Aircraft Carriers

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Aircraft Carriers

I made this thread for discussion of aircraft carriers, thier importance in battle, their abilities, etc.

First I would want to make it clear that aircraft carriers from different countries are built to different standard.

For example Russia and USA have different standards in their aircraft carriers. Russia makes its aircraft carriers by leaning more toward the missile defence system. Russian aircraft carriers can even arry nukes.

MISSILES
The ship has a Granit anti-ship missile system equipped with twelve surface-to-surface missile launchers. The Granit missile (NATO codename SS-N-19 Shipwreck) is reported to have a range greater than 400km and is capable of carrying either a nuclear or conventional warhead.
The Klinok air defence missile system, with 24 vertical launchers and 192 missiles, defends the ship against anti-ship missiles, aircraft and surface ships. The system has a multi-channel electronically steered phased array radar and can achieve a firing rate of one missile every 3s. Four targets can be engaged simultaneously in a 60 x 60 sector. The range of the system is 12 to 15km.
The Kashstan Air Defence Gun/Missile System, supplied by the Instrument Design Bureau and Tulamashzavod JSC in Tula, provides defence against precision weapons including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, aircraft and small sea targets. Eight systems are fitted, combining missile launcher, 30mm twin gun and radar/optronic director. The range of the laser beam-riding missiles is from 1.5 to 8km. The gun can fire up to 1,000 rounds/min in the range 0.5 to 1.5km. Six AK630 AD 30mm air defence guns are also fitted.

AIRCRAFT
The flight deck area is 14,700m and aircraft take-off is assisted by a bow ski-jump angled at 12. The flight deck is equipped with arrester wires. Two starboard lifts carry the aircraft from the hangar to the flight deck.
The ship has the capacity to support 16 Yakovlev Yak-41M (NATO code name Freestyle), twelve Sukhoi Su-27K (NATO codename Flanker) fixed-wing aircraft and a range of helicopters including four Kamov Ka-27-LD (NATO codename Helix), 18 Kamov Ka-27 PLO, and two Ka-27-S.


On the other hand USA leans more towards more air superiorty. USA has much more air units on their carriers and they therefore dont need a very good missile defence system because it has more aircrafts to protect its fleet.

AIRCRAFT
The 50 TACAIR air wing includes the following fixed wing aircraft: 20 F-14D "Bomcats" (Tomcats with a strike role), 36 F/A-18 Hornets, 8 S-3A/B Vikings, 4 E-2C Hawkeyes, and 4 EA-6B Prowlers; and the following helicopters: 4 SH-60F and 2 HH-60H Seahawks. Air wings can be varied according to the nature of the operation: for example, in 1994, 50 army helicopters replaced the usual air wing on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower during operations off Haiti.
The flight deck measures 333 x 77m and is equipped with four lifts, four steam-driven catapults and four arrester wires. The carrier is capable of launching one aircraft every 20s.

MISSILES
The more recently built carriers are armed with three Raytheon GMLS Mk 29 eight-cell launchers for Nato Seasparrow surface-to-air missiles. Seasparrow has a range of 14.5km and semi-active radar terminal guidance. The carriers are also being fitted with the Raytheon RAM (Rolling Airframe) missile system, which provides short-range defence against incoming anti-ship missiles, including sea-skimming missiles.


By this what I want to say is I dont want any bashing on this thread. For example "Russian units suck" or "Russian carrier can take a USA carrier."
This thread is for people that want to be civilized and discuss and important topic.


U.K. is now proposing to built two new carriers.

The UK Future Aircraft Carrier, CVF, requirement is for two 55,000t to 60,000t carriers which will enter service in the years 2012 and 2015. They will be the largest warships built in the UK. Each carrier will be capable of embarking an air group of 50 aircraft. The carriers will be twice the size of the three Invincible Class carriers and accommodate twice as many aircraft. The crew will be about 600, only 15 more than the Invincible, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems. It has been decided that Portsmouth will be the carriers' home port.



This carrier will have the all new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters on it.

www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...

