily destroyed by any number of older AT weapons. And seriously how many invasions of Omaha beach have the Marines done in the past 50 years to warrant such an expense.

These are the types of questions teabaggers should ask but strangely do not. Focusing their energy on cutting programs Americans actually both like and need. Which would explain why the TP polls have all nosed dived. Everthing Americans are for, the TP is against.

 

[A Can of Man]

Food for thought: It's the 21st century and the infantryman is still not rainproof.

 

[BritinBritain]

Food for thought: It's the 21st century and the infantryman is still not rainproof.

And they still walk everywhere!

 

[George]

George

If we had the European model in the USA, no one would ever vote Republican ever again. I promise you that. People would take all the freebies that it has to offer and tell the Republican party to stick their fear mongering where the sun don't shine. And that ultimately is what you Republicans fear the most.

But what does the *nanny state* have anything to do with the actual topic? How come you always turn every subject into a bashing of the Democrats, you beginning to sound desperate. If I were you I'd stop worrying about the Democrats and start worrying about GOP campaign because if you have been watching the polls for 2012 the Republicans are in very serious trouble.

The fact reminds that we spent far too much on military spending, and namely on weapons like aircraft carriers which we don't need. You seem to confuse good defense as synonymous to the amount spent. Allow me to refer you to the Soviet Union who spent their whole economy on Defense, never used it in a hot war, and still lost the cold war.

$9 billion on a new AC than can be sunk by a $1 million AS missile.
$138 Million on a aircraft like the F-22 for a terrorist enemy that has absolutely no air force at all.
Building a billion dollar ABM system against Iran which even if hey do get a nuke (doubtful), they would be suicidal to use.
$7 Million a copy for a Maine AAAV (twice as much as a Abrams tank) which even the Marines admit can be easily destroyed by any number of older AT weapons. And seriously how many invasions of Omaha beach have the Marines done in the past 50 years to warrant such an expense.

These are the types of questions teabaggers should ask but strangely do not. Focusing their energy on cutting programs Americans actually both like and need. Which would explain why the TP polls have all nosed dived. Everthing Americans are for, the TP is against.

Democracy works untill the people figure out they can vote themselves benefits. Describes the European model. Liberalism works untill you run out of Other Peoples Money. Describes southern Europe. Think I saw where the new AAAv has been cancelled. F-22 Do you really expect that the only thing going on for the next 20 or so years is chasing cave dwellers? No possible confrontations with anyone of substance? Is M.A.D. really sane? Soviet Union. Communism doesn't work & high military spending meant it consumed itself faster. You & I both know that money taken from Defence will be spent, not saved & it'll be on vote buying(i e welfare) by Democrats. The T.P. want spending reduced, the rep Leadership is only talking about a reduction in the rate of increased spending & the dems don't even want to reduce the planned increases in spending.

 

[Wheelgunner]

I'm not a navy guy either, but I was told by an former submarine officer that in war games they were not allowed to "take out" a carrier. He is under the firm conviction that it can be done easily with the technology they have on board today.

He could have just been blowing smoke up my 6, but maybe a submariner can confirm or deny?

 

[VDKMS]

George

If we had the European model in the USA, no one would ever vote Republican ever again. I promise you that. People would take all the freebies that it has to offer and tell the Republican party to stick their fear mongering where the sun don't shine. And that ultimately is what you Republicans fear the most.

But what does the *nanny state* have anything to do with the actual topic? How come you always turn every subject into a bashing of the Democrats, you beginning to sound desperate. If I were you I'd stop worrying about the Democrats and start worrying about GOP campaign because if you have been watching the polls for 2012 the Republicans are in very serious trouble.

The fact reminds that we spent far too much on military spending, and namely on weapons like aircraft carriers which we don't need. You seem to confuse good defense as synonymous to the amount spent. Allow me to refer you to the Soviet Union who spent their whole economy on Defense, never used it in a hot war, and still lost the cold war.

The Americans have another attitude than most Europeans. I like their attitude. I don't need a government to pamper me up. In Belgium I have to give half of my wages to the government of which I don't get much in return. But I do respect your opinion....if you respect mine.

$9 billion on a new AC than can be sunk by a $1 million AS missile.

You don't sink an AC with one AS missile.

$138 Million on a aircraft like the F-22 for a terrorist enemy that has absolutely no air force at all.

The F-22 is not made to counter terrorists but for a war against a powerfull enemy. As long as there is no war every weapon is useless but if you wait until there is a war and you have no weapons you're doomed.

Building a billion dollar ABM system against Iran which even if hey do get a nuke (doubtful), they would be suicidal to use.

Iran is doomed if they attack the US, but here's the difference between having a ABM system or not (example): We still have New York or there is no New York anymore.

