Navy's Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 12:53 PM by SailorinAZ

reply to post by JanusFIN

Just isn't true. They have many defense systems as well as their own aircraft. They also never sail alone and are accompanied by destroyers, frigates, cruisers, and at least one sub.

Carriers allow you to have a mobile air strip.

The Navy's true weakness is political correctness and politics.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by SailorinAZ]

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 12:59 PM by AllexxisF1

If I were the Chinese and I am planning a war with the U.S. I would...

1) Spies on capital ships with simple GPS devices.

2) Ballistic rocket with nuclear weapon.

3) No more U.S. Navy.

People who seriously think U.S. Carriers are not huge turkeys need to read up on their history.

The biggest enemy of huge, expensive, long build time weapon systems is cheap, simple and quick counter weapon systems.

Aka you could launch thousands of cruise missiles, or thousand of idiots in simple rafts with strapped down with nucs to take out a carrier.

The airplane is what ended the battleships reign. As will smart missiles end the carriers reign.

How can people not get that.

You can easily have a spy on that massive ship with a SAT phone and a simple GPS giving out the coordinates to the Chinese.

You think you are hidden, but in the modern era there is no hiding.

The best weapon platform this country has is its submarines. Plain and simple. Not even stealth aircraft or satellite's can run and hide. But a sub can and in the mean time will.

The submarine is the weapon platform of the 21st century.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by AllexxisF1]

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 01:03 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by JanusFIN

Like I said in the first post, Falklands was "almost a catastrophe" because of the sea missiles - underlining reasons you gave us.

But for US sailors and their families, I hope that you havent fully undermine a threat of sunburns - which I still see a greatest threat for US Navys future.

Very good point. I would also caution against over estimating an untested weapons systems. Also keep in mind that others are aware of these newer threats and rest assure that somebody somewhere is hold up working on appropriate counter measures.

Patton:
"Anything built by man can be overcome by man"

That works in both direction.

Is the Carrier Battle Group invulnerable?
No
Is it a sitting Duck?
No

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 01:03 PM by Ben Niceknowinya

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I love one of the responses to the Post source

"Gary, this is probably the biggest piece of misinformation that has been written on the subject of the vulnerability of large carriers yet.

This argument has been going on since the end of WW2, where by the way not ONE large US carrier of new design (Essex class, was lost! –small carriers on the other hand were very vulnerable).

The one point you, and most people miss, is battle tactics. You assume that there are just a bunch of dumb officers sailing into harms way feeling that nothing can touch them. Nothing can be further from the truth!

As it stands today, the most capable weapon system in any Navy is the US carrier battle group! Notice I said GROUP! Weapons systems work together and project further out from the group itself. It can project like no other weapons system.

So while missiles are a threat to any carrier, and any ship for that matter, they have been since and during WW2. Nothing new. You build technology to counter it!

The real problem is that articles such as these lead people to believe that now that China has a missile, we need to scrap the entire carrier battle group when actually we need to build more, build them more stealthy, and work on that one system that liberals laughed at for years.- anti ballistic missile defence.

What you should be pointing out is that we need more technology $$$ in the defense budget to counter these threats! "

Very well put Slayer. I would have to agree. Carriers are a major and strategic element of past and present wars as well.
As they work in groups and in collaboration with other elements such as battleships, ground troops etc, they would be imo, LESS vulnerable because they're in the middle of the ocean opposed to land.
It would be difficult (if anyone had the calibur anyway) to attack, SUCCESFULLY. Idon't believe any other nation has the luxury of owning carriers, besides the US. So, that fact alone gives an advantage of SOME sort.
Incredibly, these carriers can stay running for something like 20 yrs. by themselves, without manpower. Beasts!!

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 01:07 PM by JanusFIN

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

Yeah - those weapons systems what was not provided to protect against "the threat" from Gaza... Operation was so false flag op from its origins because US and Israel HAS these systems against Hamas ancient artillery rounds...

War on Gaza - Staged 911 to Muslim World?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 01:13 PM by JanusFIN

reply to post by AllexxisF1

You miss one of the greatest tactical advantage of US enemies - Trojan Horse Tactics!

There is +5000 personel in each carrier groups.

I am sure, with my own experience living years in Asian countries - they have that mysterious power of will and courage - Kamikaze Minds - and how many Chinese or Asians are living and serving in US Navy?

If you are inside those ships, and its ammo storage - all you need is a Zippo lighter in a wrong place...

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 01:25 PM by SLAYER69

OK
I know people get emotional about certain "issues"

Can we stay on topic here?

The issue was "Navy's Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks!"

My answer is No!

Are there threats?
Yes.

