Aircraft Carriers have been obsolete for a long time

Originally posted by MConnalley

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by MConnalley

Originally posted by Jepic


It's the same with the fleet. If a carrier group can have a layered defense why can't a destroyer fleet. And much more effectively at that! The amount of missiles a fleet can launch will just overwhelm the carrier group. It's impossible for a standard carrier group to intercept a massive barrage of incoming projectiles. The fleet on the other hand can intercept a massive barrage because it has enough projectiles to counter it.

lol you just explained why destroyers would fail, you have to concentrate on attacking and defending when a carrier only needs to defend, its aircraft will eat all of you away.

Not really. It's the carrier that is outgunned. Besides I don't see it in terms of attacking or defending. I just see enemies targets getting destroyed. Whether you call that attacking or defending is up to you.

You precious, precious human, chaff flares and electronic jamming added on top of point to point missile defenses makes you a psychotic fool!

A fleet has the same capabilites.

Originally posted by Jepic
Tell me a field where the carrier is still relevant and I will tell you a platform that can do the job at least twice as well.

 

Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites
please post one or two paragraphs,
a link to the entire story,
AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

edit on Tue Apr 23 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Apr 23 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: ALL CAPS in title

Show me a platform, besides a carrier, that can be anywhere in the world in 5 days, bring 5 million pounds of ordnance and 70 - 80 fighter aircraft.... I'll wait

Ex US Navy here, 10 years, Gulf War veteran.

Something is declared obsolete when something that can do it's job better comes along.

Comparing destroyers to aircraft carriers is comparing an apple to an orange.

Let's take a look at that, your "Destroyer Group" vs. "Carrier Group"

(btw - I served on 3 different destroyers while I was in).

Deployment Time:

Destroyer Group will only be able to carry enough fuel for each ship. Once that fuel reaches a certain level, they will have to return to a port, or have a aux ship that can refuel them.
This also applies to the amount of food on board each ship to feed anywhere from 200 to 400 people on each ship.

Destroyer Group deployment time: around about a week.

Carrier Group: The carrier in the group is able to carry large amounts of fuel and food to feed the group. Resupply can be done while at see. Since the carrier itself is nuclear, it does not need the fuel that destroyers need.

Deployment time of a Carrier group: Many weeks, or even months if supply aircraft bring more food and fuel out and land on the carrier.

Carrier Group Wins on this.

Surface Detection:

Destroyer Group will have radar systems that can see quite far, however, that is for air targets only. Surface radar is limited due to the curvature of the Earth. All surface radars can only report surface contacts just past 20 miles or so.

Carrier Group is able to deploy aircraft that serve as radar platforms that fly (EWACS). These radar aircraft are able to extend the distance that a carrier group can see both for air and surface contacts by many hundreds of miles. Much further than any "Destroy Group" would be able to see.
The aircraft can land and refuel on the carrier itself.
The Destroyer group can not do that.

Carrier Group wins on this one too.

Attack Diversity:

"Destroyer Group" will be limited in their attack capability. Surface to Air and Surface to Surface missiles have a limited range, and the destroyers have a limited amount of these missiles that they can deploy.

Carrier Group has a much greater range of attack due to the fighter aircraft that are deployed with the carrier. These aircraft can carry their munitions far away from the carrier group and can attack from much further away than a "Destroyer Group" can.
The Carrier is able to carry munitions for other ships too (not all. Many missiles need to be reloaded at a weapons station and can not be performed at sea).

Carrier Group Wins

Repair Abilities:

"Destroyer Group" is limited to the amount of repairs that they can effect by their machine shops and supplies located on each ship. Once certain parts run out, they will have to be flown out to those ships. However, if they are far from any support bases, they will have to leave their theater of operations to get close enough to bases that can helo those parts out.

Carrier Group can do a lot of major repairs and carries a lot of supplies. Better yet, instead of having to rely on helicopters bringing supplies out, aircraft (that can carry a LOT more supplies) are able to fly out to these carriers and actually land with more supplies, which can then be sent to what ship in the group needs them.

Carrier Group Wins.

Medical Treatment:

"Destroyer Group" will be very limited in what medical proceedures they can perform. Destroyers do NOT have a surgical medical bay with doctors on board. Any sever emergency, personnel would have to be Medivac'ed by helicopter, and would be limited to how far away they are.

Carrier Group has large medical facilities on board. Most medical proceedures can be done with actual doctors that are on board. They can even do dental work!
Because a carrier has aircraft, worst cases can actually be flown long distances from the group back to bases.

Carrier Group Wins.

Aircraft Carriers are not obsolete. They give a fleet the ability to do things that NO group of destroyers, frigates or cruisers can do

reply to post by eriktheawful


He will not listen. I don't have the experience like you do, but i still don't think he will listen. he is not logical.

reply to post by Jepic


A destroyer fleet cannot carry massive numbers of troops and aircraft, nor can it deliver landing craft with the capacity to land vehicles, which means that a destroyer fleet cannot be a platform for a deep penetration of enemy land territory. It can blow the living bejesus out of something, but it cannot provide a transit method for an occupying force to be delivered to theatre.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Jepic

 

Once again, you have absolutely zero knowledge on this subject. I served in the US Navy for four years, and four of my uncles served in the same US Navy, one of them as a carrier pilot.

