It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USS Ford in danger of delay due to AAG

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Just thinking everything on these ships must be modular or containerised something that takes that long to build in these days and times could have redundant electronics or systems in short order




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

The electronic systems have multiple redundancies. The cables across the deck technically do because there are four of them, but the size of the under deck systems for landing and launching limits their redundancy ability.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No they don't fly. They do, however, move at something on the order of 40 knots, or thereabouts... Movin' right along actually. Not to mention that pesky little carrier battle group of missile cruisers, destroyers.

Not to mention the carrier air group of fighters, bombers, and their awac clone, the Hawkeye. Clear evidence of their helplessness against missile attack.

As for your kamikaze analogy? The fleet carriers (Essex class, Saratoga, and Enterprise) were hit numerous times. Franklin, Bunker Hill, Enterprise, were knocked out of the war by them, but none, not one were sunk.

Largest ship sunk by Kamikaze was an escort carrier St. Lo. All other carrier sinkings were carried out by aircraft, submarine, and gunfire, or combinations of the same.

Kamikaze. Dangerous? Of course. War winner? Not even remotely.

These ships, particularly the super carriers are some of the largest man made objects on earth, and they move. Unless they're nuclear tipped, there aren't many missiles out there that are going to do a whole lot of sinking of them.

LST? Large...you betch they are. Huge. Colossal, even. Slow...relative to what? Tell you what, hop in your car, take it to the highway, and drive at about 50 mph...then picture a ship weighing in at over 100,000 tons moving that fast. Not so slow, really. Target...yes. A target that shoots back from way outside those missiles ranges. One that will see you coming at several hundred miles, or further. ...and one that's surrounded by other targets that can also shoot back.

Not so helpless. Nor obsolete.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


And the Navy has lasers on all their ships and on their planes if we're gonna play that game.

Foggy or rainy days preclude that advantage.
It s hypothetical, but like your new catapult, lasers aren't yet installed in sufficient numbers.


So now Iran has caves along all thousand miles of coast? And a massive air force?

The Argentine air force had one squadron and five exocets, they got two confirmed british ships sunk. The USS Stark was hit by both exocets fired at it.


The only real threat are the diesel subs.

The USS Cole showed a vulnerability to small boats. My in depth along the Gulf coast missile deployment includes semi trailer trucks, tankers and bus look alikes that hide missiles. Rail cars, green houses, warehouses, etc, all popping open to discharge at a given moment.


The carrier isn't operating alone, and will have both AWACS and land based fighter support in addition to their battle group.

Their battle group is in dire straits. The rest of the theatre assets will be organizing sea rescue operations for the foreseeable future.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull


Kamikaze. Dangerous? Of course. War winner? Not even remotely.

Japan had lost the war at that point. Propr driven aircraft were slow, the pilots young and inexperienced, distracted by heavy AA fire.

Radar detected the inbound flights, interceptors were launched, anti aircraft fire all played a role to knock out the majority of rag tag Kamikaze desperation measures. ETA: The majority… some still got through. Some will always get through.

A hypersonic , sea skimming cruise missile flies below most radar, is self guided, packs a harder punch than a WWII prop driven aircraft, bores in at sea level, striking and penetrating the hull before detonating its hi explosive warhead.

The advantages of cruise missiles as a first strike weapon is not lost on the US military, they are always the first weapons systems employed in the recent wars started in the Middle East, all the way back to Desert Storm.

Land based in Iran, they don't require anything but a truck to keep them mobile and hidden, unlike the massive floating Carrier and associated "group", which requires loads of support, personnel, jets, fuel, catapults and time to deliver a few bombs at a time. All operations to launch and retrieve aircraft come to a halt when the alarms sound of inbound cruise missiles.

There is no defense at this point except wait for them to close sufficiently to be destroyed. As far as mobility, I bet the Russians feed the groups location of the fleet in the Gulf to Iranian intelligence all the time. The missiles arrayed against them are on the other hand modern, numerous, camouflaged, and cheap.
edit on 30-3-2015 by intrptr because: spelling and ETA:



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Oh right. You can hand Iran nukes, but lasers arent in enough use. Got it.

The USS Stark had the Phalanx shut off. Defenses have also changed a lot since then.