IMHO

The US Navy will work out effective counter measures in the mean time they will have to rely on the systems they have at hand and better tactics.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 02:19 PM by USamf

Also to add another thing, don't you think they didn't think of this? Remember, modern carrier battle groups were meant to go to the barrents and play with the Soviets...who towards the 80's even had much more sophisticated anti-carrier weapons. The point being, if they spend $$$$ on a Carrier, you don't think they would leave it unprotected? Besides, there will be no war between the great superpowers, it would end in world wide destruction.

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 02:24 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by JanusFIN

I am sure, with my own experience living years in Asian countries - they have that mysterious power of will and courage - Kamikaze Minds - and how many Chinese or Asians are living and serving in US Navy?

Yes the US military has plenty of Asian-Americans serving in all branches we also have Italian-Americans Mexican-Americans etc.
Name any country in the world and you'll find Americans of that heritage.

During WWII we had Whole units of Japanese-Americans fighting. They were some of the best and loyal fighters we had.

So whats your point?

[edit on 11-4-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 02:33 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by AllexxisF1

And you don't think that the carrier and other ships have the capability to detect signals going out and coming in? If they're running under EMCON and suddenly there's a signal, guess what, they know they have someone on board who is up to something. They jam all signals going out that aren't theirs, and your spies no longer tell them where they are.

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 02:41 PM by JanusFIN

reply to post by SLAYER69

Dear friend,

There was a conspiracy point - I just flip a while to some thoughts, about defeating naval empire just with a knives and sticks...

Everything is possible in war.

I dont wonder if you have very good soldiers from Asia serving your country... And I mean no bad or concerning about their loyality - but when the defences or walls are too strong to defeat by swords or tactics, we have to be most carefull with our natural human weakness - with our minds.

- Its maybe not up to them, or us what we do...

MIND CONTROL IN AMERIKA
Five Easy Steps To Create A Manchurian Candidate
rumormillnews.com...

I hope you get my point.

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 02:45 PM by dooper

For those who think a missile attack would be "unstoppable," then I would like to present a potential that would negate a missile attack, assuming it was detected.

A counter missile battery is likewise fired, but these defensive missiles have no explosive warhead.

Instead, each has a powerful EMF flash transmitter that upon arriving near the target, simply fries the electronics within the incoming missiles.

Does anyone think we don't already have some serious countermeasures?

Sometimes simple is best.

Fry the targeting system and the control system, and the odds are, that missile will end up on the bottom of the ocean.

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 02:49 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by JanusFIN

OH I get it.

But spies, sabotage and covert actions goes both ways.

Sut-Tzu

"Never underestimate nor over estimate an opponent. Consider them an equal. If they are your equal then they can be defeated"

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 12:46 AM by dingyibvs

reply to post by StellarX

1)It's taking sentences out of context when you break up points that intend to support each other. Let me repeat, once a single F-18 goes up in the air, its location will be known, assuming it's launched within the F-18's range of China or Taiwan, or it would be useless to launch it anyway. The F-18's range isn't that long, Chinese OTH radars can easily pick it out. And wherever it's launched, that's where the Carrier is. UAVs can fly out there within an hour, by which time the carrier couldn't have possibly moved over 30 something knots.

2)Those OTH radars are always on. Unless you're prepared to launch a preemptive strike on mainland China, those F-18's and heck, those ships, should be picked up by them. Scouting on the open sea is not as hard as you say. And can you track every Chinese sub? What about a massed missile attack? Jamming? Are you assuming that the Chinese don't know how to jam or enact counter-EW measures?

3)Those escorts are useless against AShBM's, the current ABM systems cannot shoot it down.

4)There is a reason I didn't say cannons. Spears and swords didn't become obsolete until guns came out, they were much more effective weapons until the 1900's.

5)Why won't they be able to transmit? The Chinese EW capabilities are quite strong you know. Are you hinging your entire argument on the point that you might be able to jam the guidance systems? Because all others are definitively refuted.

6)Obviously the Chinese would have achieved the necessary CEP in order for an AShBM to be useful.

7)Carriers can be a defensive presence(basically a mobile airfield). The Chinese are interested in defense. Can Carriers carry out effective offensive missions close to Chinese soil? That's the question here.

8)You're avoiding the question. Of course the Chinese are highly unlikely to invade Taiwan or anywhere else any time soon. But we're assuming a conflict does break out and Taiwan is the most likely place. The Chinese does not and will not possess the ability to project power far beyond its borders any time soon, but this missile is clearly a defensive measure. Again, can the U.S. carrier carry out an offensive mission, which is basically what intervention at Taiwan means being so close to Chinese shores?

