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: 16
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

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.
If you think that jet propulsion is not in use I don't know what to tell you... For the US it might not be. But for many other countries it sure as hell is.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Oh goody!

Please give us a link to a source that shows a large naval ship's propulsion system that is jet powered.

Can't WAIT to see it. Go ahead, we'll be waiting.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

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.


That does not make sense one bit and I don't have to be a career navy man or naval architect/engineer to figure it out either. A jet engine does exactly what it infers to do. It sucks water in and expels it thus providing thrust.

On a nuclear powered AC it is used to create steam and turn the screw sure. It is also used to convert sea water into drinking and utility water. This stuff is covered on discovery channel so its no real secret. I am suprised some people don't know this and claim we are wrong.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.


Satellites can travel in constellations. That means you have a satellite for each region of the earth depending on how many regions you want to split it up with. The more the better of course.
Just in case. It means worldwide coverage up to the last inch. Integrate the surveillance allocation capability into the network of all destroyer fleets and your planes are lucky if they reach the second milestone so to speak.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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.



They CAN be everywhere if they are part of a constellation.
And a constellation usually has reserve satellites.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by eriktheawful

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.


That does not make sense one bit and I don't have to be a career navy man or naval architect/engineer to figure it out either. A jet engine does exactly what it infers to do. It sucks water in and expels it thus providing thrust.

On a nuclear powered AC it is used to create steam and turn the screw sure. It is also used to convert sea water into drinking and utility water. This stuff is covered on discovery channel so its no real secret. I am suprised some people don't know this and claim we are wrong.


Here, these are used on Destroyers in the US Navy:

General electric LM2500


The General Electric LM2500 is an industrial and marine gas turbine produced by GE Aviation. The LM2500 is a derivative of the General Electric CF6 aircraft engine.


They are used on Arleigh Burke class destroyers


Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines each generating 27,000 shp (20,000 kW); coupled to two shafts, each driving a five-bladed reversible controllable pitch propeller; Total output: 108,000 shp (81,000 kW)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Satellite database.

www.ucsusa.org...

Including the types.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580



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.


Other than for civilianand commercial use, winged aircraft are obsolete.
You can integrate repair facilites into destroyers too.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by grey580



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.


Other than for civilianand commercial use, winged aircraft are obsolete.
You can integrate repair facilites into destroyers too.


Again, you're not reading:

Fighter aircraft can launch missiles faster than ships.

Fighter aircraft can have missiles reloaded onboard a carrier.

Ships need to pull into port to have new missiles loaded.

Case closed.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
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


I never said that ships are built by the navy...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Assuming that a country even has satellites.
or a constellation of them.

Russia and china probably do.

I would still posit that they can't cover 100% of the ground.
However I would like to hear from a trained satellite operator on the effectiveness of this.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Isn't a gas turbine different from a jet turbine? Gas turbine is relatively old technology whereas a jet turbine is new techonology, correct? I guess the older ships have the former and the newer and smaller ones have the later.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Still waiting for you to actually show how Aircraft Carriers are "Obsolete" the topic of your thread.

So far you have failed to prove this. Quite the opposite in fact.

You've failed to show how a destroyer fleet could "wipe out" a carrier group, as you've been very wrong on how weapons platforms of the navy work.

The only thing you've shown is that a aircraft carrier is a vital part of the US fleet due to the amount of time groups spend deployed around the world.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Keep in mind that Carriers actually travel in a Carrier Strike Group consisting of 6 - 7 ships each with a different purpose. Guided Missile Cruisers, Anti Aircraft Ships and anti submarine destroyers and/or frigates and you've got one hell of a group that is perfectly as capable of defending itself as it is in launching Sortie after Sortie against an enemy target. Taking out a carrier and its escorts is not as easy as you seem to think.

The carrier strike group is far from obsolete given our current involvement in in all parts of the world. Take away that involvement and protection for our allies that these groups provide and you might be able to argue your point that they are obsolete in foreign seas. They will always have a place in the protection of the United States and our territories.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

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)


WOOOW! You seriously just said that satellites don't track in real time!? And that they don't have electronic warfare capabilites!? ARE YOU SERIOUS!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





Other than for civilianand commercial use, winged aircraft are obsolete. You can integrate repair facilites into destroyers too.


Wow. just wow.
Like Mike Tyson would say, "It's ludicrous"
winged aircraft are obsolete.

If this was true why is every major nation building war planes?
Even China is building a stealth fighter.

Germanicus is that you?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
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


No I won't. I want to keep this conversation as unbiased as possible.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Isn't a gas turbine different from a jet turbine? Gas turbine is relatively old technology whereas a jet turbine is new techonology, correct? I guess the older ships have the former and the newer and smaller ones have the later.



Jet Turbine is actually a misnomer.

Jet Engine is actually the proper name. Turbine is referring to a part of the engine. Gas means Air fed.

Jet Engine

The reason the US Navy went to these is because of several things:

Boiler ships take many hours to go from a "cold" boiler, to having one that is fired up and producing a full head of steam.

Gas Turbines, you basically turn the key and go. Almost like your car. A ship powered by these can get underway in less than an hour.

Repair: Boiler repairs are extensive and can take many months to do.

Gas Turbines can actually be pulled out of the ship and replaced. Repair times drastically reduced as well as cost.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Jepic
 


Oh goody!

Please give us a link to a source that shows a large naval ship's propulsion system that is jet powered.

Can't WAIT to see it. Go ahead, we'll be waiting.


I'll show you three off the top of my head of ships that are jet powered.


1. Russian borei class
2. British Astute class
3. French Triomphant class

There we go.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by grey580



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.


Other than for civilianand commercial use, winged aircraft are obsolete.
You can integrate repair facilites into destroyers too.


Again, you're not reading:

Fighter aircraft can launch missiles faster than ships.

Fighter aircraft can have missiles reloaded onboard a carrier.

Ships need to pull into port to have new missiles loaded.

Case closed.


Aircraft Carriers are built for offensive firepower to support an overseas war campaign. They are mobile enough to respond to any rapidly developing crisis and we could close down a lot of foreign military bases as a result.

But the beauracrats in washington want the best of everything at the tax payers expense.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join