https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqLn1wKJAw
A fully stocked USS-Nimitz can defeat most militaries singlehandledly.

Awesome..

This ship is one of the greatest feats of engineering in this century.

A single russian missile will turn that ship to a burning hulk within minutes.

dinachi:
A single russian missile will turn that ship to a burning hulk within minutes.

lol.
you wish.

dinachi:
A single russian missile will turn that ship to a burning hulk within minutes.

No missile is capable of reaching that carrier even if all her engineers are sleeping
Sadly Russia doesnt have the technology to build carrier
It can only be destroy by swarming of hundreds of small sub-marine boats as one Iran revolutionary guards quoted and usa military experts attest to it

CSTR2:
lol.
you wish.

Russia does not believe in wasting tax payers money on frivolous and foolish projects like the US. Aircraft carriers are a needless waste of money.No American Aircraft carrier can come within 1000 miles of Russia in a battle situation without being destroyed! Russia spends a tenth of Americas budget on defense yet have weapons that rival and sometimes surpass America. Single Russian S400 missile defense system costing less that a thousandth of the amount wasted on that big for nothing Nimitz will turn it to a smoking wreck in minutes. I stick with Russia on this. They are light years ahead of America in military technology.

Feats like these are why americans are the most arrogant citizens in the world.
America is the greatest superpower of the past 3000 years and they know it.
God bless America.

dinachi:

Russia does not believe in wasting tax payers money on frivolous and foolish projects like the US. Aircraft carriers are a needless waste of money.No American Aircraft carrier can come within 1000 miles of Russia in a battle situation without being destroyed! Russia spends a tenth of Americas budget on defense yet have weapons that rival and sometimes surpass America. Single Russian S400 missile defense system costing less that a thousandth of the amount wasted on that big for nothing Nimitz will turn it to a smoking wreck in minutes. I stick with Russia on this. They are light years ahead of America in military technology.

Shut up! Putin is dying because of the technology and that is why they are begging france not to cancel the contract of the two powerfull carriers they are building for russia
russia doesnt have a single clue about plane carrier technology likewise usa doesn't know much about space technology
No country is closer to america technologically,america has many dismantled weapons which can be re-assembled withing a week if the need arises

They spend so much on their military due to the volume of enemies they garner for themselves.

We need love not wars.

Aircraft carriers are obsolete since the invention of ICBMs.

Only yanks have a hard-on for these sitting ducks.

bettercreature:
Shut up! Putin is dying because of the technology and that is why they are begging france not to cancel the contract of the two power carriers they are building for russia
russia doesnt have a single clue about plane carrier technology likewise usa doesn't know much about space technology

Don't mind that guy.
Russia that can't build a decent warship .lol.
Even putin ain't got nothing on some Nigerians when it comes to propaganda.

bettercreature:
Shut up! Putin is dying because of the technology and that is why they are begging france not to cancel the contract of the two power carriers they are building for russia
russia doesnt have a single clue about plane carrier technology likewise usa doesn't know much about space technology

France building aircraft carriers for Russia? That wiil be the day!

dinachi:
France building aircraft carriers for Russia? That wiil be the day!

You simply don't know what is going on around you,you need to see how russia was begging france not to cancel the contract while america insist that for france to deliever the carriers,russia must leave Ukraine

CSTR2:
Don't mind that guy.
Russia that can't build a decent warship .lol.
Even putin ain't got nothing on some Nigerians when it comes to propaganda.

Don't be stupid.

America's flotilla of Aircraft carriers are more of visual rhetrioc than a threat to Russia.

One single ICBM with a nuke war head will obliterate an entire US fleet

[img]http://warriorgirl3.files./2013/09/the_devastating_effects_of_a_nuclear_explosion_test_07.gif[/img]

US Aircraft carriers are NOT meant for Russia but for 3rd tier Nations.

Russia will blow up any flotilla of Aircraft carrier that dares enter Russian waters.

PappyMason:
Aircraft carriers are obsolete since the invention of ICBMs.

Only yanks have a hard-on for these sitting ducks.

