You must log in or register to comment.
I have a strange fascination with non credible defense post. Military people are like academic nerds when it comes to hyper specific vocabulary and in-the-know references. So many post and comments are like half ciphers where its a puzzle to piece together what is being talked about ad what the joke is.
I can’t get a bunch of 'em, wish that there was spoiler text with context, especially on current events, where often the first I see of the event is the NCD reference.
I usually try to hyperlink or provide some context when I comment myself.
This is what you get, when you put the army in charge of a carrier, instead of the boat people.
Yeah, give it to the Coat Guard where it belongs.
Littoral carrier groups when? Blue water is dead. Long live the shallows!
a deranged lunatic has parked an Abrams on the flight deck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_17
On receiving the third order to scatter on 4 July 1942, Lieutenant Leo Gradwell RNVR, commanding the anti-submarine trawler HMS Ayrshire, did not want to head for Archangelsk and led his convoy of Ayrshire and Troubador, Ironclad and Silver Sword north. On reaching the Arctic ice, the convoy pushed into it, then stopped engines and banked their fires. The crews used white paint from Troubador, covered the decks with white linen and arranged the Sherman tanks on the merchant vessels decks into a defensive formation, with loaded main guns. After a period of waiting and having evaded Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft, finding themselves unstuck, they proceeded to the Matochkin Strait.
Now, you might say that the USS Enterprise isn’t a merchant ship desperate for some kind of defensive armament, but on the other hand, it appears to be firing battleship guns at a MiG still flying low right above the ship, and I have to believe that a tank’s main gun, to say nothing of the machine guns, are probably more-suitable as short-range antiaircraft weapons than a battleship gun for that.
Frankly, I think that given the scenario, pre-positioning a tank in that situation probably demonstrates a considerable amount of foresight.
Frankly, I think that given the scenario, pre-positioning a tank in that situation probably demonstrates a considerable amount of foresight.
That sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like something a JAG defense lawyer might say
Ok, hear me out. The hull number is for the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which was deactivated in 2012. After that, instead of decommissioning, Elon Musk decides he needs a private military and hires Erik Prince to set it up. He buys the still-intact Enterprise, gets it modified the way he wants it, and sends it to Brazil to force X/Twitter back into service there. Full of Blackwater/Xe mercenaries, meth and coke are distributed to all personnel as daily rations. Fueled by the success of their first mission (and lots of drugs and alcohol), the bastard craft took to the high seas. It resembled a mobile party now, but a heavily-armed party. They looted, they raided, they held whole cities to ransom for fresh supplies of cheese, crackers, guacamole, spare ribs and wine and spirits that now get piped aboard from floating tankers.
This sounds a tiny bit like the plot of Snow Crash
And they would immediately be taken out by a single precision strike by an actual warship the second they got within 100 miles of any US territory or any US military ship out on patrol.
I would like to participate in any rpg campaign you dm.
The armored triple turret on the carrier that is apparently being fired at the MiG did not meet the bar to be included in the description.
That’s there so the ship is classified as a cruiser instead of an aircraft carrier and the Turks let it cross the Bosporus.
I’m pretty sure that CVN-65 won’t meet the displacement bar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)
Displacement: 93,284-long-ton (94,781 t) full load[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention
The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article 11 and in Annex III to the present Convention.
Article 11.
Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.
The US isn’t a Black Sea power (though I guess maybe if the US transferred the Enterprise to Romania…). Russia can do it because it’s a Black Sea power.
considers
I guess maybe if they got a whole lot of helium balloons and attached them to cables going down to the carrier, they could get the displacement below 15,000 tons.
EDIT: Actually, if they can get enough balloons to offset 80,000 tons, you’d think that they could just do the last 15,000 and convert the Enterprise into an airship and fly it into the Black Sea. The Montreaux Convention didn’t think of that loophole!
Though…hmm. I think that the Enterprise relies on constant seawater cooling for the reactors, so maybe they can’t do that. Maybe the turret does make sense in the context of the helium balloons after all.
I imagine the conversation went like this
Turkey: how much doors your ship weigh?
Coked up admiral: how much should it weigh?
Turkey: well we can’t let ships over 15000t through
CUA: it’s 14,999t
Turkey: …
CUA: (wipes nose)
I would like to start with the chain of command that insisted a battleship turret be installed on the flight deck.
Insert Bradley committee movie .mov
I thought the F117a doesn’t have a2a capabilities. It acts like a hole in the sky, drops a couple of bombs and then the distant AWACS plane laughs maniacally.
a2a bombs, silly
you fly over them and drop your ordnance
https://www.sandboxx.us/news/how-an-f-15e-shot-down-an-iraqi-gunship-with-a-bomb/
The full story of how an F-15E scored its only air-to-air kill… with a bomb
Because they were moving so fast through the sky to close with the team in trouble, the unpowered bomb actually had a greater range than the Sidewinder missile. Bennett released the bomb 4 miles out from the Hind-24, with Bakke carefully keeping his laser sighted on the helicopter.
All you need is a steady hand and a laser designator!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk
For this reason, it is equipped with integrated sophisticated digital navigation and attack systems, targeting being achieved via a thermal imaging infrared system and a laser rangefinder/laser designator.
It’s got the designator, so…
… and someone has allowed a local news helicopter to fly over the ship to provide live video footage of an active war scene.
I mean, if you were an embedded reporter, would you be willing to miss the opportunity to film this scene?
Also your F-117s are rocket powered or some shit because those flames are coming from the one place that isn’t exhaust
I assume that that’s just the tailgunner firing his flamethrower.
Makes sense, given the context
Entire front end is useless for takeoff and landing. Also, LOTS of heads gonna roll for an entire carrier group failing to protect the fucking carrier.
I mean, the MiG has his wingman flying at very low altitude directly through what appears to be a napalm strike that he’s just conducted on the starboard side of the carrier, so there’s some questionable behavior on both sides here.
Well yeah its blocked off, thats where you park the tanks! Jeeze, it’s like you’ve never heard of AFV flight deck deployments before.
I mean, in fairness, at least the Mig-29 and F-117 are contemporaries, and deployed by enemies. I’ve seen playsets that include (iirc) an F-16 and a B-17 dogfighting against one another.
While the F-16 has the stronger letter, the B-17 takes the lead on the number. It’s still anybody’s game.
I’m assuming that the Abrams tank makes sense to protect the people on deck from the blast of the guns on that turret.
Sounds like a pretty normal day to me.
This is gold, thank you.
