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.

 

Battleships VS. Aircraft Carriers

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
actually if the carrier and a battle ship went into comabt then i suppose the battleship would win because it takes some time to fuel arm launch a plane

Not possible, well only if the aircraft carrier were armed with only 3 or 4 aircraft, but no, a carrier can be armed with more than 30 aircraft and continuously launch those aircraft in sequence and waves.

The battleship would not stand a chance against so much bombardment from so many waves, the battleship would sink, this power was shown in WW1 and WW2 and post war and cold war.

It is why battleships are rarely-close to never used anymore.

Shattered OUT...




posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinja
I guess no one got Starcraft reference

Well, to be more serious Battleships are pretty much obsolete nowadays. The range of new aircraft out does anti Aircraft from Battleships. If one plane beats it, then one carrier is gonna ..err beat it more. Though battleships are obsolete stealth warships might stand a chance. Even though no final versions are made the military prototypes are cool. And no, they are not secret weapons, they are declassified ships.

Ok one to many problems with this, first off I do have a starcraft reference, infact i used to play it almost every single day for atleast 5 hours straight or more.

Second, where did you get the info for "stealth boats are only prototypes?" That is not true, there are massed produced versions of stealth naval implements on ships, only not in the American inventory, more like the swedish or Norwegian.

And yes new prototypes are cool, but stealth navy vesels are no dream, they are reality and used extensively.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
So your friend is all about brute force;
I can't think of anything that describes brute force or has the ability to deliver brute force to an enemy more than the azz whuppin' a swarm of F-14's and F-18's can put on.

Carriers are generally NOT vulnerable to other ships because their aircraft take the business to the enemy's location, and it is very unlikely the aircraft of a carrier would allow an enemy combat vessel to come within striking distance without finding itself sinking to the bottom of the sea with nothing but a flaming oil slick on the water and sharkbait sailors flailing about where it once was.

"Plus he thinks that battleships have more firepower."
He is sooooo wrong. and as for a battleship getting in close to an enemy, 2 words come to mind immediately, Silkworm and Exocet, (i forget the Russian anti-ship missile).



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
battleships are obsolete but thier excellent for beach landings thier firepower is fantastic
i mean u can send a shell places an f18 couldt



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Ok lets say that an improbable match up between a battleship and an aircraft carrier was to happen, lets take a modernized Iowa class battleship and a Nimitz class carrier as the protagonist's. These opponents are at an initial distance 80 miles when the action starts (improbably close for carrier tactics but what the hey)

Carrier borne Awacs picks up battleship on its radar and directs two of its Cap F-14's to recon and harass the battleship while CIC orders ready F-18 fighter bombers to launch. While more are being made ready to launch second strike.

At about this time the battleship picks up the fast approach of highspeed bogeys on its radar and readies its defensive suite of 5" and under AA weaponry and vulcan phalanx gun batteries, they even have crewman on deck with shoulder launched stinger missiles. They do not have the carriers location due to lack of over the horizon recon, hence their harpoon antiship missiles are as good as useless.

The F-14 cap fighter pilots are well aware of the close in anti-aircraft capability of this rogue battleship and feint several highspeed attacks attacks causing the battleship to manuever wildly while trying to avoid being precisely targeted, this manuevering prevents launch of its targeting drone that could have been used in an attempt to locate the carrier.

The first wave of F-18's arrives and fires a salvo of anti-ship missiles from stand-off range.

Of the twelve missiles launched, 9 are successfully shot down but 3 make hits in the pop up method. This attack causes severe damage to top mounted sensors and weapon directors effectivly blinding the CIC of the battleship to the following waves of attack planes from the carrier.

Due to the battleships heavy armor and compartmentalization along with valient effort of damage control it takes a further 40 minutes of repeated attacks by carrier borne aircraft to sink the ship.

The battleship never had a chance because seperated from its escort during the mutiny it had no recon ability to detect the carriers location and launch a retaliatory or for that matter a first strike which really in the end was its only chance.

Thus ended the mutiny of the Iowa.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Pheonix, you expect to shoot down aluminum and metal alloy bodies with a 5"?

That is a waste of ammo, that is the size of a 70mm, are you aware of that?

