it is realatively easy to cripple a carrier, but very few nations (China) can actually properly destroy an aircraft carrier without the submarine. So what you should do is accompany the aircraft carrier with at least two subs so that you can defend against anything short of a nuclear assault or a DF-21 (non-nuclear version). And carriers can shoot torpedos anyway I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

Lol what the fuck are you trying to prove with these article? That the U.S. Navy is weak?

no shit

Muahahahah I'm the king of memes on warlight Thomas

You think the US Carrier fleets are the most sophisticated impenetratable bastions of military power?
Think again, it takes a single modern submarine to take them out, even without a nuclear attack.

I`m just gonna say it, but a freaking Carrier is a boat. A fucking boat. You can sink those. You can do it with a spoon if you have enough patience. YOu make a hole in it. Once again, its just a big boat.

Also, the fact that submarines are much more important for dominance in waters already became clear in the second world war...

Edited 3/11/2015 16:31:35

WHAT SPOONS ARE YOU USING MAN?

(you would need a diamond spoon).

Also, aren't they powered by nuclear reactors?
Which:
1. Can easily blow up if you know what to do (even Jeremy Clarkson hitting it with a hammer would probably eventually do it)
2. Have the radioactive acid? Like the stuff that Bond kills Doctor No in in that old bond movie?


Also they are very re-enforced. They can survive planes full of bombs hitting the arse of them intact and still funtional for battle

good luck with dat skourby

mfw I see a Thomas meme



mfw I see it's by Thomas

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Another+british+fuck+who+got+to+take+his+confidence+problems+out+on+the+US+navy

'nuff said

The first two results are some American president...tshhh.

Aww, did xykt get his ego hurt cause his country's leader wasn't mentioned?

I'm like 100% sure aircraft carriers are meant to hold aircraft, not decimate fleets.


Haha I laughed hard.

I love hearing about military strategy from guys whose only experience is bf4, civ whatever and warlight.....any admirals out here to support their blubbering.

The guy that speaks about "radioactive acid" in nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers and how easy they can blow up should probably take a few months break and read a few books first, preferably some about nuclear reactors.

And that boat you can sink with a spoon is armed to the teeth with anti-submarine measures, surrounded by a whole fleet of anti-submarine vessels, has a bunch of state of the art aircraft, helicopters etc. and is the pinnacle of sea warfare. I have a spoon....wanna go for it? I'll even give you my silverware.

On the other hand a submarine sinking a carrier on a exercise...yes it's a big deal (on a exercise), but sinking one carrier doesn't win the war. USA military might is more than it's carriers. You don't win wars by winning just the military engagements.

Get your heads out of your asses.

^That's right the best way to win a war it to use millions of nukes

Lol yea, and everyone knows who has the (second) most nukes in the world!

What lies in Sardinian basements and evil hearts do far more than any military can.

Is it just me,or are cruisers kind of redundant in modern naval combat? Hear me out :

Subs : underwater ambush other ships.
Destroyers : Light armament,destroy subs.
Battleships : Heavy armament, slow flagship.
Carrier : Holds aircraft for forward deployment.
Minestuffs : More underwater warfare.
Transport : For (now somewhat outdated) amphibious invasion.

Cruiser : ???
They just seem like light battleships in my experience. They're only good against destroyers and lighter cruisers. Missile cruisers are redundant because of submarines, and destroyers are good for electronic warfare.

So the question is, are cruisers useless? (Not including the ban of battleships into this equation).

Let's not forget the Dong Feng Ballistic Missile, which the Chinese have been working on for some time and are about 5-10 years away from perfecting.

The US still needs its aircraft carriers though, to maintain a military presence in parts of the world where their army and air force doesn't exactly reach. They don't really need the navy to engage in actual military exercises, as long as their presence is felt.

The reality is China has the edge in terms of its military. They have a standing army of 2.3 million, with another 800,000 in reserve and some 1-1.5 million military police, compared to the US Military with 1.3 million active personnel and 850,000 in reserve. While the US is spending about 600 billion USD on their military this year alone, the PRC is managing to stretch its 141 billion USD a lot farther (think of India spending a measly 74 million USD on its Mars mission, which NASA would probably need just to pay their personnel each year). You get more bang for your buck in that part of the world.

Not to mention that when you're competing with 1.3-1.6 billion people for a comfortable middle class lifestyle in a country with little-to-no human rights, you might be willing to go the extra mile. They're a whole other breed of individuals out there.

Also, yes Myhand clearly is a leftist living in Germany who doesn't think much of America, but he has good reason to feel that way. The majority of the men and corporations screwing over the economy and environment and causing all this civil unrest are American or American sponsored. And the American media responds by focusing all of our attention on anything but American economics and foreign policy. Typical and the worst part, is that it's working.