 

[mmarsh]

VDKMS

1. Actually Americans DON'T have that attitude, that's a myth propagated by the GOP but we have seen time and time again that is simply untrue. Even George knows what would happen if the GOP tried abolishing Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Last person to try it was Bush in 2006, and it ended very, very badly for him when he tried to privatize SS. Pure Political suicide, and his party lost BOTH houses on Congress because of it. and its a good thing he was stopped because had he succeeded a lot of peoples retirement money would have been lost when the Stock Market collapsed 2 years later.

So there is a major difference between the propaganda and the reality.

If you are really paying half your wages you must be a multi-millionaire. I am in France, make a very good salary and am in a 23% bracket, and France is more expensive than Belgium. If that's the case, then I can understand your frustration but you are not getting any sympathy from me. I'd much rather be a multimillionaire that pays 50% in taxes then not be a multimillionaire (and I am nowhere even close to that type of money).

And you *do* get a lot for your taxes, you just don't realize it. You have TONS of advantages that Americans DON'T have like 100% healthcare, free schools, a pension, lots of other social protections etc. You don't get this in the USA and you have to pay for it. Its Americans that pay less taxes than Europeans, but they are the ones get anything for their taxes (except for wars and tax breaks for billionaires). The American government social programs pale in comparision to what the Europeans offer. Its precisely the reason I stay here.

2. You couldn't be more wrong. It has been done with weapons much weaker than the ones we have today. A few examples, HMS Sheffield (destroyer) was hit by a single Exocet which failed to explode and she still sank. ROMA (Battleship) was sunk by a single Fritz X ASM launched by a JU-88. IJN Taiho (aircraft carrier) sunk by a single Torpedo (WWII torpedoes carries less power than a missile) IJN Kirshima (battleship) single Torpedo. HMS HOOD sunk by a single devastating hit from a 14" shell.

USS Stark was nearly sunk by a single Exocet. USS Samuel Roberts hit a WWII mine and nearly sank, as did USS Cole (suicide boat).

And these are OLD weapons. Wait till you see the Soviet/Russian stuff in combat.

3. The F-22 was designed to penetrate a state of the art Soviet Air Defense in order to escort Strike Aircraft to their targets. Except there is no more Soviet Union all of America's potential enemies do not have a radar system anywhere near as sophisticated. Furthermore the F-22 can only carry a few bombs (and it gives up stealth to do so) so it is nowhere as useful as a F-16, FA-18, F-15, FA-35 which still have alot of life in them. And for the cost of a single FA-22 ($140 Milion) you can buy over 6 F-16s ($23 Million).

Thats why the contract was cancelled. Its a impressive but overpriced piece of kit with only limited use. the F-35 is a much better value.

4.

A. Iran doesn't have a nuclear device at all period.

B. Even if they do get a device they would need to shrink it to the size where it could fit on a missile. That took the USA 10 years just to do that (the Regulus II).

C. Then they would need to invent the missile that can accurately hit New York. They have a missile that can almost reach the USA, but they haven't the advanced guidance system to make it a real threat. Its more of a threat to the fish than New York.

Right now Iran has NONE of the above. It make more sense to build a Air Defense system to shoot down UFOs than deal with threats from Iran.

Oh and the ABM only worked about 50% of the time. So even if Iran build and launched such a nuke, there is absolutely no guarantee the ABM shield would stop it. Furthermore it was only designed to deal with an attack from Iran. A missile attack from any other country it wouldnt have done anything. An utterly useless weapon system that cost BILLION$.

 

[George]

VDKMS

1. Actually Americans DON'T have that attitude, that's a myth propagated by the GOP but we have seen time and time again that is simply untrue. Even George knows what would happen if the GOP tried abolishing Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Last person to try it was Bush in 2006, and it ended very, very badly for him when he tried to privatize SS. Pure Political suicide, and his party lost BOTH houses on Congress because of it. and its a good thing he was stopped because had he succeeded a lot of peoples retirement money would have been lost when the Stock Market collapsed 2 years later.

So there is a major difference between the propaganda and the reality.

If you are really paying half your wages you must be a multi-millionaire. I am in France, make a very good salary and am in a 23% bracket, and France is more expensive than Belgium. If that's the case, then I can understand your frustration but you are not getting any sympathy from me. I'd much rather be a multimillionaire that pays 50% in taxes then not be a multimillionaire (and I am nowhere even close to that type of money).

And you *do* get a lot for your taxes, you just don't realize it. You have TONS of advantages that Americans DON'T have like 100% healthcare, free schools, a pension, lots of other social protections etc. You don't get this in the USA and you have to pay for it. Its Americans that pay less taxes than Europeans, but they are the ones get anything for their taxes (except for wars and tax breaks for billionaires). The American government social programs pale in comparision to what the Europeans offer. Its precisely the reason I stay here.

