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.

 

Aircraft Carriers have been obsolete for a long time

page: 15
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Seeing a fleet of ships that size is extremely intimidating when they are parked off your coast.

It is a very effective propaganda tool because they represent the military power that the US holds over any given country.

What can do that better?


There is no threat powerful enough or sizable enough to justify having 50 ACs, 50 stealth bombers and fighters, hundreds or thousands of nukes, WHEN america has been going bankrupt now for a decade or so. Not to mention the false flags and what not that start the war campaigns.

We could cut at least 60% of all this sophisticated hardware and STILL be more than respected by EVERYONE. The chineese just got done building their first AC, the french and british each have several of their own, the soviets perhaps several. We have 10 times more than each which like I said is grand overkill.

I wish I were president of this nation to cut all this gross misspending and bring back jobs to america. Jobs that have gone to asia is what is killing this nation. We could(or should) also shrink our foreign military bases because we have one in almost every country. The foreigners, especially the arabs do NOT want us there and then we wonder like idiots why some "extremist" wants to attack us. If someone was doing the same thing to us I am sure we would also like revenge.

The military industrial complex of america and the government need to face reality and get a grip before its too damm late. The petrodollar is a myth, it does not keep us strong. Oil is traded on the international markets and everyone has access to it.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.



except that destroyers arent nuke powered man...........you keep moving the goal post.....

every time someone successfully refutes your claim, then you dream up some hypothetical situation that doesnt exist.......

youre trolling............i encourage everyone to Abandon Ship.........as it were....


I'm not moving any goalposts. I have stated from the beginning that we are talking hypothetical and equal level of technology.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.


LOL. With suffiecent engine power you are going to propel a carrier sized super missle destroyer indefinately at 60 to 100 knots?

That is a hell of a powerplant. I remember my naval engineering classes at the Naval Academy and I can think up many ways why this would not work.

First of all, please tell me what sort of hull is going to withstand the forces generated by pushing a 95,000 ton object at 75 knots.

More power does not enter it. At a certain speed propellers cavitate (low pressure creates bubbles and water is no longer driventhrough the screw) and they cannot go any faster no matter how much power you have behind them.



Jet- propelled fusion reactor engine. Don't underestimate technology and its riches. A well engineered, hardened and thick frame can easily handle the pressure.


"Jet propelled fusion nuclear reactor." You don't know how nuclear energy is used for propulsion do you? This is not the cartoon "Battleship Yamato", this is real world.

Secondly, please share with us this new hull materiel that can withstand such forces at such speeds yet does not weigh so much that any speed benefit is lost or has to be so thick that you can't put your huge batteries of missles in them? Lockeed Martin has a job for you at a very impressive salary if you can make a 95,000 ton warship travel indefinately at 100+ knots.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.



except that destroyers arent nuke powered man...........you keep moving the goal post.....

every time someone successfully refutes your claim, then you dream up some hypothetical situation that doesnt exist.......

youre trolling............i encourage everyone to Abandon Ship.........as it were....


I'm not moving any goalposts. I have stated from the beginning that we are talking hypothetical and equal level of technology.


No you haven't. you invented jet propulsion with nuclear fusion reactors jsut now.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Jepic
 


It has everything to do with weight. You can load it down with guns, but that means less armor and protection, and less speed. Otherwise you are getting so massive that you've become a whole new class of ship. I bet there's a good name for it, let me think for a second....oh I know! We can call it a battleship!


A battleship is not called a battleship because of its size but because it has heavy guns mounted on top that served as it's main armament.

Destroyers don't need heavy guns. Heavy guns on battleships are a thing of the past. Missile is where it's all at as I said in this thread already.


A ship's classification depends on a lot of things:

Size, hull armament, weapons platforms.

A battleship is a battle ship because: yes it had heavy guns....but mainly they were larger than ANY other ships in the fleet (except carriers), so that they could carry those large caliber guns. Their hulls are very thick as to be designed like a tank to take projectile rounds.

Cruisers are also large ships (bigger than destroyers), but are not considered battleships because they are smaller than those. In days of old, they also carried large caliber weapons, but were smaller and less armored than battleships.

A battlecruiser (something that the USSR built during the cold war) is actually in between a Cruiser and a Battleship.

