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: 18
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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?


They are wasting precious time and money that they could be investing into making and improving missile technology with the same capabilites of an aircraft.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Jepic

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.

1. Thats a sub not a large naval ship
2. Thats a sub not a large naval ship
3. Kinda getting tired of repeating myself

Not only that , stated clearly

#2


Class & type: Nuclear-powered Fleet submarine Displacement: 7,000 tonnes, surfaced 7,400 tonnes, dived[2] Length: 97 m (323 ft) Beam: 11.3 m (37 ft) Draught: 10 m (33 ft) Propulsion: Rolls-Royce PWR 2 reactor, MTU 600 kilowatt diesel generators




Propulsion: 1 × ОК-650В nuclear reactor 1 × AEU steam turbine 1 × shaft and propeller (pump-jet)


Steam turbine and shaft propeller
edit on 24-4-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


Again your argument is invalid
edit on 24-4-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


I think you'll see that submarines are also ships.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein


No matter how many times experts in the field refute these crazed arguments, the OP is going to hold steadfastly to the notion of this invincible "destroyer" fleet making carriers obsolete. The US spends more on the military than most nations' GDP, and sees the wisdom in maintaining carrier battle groups, yet obviously, they will be no match for this aspiring Bond villain's dream fleet. So be it. I'm going to heed Einstein's advice and go back to my volcano lair to pet my fluffy white cat.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

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.


So the only think keeping you from becoming a billionaire with your knowlege of fusion reactor jet engines and hull composites is your hatred of the US military? I know a thing or two about physics, how does this nuclear fusion jet engien work? Knowing that F=MA, what is thrust out the back of said engine to create momentum forward?

Again, I gotta ask, how old are you?


I have no hatred for the US navy... I have disagreements with their current policy. But no hatred.

Don't ask me for my age since I never asked you for yours. Let's keep with the topic at hand.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


I'd say that aircraft carriers would be vulnerable to a barrage of missiles which would overwhelm any anti missile weaponry, through weight of numbers...?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.


How does it suck water in and expel it back? Blades. You get the same problem with fluid dynamics and a limit at the force you can provide backwards and an upper limit to the force of water you can get going back. Bernouli limits the forward force you can generate by impelling water backwards and you get the same limits you get with screws. Imagien the force you would need to push a 95k ton vessel forward at 100+ knots and you seen that you are limited, not by the amount of power in the plant, but the amount of water you can move.


The bigger the screw the higher the limit it can take.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by jibeho
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.


How will each of those SPECIALISED ships fare against a fleet of which each 7 ships have anti-air, anti-submarine, guided missile and finally regular destroyer capability combined? In other words each destroyer has all the capabilites of those platforms combined except aircraft, which as I said is inferior to a missile.


Again, your lack of experience and knowledge is showing.

Each ship is specialized.......AAW platform, ASU platform. One is geared for Anti Air Warfare, the other Anti Submarine Warfare.

Example: Coontz class destroyer.

It's a guided missile destroyer. 513 feet long, 53 feet wide at it's widest beam.

Carried 38 Terrier SM2 block II missiles, range of 90+ miles (it actually has 40, but 2 missiles are T-SAMS which are special test missiles that are used to test the launching system and are full of electronics, not rocket fuel or warheads).
8 Harpoon cruise missiles mounted on fixed launchers, on the port and starboard sides.
6 MK 48 torpedos located in HP tubes. 3 on either side of the ship.
ASROC launcher (which is a very old, outdated rocket torpedo used against subs).
5 inch gun mount.

Prior to the Ageis system, the Terrier missile system was the bomb. Using the AN/SPS-48C search radar, in conjuction with the AN/SPG-55B radar, the ship would "Launch On Search" meaning that we could shoot our missile, and track the target with my search radar. The pilot of the plain will not have any alarms go off that they've been locked on to.
Mean while, my radar is tracking him....sending that data to Missile Plot, which is then sending it to the 55B radar which IS locked onto the missile, telling it where to go. The last few seconds of flight, the 55B locks on to the target for the missile.

At that point, the target is dead. No time to do a damn thing except pull the eject.

However....our sonar system SUCKED. It was the AN/SQQ-32 if I remember right. That's because or primary mission was anti air.

So.....let's up grade.............do you know how much that costs?

So......build a ship with all that stuff on it..........again, it's going to cost a lot.

That STILL does NOT replace the logistics that a carrier provides with the fleet (and something you have YET to counter with, you have failed).

Medical services, supply services, repair services, refueling services for all the ships.

Counter that. If you can't, (which you've yet to do), then your thread is a fail: Carriers are NOT obsolete.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by jibeho
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.


How will each of those SPECIALISED ships fare against a fleet of which each 7 ships have anti-air, anti-submarine, guided missile and finally regular destroyer capability combined? In other words each destroyer has all the capabilites of those platforms combined except aircraft, which as I said is inferior to a missile.


You do realize that pretty much every surface combatant in the US fleet at the moment has those capabilities right? What class of destroyer are you talking about, BTW?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by grey580
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.


The sky would have to be literaly innundated with military satellites to have instantanous feeds and I think we all know that is not the case. There are many blind areas while satellites traverse the globe. I have no idea how big the intervals are either.