2. You couldn't be more wrong. It has been done with weapons much weaker than the ones we have today. A few examples, HMS Sheffield (destroyer) was hit by a single Exocet which failed to explode and she still sank. ROMA (Battleship) was sunk by a single Fritz X ASM launched by a JU-88. IJN Taiho (aircraft carrier) sunk by a single Torpedo (WWII torpedoes carries less power than a missile) IJN Kirshima (battleship) single Torpedo. HMS Prince of Wales sunk by a single devastating hit from a 14" shell.

USS Stark was nearly sunk by a single Exocet. USS Samuel Roberts hit a WWII mine and nearly sank, as did USS Cole (suicide boat).

And these are OLD weapons. Wait till you see the Soviet/Russian stuff in combat.

3. The F-22 was designed to penetrate a state of the art Soviet Air Defense in order to escort Strike Aircraft to their targets. Except there is no more Soviet Union all of America's potential enemies do not have a radar system anywhere near as sophisticated. Furthermore the F-22 can only carry a few bombs (and it gives up stealth to do so) so it is nowhere as useful as a F-16, FA-18, F-15, FA-35 which still have alot of life in them. And for the cost of a single FA-22 ($140 Milion) you can buy over 6 F-16s ($23 Million).

Thats why the contract was cancelled. Its a impressive but overpriced piece of kit with only limited use. the F-35 is a much better value.

4.

A. Iran doesn't have a nuclear device at all period.

B. Even if they do get a device they would need to shrink it to the size where it could fit on a missile. That took the USA 10 years just to do that (the Regulus II).

C. Then they would need to invent the missile that can accurately hit New York. They have a missile that can almost reach the USA, but they haven't the advanced guidance system to make it a real threat. Its more of a threat to the fish than New York.

Right now Iran has NONE of the above. It make more sense to build a Air Defense system to shoot down UFOs than deal with threats from Iran.

Oh and the ABM only worked about 50% of the time. So even if Iran build and launched such a nuke, there is absolutely no guarantee the ABM shield would stop it. Furthermore it was only designed to deal with an attack from Iran. A missile attack from any other country it wouldnt have done anything. An utterly useless weapon system that cost BILLION$.

1. Yup Americans have suckered in on the S.S. ponzi scheme. We all would have been way better off if the legislation had forced people to open private stock accounts instead. The Market has done way better, fabulously better over the years. S.S.'s return is a whopping 1%. If you die it would be in your Estate instead of losing it to the Govt. Also the politicians couldn't have taken the money & spent it. Bush was only trying to privatise 5% of S.S. not all of it like the Dems were saying.
2. That was HMS Hood, not P.of W. Turns out rocket fuel makes a great warhead. Taiho sank after the crew used the ventilation system to inadvertantly spread avgas fumes through out the ship. Kirishima sunk by USS Washington.
3. F-22 Air superiority will still be important & others are working to equal the plane & the F-35 is supposed to be the fighter-bomber. We'll see if the F-15 remains airworthy.

 

[mmarsh]

1. Yup Americans have suckered in on the S.S. ponzi scheme. We all would have been way better off if the legislation had forced people to open private stock accounts instead. The Market has done way better, fabulously better over the years. S.S.'s return is a whopping 1%. If you die it would be in your Estate instead of losing it to the Govt. Also the politicians couldn't have taken the money & spent it. Bush was only trying to privatise 5% of S.S. not all of it like the Dems were saying.
2. That was HMS Hood, not P.of W. Turns out rocket fuel makes a great warhead. Taiho sank after the crew used the ventilation system to inadvertantly spread avgas fumes through out the ship. Kirishima sunk by USS Washington.
3. F-22 Air superiority will still be important & others are working to equal the plane & the F-35 is supposed to be the fighter-bomber. We'll see if the F-15 remains airworthy.

1. SS is a security blanket for peoples retirement, its not an investment therefore it doesn't matter what the interest rate is, it might as well be 0%. The point is its not for money to be blown on a high stakes Wall Street Backjack table. If people put there retire money on a high stakes gamble they could (and would) have lost everything. Remember these are retired people, once that money is gone its gone for good as they people can no longer work to make up their loses. If they lose there SS these people would be out on the street. You know the saying "whenever you gamble you will eventually lose". The only one who wins is the house, which in 2006 would have been Wall Street.

A wise investor invests when he is young and with petty cash that he can afford to lose. You NEVER invest money that you cannot make up later or is meant for a specific project like retirement or a kids education. That's the difference between a investor and a gambler.

