Those are Air-Force urinals

I didn't know that was not in a sailor's SOP to use one. BTW, I have never known a woman who found a Jill's john as natural as a male's pilot tube. Maybe there are differences?

John

 

I like the basis tenet of trump's foreign policy: america first. Those other nations are perfectly capable of defending themselves and the us shouldn't be the policeman of the world.

To a lesser extent, obama is also along the same lines.

It is the crazy republicans (mccan + graham + etc.) who don't understand how silly and naive they are.

 

Those are Air-Force urinals

Aren't some of those micturating Marines?

Naval aviators and Marine aviators would know those methods I mentioned.

John

 

Anti ship missles aren't that difficult to intercept, unless they are supersonic ballistic types.

Supersonic ballistic anti ship missiles are yet to be tested in a war setting and their guidance systems have unknown capabilities. So it is too early to say that carriers are doomed.

With that said, it is a valid question to ask what's the intended (strategic) use of such expensive carriers?

Force projection -- it is perhaps the simplest way to project U.S. airpower to a very large fraction of the Earth's surface (and, particularly, most regions of potential interest) in a sustained fashion for a variety of roles ranging from simply showing the flag to intensive close air support to, yes, nuclear engagement, though the latter is heavily de-emphasized post-cold war.

 

There are anti ship missiles that have range in excess of 200+miles. Most of them employ evasive maneuvers and sea skimming,they cost
2 mil$. which compared to 14 billion is very cheap. So if you fire 10 of these one should reach it's target.
I believe that time of huge naval fleets is over, they are really only useful if you are fighting inferior force like ISIS.

Even though they are called "bomb magnets", killing a carrier is far easier said than done. Not only are they extremely well defended, 24-7, while underway they are designed to absorb significant punishment and remain in operation, particularly give the high standard of damage-control training that is maintained.

Back in the Cold War days, carriers served tactical missions (as they still do today), but their primary strategic mission was to launch their aircraft -- recovery of said aircraft was not critical to mission success. But they weren't alone in that. Cheyenne Mountain (i.e., NORAD) was primarily responsible for detecting a strike on the U.S. and initiating the first counter strike. It was understood early on that expecting it to survive to initiate a second counter strike was unrealistic.

 

The problem with the steam catapult is total control. With lighter modern planes and UAVs you have to throttle the system down to lower region of the operational range that's not very linear and smooth. A cat launch at full power tends to break things.

My first supervisor (when I worked F-15s) was an inter-service transferee from the Navy who has worked flight deck operations for a number of years. He once told me that the common understanding was that when the launch was initiated about the only thing that was guaranteed was that the nose gear of that aircraft WAS leaving the deck -- it was significantly less certain that the rest of the aircraft would remain successfully attached to it throughout that process.