Out,
Russian


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Russian]




posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
well, here is new info on russian plans to build more carriers:

"New Aircraft Carrier to Be Launched by 2017

The Russian Federation naval commander-in-chief, Admiral of the Fleet Vladimir Kuroedov, has announced plans for introducing a new aircraft carrier into the combat fleet by 2017. A draft of the new aircraft carrier will be developed by 2010, and by 2016 - 2017 it will enter the Northern Fleet.

Moreover, the construction of another aircraft carrying cruiser has been planned, but for the Pacific Ocean Fleet. In 3 years, there also will be a new multirole airplane developed for carrier-based ((PALUBNAYA)) aviation.

Source: 05.03.04, KMNews.RU "



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I was stationed onboard the USS Midway, a survivor of WWII (not me, the ship), so I cannot say anything in regards to the modern carrier force.

What had impressed me about the Midway was the fact it was built from a battleship hull; the entire-ty of its hull was blistered to help in torpedo or bomb damage.

Also on the ship (as well as more modern ones) were self guided/firing anti missle gatlin guns which fired depleted uranium. These were able to lock on to any incoming missle and shoot it before impact.

Then, of course, you have the carrier escorts. Never sailing too far away, they too had as their top priority, to stop incoming missiles by any means necessary. Wether it meant to shoot them down, or try to get in the way, those little ships were a part of our defense.

But I can see where you are coming from. Just from looking at pictures of the Kiev can show anyone what you mean.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I like the american cvnx much more. no more steam catapult but a magnetic launch system. stealthy design ect. all antenna's inboard.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer
I was stationed onboard the USS Midway, a survivor of WWII (not me, the ship), so I cannot say anything in regards to the modern carrier force.

What had impressed me about the Midway was the fact it was built from a battleship hull; the entire-ty of its hull was blistered to help in torpedo or bomb damage.

Also on the ship (as well as more modern ones) were self guided/firing anti missle gatlin guns which fired depleted uranium. These were able to lock on to any incoming missle and shoot it before impact.

Then, of course, you have the carrier escorts. Never sailing too far away, they too had as their top priority, to stop incoming missiles by any means necessary. Wether it meant to shoot them down, or try to get in the way, those little ships were a part of our defense.

But I can see where you are coming from. Just from looking at pictures of the Kiev can show anyone what you mean.


We are talking only about aircraft carriers.

And if USA has less missile defence system that doesnt make them any worse then Russia.

They have a better air superiority the Russia.

It is just the standards they use and what they think will help them more.

Out,
Russian



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The Midway was a carrier, CV-41, stationed in Japan. Flag ship of the first Persian Gulf War. Decomissioned in San Diego in 1991.

The escort ships I mentioned are other ships, but was part of the defense system.

I'm not saying anything about who's is better; every ship is designed for specific purposes and roles. Personally, I think ANY carrier is worthy of attention. It just so happens that the carriers from WWII had different needs than modern ones... and, since that was the only carrier I knew (other than photographs), that was the only carrier I can honestly discuss without screwing up my facts.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   


U.K. is now proposing to built two new carriers.

The UK Future Aircraft Carrier, CVF, requirement is for two 55,000t to 60,000t carriers which will enter service in the years 2012 and 2015. They will be the largest warships built in the UK. Each carrier will be capable of embarking an air group of 50 aircraft. The carriers will be twice the size of the three Invincible Class carriers and accommodate twice as many aircraft. The crew will be about 600, only 15 more than the Invincible, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems. It has been decided that Portsmouth will be the carriers' home port.


