5 ms·
The F-14 didn't have any purpose during the Cold War either. It was an idiotic fantasy toy, just like the carriers on which it sailed. All of that hardware wo
by ebikelaw 8y ago
The F-14 didn't have any purpose during the Cold War either. It was an idiotic fantasy toy, just like the carriers on which it sailed. All of that hardware would have been on the bottom of the ocean in the first half hour of a war with the USSR.
They're absolutely brilliant against barbarians, though.
- qubex 8y agoCan you please elaborate? How do you reckon the USSR would achieve such a feat? (If your answer involves ‘submarines’, you’re under-estimating the ASW capabilities of a carrier group.)
- netjiro 8y agoHmm. Around 15 years ago the $100M "gotland" submarines sank the $6B carriers multiple times without detection during war games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine As those kinds of subs are available to more and more countries you can't always "park" a carrier group without risk.
- perilunar 8y agoOne of the Australian Collins class diesel-electric subs also 'sank' a US carrier during war games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Waller_(SSG_75)#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Waller_(SSG_75)#Operation...
- sandworm101 8y agoSuch wins are generally based on defined senerios. Specificaly, the carrier group is sticking to a known heading, allowing the sub to park itself ahead and wait. And the carrier group's use of active sonar is limited (whales). And the actions of the protecting sub(s) are classified. And we still havent mentioned the rise of anti-torpedo/missile technologies. ... the real outcomes never makes it into the public domain.
- saiya-jin 8y agoI would expect a carrier group would be a prime target for medium/long range nuclear missiles. They can't be hidden from military satellites so they would be like sitting ducks. Send 2-3 per group, at Mach 5-6 nothing can stop them and group is no more.