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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I've been to Norfolk Navel Base and I went aboard the USS Enterprise. Shes an impressive ship to say the least. It would probably take a lot to take down a carrier. Just the fact there are who nows how many compartments. Plus I've heard that an AIM-54 Phoenix launched off a F-14 Tomcat could hit cruise missles at virtully any alltitude.




posted on May, 1 2004 @ 03:51 AM
link   
look sorry but we;ve done this thread ti bits i think we should let it nacht und nabel (dissaper into night and fog)



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Author, how can you ask this question? The reason aircraft carriers and and battleships travel in Carrier Battle Groups is becasue the ships in them are codependant on eachother. Where one ship lacks in power, speed, mobility, etc, another ship is there to 'fill in the gap'. Maybe if you were comparing the classic battleships of the WWII era, the peak of their effectiveness, to the carrriers of that era, than I would have to be in favor of the battleship. With it's HUGE cannons, hundreds of AA guns, powerful engines, etc etc, what could compete? Today however, both ships rely on S-S and S-A missiles, and (in the case of the battleship) not so much in huge cannons. They rely on radar working in tandem with the missiles and not so much on AA guns. The aircraft carrier also relies on its air wing of which the battleship (and other ships in the CBG) is dependant. Your freind needs to rethink his idea of what battleships do these days as they too fire from afar. In the WWII era they fired their cannons both onto land (D-Day) and at each other - exciting but obsolete.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
In a duel between the two today, I believe the carrier is far superior. The battleship has really but one role, to protect the carrier task force. The carrier on the other hand has multiple roles. Anything from Ground support to refueling and signal jamming. The two ships are close in speed. But the carrier is far more functional and able to adapt to different threats, than the battleship is.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
the carrier the battle ship is good for close fighting which was practical during ww2 but now when do you see 2 enemy ships in a couple of yard from each other never the carrieer would lauch its jets and the battle ship cant fight back cuz its only good for close fighing.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
People constantly say that the battleship would shred it at close range. Well that is if it did get close. But if aircraft were all ready in already in the air I figure the aircraft would shred the battleship.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
devilwasp just brought up a good point, newer technology.
I think that one problem with the comparisons we're making here is the old WWII battleship with updated systems to build from scratch modern carriers. Given the half century of weapons developpment put into making carriers what they are today. Give the battleships some slack in that department and the carriers all of a sudden have a problem. A modern battleship would be nuclear for one thing and therefor have lots of power and speed, comparable to a carrier perhaps, also it would be the perfect platform for mass drivers or a similar hyper-velocity projectile weapon. Potentially they could outrange many air to surface missiles, not however the aircraft carrying them. However the secondary battery would probably be developped as well into heavy AA and using flack could virtually negate using missiles against the battleship. 10 of those 5"s per side throwing flack into the path would make it damn hard to hit. Some will read this and think I'm trying to hard to make it work and maybe I am, but I can see a place for a limited number of these ships in todays world as a carriers group killer. I wouldn't want these in the same numbers as the U.S. has carriers, but on group or two based around a modern battleship could royally kick ass of every ship they met on radar.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
That is why they got retired they were nothing but an expensive launching platform for missiles and other things you have that in a modern cruiser and destroyer no need for an expensive battleship.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That is why they got retired they were nothing but an expensive launching platform for missiles and other things you have that in a modern cruiser and destroyer no need for an expensive battleship.


A modern cruiser or destroyer will not do as good of a job against fortified beach positions as a battleship would do. The larger the projectile the more damage you can inflict.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
it depends on velocity too(if you're talking about naval rail guns)
a 5" projectile could do the same amount of damage as a 16" but it would have to go at a much greater speed



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I think the battleship would sink the aircraft carrier...and then get sunk its self. lol
.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Cruise missiles form a destroyer wont do as much of a damage as a battle ship wrong the missile will do more damage and you can program it where to hit unlike battle ship shells.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Cruise missiles form a destroyer wont do as much of a damage as a battle ship wrong the missile will do more damage and you can program it where to hit unlike battle ship shells.


You can program it to hit whatever you want, but if there is not enough explosive force going at a sufficient speed your damage will not be as great.

A crusie missile would be a waste for shore bombardment. It would be much cheaper to lob shells at the enemy. The whole point of a cruise missile is to go after strategic targets that are too dangerous to risk a plane (and pilot).



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 06:57 AM
link   
What would you rather have firing shells like a idiot or firing cruise missiles to hit the important stuff then use the small 5 inch guns for other stuff less ammo wasted more efficient and faster.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What would you rather have firing shells like a idiot or firing cruise missiles to hit the important stuff then use the small 5 inch guns for other stuff less ammo wasted more efficient and faster.


Geez, are you opposed to artillery support as well? Why not just have the troops call in for a cruise missile mission.

There is no need for a expensive cruise missile when a shell can do the same job quicker and faster. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get the missile ready to fly, target, and then launch?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
How is it faster battle ships are obsolete end of discussion that is why the navy retired them they are not coming back this discussion is pointless cruisers and destroyers are the future good bye have a nice day



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How is it faster battle ships are obsolete end of discussion that is why the navy retired them they are not coming back this discussion is pointless cruisers and destroyers are the future good bye have a nice day



You could shoot several salvos from a battleship before you could launch your first cruise missile. You can retarget much quicker with a gun, etc.

Do you even know why the Navy retired them in the first place? I didn't think so.

I am not trying to plead for the return of the battleship, I was merely providing information in an attempt to deny ignorance. In your case I think I failed.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   
WestPoint, please shut the f**k up, you dont know what you're talking about.
Cool hand is a Lieutenant in the American Navy. that's a hell of a lot more than you'll ever be, even if you get through West Point (which no one here on the board thinks you can),
so, to summarize
SHUT UP.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I think battle ships are characterized as having massive naval guns and hundreds of smaller defensive and offensive weapons which are not needed today. if battleships were to return they would have to be modernized by downsizing their size just a bit and replacing the naval artillery guns with rail guns and replacing aa guns with SAM missiles which is basically already done.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
STOP WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS ON THIS THREAD OR IT GETS LOCKED!

[edit on 8-7-2004 by DJDOHBOY]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join