American aircrafts carriers are no sitting ducks. They are missile defence systems on its own.
Any threat that comes near 1000km would be countered by squadrons of F-16s and F-18s as a first line of defence.
There is only so much damage an ICBM can do unless we are talking about nukes. And it can be shot down anyway.
With an aircraft carrier, you can transport enough fighter jets to turn a nation into a complete wasteland.

dinachi:

Russia does not believe in wasting tax payers money on frivolous and foolish projects like the US. Aircraft carriers are a needless waste of money.No American Aircraft carrier can come within 1000 miles of Russia in a battle situation without being destroyed! Russia spends a tenth of Americas budget on defense yet have weapons that rival and sometimes surpass America. Single Russian S400 missile defense system costing less that a thousandth of the amount wasted on that big for nothing Nimitz will turn it to a smoking wreck in minutes. I stick with Russia on this. They are light years ahead of America in military technology.

Dont mind CSTR. America has got over three chances of proving their military superiority over Russia and they blew it up, and all they could come up with is you tube video showing their military prowess.

Putin Talks - Obama Walks

CSTR2:
Feats like these are why americans are the most arrogant citizens in the world.
America is the greatest superpower of the past 3000 years and they know it.
God bless America.

Boy stop this nonsense.

bettercreature:
Shut up! Putin is dying because of the technology and that is why they are begging france not to cancel the contract of the two powerfull carriers they are building for russia
russia doesnt have a single clue about plane carrier technology likewise usa doesn't know much about space technology
No country is closer to america technologically,america has many dismantled weapons which can be re-assembled withing a week if the need arises

I laugh at you Ignorance!

dinachi:

Russia does not believe in wasting tax payers money on frivolous and foolish projects like the US. Aircraft carriers are a needless waste of money.No American Aircraft carrier can come within 1000 miles of Russia in a battle situation without being destroyed! Russia spends a tenth of Americas budget on defense yet have weapons that rival and sometimes surpass America. Single Russian S400 missile defense system costing less that a thousandth of the amount wasted on that big for nothing Nimitz will turn it to a smoking wreck in minutes. I stick with Russia on this. They are light years ahead of America in military technology.

bro you are totally wrong. When you talk about aerial battles, I mean fighter jets the Russians might be a match but with other warfare techs forget it, they are light years behind the U.S.A.

PappyMason:


Don't be stupid.

America's flotilla of Aircraft carriers are more of visual rhetrioc than a threat to Russia.

One single ICBM with a nuke war head will obliterate an entire US fleet

[img]http://warriorgirl3.files./2013/09/the_devastating_effects_of_a_nuclear_explosion_test_07.gif[/img]

US Aircraft carriers are NOT meant for Russia but for 3rd tier Nations.

Russia will blow up any flotilla of Aircraft carrier that dares enter Russian waters.

And why do they need to enter russia water when they can destroy russia with a precision strike from hawaii,the day of using enola gay to carry nuclear weapon accross the occean or to japan is over,America can destroy any country from her arsenal in Hawaii

PappyMason:


Don't be stupid.

America's flotilla of Aircraft carriers are more of visual rhetrioc than a threat to Russia.

One single ICBM with a nuke war head will obliterate an entire US fleet

[img]http://warriorgirl3.files./2013/09/the_devastating_effects_of_a_nuclear_explosion_test_07.gif[/img]

US Aircraft carriers are NOT meant for Russia but for 3rd tier Nations.

Russia will blow up any flotilla of Aircraft carrier that dares enter Russian waters.

And you actually believe putin would be stupid enough to introduce nukes into a direct war with the US.
That is like signing a blank cheque for a complete annihilation. It would be a question of one who has the best anti-nuclear missile defence systems.
And my money is on the US.

Tkester:


Boy stop this nonsense.

Child, until Russia produce something similar, then zip it.

bettercreature:
You simply don't know what is going on around you,you need to see how russia was begging france not to cancel the contract while america insist that for france to deliever the carriers,russia must leave Ukraine

France is the leader in Nuclear reactors.

