[offinoNem]

When Iran flexed its we shall close the strait of Hermouz muscles then the US sent an aircraft carrier to that area to join another one already present there. The aircraft carrier was of Nimitz class.

Now wait a minute. We know there are aircraft carriers but are there classes also?
We thought an air craft carrier was a big thing in itself and to promote it to the level that there could be several classes was a sort of disconcerting phrase.

And then the Pandora's box opens. Yes there are various classes.

Nimitz class was preceded by the Enterprise class.

As in USS Enterprise. The aircraft carrier that has been used in all the operations till now by the US. Thankfully it shall retire in December 2012.

And Enterprise class was preceded by Kitty Hawk-class.

And please do not be irritated there are more classes.

This thread will be in appreciation of the US weapons - the goodies it has accumulated to entertain you at your cost.

And we begin with the aircraft carriers.
An aircraft carrier is ship that carries aircrafts of fighting kind.
That can wreak havoc. It is a formidable toy.

[thehhhyips]

An aircraft carrier sometimes is more capable than the individual navies of more than seventy percent countries of the world.

That is right if you have an aircraft carrier like that than more than countries in the world shall be shaking in their knees before you.

Nimitz class is like that.

[Avgustslim]

Those aircraft carriers look like popcorn when compared to this .

[WelcomeMe]

Let us have the party first. Balloon busting is the last item.

[brilkyPlayday]

those aircraft carriers are only effectives for nations without submarines, but against Iran?
with Kilo class submarines and bunch of midget sub, then the aircraft carrier and escort will be vulnerable

Iran also have upgraded russia Anti ship Missile, and packed it with fast quick small missile boat, and with a simultaneously attack then Nimitz + escorts wouldn't have a chance

as for comparison , in 2007 south Africa war game, even Old U-209 able to sink whole Nato's fleet with 5 battleship in them including US ship, and in 2006 Chinese submarine able to "tailed" US fleet, meaning they could sunk US fleet undetected...
and American submarines also become dead fish if killos class submarines hunt them, since they used nuclear generator which is more noisy than diesel engine in Killo submarine...

[pXss8cyx]

those aircraft carriers are only effectives for nations without submarines, but against Iran?
with Kilo class submarines and bunch of midget sub, then the aircraft carrier and escort will be vulnerable

Interesting point brother.
Is it called strategy or tactics? It is a genuine question.
I, for one, was just trying to admire the destruction power but your analysis too is fascinating.

Iran also have upgraded russia Anti ship Missile, and packed it with fast quick small missile boat, and with a simultaneously attack then Nimitz + escorts wouldn't have a chance In the history of Israel wars Russian technology has proved to be ineffective so this leaves us out into the open.
as for comparison , in 2007 south Africa war game, even Old U-209 able to sink whole Nato's fleet with 5 battleship in them including US ship, and in 2006 Chinese submarine able to "tailed" US fleet, meaning they could sunk US fleet undetected...
and American submarines also become dead fish if killos class submarines hunt them, since they used nuclear generator which is more noisy than diesel engine in Killo submarine... Again I admit lack of knowledge and perspective. What about chipping in with details, or actually summaries, and links?

Thanks for the perspective.

[Qynvtlur]

An aircraft carrier sometimes is more capable than the individual navies of more than seventy percent countries of the world.

That is right if you have an aircraft carrier like that than more than countries in the world shall be shaking in their knees before you.

Nimitz class is like that.

Impressive. But does it have enough power to destroy an entire planet?

[Mister.levitra]

Interesting point brother.
Is it called strategy or tactics? It is a genuine question.
I, for one, was just trying to admire the destruction power but your analysis too is fascinating.