Size actually does have a lot to do with it. If you build a ship which is larger than destroyers and cruisers, and cover it with weapons platforms.....you have built a Battle-Ship.

It's no longer a destroyer.

Do some research and read up an navy classificatons of ships. It's a very long and rich history going back to the days of sail.


Semantics in any case. I've already read up on it.

Classification has clearly more to do with armament than with size according to what I've read.
edit on 24/4/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Jepic
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


You are going to send 18 harpoons against a destroyer fleet and expect that the officers inside the destroyers will just sit there looking at their watches waiting for the missile to hit home? You don't believe the ships will launch a coordinated strike to neutralize the missiles while still far away?

And what of the counter-attack? How many projectiles can your group take on in the wake of an massive attack?



apprently you can't read.

First you have to detect the inbound missiles.

You're going to have a hard time doing that with the Harpoon buddy. The radar return is lost in the sea clutter (it flies too close to the surface of the sea for radars to detect....DOH!)

2nd: I was giving you and example of attacking one of your ships, with just surface launched ASMs.

Would you like me to add all the air craft that can also be up in the air launching the same missiles at your "fleet" of destoryers?

How about any SSN attack subs that are in my carrier group? Hmmmm? They also can launch a multitude of ASMs.

The point is: Your thread is wrong. Aircraft carriers are not obsolete at this time, nor will they be for a very long time.

Let me recommend something: either join the Navy and learn for yourself as I have, or get a job working on weapons systems that the US Navy contracts and learn from that experience.

You would be able to debate much better than you have so far in this thread since you lack both the knowledge and experience in areas of naval war ships and weapons platforms.


Should work wonderfully well against your carrier group too then... Good strategy.
You carrier group has been overwhelmed already man... Harpoon style huh...


No you didn't.

Again, YOU ARE NOT READING THE POSTS PEOPLE ARE POSTING!

By having a destroyer only fleet you do not have ANY over the horizon detection for enemy fleets!

You can't launch ASMs if you don't know where they are.

What part of that can you not get through your head?

To have over the horizon detection you will need air born radar......from planes.....that you launch from your carriers.....

Oh but wait......you don't have any of those in your "Destroyer Fleet".

Please pay attention to what you are being told by those of us who actually have served in the US Navy and have actual combat experience.



There is a wonderful thing called satellites which I already mentioned early in this thread. Doesn't get much more over the horizon than that.


Again, this is not the movies and you obviously don't know how satellites are used and can be used for tracking real world targets. They just don't fly hither and thither like in Tom Clancy.

The CBG has satellite intel too. Guess what. They stay well outside the range of your missles and then send several squadrons to within range of you and shoot the hell out of you before you can get a single one fired.

This is what people who actually know what they are talking about refer to as "power projection." Power projection is exactly why we have hte carriers and why they still are an invaluable strategic asset.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.



except that destroyers arent nuke powered man...........you keep moving the goal post.....

every time someone successfully refutes your claim, then you dream up some hypothetical situation that doesnt exist.......

youre trolling............i encourage everyone to Abandon Ship.........as it were....


I'm not moving any goalposts. I have stated from the beginning that we are talking hypothetical and equal level of technology.



yes you have, you have continually moved the goal post.........

And if then the case that all things are equal in technology........and you admit that, then Carrier STILL wins......because of the simple fact that it has all the technology your Star Wars destroyer has, with a larger platform for MORE of it........

Its simple logic........I honestly believe youre just trolling......

May i ask how old you are out of curiosity, and if you have any experience with military hardware



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.



except that destroyers arent nuke powered man...........you keep moving the goal post.....

every time someone successfully refutes your claim, then you dream up some hypothetical situation that doesnt exist.......

youre trolling............i encourage everyone to Abandon Ship.........as it were....


I'm not moving any goalposts. I have stated from the beginning that we are talking hypothetical and equal level of technology.


No you haven't. you invented jet propulsion with nuclear fusion reactors jsut now.


It is funny. "Jet Propulsion with Nuclear Fusion"

I don't think he understands what the nuclear reactor on a ship does....

Here you go dude: The nuclear reactor on a ships does one thing, and one thing only; it provides heat to make steam.

It does the EXACT same thing that a 1200 PSI boiler does: makes steam.

Steam is then sent to the HP and LP turbines.

