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: 19
8
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



And a SAM guided through satellite navigation will hit your aircraft one way or another


Explain to me again, how it is going to detect, let alone lock onto a stealth jet, mayhaps? I must have missed that nugget of genius in this master plan.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
double post.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





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.


So you say.
However thousands of Military planners think you are wrong by making more planes, boats, subs, copters etc.

I think you need to rethink what you are thinking because your thinking is not what everyone else who thinks is thinking.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Hmmm, respectfully, long range hypersonic missile barrage, perhaps ? I believe there are such things, and if an Aircraft carrier deck is damaged, the dozens of aircraft on board are then redundant, and the carrier is then a liability, not an asset.

I'm not downing aircraft carriers, just looking for weaknesses in their defences....

The fact is, none of this has been put to the test in recent times, as far as I know. And sometimes it isn't just down to military assets, fate and luck can take a hand in events....



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 


No carrier has been sunk since 1944, that much is true. Yes, a long-range massive missile barrage would have a chance of destroying a carrier, provided you knew exactly where the carrier was, and that the carrier didn't have time to move following the launch (so your missile barrage would have to cover the entire area it's arc of travel within the window of time to target). Of course, the launch of such a barrage would be detected, with the launch of many air assets to seek out the origin, but yes, THIS is a realistic weakness of a carrier, as it could overwhelm the Aegis and other defenses.

Having a lot of F-35C's and X-47B's on the way to you would be a little disconcerting, but of course, you wouldn't know it before you saw the explosions.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Jepic

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!





No, what I said is that there is not enough to have 100% coverage of everything all the time. If you rely only on satellite imagery, you lose. If you rely only on ELINT, you lose. The CBG can go complete electronic silence, passively receiving the target data from the eyes in the sky, whereas your "Super destroyer" has to emit both to target and to protect itself form incoming missles. Your hypothetical super destroyer could not stay electronically silent to shoot and defend. The CBG can. Even if you get a SAM launch against the Hawkeye, your position is already plotted and the birds are inbound. The satellite won't see the missles go off, even if you are lucky enough to have one with the CBG in it's footprint, because cruise missles use prepragramed coordinates and don't go active until the very final phase. You, on the other hand, have to keep radiating if you have any hope of picking a few off with your CIWIS.

And you forget: if you put a missle with a thousand mile range on an aircraft with a thousand mile range, you have an effective weapon delivery range of 2 thousand miles. The aircraft can launch multiple sorties of multiple missles each long before you get in range of the CBG with the missles on your boat. Again, that is one of the many advantages of the carrier: power projection.

C'mon, just how old are you anyway?

You can go into as much "electronic silence" as you want. The fleet will just send the region co ordinates for the satellite to scan, the satellite finds the hardware, locks it, relays the number of missiles necessary to neutralise all threats from the carrier group, the fleet launches the cruise missiles, while the cruise missile approaches it sends a jamming signal to block projectile and electronic countermeasures, the missiles hit all targets under radar coverage. The group doesn't know what hit them. Big fireworks, champagne and beautiful girls.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Mate, Every aircraft in production since the advent of SAM systems is designed to evade those systems.

You do realize the US is on the forefront of every one of these systems right? The most advanced aircraft, the most advanced ordinance, the most advanced satellites, the most advanced stealth systems.

The military budget in the US is the highest in the world, and that money isn't just going to the firecrackers they're using in the middle east.

There has not been an engagement where US aircraft have been tested against modern systems in a real wartime scenario, but a destroyer group is not capable of taking on a fleet of that size. There are hundreds of aircraft, multiple subs, destroyers, missile ships, anti missile ships, frigates, it's just ridiculous to say a ship designed for one part of naval superiority to take on a fleet that is set up to for complete Naval domination. A carrier fleet covers every possible basis.

Sure, if a destroyer got in firing range it could launch a battery of various ordinance against the carrier and maybe make a hit, but a carrier is not going to go down with a single hit. Every ship in that fleet could employ the same tactic and sink your destroyer 100 fold. The aircraft alone could launch their entire payload and sink your destroyer group. The missile subs, the anti-ship subs alone could saturate your destroyer group.

A single missile sub has more cruise missiles in it's tubes than your destroyer. This is just preposterous.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Hmmm, respectfully, long range hypersonic missile barrage, perhaps ? I believe there are such things, and if an Aircraft carrier deck is damaged, the dozens of aircraft on board are then redundant, and the carrier is then a liability, not an asset.

I'm not downing aircraft carriers, just looking for weaknesses in their defences....

The fact is, none of this has been put to the test in recent times, as far as I know. And sometimes it isn't just down to military assets, fate and luck can take a hand in events....


As with anything, even a carrier group has weakness to it. A sub that's stealthy enough can give a carrier group a really bad day.

A nuclear device dropped on on them (or ballistically sent) can also be a very bad thing.

Conventional surface to surface and air to surface warfare on the other hand, the carrier group reigns supreme.

We (the US) and other countries learned this just prior to WW2 with WW2 showing just how effective a carrier group is. Japan used it quite well on us at Pearl Harbor.

In the 70 years since then, weapons, planes, missiles have all improved and changed. Ships themselves have changed.

But the use of a carrier group and it's configuration has not.

