The unfortunate fact that aircraft carriers are named after U.S. presidents (despite being technically obsolete plague ships that would be instantly sunk in a great power conflict) guarantees the fleet can only grow.https://twitter.com/PeterMartin_PCM/status/1252792476449959936 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Pinboard
that would be instantly sunk in a great power conflict <= citation needed. Heavily so. My understanding is short of a nuclear strike this is practically impossible.https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy-2005-tried-sink-its-own-aircraft-carrier-and-failed-95011 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chx
No, it's an expected part of naval warfare. Aircraft carriers have no defense against hypersonic missiles, or even ballistic missiles https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/22/incoming-can-aircraft-carriers-survive-hypersonic-weapons …
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
How did a potential new challenge to the carriers become "expected part"? I concede I was wrong and there might be a treat but nowhere is it clear these ships are obsolete nor that it is "expected" they would be shot.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It's not a potential new challenge, but a broadly deployed system. Moreover, an aircraft carrier was sunk in a 2002 exercise by an Iran-like adversary, which doesn't even have the hypersonic missile technology.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.