2. Oops, Corrected, thanks. HMS PoW was damaged at the same battle, but you are right it was HMS HOOD that was sunk. It wasn't rocket fuel. the 14" penetrated her ammunition storage locker for he secondaries and she went up like a Roman Candle.

You're right about Taiho, but the reason he aviation gas leaked was because of single torpedo hit fired by a US submarine. USS Albacore is credited with her sinking.

Same with IJN Kirshima. She took shell hits though none were serious. Her fate was sealed a single Torpedo fired by USS Washington. The Crew didn't think the flooding from the torpedo was that serious, and she would have survived but her idiot Captain made a terrible error of increasing speed from 11 to about 18 knots in order to return to Japan. This caused the flooding to worsen and the damage control teams could keep up with the water egress. She capsized on her way back to Japan. But the point remains she was sunk by a single hit.

3. What Job can a F-22 do that a F-16C cannot? The F-16 Block 60 or F/A-18E is still a match for anything any enemy airforce has and is much capable in the AtG mode than the FA/22. And you can practically buy a full squadron of them for the price of 2 FA-22A.

 

[VDKMS]

3. What Job can a F-22 do that a F-16C cannot? The F-16 Block 60 or F/A-18E is still a match for anything any enemy airforce has and is much capable in the AtG mode than the FA/22. And you can practically buy a full squadron of them for the price of 2 FA-22A.

Most opponents of F-22's just got a message that their game was over. Shot down. They didn't even know the F-22 was in "the neighbourhood".

 

[George]

1. SS is a security blanket for peoples retirement, its not an investment therefore it doesn't matter what the interest rate is, it might as well be 0%. The point is its not for money to be blown on a high stakes Wall Street Backjack table. If people put there retire money on a high stakes gamble they could (and would) have lost everything. Remember these are retired people, once that money is gone its gone for good as they people can no longer work to make up their loses. If they lose there SS these people would be out on the street. You know the saying "whenever you gamble you will eventually lose". The only one who wins is the house, which in 2006 would have been Wall Street.

A wise investor invests when he is young and with petty cash that he can afford to lose. You NEVER invest money that you cannot make up later or is meant for a specific project like retirement or a kids education. That's the difference between a investor and a gambler.

2. Oops, Corrected, thanks. HMS PoW was damaged at the same battle, but you are right it was HMS HOOD that was sunk. It wasn't rocket fuel. the 14" penetrated her ammunition storage locker for he secondaries and she went up like a Roman Candle.


Same with IJN Kirshima. She took shell hits though none were serious. Her fate was sealed a single Torpedo fired by USS Washington. The Crew didn't think the flooding from the torpedo was that serious, and she would have survived but her idiot Captain made a terrible error of increasing speed from 11 to about 18 knots in order to return to Japan. This caused the flooding to worsen and the damage control teams could keep up with the water egress. She capsized on her way back to Japan. But the point remains she was sunk by a single hit.

1. To each his own opinion. Personally I believe that if the money that has been taken out of my checks for the last few decades had been invested in stocks in my private retirement account I'd be far better off in the financial security area than I am now. Sure there's been big "Bear" markets, but in the long run it is still way up.
2. I guess I clumped comments together w/o proper seperation. Hood sunk by 15" fire from Bismarck. The rocket fuel comment was in regards to the Exocet sinking the British ship in the Falklands War, warhead didn't detonate. US Battleships in WWII didn't have torpedos, Kirishima hit by up to an estimated 25 16" shells plus 5" shells from secondary armament. You may be thinking of some other Japanese Battleship.

 

[Jay]

I can see your point that aircraft carriers are becoming a liability. there are just too many people needed to run one, as well as the fact that (as stated) they're massive targets, with the modern jet technology we have there should be no need for a mobile airstrip anymore, a U.S. jet can be in and out of combat in minutes, and can go a country or more over to refuel no problem. that being said, why would any country put hundreds of lives and billions of dollars to risk when they can be more effective elsewhere.

 

[KevinTheCynic]

I can see your point that aircraft carriers are becoming a liability. there are just too many people needed to run one, as well as the fact that (as stated) they're massive targets, with the modern jet technology we have there should be no need for a mobile airstrip anymore, a U.S. jet can be in and out of combat in minutes, and can go a country or more over to refuel no problem. that being said, why would any country put hundreds of lives and billions of dollars to risk when they can be more effective elsewhere.

Assuming the countries you have to overfly or refuel in actually let you do so.
There's one thing a carrier can always do that the air force cannot - if a country doesn't let you use their airspace or airfields, the carrier simply goes around it.

 

[BritinBritain]

Without carriers the Falkland Islanders would be speaking Spanish today, and driving on the right hand side of the road.