The French depend on Nuclear technology for energy consumption than any Nation on earth. Last I checked they depend on 56 Nuke reactors for about 76% of their energy consumption.

If there is anybody that can build a safe and cheap nuclear powered station or reactor then it is France.


That aside, bilateral deals like that between Russia and France over the delivery of Nuclear class carriers are done over broader relations. Meaning, it isn't all about the Nuclear powered carrier but for strengthening relations.

Russian Military policy in terms of naval warfare has concentrated mostly in stealth submarines than aircraft carriers.

The Subs are meant to be a retaliatory ace in the event that Russian land based Nuke silos are hit by NATO strikes.

As I said earlier, aircraft carriers are obsolete when dealing with Russia and that the carriers only serve to intimidate smaller nations and not Russia.

SirJeffry:
They spend so much on their military due to the volume of enemies they garner for themselves.

We need love not wars.

An economic superpower will always have enemies.
The day Nigeria ever becomes a top five global economy, then the chance of getting nuked by an envious enemy nation becomes a real possibility.

bettercreature:
And why do they need to enter russia water when they can destroy russia with a precision strike from hawaii,the day of using enola gay to carry nuclear weapon accross the occean or to japan is over,America can destroy any country from her arsenal in Hawaii

Now you understand why aircraft carriers are obsolete.

ICBM as in Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles can be launched from across the world to hit any target.

This is why Russia never invested in aircraft carriers.

Also, you must understand that Russia under Putin wanted an aircraft carrier for a variety of reasons bothering on stregthening relations with France and in making her presence felt .

One lone carrier is no match for 11 US aircraft carriers but then again carriers are obsolete.

PappyMason:



France is the leader in Nuclear reactors.

The French depend on Nuclear technology for energy consumption than any Nation on earth. Last I checked they depend on 56 Nuke reactors for about 76% of their energy consumption.

If there is anybody that can build a safe and cheap nuclear powered station or reactor then it is France.


That aside, bilateral deals like that between Russia and France over the delivery of Nuclear class carriers are done over broader relations. Meaning, it isn't all about the Nuclear powered carrier but for strengthening relations.

Russian Military policy in terms of naval warfare has concentrated mostly in stealth submarines than aircraft carriers.

The Subs are meant to be a retaliatory ace in the event that Russian land based Nuke silos are hit by NATO strikes.

As I said earlier, aircraft carriers are obsolete when dealing with Russia and that the carriers only serve to intimidate smaller nations and not Russia.

You are not updated! aircraft carrier is the most important in this century,no country,no nation will allow you to use her airspace,which mean you have to shoot from the sea,and that is what russia is doing to syria at the moment,you have no chance if you dont have aircraft carrier this days,the same reason china is investing heavily on it,sub-marine is useless this day as there are thousands of robbots that can lay underwater mines withing days if the need arises

CSTR2:
And you actually believe putin would be stupid enough to introduce nukes into a direct war with the US.
That is like signing a blank cheque for a complete annihilation. It would be a question of one who has the best anti-nuclear missile defence systems.
And my money is on the US.

Russia and China are not bothered by US Air carriers.

Even the Pentagon is considering scrapping them since drones are more effective and cheaper than launching conventional manned jets from carriers.

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/are-aircraft-carriers-slowly-becoming-obsolete/

bettercreature:
You are not updated! aircraft carrier is the most important in this century,no country,no nation will allow you to use her airspace,which mean you have to shoot from the sea,and that is what russia is doing to syria at the moment,you have no chance if you dont have aircraft carrier this days,the same reason china is investing heavily on it,sub-marine is useless this day as there are thousands of robbots that can lay underwater mines withing days if the need arises

No, you are the one that is out of date.

[size=18pt]Are Aircraft Carriers Slowly Becoming Obsolete?[/size]

FOR SEVEN DECADES, they’ve been the ultimate symbol of American power. When conflicts break out across the globe, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers — fast, mobile and each packing more firepower than most countries’ entire air force — have been the first responders, more often than not. “When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: where is the nearest carrier?” Bill Clinton famously said.