Those turbines turn the shafts that are connected to screws, that turn and push the ship through the water.

On modern small ships (destroyers and cruisers) we now use Jet Engines. Only not in the way you might think. They are engines that burn fuel and turn......wait for it.......shafts that turn screws!

None of our ships are "jet propelled" as in sucking in water and shooting it out, nor like on a plane where it sucks in air and uses thrust to move the ship.

Sorry. Now in movies, cartoons, comic books, sure.

But not in reality.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





Semantics in any case. I've already read up on it. Classification has clearly more to do with armament than with size according to what I've read.


Did you really just argue the validity of information provided from a career navy man as SEMANTICS, based on your limited knowledge of what you say youve read?

Jesus christ.....

Seriously people, time to bail........stop feeding......im out...
edit on 24-4-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.


LOL. With suffiecent engine power you are going to propel a carrier sized super missle destroyer indefinately at 60 to 100 knots?

That is a hell of a powerplant. I remember my naval engineering classes at the Naval Academy and I can think up many ways why this would not work.

First of all, please tell me what sort of hull is going to withstand the forces generated by pushing a 95,000 ton object at 75 knots.

More power does not enter it. At a certain speed propellers cavitate (low pressure creates bubbles and water is no longer driventhrough the screw) and they cannot go any faster no matter how much power you have behind them.



Jet- propelled fusion reactor engine. Don't underestimate technology and its riches. A well engineered, hardened and thick frame can easily handle the pressure.


Again, you missed the point: It's not the engine, it's the screws.

At some point, your screws will no longer push the ship forward faster, because the are turning so fast, they are cavitating (they are no longer biting the water, but are now acting like a blender).

This means, you'll need bigger screws. Bigger screws mean bigger gearing in the HP and LP turbines (which are freaking expensive as hell to make), bigger shafts, etc.

It also means that your ship is going to limited where it goes, because it has a much deeper draft, and the screws will tear up the harbor floors (something people tend to get very pissed about).

You've just spend a ton of money on a monster that a lot of submarines will be drooling over to take out. Congradulations.

Instead, it's better to make smaller ships that are much more cost effective, can go in shallow water if needed, and can move around in a fleet better.


It seems money is the only factor in play here that makes it unrealistic.
I do agree with that. It's much more effective to do many platforms than few big ones.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Jepic
 


You do realize of course, that unless you have some kind of naval or military background, your debate of some of these members, is like a first aid student trying to argue techniques with a surgeon, right? I mean, this was these guys' jobs for years. I'll defer to them as well, as they know their stuff more than I in this regard.

My knowledge is more from growing up as a military and defense contractor brat, with an intense interest in the field most of my family has been in. These guys' knowledge is from first hand experience with the equipment and concepts you are trying to debate here.

As NavyDoc mentioned:


No. This is where you fail. You can't see the carrier before he sees you because he has air assets and you don't. This is not a movie, LOL.


If you know where someone is, and they don't know where you are, and you can hit them without being detected...the battle is over, and you have won.

From Jepic:


Destroyers don't need heavy guns. Heavy guns on battleships are a thing of the past. Missile is where it's all at as I said in this thread already.


Missiles can be countered more easily than ordnance from big guns. Big guns still have their place.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)


Yes... In the Internet everyone can be Montgomery.

Planes are primitive in recon field compared to satellites.
edit on 24/4/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


Incorrect. Again , this is not television. Satellites do have a value to be sure, but are limited in real time targeting data. Not every part of the world has a satellite over it to get the data you need. To move a satellite to a new orbit to evaluate a new situation takes planning and a lot of importance to that action because satelites have only a limited amount of manuvering fuel aboard. Unless your enemy is stupid enough to engage you in the footprint of a prepositioned targeting satellite, your satelites will be useless for this battle and you still lose the over the horizon edge.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





There is a wonderful thing called satellites which I already mentioned early in this thread. Doesn't get much more over the horizon than that.


Satellites have limitations.
They can't be everywhere. And we know where the Satellites are.
And we can time things to move when they are not in place to watch a certain area.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   


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.



Hrmmmm let me think.

Function as a floating launch platform for 85-90 aircraft of different types.
While at the same time carrying all the necessary equipment, armament, repair facilities and fuel to supply the fleet of aircraft?