You might as well be using flak cannon, those will do thde job perfect when it comes to Bombers.

Plus a battleship does not have the engine power to haul its arse across 80 miles to an aircraft carrier that is already within assault range, hell that is even out of the battleship's durasdiction. A closer battle range of about 40 miles, give the battleship a chance, and Iowa will not cut it, use an Ohio class dreadnought(battleship with about 9 120mm cannons-YOWSERS!).

And F/A-18's won't cut it either, you will be better off using F-14's for this one the entire way. And for recon use carrier UAV's(I know some naval ships are armed with those). And plus you would need torpedos to put a hole in the ship or bomblets to scale the decks. Furst priorty would be using Air-to-ground missiles to take out the 120mm's so that if by any chance the battleship does get in range which is less than 10 miles I'am sure, then the carrier is impervious from heavy cannon fire.

Then we must not forget the SAM's that battleships are armed with, those can take out F-14's in mere seconds.

Well the battleship has to have some defense from aircraft doesn't it?

O and Battleships+landshore loaded down with land batteries=Many destroyed battleships, the only thing you will see firing on the shore from a safe distance will be more like cruisers, or some sort of revised, smaller, cheaper version of an arsenal.
(some info on the "Arsenal"-
www.fas.org...)










Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
ShatteredSkies, no true battleship has been in production since WW-II, the Iowa class was considered the most refined for all around battle due to speed and armament, even with the upgrades done during the Reagan years a battle ship in EXISTANCE does not stand a chance of surviving an assualt by an Aircraft carrier of the Nimitz class period.

Now if we're going to speculate on ships not yet in existance then I would still surmise that the tech lead will remain with the carrier without a doubt.

I love battleships for the heavymetal element of their construction but I would'nt want to be on one up against modern air attack.

5" guns were used extensivly for AA, even the main 16" guns were used on occasion in this role believe it or not.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a battleship can be deadly if in the right hands i mean if its in the rigth position it can cause a hell oh a lot of damage to a carrier group it wont survive but it could do a serios amount of damage people underestimate the power of a battleship



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The Aircraft Carrier has one major advantage over the battleship: Versitility

Battle ships depend on fixed weapons such as built on guns to fight, this means you are limited to the weapons that are built onto the ship and any major upgrades require time in dry dock.

Since an aircraft carrier gets it power from the aircraft it carries, it can be reconfigured by simply switching out its air wing. In the feild this means you can take a carrier equiped with F-14's and F-18's in an air defense configuration and configure it for an Offensive strike mission in an hour or so. Also, the carriers fire power can be upgraded by simply introducing new aircraft.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
a battleship can be deadly if in the right hands i mean if its in the rigth position it can cause a hell oh a lot of damage to a carrier group it wont survive but it could do a serios amount of damage people underestimate the power of a battleship


I would agree with you if it had the ability to sneak up on it. So long as the carrier keeps a Hawkeye up, it would have nothing to fear.

One other point to bring up, a carrier is faster than a battleship. They are also more manueverable than you might think.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
ShatteredSkies, no true battleship has been in production since WW-II, the Iowa class was considered the most refined for all around battle due to speed and armament, even with the upgrades done during the Reagan years a battle ship in EXISTANCE does not stand a chance of surviving an assualt by an Aircraft carrier of the Nimitz class period.

Now if we're going to speculate on ships not yet in existance then I would still surmise that the tech lead will remain with the carrier without a doubt.

I love battleships for the heavymetal element of their construction but I would'nt want to be on one up against modern air attack.

5" guns were used extensivly for AA, even the main 16" guns were used on occasion in this role believe it or not.

You seemed to have missed my point, I was saying that Battleships have decreased in use and value after WW2, plus the arsenal is no dream, it is very real, if only it hadn't been cancelled by senate back in the 90's because it took a huge chunk out of the American budget.

And also, to my current knowledge, carriers max speed is over +30 knots and is among the most manueverable ships in its class for its size and weight, that thing weighs more than a 300,000 tons, you try lifting that.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
You seemed to have missed my point, I was saying that Battleships have decreased in use and value after WW2, plus the arsenal is no dream, it is very real, if only it hadn't been cancelled by senate back in the 90's because it took a huge chunk out of the American budget.