Lastly, the USN should look for a paradigm change. How about smaller mobile platforms for example? Say small boats that each can carry only one vertical takeoff plane? They can link many together to provide a large airfield for even large bombers far away from the shores, or they can link a few together to provide a stable platform for a vertical takeoff. They can also scatter when a missile attacks. Just a thought, but we need something new, something innovative.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 12:21 PM by FredT

reply to post by dingyibvs

Most Chicom missiles have CEPS between 100-200 meters. Heck even Soviet systems are int aht range. A few have tighter CEPS but those would be dedicated to counterforce / deterent systems like the D-5 tridents etc.

Even if you half that to 50-100 meters with a conventional warhead, you are talking about a moving target not a stationary one like a silo or a city. the ability of a MIRV or single warhead to manuver in endgame is limited. a Nimitz class ship is big but its manuverable and fast enough to make that type of hit remote.

Now you do not need to sink it to take it out of the equation but im betting that the SM-3 might have a shot at it. If not all the more reason to continue to develop its capabilites

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 06:06 PM by dingyibvs

There certainly are a lot of questions about the missile due to a variety of new technologies required to make it functional. But then again, if it's so easy to make, many countries, especially the U.S. and Russia would have them.

The questions about CEP and the maneuverability in general of the missile IMO, are the most legitimate concerns. I don't think it'll be really hard to find and target a Nimitz if it's operating at an effective distance away from Chinese shores.

You have to keep in mind that the Chinese are not stupid. They realize that it'll take probably half a century if not longer to match the U.S. air and sea power, so they've concentrated their resources since decades ago to develop asymmetrical strike capabilities such as missiles, EW, ASatW, and to a lesser extent(in terms of asymmetrical), submarines. So it's not impossible that the Chinese missiles could achieve a CEP similar to or even better than the best U.S. ones at around 10m.

Also, while it's tough to imagine a warhead being highly maneuverable in ballistic mode, it really doesn't have to be. It will be coming in at the ship at Mach 10+, and from the time the warhead is released to the time it strikes the target, you only get at MOST 3-5 minutes of warning. The Nimitz, at 90,000 something tons, cannot possible move much, let alone maneuver in a different direction. The massive momentum changes required for a carrier to dodge a missile is difficult to achieve. But then again, so is the massive momentum changes a warhead needs to perform to hit a carrier. The problem for carriers is that it's not gonna get any more maneuverable soon, but a missile/warhead may be upgraded constantly, and that's assuming this battle is a draw at this point.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 06:54 PM by FredT

reply to post by dingyibvs

You would be surprised at how manuverable these things are. They have tons of power avalible and while thier Offical speed is '30+" knots its higher than that when running at flank.

Discovery had a show a while back and they showed a nimitx class carrier during sea trials. At flank speed one of the test is to turn the carrier hard over and you should have seen the list that sucker had. Its fast and can move pretty decent for a ship that size. its not a zodiac mind you but enough to get out of the way of a ballistic object.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 07:44 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by dingyibvs

You brought up some very good points.

But keep in mind the US Navy is not just sitting around not creating effective counter measures. Besides, When was the last time the US Navy has gone into a major battle?

We have in the past 40 or 50 years have only seen "limited" Carrier Battle Group action. In Vietnam, Gulf war 1 and the present situations. The Carrier battle group is a force to be reckoned with. When you bring 3 or more CBG together there is more firepower available than has been released in all previous wars combined.

People seem to forget about long range land bombers taking out said launchers before that battle begins.

Sun-Tzu said.

"The battle is won before it is ever fought"

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 11:35 PM by orangetom1999

reply to post by dingyibvs

Been watching this thread for awhile and hesitating to post on it.

You need to rethink this through. Not only in maneuvarability but also in countermeasures.

Fred T is not far off the mark here in this...

You would be surprised at how manuverable these things are. They have tons of power avalible and while thier Offical speed is '30+" knots its higher than that when running at flank.

Been down in the engine rooms and shaft alleys of the Big E as well as numerous Nimitz class boats undergoing overhauls. One thing they all do not lack is steam muscle power. More than enough and plenty to spare.
Also been back aft down in the spaces where you find the engines used to turn the rudders. Raw hydraulic power aplenty here too. Gotta have such raw power to take emergency turns. Hard to port and hard to starboard.

Though they have aplenty, do not allow yourself to think that raw power is their only option when under attack.

Pyros also has a very good post on page 2 of this thread. Pyros has been around the block several times and knows about what he is talking.
Always a pleasure to see the posts of Pyros on ATS. Fair winds sailor!

Thanks to all for thier posts.
Orangetom

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 11:53 AM by rogue1

Originally posted by SLAYER69
We have in the past 40 or 50 years have only seen "limited" Carrier Battle Group action. In Vietnam, Gulf war 1 and the present situations. The Carrier battle group is a force to be reckoned with.

Exactly limited wars where the carriers and the Navy haven't had to contend with attacks from a foreign Navy, this itself makes the US Carrier Fleet untested in naval combat. For all the bluster about new weapons systems being untested so are Carrier defences.