All of the carriers, since the first nuclear-powered carrier, USS Enterprise, have been built with the ability to withstand tactical nuclear strikes without sinking...

I am not going to write anything more on this topic because it is patently obvious you have absolutely no freaking idea of this subject.

Have you go any thing to back this up because it's one of the most absurd claims i've ever read on this place, which is saying something.

Originally posted by MConnalley
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

He will not listen. I don't have the experience like you do, but i still don't think he will listen. he is not logical.

Yes, that is quite obvious to me after I read through this thread.

However, when I post here on ATS it's also for other readers or "lurkers".

The OP also has demonstrated a lack of understanding how modern weapons work.

Munitions, launching systems, ECM, etc.

I was a Fire Controlman in the Navy and worked on radars and missile launching systems including the Harpoon cruise missile system.

reply to post by eriktheawful


First let me say thanks for your service. I am also navy and my job deals with launching and recovery of the aircraft. This guy just don't understand the capabilities of the carrier, so don't waste too much time on it.

Originally posted by bates

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Jepic

 

Once again, you have absolutely zero knowledge on this subject. I served in the US Navy for four years, and four of my uncles served in the same US Navy, one of them as a carrier pilot.

All of the carriers, since the first nuclear-powered carrier, USS Enterprise, have been built with the ability to withstand tactical nuclear strikes without sinking...

I am not going to write anything more on this topic because it is patently obvious you have absolutely no freaking idea of this subject.

Have you go any thing to back this up because it's one of the most absurd claims i've ever read on this place, which is saying something.

Nothing can survive a direct hit from a nuclear weapon, even aircraft carriers.

However, if the nuclear weapon does not detonated directly on top (or under) the carrier, it can widthstand a lot of damage from a nuclear blast.

It will be banged up as hell, and will have a lot of damage, but it can survive a blast that is not directly on it.

We did a LOT of tests with this during the 50's. Google it.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Jepic
Tell me a field where the carrier is still relevant and I will tell you a platform that can do the job at least twice as well.

 

Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites
please post one or two paragraphs,
a link to the entire story,
AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

edit on Tue Apr 23 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Apr 23 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: ALL CAPS in title

Show me a platform, besides a carrier, that can be anywhere in the world in 5 days, bring 5 million pounds of ordnance and 70 - 80 fighter aircraft.... I'll wait

A nuclear powered destroyer fleet can be anywhere in less than 5 days and have just as much ordinance as a carrier group.

i have better things to do - the goal posts of this thread are moving too fast - his fantasy destroyer fleet not only gets special pleadings - its issiles can destry ANYTHING - but its also invulnerable to ALL attack - and has unlimited reloads , and is immune to the laws of physics , but now also has ICBMs and orbital weapons platforms -

but one final broadside , the OP nailed his ignorance to the mast thus :

Loiter capability... That has no place in modern warfare.

10 out of 10 infantry commanders disagree - loiter is VITAL to support ground operations - your " destroyer fleet " can only launch its " cruise missiles " reactivly

ie - if a base , collum or patrol comes under attack - it will take upto 3 hours for the cruise missile to arrive - by then the engagement could be over - with your force anhialated

thats why CAS needs to loiter - and respond in real time - not hours

thanks for playing - i would like to say ` it was fun ` - but its just been a waste of time

reply to post by bates


Here you go:

Operations Crossroads

You'll find a good read on the US Navy testing nuclear weapons against ships.

reply to post by eriktheawful


cheers

just skimmed through but i'm going to read that properly now.

i genuinely didn't know anything like that had ever been tested.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Good points. Now if you incorporated all these advantages that the carrier has into the destroyer, and increased the number of VLS boxes on each destroyer, would you still say the carrier is superior when it becomes outgunned by sheer number of these boxes?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Jepic

 

A destroyer fleet cannot carry massive numbers of troops and aircraft, nor can it deliver landing craft with the capacity to land vehicles, which means that a destroyer fleet cannot be a platform for a deep penetration of enemy land territory. It can blow the living bejesus out of something, but it cannot provide a transit method for an occupying force to be delivered to theatre.

It's not WW2 anymore. The times of mass infantry fighting is over thanks to technology. You don't send in troops for cannon fodder when you can neutralise a concentration of soldiers and hardware with precision missile strikes.

Technology has allowed the fact that you no longer need to destroy Hitler's foot army to get to him but instead with a few precision strikes from destroyers you have a clear infiltration point through which to send special operations and extract the source of the problem. In this case Hitler for the sake of an example.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i have better things to do - the goal posts of this thread are moving too fast - his fantasy destroyer fleet not only gets special pleadings - its issiles can destry ANYTHING - but its also invulnerable to ALL attack - and has unlimited reloads , and is immune to the laws of physics , but now also has ICBMs and orbital weapons platforms -

but one final broadside , the OP nailed his ignorance to the mast thus :

Loiter capability... That has no place in modern warfare.