The Cole was sitting anchored in a supposedly friendly port with small boats all around, waiting for a fuel boat. Yeah that's the same as ready for combat out at sea.

Oh right, those nukes you handed Iran. I keep firgetting you can hand them hypothetical weapons and everyone else can only use weapons tget alreasy have in large scale use.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So which is it Iran is using? A thousand hypersonic cruise missiles that you still haven't proved exist, or a thousand cruise missiles?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
US Carriers are for short sprints the fastest surface ships in the fleet. Since the USS Forrestal is being scrapped, I guess that I can tell this. April 1985 I was on a helicopter detachment to ride the Forrestal for it's sea trials after coming out of the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). One of the trials was a high speed run, followed by a sharp turn. I was in a Sea King helicopter that was chained to the filght deck. The helo was pointed right down the center line of the ship. There was a 15 knot wind and we were making our run straight into the wind. When the Forrestal reached it's top speed the air speed indicator of the helicopter I was in read just under 80 knots. When you subtract the wind we were doing just under 65 knots.

The biggest problem with these "super missiles" is how do you get targeting data to aim them? If you start painting a Carrier Battle Group with a targeting radar, they are going to notice that and any platform that you get close enough to do it is going to be toast. You could always launch a swarm of them to the area where you think the carrier is going to be, but it is a big ocean.

Nobody's mentioned little things like jamming, chaff, decoys and a few other things that are designed to make sure that those missiles miss their targets. We had a system in 1984 that would reliably decoy the Exocet, but, I'm not going into that.
edit on 30-3-2015 by JIMC5499 because: typo



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
When the Forrestal reached it's top speed the air speed indicator of the helicopter I was in read just under 80 knots. When you subtract the wind we were doing just under 65 knots.


The are plenty of articles that demonstrate the top speed of United States super carriers are in the 32 knot range.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Officially it is 30 knots +



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Officially it is 30 knots +


And hull design, turbine capacity and sea conditions keep it at approximately 32 knots for both the CV's and CVN's.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Aircraft Carrier Streches it's Legs

Tell me that is 30 knots. Hull design info is still classified for Forrestal class and every carrier since.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


So which is it Iran is using?

Every single one, when the time comes.


A thousand hypersonic cruise missiles that you still haven't proved exist,

I said if I were them…

Irans anti shipping missile inventory is all over the interwebz (like you don't know that).


"Tehran is quietly fielding increasingly lethal symmetric and asymmetric weapon systems, including more advanced naval mines, small but capable submarines, coastal defence cruise missile batteries, attack craft, and anti-ship ballistic missiles," the report's declassified executive summary said.

Janes



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

None of which are hypersonic, which you keep bringing up. There is one hypersonic cruise missile that was supposed to be entering active service last year. And Iran doesn't have it. It was a joint Russia/India project. Range is less than 200 miles, and speed is barely mach 5.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


None of which are hypersonic, which you keep bringing up.

From Janes link provided…


The Khalij Fars would be harder to intercept than Iran's conventional anti-ship missiles due to its significantly higher velocity (said to be Mach 3)…



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Mach 3 isn't hypersonic. Yes it would be harder, but nowhere near as difficult as an actual hypersonic missile.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499

Hull design info is still classified for Forrestal class and every carrier since.


The design speed for the USS Forrestal is in the public domain:


However, the design speed of the Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and JFK class carriers is public domain. US Navy Source


The article I linked, and released by the Navy, shows why turbine capacity is the major limiting aspect in regards top speed:


The JFK was designed for 33.5 knots, the Kitty Hawks 33.6, the Forrestal 32.0 and the other CVs of that class were designed for 33.0. All had powertrain installations designed to provide 280,000 shp except Forrestal which had 260,000 shp. In all cases, the power was delivered via four shafts.

So, the question is, how does the performance of the CVNs compare with that of the CVs? To determine this we have to look at the power train itself. The nuclear powerplant does not drive the ship directly; it generates steam which powers turbines which drive the screws. The power rating of the ship is the output of her turbines, not the steam generating capacity of the reactor. The turbines installed on the CVNs are identical to those on the CVs; they generate 280,000 shp over four shafts. Even if the nuclear reactor component did generate huge amounts of additional steam, there would be nowhere to put it. On these grounds alone, it seems extremely unlikely that a CVN would be any faster than a CV.