Yeah - but there have just been MAJOR cutbacks in the military. These carriers just keep on getting smaller and smaller. Blair should stop pratting about and give our armed forces some real funding.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
aircraft carriers are a crucial part of power projection. U.S. carriers are definatly made and deployed to that end. High aircraft capacity, large contigent of support ships. U.S. carriers relie to much on stopping an attack (on the carrier group itself) before it starts. in a large scale sea-war against a another tech advanced enemy...we would see the failings of U.S. based anti-missle defense. with the advent of over-the-horizon attack..a U.S. carrier would be spending its time trying to deploy aircraft to attack multipule targets that could be launching multiple missles against the U.S. ship. once those missles are launched...its basically hope and pray that the 'gatling guns' will stop the missles.

that said...the U.S. has much more concern with power projection and having, basicaly, a moblie air force that can be deployed around the world, complete with an air field and supplies. to that end the U.S. carrier group far out classes other countries but................................



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The Russian design seems more like a mobile missile platform with a few aircraft on it. The american version is the opposite, it would simply overwhelm its enemy with aircraft to stop it.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
What you need is a combined battleship and aircraft carrier.

During WW2, unless a battleship was heavily out numbered like the Bismark was (it took several battleships and heavy cruisers 2 hours to sink it) it is virtually unsinkable when at full battle alert. This was true until aircraft carriers came along. The planes could easily dodge the huge guns and drop torpedoes.

So, a combination. Battleship half to take on other ships and for shore bombardment, and the aircraft side to halt incoming planes.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Just throw a nuke or two at a carrier. US defences have always severely underestimated the effect of thermal radiation damage from nuclear weapons. Detonated at 2 or 3 kilometres, the heat from a nuclear flash would set the aircraft carrier deck on fire. Mad scientist posted a topic on this.

Missile defences may stop a few, but there are ways through those. No offense to the Navy chaps, but aircraft carriers lose their value if the enemy has nukes and means of delivering them (e.g cruise missiles). It's just a fact.

But in this day and age, who has nukes is willing to use them? Nobody. Always a good thing.


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Aircraft Carriers

I made this thread for discussion of aircraft carriers, thier importance in battle, their abilities, etc.

First I would want to make it clear that aircraft carriers from different countries are built to different standard.

For example Russia and USA have different standards in their aircraft carriers. Russia makes its aircraft carriers by leaning more toward the missile defence system. Russian aircraft carriers can even arry nukes.

MISSILES
The ship has a Granit anti-ship missile system equipped with twelve surface-to-surface missile launchers. The Granit missile (NATO codename SS-N-19 Shipwreck) is reported to have a range greater than 400km and is capable of carrying either a nuclear or conventional warhead.
The Klinok air defence missile system, with 24 vertical launchers and 192 missiles, defends the ship against anti-ship missiles, aircraft and surface ships. The system has a multi-channel electronically steered phased array radar and can achieve a firing rate of one missile every 3s. Four targets can be engaged simultaneously in a 60 x 60 sector. The range of the system is 12 to 15km.
The Kashstan Air Defence Gun/Missile System, supplied by the Instrument Design Bureau and Tulamashzavod JSC in Tula, provides defence against precision weapons including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, aircraft and small sea targets. Eight systems are fitted, combining missile launcher, 30mm twin gun and radar/optronic director. The range of the laser beam-riding missiles is from 1.5 to 8km. The gun can fire up to 1,000 rounds/min in the range 0.5 to 1.5km. Six AK630 AD 30mm air defence guns are also fitted.

AIRCRAFT
The flight deck area is 14,700m and aircraft take-off is assisted by a bow ski-jump angled at 12. The flight deck is equipped with arrester wires. Two starboard lifts carry the aircraft from the hangar to the flight deck.
The ship has the capacity to support 16 Yakovlev Yak-41M (NATO code name Freestyle), twelve Sukhoi Su-27K (NATO codename Flanker) fixed-wing aircraft and a range of helicopters including four Kamov Ka-27-LD (NATO codename Helix), 18 Kamov Ka-27 PLO, and two Ka-27-S.


On the other hand USA leans more towards more air superiorty. USA has much more air units on their carriers and they therefore dont need a very good missile defence system because it has more aircrafts to protect its fleet.