10 out of 10 infantry commanders disagree - loiter is VITAL to support ground operations - your " destroyer fleet " can only launch its " cruise missiles " reactivly

ie - if a base , collum or patrol comes under attack - it will take upto 3 hours for the cruise missile to arrive - by then the engagement could be over - with your force anhialated

thats why CAS needs to loiter - and respond in real time - not hours

thanks for playing - i would like to say ` it was fun ` - but its just been a waste of time

It won't come under attack because right before the insertion of spec ops the area of operation would be cleared by the destroyers. Get it? That's assuming there needs to be ground action. In my book a war is won when you have taken out your enemy's ability to harm your people and country. That's when the war is won. You don't need to go into the heart of the capital and plant a flag anymore. That's old times.

The opening post is obvious flamebait, and exhibits zero knowledge of a modern carrier group's mission profile, capabilities, defenses, or vulnerabilities. Simply put, a carrier allows one to bring air power to a region otherwise inaccessible by any other means. Carriers allow the US to project power all over the world, something most other nations simply cannot do, expressly, our enemies. If they were obsolete, we certainly wouldn't be building more of them, and yet the OP presumes to possess vastly more knowledge than all the military think tanks in the world, so more discussion of it is akin to verbal masturbation of the ego.....

Originally posted by Gazrok
The opening post is obvious flamebait, and exhibits zero knowledge of a modern carrier group's mission profile, capabilities, defenses, or vulnerabilities. Simply put, a carrier allows one to bring air power to a region otherwise inaccessible by any other means. Carriers allow the US to project power all over the world, something most other nations simply cannot do, expressly, our enemies. If they were obsolete, we certainly wouldn't be building more of them, and yet the OP presumes to possess vastly more knowledge than all the military think tanks in the world, so more discussion of it is akin to verbal masturbation of the ego.....

Actually it's pretty much pure logic that any number of VLS boxes will outgun any number of aircraft.

Originally posted by Jepic
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Good points. Now if you incorporated all these advantages that the carrier has into the destroyer, and increased the number of VLS boxes on each destroyer, would you still say the carrier is superior when it becomes outgunned by sheer number of these boxes?

To incorporate all the things a carrier has and can do and can carry means building a ship that is a lot larger than a destroyer.
It means giving it a flight deck (or did you miss the part of using fixed wing air craft that have much longer ranges than helicopters for resupply and transport?).

We already have ships like that. They are called Aircraft Carriers.

So one could argue that what we need to do is install more missile launchers on an aircraft carrier.

Why? That's what your Cruisers and Destroyers are for. They provide both defense and offensive abilities for the carrier group.

Reading through your posts, there is a lot of things you don't understand about missiles and how they work. Missiles can never replace aircraft. Aircraft provide a much more diverse options and can be used over and over again.
Once you fire a missile, it's gone. One shot, that's it.

Missile are fast, but they are not moving at the speed of light. I used to be involved in all sorts of DT&E drills (Detect To Engage), where we detect the incoming missiles and shoot them down. The methods of which involve many different things ranging from ECM, Aircraft to intercept with their missiles, missile intercept and gun fire intercept (CIWIS gives most of us sailors the warm fuzzies about anti ship missiles).

Best defense is early detection of any missile launch. This means having the distance to detect and the ability to have that long range detection.

Your destroyers do not have that ability. They only see surface launches IF there are radar platforms in the sky sending that data back........and a destroyer fleet can't deploy those aircraft.

So the only way to make your destroyer fleet as good as a carrier group, is to have one of the destroyers be the same size as a carrier for all that resupply, and to have an actual flight deck so that all sorts of aircraft can land and take off.........which means you just turned your destroyer into a Aircraft Carrier.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Gazrok
The opening post is obvious flamebait, and exhibits zero knowledge of a modern carrier group's mission profile, capabilities, defenses, or vulnerabilities. Simply put, a carrier allows one to bring air power to a region otherwise inaccessible by any other means. Carriers allow the US to project power all over the world, something most other nations simply cannot do, expressly, our enemies. If they were obsolete, we certainly wouldn't be building more of them, and yet the OP presumes to possess vastly more knowledge than all the military think tanks in the world, so more discussion of it is akin to verbal masturbation of the ego.....

Actually it's pretty much pure logic that any number of VLS boxes will outgun any number of aircraft.

No they wont.

Aircraft can launch their missile weapons much faster than a VLS system can.

Aircraft can go back to their carrier and have more missiles given to them.

VLS requires the ship to pull into a weapons station for reload.

You can shoot down aircraft, but more can be sent.

If I sink your VLS platform, it's gone.

It takes a LOT of missiles to sink an aircraft carrier (it's called Water Tight Integrity......US Naval ships are built to float, and stay afloat with MASSIVE amounts of damage). It would take at least 4 Harpoon cruise missiles to sink a Carrier, and then that's only if the damage is so bad, Damage Control Teams can't stop the flooding.

Only takes one Harpoon missile to sink a destroyer (it can just about blow it in half if I hit it right. I know what I'm talking about as I used to train US Naval personnel on how to use the RGM-84D Harpoon cruise missiles).