Fluid dynamics and simple physics explain why they are not capable of 65 knot speeds claimed in anecdotal evidence.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Mach 3 isn't hypersonic. Yes it would be harder, but nowhere near as difficult as an actual hypersonic missile.

And depending on how many of them. Its been in "mass production" since 2011 according to the Janes article.

How many is enough (for that type)?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Those "rag tag" aircraft were, for the time, nearly front line aircraft.

As an example: Mitsubishi A6M Model Zero. Codename: Zeke/Zero. 331 mph at @14000 ft. At one time? The finest fighter aircraft in the world. Even late in the war, it wasn't exactly helpless against the Vought Corsair (Marine) which were aboard some of the Essex class aircraft carriers, or the Grumman Hellcat, which was the predominant naval fighter in the US navy.

Here's a list of some of the other aircraft that were used, obviously many another were used, but these will do as an example:

Aichi D3A2 Dive bomber. Codename: Val. Early in the war, arguably the best dive bomber aircraft in the world. Very maneuverable, speed was 260 plus mph at @20,340 ft. Clearly, by this time of the war, it was very much a second-line aircraft, but not hopelessly so.

Nakajima B5N2 Torpedo/Level bomber. Codename: Kate. For most of the war, the finest torpedo bomber in the world. By this point in the war, it was virtually helpless in its intended roll, but as a low-level approach Kamikaze, it had a bit more success as it could maneuver.

Nakajima B6N2 Torpedo/Level bomber. Codename: Jill. A vast improvement over the prior Kate. 291 mph @ 20,000 feet. It was never numerous enough to tilt the field in any significant way. But it was a front line performer. Fast, fairly maneuverable, and again, a good low level performer.

Yokosuka D4Y Suisei Dive Bomber. Codename: Judy. Performance wise? May have been the most dangerous single engine aircraft the Japanese had during the war. Fast. Very fast. 348 mph. (The Grumman F6F5 Hellcat top speed: 386 mph. Miss the intercept? Long tail chase for the fighter.

Others were:

Mitsubishi KI-46 Twin engine bomber. Codename: Dinah. 375 mph.
Kawasaki KI-45 Heavy fighter. Codename: Nick. 339 mph.

Then, of course, there was a little aircraft called the Yokasuka MXY7 Ohka Codename: Baka. Capable of speeds approaching 600 mph.

Some of the aircraft were, of course, hopelessly obsolete even for their intended use as suicide aircraft...

But these I named, along with several others, were not. Had the pilots been up to the level of their aircraft? The nightmare off Okinawa, and the coast of Japan would have been much worse.

These aircraft were loaded with, not only bombs, but packed with explosives, as well.

United State Navy aircraft carrier flight decks were unarmoured teak wood. The hanger decks were unarmoured. Numerous of the Essex class took hits from these aircraft, some multiple hits. Yet only two carriers of the class were knocked out of the war: USS Franklin. USS Bunker Hill. Two of the older aircraft carriers were knocked out this way as well: USS Saratoga. USS Enterprise. None of these were sunk, though admittedly in the case of Franklin, it was a close call. All the others hit? Repaired very quickly and returned to action.

No ship larger than a destroyer were sunk by kamikaze aircraft.

Given the magnitude of differences between the Essex class, and the Nimitz class, and the differences between the weapons available? I venture to guess the Nimitz-class is even harder to sink then an Essex-class.

Damage control. Compartmentalization. All these factor into how well a ship can be expected to weather an attack of this sort. A modern super carrier has the firefighting capability of a not so small city, and they constantly practice these things. They also practice tactics against cruise missiles, and "hypersonic" missiles.

Sure, given enough missiles, it's entirely possible that you might be able to swamp a carrier battle groups defenses. But no nation on Earth, outside of perhaps China has the capability, and I doubt China could do it.

So spare us the hyperbole of how "obsolete" , and "helpless" a carrier, and its battle group is in the face of missiles. They're no such thing.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

65 knots? Unlikely. But the better part of 40 plus? I've heard this from many navy folk I've talked to. For a critter weighing over 100000 tonnes, that's hauling the freight...
.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join