AIRCRAFT
The 50 TACAIR air wing includes the following fixed wing aircraft: 20 F-14D "Bomcats" (Tomcats with a strike role), 36 F/A-18 Hornets, 8 S-3A/B Vikings, 4 E-2C Hawkeyes, and 4 EA-6B Prowlers; and the following helicopters: 4 SH-60F and 2 HH-60H Seahawks. Air wings can be varied according to the nature of the operation: for example, in 1994, 50 army helicopters replaced the usual air wing on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower during operations off Haiti.
The flight deck measures 333 x 77m and is equipped with four lifts, four steam-driven catapults and four arrester wires. The carrier is capable of launching one aircraft every 20s.

MISSILES
The more recently built carriers are armed with three Raytheon GMLS Mk 29 eight-cell launchers for Nato Seasparrow surface-to-air missiles. Seasparrow has a range of 14.5km and semi-active radar terminal guidance. The carriers are also being fitted with the Raytheon RAM (Rolling Airframe) missile system, which provides short-range defence against incoming anti-ship missiles, including sea-skimming missiles.


By this what I want to say is I dont want any bashing on this thread. For example "Russian units suck" or "Russian carrier can take a USA carrier."
This thread is for people that want to be civilized and discuss and important topic.


U.K. is now proposing to built two new carriers.

The UK Future Aircraft Carrier, CVF, requirement is for two 55,000t to 60,000t carriers which will enter service in the years 2012 and 2015. They will be the largest warships built in the UK. Each carrier will be capable of embarking an air group of 50 aircraft. The carriers will be twice the size of the three Invincible Class carriers and accommodate twice as many aircraft. The crew will be about 600, only 15 more than the Invincible, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems. It has been decided that Portsmouth will be the carriers' home port.



This carrier will have the all new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters on it.

www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...
www.naval-technology.com...

Out,
Russian


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Russian]



dude a nimitz class would rip this thing a new asshole

[Edited on 3-28-2004 by KrazyIvan]



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
Just throw a nuke or two at a carrier. US defences have always severely underestimated the effect of thermal radiation damage from nuclear weapons. Detonated at 2 or 3 kilometres, the heat from a nuclear flash would set the aircraft carrier deck on fire. Mad scientist posted a topic on this.

Missile defences may stop a few, but there are ways through those. No offense to the Navy chaps, but aircraft carriers lose their value if the enemy has nukes and means of delivering them (e.g cruise missiles). It's just a fact.

But in this day and age, who has nukes is willing to use them? Nobody. Always a good thing.


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Lampyridae]


F-14s can interecpt cruise missiles



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
euh most of the american carriers if not all are nuclear some stealth missles will do the job. if you have them hit the reactor on board of this craft. but I like not saying more about it because it may give terrorist some ideas and that is not what I want.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
krazzy ivan can i point out a wee itty bitty fact u say that a nimitz class ship can as you so delacatly put it "rip this thing a new asshole" but please exsplain to me if a nimitz class is so good then why did 1 thats right uno, une , one not two but 1 type 23 frigate sail up to USS enterprize a nimitz class ship if i am not correct(please correct if wrong) unchallanged and blow it up in war games and sail home unchallanged by her or her escorts.
as we brits put it "stitch that jimmy"



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
i'm surprised you need an answer to that question - its cause we're lush



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   
All aircraft carriers have their merits. American vessels have great airpower, the ability to take that power inland as shown in Afghanistan and enforce US Policy. They however do need a large escort force including submarines as they can not easily defend themselves against a cunning enemy.

Russian vessels are designed to either support Marine type operations or using onboard missiles, go on the offence against enemy naval forces.

The smaller carriers used by the UK, Italian, French and Spanish navies to name a few are able to support marine operations, provide limited air suport but are also affordable for that nation.

Any carrier is vulnerable to enemy action, as shown in several exercises through the years. A good ship captain, a great attack pilot or just plain luck will see a billion dollar carrier destroyed.

They are however a visible deterent to enemy action and used politicaly to state their nations interest in an area. The UK did this way back in the 60's when Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait. Sent 1 carrier and a small marine task force, Iraq got the message and backed off.

Brazil has brought the old French carrier for simular reasons, to mount a presence in the Atlantic and protect her sea rigs from enemy action.

