A round up of Trumpian events 🖕🍊🤡

[ChuckV]

@anon36155390

Huh. I would have thought that Trump enjoyed a little bbc now and then.

You mean like some “Easy D”?

[ficuswhisperer]

Trump probably thinks he has a bbc.

[anon68952647]

That the carriers would not be there for the strike planes to return to has been a reality since the cold war. A modern guided missile sure could target in on one, and that’s new-ish, but they’ve been building aircraft carriers, assuming they’d be nuked, and in that case they’re just a single strike forward airfield anyhow.

For the many other missions the nave has the carrier is pretty darned good. And there is that time that one jump-started the entire NYC subway system,

[politeruin]

I think any admiration he might have for the uk only extends as far as his ability to build those disgusting golf courses. I would’ve thought the bbc is on his shit-list because they report, y’know, his words and actions.

[Wanderfound]

The modern difference is that you don’t need a nuke; you can take down a carrier with a few dozen cheap speedboats carrying conventional anti-shipping missiles.

The War Nerd: Iran is building a "fake" aircraft carrier? How can you tell?

The economics are insane; destroying a carrier costs a microscopic fraction of the expense of building one. Carriers in the 21st century are analogous to battleships in WWII; ludicrously overpriced floating targets.

[jerwin]

@Wanderfound

destroying a carrier costs a microscopic fraction of the expense of building one.

How would you you destroy a carrier?

[Wanderfound]

@jerwin

@Wanderfound

destroying a carrier costs a microscopic fraction of the expense of building one.

How would you you destroy a carrier?

Same way as Van Riper did it, as detailed in the War Nerd link above. Swamp 'em with cheap civilian speedboats and light aircraft; the defences will take down most of the attackers, but you only need to get through once. It’s an updated version of late 19thC torpedo boat tactics.

That’s the asymmetric low-tech method, though. If you’re up against the Chinese, they’ll just throw a few anti-shipping missiles at you, designed for a terminal phase pop-up ballistic attack to get around the anti-missile defences.

We’ve also got autonomous underwater drones (AKA torpedoes…) now. Park a few on the bed of the South China Sea, bring 'em up when required.

[ficuswhisperer]

Trump has cost taxpayers more in a month than Obama did in a whole year.

In a month, the Trump family has cost taxpayers almost as much as the Obamas did...

[Kimmo]

I considered a caption, or maybe thought or speech bubbles, but perhaps it’s best to leave it to the imagination of the viewer.

My imagination - Trudeau thinks: LOL, you’re such a shit cunt.

Dream scenario with these two: upon their next meeting, Trump, incensed by Trudeau’s neutralising of the first ‘handshake’, oafishly attempts to assert his dominance by severely overdoing it, completely blowing the charade, and giving Trudeau obvious justification to pull a judo move and put the scumbag on the ground. Melania swoons.

[Kimmo]

[anon68952647]

@Wanderfound

The modern difference is that you don’t need a nuke; you can take down a carrier with a few dozen cheap speedboats carrying conventional anti-shipping missiles.

When this happens, you can say this.

@Wanderfound

Carriers in the 21st century are analogous to battleships in WWII; ludicrously overpriced floating targets.

every single naval vessel is a ludicrosly overpriced floating target, I’m not sure what makes carriers special in the case you have presented. Also, at no point have battleships carried tactical nuclear weapons. I don’t see the analogy beyond someone made a new missile that targets ships.

[anon68952647]

@Wanderfound

Swamp 'em with cheap civilian speedboats and light aircraft; the defences will take down most of the attackers, but you only need to get through once. It’s an updated version of late 19thC torpedo boat tactics.

do you think carriers just sit there NOT surrounded by rings of destroyers, etc? Too much fiction.

Light aircraft? Missiles?

[anon68952647]

@Wanderfound

That’s the asymmetric low-tech method, though. If you’re up against the Chinese, they’ll just throw a few anti-shipping missiles at you, designed for a terminal phase pop-up ballistic attack to get around the anti-missile defences.

yes, and this will destroy the carrier. At the cost of which Chinese cities?

So. Much. Fiction.

[daneel]

@AcerPlatanoides

at no point have battleships carried tactical nuclear weapons

Is that actually true? There are nuclear armed versions of Tomahawks. A quick google suggests the Iowa-class ships might have carried them.

[anon68952647]

fair enough. At no point were they regularly armed with them, plus they’re all retired as dinosaurs because of carriers. I will bet that they did make versions, but it’s kind of beside the point. Once you blow up a battleship it can’t strike back.

After you blow up a carrier you still have a dozen or so armed aircraft inbound.

[Wanderfound]

Again; see what Van Riper did in the 2002 wargames.

Millennium Challenge 2002

Relevant bit:

Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue’s fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces’ electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue’s navy was “sunk” by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue’s inability to detect them as well as expected.

[anon68952647]

yes, and I’ve said repeatedly that they’re sinkable while adding that sinking them doesn’t end their threat, which was true in the cold war and every moment since then. They’re totally sinkable. Maybe you just won’t be agreed with?

It’s not something you do without the sort of organization that the rest of the navy will take care of in short order.

You can win, sink the big boat, why not… but you won’t win for terribly long.

[Wanderfound]

I suspect our disagreement is on the value of a single-use $10,000,000,000 (plus billions more for the aircraft) forward airbase.

You no longer need CVs to launch an airstrike anywhere in the world; the bombers and missiles have global range these days. A forward airbase gives you faster repeat strike ability, but that goes away as soon as the carrier sinks.

Instead of a megabuck huge target CVN packed with equally overpriced manned fighters (which are themselves largely obsolete), you’d be better off with a collection of cheap, expendable corvettes each carrying a handful of drones.

Carriers are good for showing the flag, intimidating third world countries and keeping the admirals happy. For fighting an actual, serious war, they’re useless.

[anon68952647]

@Wanderfound

I suspect our disagreement is on the value of a single-use $10,000,000,000 (plus billions more for the aircraft) forward airbase.

it’s not single use outside of you and Van Morrisons war games. Plenty of uses. Diplomacy, some humanitarian, some encouraging potential enemies to not bother on that front.

It’s a valid threat that only the US can realistically make, and in a very real sense the value of the othe 10,000,000,000,000,000 of the dollars rests on them.

and a -ton- of jobs.

[anon29631895]

San Diego border patrol union

https://twitter.com/NBPC1613/status/827320710691328001