Serious question, could a F-18 shoot down a zero? Seems like the speeds would be so mismatched, like would a Zero put off enough heat for a missile to even lock on to it. I'm genuinely curious.
What would be the difference between 1 battleship and say.. 2 destroyers?
My question's more related to how a modern anti-aircraft missile locks on to a target. If it's heat, does a WW2 era plane produce enough, if it's radar signature is it large enough, I want to look this up now. Related, do you think a soldier with a javelin missile could get it to track and hit a horse drawn carraige? Be kind of hilarious if something modern was transported back in time and had to sit out dogfights because the enemy aircraft don't register. But for all I know modern missiles have a low threshold to keep up with stealth capabilities of other aircraft.
Problem is, the Arsenal ship like that would have all of the aspects that made the battleship obsolete (being a big expensive target, the impossibility of armoring a vessel again antishipping missiles while having them remain seaworthy, the obsolence of gunnery against naval targets) and none of the benefits of it being a carrier (vastly increasing your striking range).
I complain about absurd US military spending as much as the next guy (and then some), but carriers are a shockingly efficient projection of power per dollar versus the combined trillions of dollars in weaponry sitting around that will ever actually be used in combat + unknown billions in research on stuff the military says it doesn't need. "Efficient" by exaggerated US standards, at least. It's when you load billions upon billions of dollars in high-maintenance aircraft where it starts to go out of control on costs; The F-35/Cs in particular are a wreck.
Spoken like some sort of liberal socialist nazi propagandist who wants to brainwash our children with the gay agenda.
Not only are Trump's negotiating skills tremendous but his knowledge of engineering and naval technology is bigly.