But today’s 1,000-foot-long, nuclear-powered supercarriers and their air wings are expensive, costing up to $15 billion just to build. Plus, the latest anti-ship missiles could render them vulnerable to attack. It’s for those reasons that one influential Navy officer is proposing the Pentagon rethink its approach to building and deploying carriers.

Instead of today’s small number of gigantic carriers, the Navy of the future should operate a larger number of smaller flattops, Capt. Jerry Hendrix asserts in the pages of Proceedings magazine. “Moving away from highly expensive and vulnerable supercarriers toward smaller, light carriers would bring the additional benefit of increasing our nation’s engagement potential.”

It would also spread out U.S. naval air power instead of concentrating it in just a few places, where it can be more easily knocked out.

Hendrix’s controversial argument is the subject of my first piece for AOL’s new military website.

To be clear: no one, including Hendrix, is claiming big carriers will become totally obsolete overnight. Besides the U.S., Britain, India and especially China are all building brand-new large carriers, though none quite as big as America’s 11 Nimitz- and Enterprise-class ships, each displacing around 100,000 tons. Hendrix insists the Navy keep some of its nuclear supercarriers as a “heavy surge force” capable of steaming into action during a major crisis.

Outgoing secretary of defense Robert Gates echoed that sentiment in a speech last year.

But for routine patrols, the Navy should have a larger number of smaller flattops. Hendrix doesn’t propose a specific number, but he does point out that three, 40,000-ton light carriers could be had for the price of one supercarrier.

A light carrier is viable because of a shift in the way air power is used. During the Cold War, the Navy’s focus was generating at many fighter sorties as possible within the first few days of a full-scale conflict. After all, big shooting wars weren’t expected to last very long. Supercarriers are optimized for that kind of “big and fast” fighting.

Today, conflicts tend to be drawn-out, low-intensity affairs requiring fewer but longer sorties by sea-launched planes. Carriers don’t need to embark as many fighters, or launch them as often. That’s why a smaller carrier is possible, according to Hendrix.

He believes the future light carrier is already taking shape at a shipyard in Mississippi, though the Navy doesn’t call the vessel that. America, the first of a new class of amphibious assault ships, “has the potential to be a new generation of light aircraft carrier,” Hendrix writes.

America, slated to enter service is designed to carry more than a thousand Marines into battle, shuttling them ashore with V-22 tiltrotors. Like previous assault ships, America can carry Harrier jump jets (pictured) and, eventually, the Marines’ vertical-landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The difference is how many fighters America can carry: up to 30, compared to the four or five Harriers routinely embarked on today’s assault ships and around 50 F/A-18 Hornet fighters on each supercarrier.

Unlike many observers, Hendrix has high hopes for the late, over-budget F-35 — particularly the B model, which has been the most troubled of the three variants. “I’m concerned about the cost overruns on JSF, but I see that this [plane] could be very important in the future,” Hendrix tells Danger Room.

Armed, carrier-launched drones could complement the F-35B, Hendrix adds. The Northrop Grumman X-47B, the world’s first’s carrier-capable combat Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, flew for the first time in February. The Navy wants a follow-on killer drone to start populating carrier decks before 2018.

Small flattops carrying drones and stealthy jump jets would help “adapt the fleet away from its current course to a new design for a new era,” Hendrix writes. But he admits his proposal faces stiff opposition from the Navy’s entrenched supercarrier boosters. “A lot of people don’t like the America,” he tells Danger Room.

Even Gates was forced to backtrack after his speech last year criticizing the Navy’s over-reliance on huge flattops. “I am not going to cut a carrier. Okay?” Gates said. “But people ought to start thinking about how they are going to use carriers in a time when you have highly accurate cruise and ballistic missiles that can take out a carrier.”

To Hendrix, that means having more carriers. And that means they need to be smaller.

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/are-aircraft-carriers-slowly-becoming-obsolete/

bettercreature:
You simply don't know what is going on around you,you need to see how russia was begging france not to cancel the contract while america insist that for france to deliever the carriers,russia must leave Ukraine

I really needed to see how russia was begging and I bet you were there and you saw it? Senior clown!