IMO, Aircraft Carriers are for Offensive and mainly to do a pre-emptive strike on military target and to give air coverage for marines to land on the enemy beach, but it become a sitting dead duck if a nation has bunch of submarine, since by current technology it's still hard to detect submarine,
and Iran develop bunch of Midget submarine and small fast attack missile boat for this defense purpose they packed it with Long range (300 Km) missile, it's their defense strategy, if there is a war then US need pre-emptive strike using their stealth Aircraft to disarm Iranian Airforce or Navy from nations like Armenia, Azerbaijan, or Arab Nations, then using their Aircraft Carriers to give protection for beach landing. so without help from surrounding nations of Iran and if US only depends on Aircraft Carrier , then US Invasion will most likely repelled.

In the history of Israel wars Russian technology has proved to be ineffective so this leaves us out into the open. Soviet never gave latest technology for egypt etc, while US gave their best for Zionist, same treatment for Iran as well, but Iranian modify Russian "Downgraded-weapon" since they didn't sell their best like S-300 Missile to Iran....

Again I admit lack of knowledge and perspective. What about chipping in with details, or actually summaries, and links?

Thanks for the perspective about wargame with old U-209,
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300932/pg1

and china stalks US fleet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-US-fleet.html

and about American submarine Nuclear generator vs diesel sub

http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-a...el-submarines/

basically submarine is the deadliest arsenal by today, and with some modifications they can carry nuke as-well
and im not that expert as well, just some perspectives

[casefexas]

akhi. It was illuminating.

about wargame with old U-209,
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300932/pg1

A lone South African submarine left some Nato commanders with red faces on Tuesday as it "sank" all the ships of the Nato Maritime Group engaged in exercises with the South African Navy off the Cape coast.

and china stalks US fleet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-US-fleet.html
A Chinese submarine secretly stalked a US aircraft carrier and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has reported. and about American submarine Nuclear generator vs diesel sub

http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-a...el-submarines/

The answer is that the Navy should procure a fleet of diesel-powered subs. Not only are diesels cheaper than nuclear-powered subs, but they have the advantage of being better platforms for many of the tasks the Navy faces today. The U.S. Navy is not ignorant of the advantages of diesel subs. Time and again, American naval crews have struggled to detect their diesel-electric "foes" at sea. Over the past two years, for example, Peruvian and Chilean diesels have made life extremely tough for the U.S. in naval exercises.

[JasminBerkova]

Truly, the biggest threat to these aircraft carriers is the anti-ship missile. The Russians have made supersonic ones like the "Sunburn" and "Onyx" that are said to be unstoppable by the current antimissile defences the Americans have. I don't know if Iran has them. Would the Russians sell? And of course, we don't know if the new Russian missiles will perform as advertised.

There is also the "Shkval" ultrafast supercavitating torpedo, but I think the Russians are keeping that for themselves. They say they've stopped developing and deploying it, but I think it's just not for sale.

Did the Americans send their carrier to Hormuz itself, in that narrow deathtrap? That seems unlikely. It is more likely to be in the Arabian Sea somewhere. American planes and missiles do have a bit of range. And with airfields in Saudi Arabia, they can refuel the carrier's planes en route using flying tankers if necessary. The carrier itself would be surrounded by destroyers with antimissile systems to protect it from missiles and to detect submarines, standard protective formation since World War 2 when they fought Japan.

(The destroyers provided additional antiaircraft fire against torpedo bombers and kamikaze, which was the antiship missile of its time.)

Iran can still injure the carrier if the Sunburn and Onyx are really that fast and have sufficient range. Otherwise, they can only annoy and bluster. Unless the Americans really do something daft and actually squeeze the carrier into the Straits of Hormuz.

[Trebbinsa]

What is the point of this article?

[rsdefwgxvcfdts]

US is going to relocate its warships, 60 % of them, to the Pacific.

It has nothing to do with China, they say.

[kuzbaslachek]

U.S is still top dog when it comes to Naval

[eXC3Kvnn]

Carrier strike group

A carrier strike group (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates,[1] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship. The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet who is operationally responsible for the area of waters the carrier strike group is operating in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group