The Arsenal ship?

That thing was a piece of crap. The best thing that we ever did was to get rid of that crappy idea. I would not want to be one of the people who would have been stationed on there.

It was a stupid concept that the Navy was never really behind.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
You seemed to have missed my point, I was saying that Battleships have decreased in use and value after WW2, plus the arsenal is no dream, it is very real, if only it hadn't been cancelled by senate back in the 90's because it took a huge chunk out of the American budget.


The Arsenal ship?

That thing was a piece of crap. The best thing that we ever did was to get rid of that crappy idea. I would not want to be one of the people who would have been stationed on there.

It was a stupid concept that the Navy was never really behind.
You are no comedian Cool Hand, for the sole reason that the Navy was behind the Arsenal, and that you would not need to worry about being a person on it because it was almost fully automated, a ship that size would require about 300-400 crew, instead it was brought down to 50-60.

It would have played a huge role in land invasions, first off it had the capability to sneak up on the enemy and be able to "scratch their belly" and take them out. IT was a stealth naval vessel and had SAM defenses and many missile implements to to support it, the only reason i see was good for cancelling it, was because it took up alot of the funds needed for SAP's(Special Access Programs).

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Dude, I've seen stuff, discussed, read... battleships are obsolete; they just can't match the versatility of an aircraft carrier squadron.. i no people have already said this, but wutever.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 06:22 AM
link   
You are no comedian Cool Hand, for the sole reason that the Navy was behind the Arsenal, and that you would not need to worry about being a person on it because it was almost fully automated, a ship that size would require about 300-400 crew, instead it was brought down to 50-60.

There was no way that they could have had the crew down to that size. There are too many security concerns and PMS that needs to be accomplished on a daily basis.

It would have played a huge role in land invasions, first off it had the capability to sneak up on the enemy and be able to "scratch their belly" and take them out. IT was a stealth naval vessel and had SAM defenses and many missile implements to to support it, the only reason i see was good for cancelling it, was because it took up alot of the funds needed for SAP's(Special Access Programs).

Shattered OUT...

It was a piece of crap. Why put SAMs on it and then have no directors? It had to work in conjunction with several ships in order to provide it with targeting information. Does that make any sense to you?



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Arsenal Ship was just a little ahead of its time.

The DD(X) is a direct descendent of the AS, and will use much of the technology proposed for AS.

BTW, the MFR/VSR phased array radar suite being built for DD(X) would have worked perfectly on AS and would have given it an automated longer range capability for search, detection, tracking and fire control for advanced SM-2's and SM-3's.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
BTW, the MFR/VSR phased array radar suite being built for DD(X) would have worked perfectly on AS and would have given it an automated longer range capability for search, detection, tracking and fire control for advanced SM-2's and SM-3's.


True, but the AS was never supposed to have tracking capabilities. She was supposed to link up and use other ships to provide the tracking for her missiles.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   
u say an aircraft carrier can kick a battleships ass
ok ill let u have that as an opinion

i have to say that if they where to design a new modern battleship it could probably kick a aircraft carriers ass

1stly shells cant be brought down like misiles can
2ncdly a battleships armor (well the old battleships armor) would stop a missile quite easily if the armor was not just on the sides but on top as well

3rdly the guns on an old battle ship could blow holes in a aircraft carrier



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
1stly shells cant be brought down like misiles can
2ncdly a battleships armor (well the old battleships armor) would stop a missile quite easily if the armor was not just on the sides but on top as well

3rdly the guns on an old battle ship could blow holes in a aircraft carrier


1. Yes they can, it is even easier to bring down that a missile due to speed and manuervability limits.
2. Rounds have been developed that can punch through the armor of a BB. The secret is in the compartmentlization.
3. Yes, only if it could get close enough.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
1. ok let me c u bring down a ton of metal with more metal
2.if a battleship was given the latest armor it could with stand bullets and missiles if it was given the same defenses as most vessels then it would stop an air attack
3.cool can i ask u a question?
u do realise that the bigger the diameter the barrel of the turret then the farther it will travel so a battleship could sink an aircraft carrier at 15 miles

lastly cool im guessing ur an aircraft person am i right?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join