A good fiction novel, Nimitz Class by Patrick Robinson has a Russian Kilo class submarine destory a Nimitc class carrier using a nuke torpedo. Fiction maybe but it does show they are vulnerable.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The US also has thing like this:






The Wasp-class are the largest amphibious ships in the world. WASP class ships are the first to be specifically designed to accomidate the AV-8B Harrier jump jet and the LCAC hovercraft, along with the full range of Navy and Marine helicopters, conventional landing craft and amphibious assault vehicles to support a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) of 2,000 Marines. The ships also carry some of the most sophisticated communications, command and control capabilities afloat, alongwith state of the art electronic systems and defensive weaponry.




Specifications
Power Plant Two boilers (600 PSI), two geared steam turbines,
two shafts, 70,000 shaft horsepower
LHD-8 General Electric [GE] "LM 2500 plus" gas turbine engines
Length 844 feet (253.2 meters)
Beam 106 feet (31.8 meters) at waterline
200 feet w/flight deck elevators extended
Draft 27 feet Maximum (Full Load)
36 feet at the stern [ballasted]
Displacement Approx. 40,500 tons (36,450 metric tons) full load
Speed 20+ knots (23.5+ miles per hour)
Range 9,500 nm @ 20 knots
Fuel 6,200 tons, plus
1,232 tons aircraft fuel
Aircraft (Actual mix depends upon mission)

RECENT DEPLOYMENTS
12 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
4 - CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
2 - UH-1N Huey helicopters [3 on 11 MEU WestPac 01-1]
4 - AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopter
6 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes [none on 11 MEU WestPac 01-1]

OR
12 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
9 - CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
4 - UH-1N Huey helicopters
4 - AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopter
6 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes

OR
12 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
9 - CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
6 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes

OR
Assault
42 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters

OR
Sea Control
20 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes
6 - ASW helicopters
Landing Craft 2 LCU Landing Craft, Utility or
3 LCAC Landing Craft, Air Cushion or
6 LCM-8 Landing Craft, Mechanized or
40 AAV Amphibious Assault Vehicle [normal] or
61 AAV Amphibious Assault Vehicle [stowed]

Armament 2 - MK29 launchers for NATO Sea Sparrow
3 - MK15 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts
8 - MK33 .50 cal. machine guns
Combat and Control Systems AN/SLQ-49 Chaff Bouys
AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE Towed Torpedo Countermeasures
SRS-1 Combat D/F
AN/SLQ-32(V)3 Electronic Warfare (EW) system
1 AN/SPS-48 radar
1 AN/SPS-49(V)7 radar
1 AN/SPS-64 radar
1 AN/SPS-67 radar
AN/SYS-2 Detection/Tracking System
1 MK-23 Target Acquisition System (TAS)
1 MK-36 Chaff Launcher
MK-91 Fire control System
Crew 104 officers + 1,004 enlisted Ships Company
1,075 Ships Company crewmembers
1,600-1,894 Marine Detachment embarked troops Departments
Aircraft Maintenance
Air
Combat Systems
Deck
Dental
Engineering
Executive
Medical
Navigation
Operations
Religious Ministries
Supply







[Edited on 28-3-2004 by jetsetter]



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Just wait till the stealth ships america has comin out. Ill try to find teh popular mechanics article about them



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Aircraft carriers are very vulnerable yet powerfull. IMO they aren't as valuable in a full blow war between 2 strong nations. As was stated, nukes wipe them out. This is why when I was so shocked to find out that during US war games, there was a "no nuking CBG's." This makes no sense as it would be the first thing an enemy would do if they had them.

Carriers are better served as forward bases in conflicts such as in the middle east. Against a strong oponent, I think it's like putting all your eggs in 1 basket. They are expensive, have lots of planes/men, and can be destroyed by a nuke.

One thing I would like to add to the defenses are the new lasers being made by the US. A solid state laser powered by a nuke reactor might prove to make the nuke cruise missle obsolete.





 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def