It absolutely doesn't have to be inundated with satellites. 500 high powered satellites scattered evenly throughout the globe will get you instantaneous feedback and unprecedented cyber warfare capabilites.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Jepic
 



Planes are primitive in recon field compared to satellites.


I'm not even sure why most of us are continuing the debate, when you prove more and more ignorance on this particular subject with every post. Satellites are not omniscient or exactly where you need them to be at a moment's notice, which is EXACTLY why we spend billions on air recon and sensors. While you are waiting for the next satellite to be in position for your updates, your fantasy battleships are being sunk by harpoon missiles and bombs from aircraft you didn't detect.
Unless of course these fantasy ships of yours are engaging their reflex cannons, launching mechs, or deploying Power Rangers, they are pretty much going down.


Like I mentioned to another poster. 500 high powered satellites scattered evenly throughout the globe as part of a constellation and you have real time data and an unprecedented cyber warfare platform.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 



I'd say that aircraft carriers would be vulnerable to a barrage of missiles which would overwhelm any anti missile weaponry, through weight of numbers...?


This is a correct statement. The caveat being that you have to get within range of the carrier without alerting the carrier group's defenses, and having them scramble air assets to remove you as a threat, as you approach threat range. That is where the whole thing falls apart.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic


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.


Not enough satellites to cover every inch of hte world simultaniously at this point. "Consellations?" Please point out these "constillations.

Does not matter if you see the plane. He can see you and there are no SAMs with the range of our cruise missles.

You don't need to cover every inch. A satellite does quite an impressive job in scanning what's in its field of view. Add to the matter that a single satellite can have multiple lenses.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Jepic

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.


Borei Class


Propulsion: 1 × ОК-650В nuclear reactor 1 × AEU steam turbine 1 × shaft and propeller (pump-jet)


sorry dude, she's got screws.

Astute Class

Reactors, steam, screws.....wrong again.

However, you did get it right with the French sub:

Triomphant class

Uses a Pump Jet

Still waiting on a LARGE ship.

You could have hit closer to home:

Littoral Combat Ship

They are small however. Still no sign of a large ship that has it.


Yes. Even pump jets use screws. No one ever said that jet powered propulsion excludes screws. Jet powered propulsion means that the engine creates a jet stream in the water as a means of transportation. Nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Hold on. Is the pump-jet on the Borei-Class Sub a true water jet?
Or a hybrid?

I've read in a few places it still uses a propeller and shaft. But the pump-jet reduces the cavitation of the prop by shooting water over it to get rid of the bubbles coming off the prop in it's shroud.

Can we get a ruling here?
And does the same hold true for the other boats listed?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


How much are those 500 satellites going to cost, and who the hell is footing the bill?

This guy?



It's taking the entire EU to build a system of 30. Also, as I mentioned, it isn't just about gathering the data, it is about USING the data, in real time, and the quality of that data. This entire thing is an exercise in flightless fantasy...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





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.


That was the question that was asked of you, You didnt NOT list large naval ships and you did NOT list anything jet propulsion powered except for your LAST vessel on there, and it is still propelled by ......guess?

And its also not a large naval vessel


Again , fail on all accounts



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


The high altitude, high speed patrol aircraft would either pick up the destroyer visually, or on any number of radar systems employed to do just that. Considering a destroyer does have Anti-air, the patrol craft would do nothing but make it's way back, or away from the carrier to divert the destroyers attention.

At this point, the subs in the carrier fleet would torpedo your destroyer group. Making it the next multimillion dollar artificial reef.

UK Destroyer



US Navy Carrier Group....





There are aircraft in this group designed to take on ships, armed with the ordinance to do so. There are destroyers in this fleet, there are submarines in this fleet. AS well, the carrier itself has Ordinance aside from aircraft it can launch against other ships, as well as use to defend against incoming missiles.

UK has a pretty destroyer I will admit, and it can absolutely pack a hefty wallop, how ever it is not exactly capable of taking on a fleet of this size and diversity.

Subs are still the bane of any surface vessel, and they are part of the carrier fleet mate.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by grey580
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?


I will admit I was one to argue such nonsense about a decade ago on some game forumn and looking back boy was I stupid. I was arguing against fighter planes and in favor of SAM systems.


Fact of the matter is SAMs are defensive assets and fighter aircraft are primarily offensive assets. When you go bombing a country you need fighter escorts and the defender(like syria or libya) uses SAMs as last effort "hail mary" defense.


Doesn't matter if it's offensive or defensive. If it gets the target destroyed it's good to me. And a SAM guided through satellite navigation will hit your aircraft one way or another. Maybe even doing a barrel roll before ramming you to take the mick.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





Jet powered propulsion means that the engine creates a jet stream in the water as a means of transportation. Nothing more, nothing less.


holy crap........no thats NOT what it means......and you were saying the direct opposite before it was proven that you were ridiculously off base on how jet powered engines on navy vessels work.....

And it DOESNT create a jet stream in the water.........

For crying out loud....




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Still has a shaft and propeller...


Vessel propulsion systems

The submarine is powered by an OK-650 nuclear reactor, AEU steam turbine, a shaft and a propeller. The Borei Class submarines are the first in Russia to run on the pump jet propulsion system.


www.naval-technology.com...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join