Please reply to this prior post of mine.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.


LOL. With suffiecent engine power you are going to propel a carrier sized super missle destroyer indefinately at 60 to 100 knots?

That is a hell of a powerplant. I remember my naval engineering classes at the Naval Academy and I can think up many ways why this would not work.

First of all, please tell me what sort of hull is going to withstand the forces generated by pushing a 95,000 ton object at 75 knots.

More power does not enter it. At a certain speed propellers cavitate (low pressure creates bubbles and water is no longer driventhrough the screw) and they cannot go any faster no matter how much power you have behind them.



Jet- propelled fusion reactor engine. Don't underestimate technology and its riches. A well engineered, hardened and thick frame can easily handle the pressure.


"Jet propelled fusion nuclear reactor." You don't know how nuclear energy is used for propulsion do you? This is not the cartoon "Battleship Yamato", this is real world.

Secondly, please share with us this new hull materiel that can withstand such forces at such speeds yet does not weigh so much that any speed benefit is lost or has to be so thick that you can't put your huge batteries of missles in them? Lockeed Martin has a job for you at a very impressive salary if you can make a 95,000 ton warship travel indefinately at 100+ knots.


I'd never for the US military industry. No chance. Hell it's what I would be fighting against.
But with enough funding and resources you can make it happen. All that I said. Whether it's better to do a big one than several small ones is another dispute.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You don't grasp it... Your carrier group has no chance against the number of missiles a destroyer fleet has. NO CHANCE. Too many to counter and too fast too counter them all.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


You do realize that ships built for the navy are.........not actually built by the navy, right?

They are built by civilian companies, here take a look:

Ingalls Shipbuilding



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 



What about this piece of BS YOU said


Originally posted by Jepic

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





With sufficient engine power it can be done.



except that destroyers arent nuke powered man...........you keep moving the goal post.....

every time someone successfully refutes your claim, then you dream up some hypothetical situation that doesnt exist.......

youre trolling............i encourage everyone to Abandon Ship.........as it were....


I'm not moving any goalposts. I have stated from the beginning that we are talking hypothetical and equal level of technology.



yes you have, you have continually moved the goal post.........

And if then the case that all things are equal in technology........and you admit that, then Carrier STILL wins......because of the simple fact that it has all the technology your Star Wars destroyer has, with a larger platform for MORE of it........

Its simple logic........I honestly believe youre just trolling......

May i ask how old you are out of curiosity, and if you have any experience with military hardware


As I said. All things equal, your carrier group will be overwhelmed and destroyed.
That's what I believe.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You don't grasp it... Your carrier group has no chance against the number of missiles a destroyer fleet has. NO CHANCE. Too many to counter and too fast too counter them all.


And you are still refusing to acknowledge what was explained to you (not sure if your trolling your own thread, or if you REALLY are this thick headed).

Your missiles are absolutely usless.

You can't use them, unless you get your fleet within 20 miles of the Carrier group, and THAT is NOT going happen.

Your fleet will be wiped out by a carrier group long before that because the carrier group will be able to see your fleet and attack it before your fleet can locate and engage the carrier group.

All because your fleet lacks over the horizon detection that is real time data.

Satellite tracking data is NOT going to help you in this case. It's not real time, and it can not do the things that the carrier group can, like EM detection and warfare.

You have lost this debate several times over. By failing to admit that (especially when you are speaking from ignorance and lack of experience like many of us here have), you are doing yourself a disservice.

Move on.
edit on 24-4-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Jepic
 





Semantics in any case. I've already read up on it. Classification has clearly more to do with armament than with size according to what I've read.


Did you really just argue the validity of information provided from a career navy man as SEMANTICS, based on your limited knowledge of what you say youve read?

Jesus christ.....

Seriously people, time to bail........stop feeding......im out...
edit on 24-4-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


Seriously if you want to live, just go. BYE. ADIOS. It's that easy. I've read tons of material on military hardware and strategy to reach this conclusion. If you don't want to believe it, CIAO.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





As I said. All things equal, your carrier group will be overwhelmed and destroyed. That's what I believe.


You can believe in the tooth fairy that doesnt make it real




May i ask how old you are out of curiosity, and if you have any experience with military hardware


please answer this question



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join