6 ms·

Thank you. That's not nearly as exciting as all of it being stolen by Chinese spies, but "we looked in the wrong boxes at first" is a much more believable answe

Thank you. That's not nearly as exciting as all of it being stolen by Chinese spies, but "we looked in the wrong boxes at first" is a much more believable answer.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
syshum 7y ago
Maybe they were stolen.... Copied then put back before the Auditors got their.....
- gonational 7y ago
  X-Files theme resumes!
- daotoad 7y ago
  Got their what?
blackflame7000 7y ago
I'd take everything from NationalInterest with a grain of salt. They regularly run outdated articles and conspiracy conjecture.
- 0az 7y ago
  They also have shoddy analysis. As an example, they advocate for construction of battleships [0]. [0]: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35s-or-aircraft-carriers-trump-needs-battleships-if-war-china-starts-70441 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35s-or-aircr...
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Probably smarter than building aircraft carriers. My interpretation of why the US still builds aircraft carriers is that it's some combination of bureaucratic inertia (so many careers invested in them) and industry lobbying. They are useful for projecting force against third-world countries, but against a country with a modern military, they'd probably be underwater in the first hour of any conflict.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      In that kind of conflict the carriers wouldn’t be in action. You might have some submarine and aerial stuff, but something that escalated that far would go nuclear.
    - git-pull 7y ago
      Look up Yamato battleship on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato) The interpretation I've found is after these battles (with US Carriers vs Japanese battleships in WW2) the tendency was to favor aircraft carriers and phase out battleships. One big reason is how versatile and integral a carrier is in to a fleet. Carriers can send out scouts, attack, defend from hundreds of miles away from the carrier (where the ship is beyond the horizon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon). The weakness of a battleship is the target has to be tracked, and I think the best way to do that would be aerial recon. Battleships like Yamato then had pontoon type scout planes, but nothing like a carrier. Without a carrier accompanying it, Yamato wouldn't be able to create a defensive perimeter of fighters to ward off dive bombers. I don't think it'd be able to effectively counter a fleet with carrier in the end. More on Yamato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go Anyone here know more about this and can link some vids/resources on naval stuff?
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        They were certainly an extremely important platform in WWII. But since then, there have been enormous developments in rocketry which make aircraft carriers highly vulnerable. I've seen the arguments that anti-missile defenses will protect them, but I just don't buy it. This is today's version of "The bomber will always get through."
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      The battleship has no remaining role. Blanket heavy shore bombardment really isn't needed much. Every other capability - over the horizon engagement, force projection, command of the high sea could be handled better by the carrier. Thanks to the surface and underwater defence provided by the carrier group, a carrier is not yet as vulnerable as the battleship of old. If the carrier within a group becomes too vulnerable, it sure as heck won't be replaced by battleships, vulnerable and increasingly obsolete since the 1930s. Just as certain to be underwater as any newly vulnerable carrier, even with a full scale carrier-like protection group. What unique capability do you see they could bring?
anewguy9000 7y ago
after copying it the chinese snuck it back
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Thank you. That's not nearly as exciting as all of it being stolen by Chinese spies, but "we looked in the wrong boxes at first" is a much more believable answer.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

syshum 7y ago

Maybe they were stolen.... Copied then put back before the Auditors got their.....

gonational 7y ago
X-Files theme resumes!
daotoad 7y ago
Got their what?

blackflame7000 7y ago

I'd take everything from NationalInterest with a grain of salt. They regularly run outdated articles and conspiracy conjecture.

0az 7y ago
They also have shoddy analysis. As an example, they advocate for construction of battleships [0]. [0]: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35s-or-aircraft-carriers-trump-needs-battleships-if-war-china-starts-70441 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35s-or-aircr...
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Probably smarter than building aircraft carriers. My interpretation of why the US still builds aircraft carriers is that it's some combination of bureaucratic inertia (so many careers invested in them) and industry lobbying. They are useful for projecting force against third-world countries, but against a country with a modern military, they'd probably be underwater in the first hour of any conflict.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    In that kind of conflict the carriers wouldn’t be in action. You might have some submarine and aerial stuff, but something that escalated that far would go nuclear.
  - git-pull 7y ago
    Look up Yamato battleship on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato) The interpretation I've found is after these battles (with US Carriers vs Japanese battleships in WW2) the tendency was to favor aircraft carriers and phase out battleships. One big reason is how versatile and integral a carrier is in to a fleet. Carriers can send out scouts, attack, defend from hundreds of miles away from the carrier (where the ship is beyond the horizon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon). The weakness of a battleship is the target has to be tracked, and I think the best way to do that would be aerial recon. Battleships like Yamato then had pontoon type scout planes, but nothing like a carrier. Without a carrier accompanying it, Yamato wouldn't be able to create a defensive perimeter of fighters to ward off dive bombers. I don't think it'd be able to effectively counter a fleet with carrier in the end. More on Yamato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go Anyone here know more about this and can link some vids/resources on naval stuff?
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      They were certainly an extremely important platform in WWII. But since then, there have been enormous developments in rocketry which make aircraft carriers highly vulnerable. I've seen the arguments that anti-missile defenses will protect them, but I just don't buy it. This is today's version of "The bomber will always get through."
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    The battleship has no remaining role. Blanket heavy shore bombardment really isn't needed much. Every other capability - over the horizon engagement, force projection, command of the high sea could be handled better by the carrier. Thanks to the surface and underwater defence provided by the carrier group, a carrier is not yet as vulnerable as the battleship of old. If the carrier within a group becomes too vulnerable, it sure as heck won't be replaced by battleships, vulnerable and increasingly obsolete since the 1930s. Just as certain to be underwater as any newly vulnerable carrier, even with a full scale carrier-like protection group. What unique capability do you see they could bring?

anewguy9000 7y ago

after copying it the chinese snuck it back

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]