This thread started by the OP (with a very minimul post) was declaring the Aircraft Carrier as an obsolete ship. But the OP has yet to prove that.

In fact, since something is obsolete because something else does a better job that it does, the OP still has yet to prove that there is anything else that can replace the aircraft carrier with the multitude of responsibilites that it has.
I showed that with my very first post in this thread.........the logistics that the carrier provides can not be replaced by destroyers or missile boats.

He's yet to come up with something that can.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

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.


SAMs are half-way decent speed bumps, that is about it. They are not really offensive assets. Not to mention they relly on radar systems and hacking the system itself or destroying the radars renders the whole system useless. We saw this in the first gulf war against iraq as the f-117s took out the EWS, then ship barrages from the persian gulf bombed everything else.

Even iraq, syria, libya had fighters and they cost much more than SAM systems. The problem is they were way outdated, not maintained properly, and extremely overmatched by nato assets. The pilots themselves were not that great. NATO jammed them into oblivion I suppose as they could not shoot down a single nato plane.

The bottom line is you need a little of a lot because everything has its purpose. Flooding the skies with military satellites seems like a terrible idea for many reasons.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Jepic
 


Galileo won't be fully realized (all 30 satellites) until 2019. Also, navigation is WAY different than tracking multiple targets, stealth targets, etc. Not to mention, getting the data is one thing, having the computing power and programs to then make sense of the data and give you a combat picture is quite another. Then of course, there is the compromise the EU made to the US regarding jamming frequency, and the fact that the EU and US are not exactly on fighting terms.


Doesn't mean it can't be done. See your own GPS version.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



He's yet to come up with something that can.


In all fairness, neither has anyone else, which of course is exactly what disproves the hypothesis of the thread.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



He's yet to come up with something that can.


In all fairness, neither has anyone else, which of course is exactly what disproves the hypothesis of the thread.


Well in all fairness, he did say that they can build a much bigger destroyer (which of course makes it no longer a destroyer) that can house all the facilities that a carrier can......

But that also means adding a flight deck to accept planes and so they can take off.............

You see the irony here? He just built an Aircraft Carrier.......



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Jepic
 



And a SAM guided through satellite navigation will hit your aircraft one way or another


Explain to me again, how it is going to detect, let alone lock onto a stealth jet, mayhaps? I must have missed that nugget of genius in this master plan.


Stealth aircraft can be picked up by any decent SAM system. I don't see the problem with that. The only difference between conventional and stealth is the distance and time requirement. The defender will get a much smaller signature, much later than normal, and with less chance of shooting it down.

The serbs proved this in practice, by shutting down the radar and waiting till the last moment to turn it on.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Jepic

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.


1. Doesn't matter much at what slightly higher speed something is coming to you when it is being met head on by two missiles.
2. Which is a downside because while it is there it is a sitting duck.
3. That is a downside, but the missile loading function can be integrated into the destroyers. Besides when one is in port you can be sure there will be another destroyer out there that replaces it.


1) Does mater because the air craft can carry their missile payloads much closer to an enemy fleet. Much shorter flight time for the missiles = much slower reaction time by the people on the ship.

2) You don't have all of your jets sitting on the ship, they rotate, once again your ignorance of US Naval Flight Ops is appalling.

3) Ah, but the carrier can have it's munitions flown out to it.......no returning to port needed.....and I can tell you, from personal experience, that loading missiles on a destroy is an all day event that takes a very long time to get done, because of all the safety precautions that we follow.

Plus the time to pull into port.....set the Sea and Anchor detail, get tied up, have the munitions brought out (what? You thought they have them sitting on the pier? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No. They are in bunkers until it's time to load: safety reasons).

Then preparing to get underway again, setting the Sea and Anchor detail, and getting out to see.

Some weapons stations are located well up river......like Goose Creek, SC.......or near Williamsburg, VA. Not sitting right there at a naval station.
edit on 24-4-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)


1. We are talking of distance of 2000 km. Any extra speed from the aircraft that the missiles gain are insignificant.
2. Even with all aircraft airborne the group gets hit overwhelmingly with help of satellite guidance.
3. Rotations is the answer as I said.

No problem. Fleets can rotate. While one is in dock the other is active.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Fair points, Gazrok. I'm sure I read somewhere that the Russians have, or are developing hypersonic missiles, in which case, maybe only one or two would need to reach the target, as anti missile weaponry would not be able to " Lock on " to such a fast moving target ?

And if I'm wrong, they must have given the matter some thought, or do they just accept the situation ? Probably.

( I'm certainly not anti American, by the way, just looking at the situation the op posted.)

When all is said and done, the U.S. has by far, the worlds largest navy, and no other individual nation would dare challenge that supremacy, I would have thought....



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JDmOKI
reply to post by Jepic
 


This is a troll trying to articulate that we don't have the most powerful navy in the world just because of our carriers. He is stating that we will be easily destroy with missiles because they don't move fast....even though they are heavily armored and designed for those type of strikes.

The point of carriers is to spread our air force and dominate the air.

MISSILES ARE EXPENSIVE!!! Why do you think our military is looking into laser technology to shoot down missile? Spend 500k on an interceptor or uses a energy generated laser?

don't feed the trolls people


With the military budget of 700 billion you could get as many missiles as you want AND THEN SOME!! And when I say and then some, it means a big AND THEN SOME!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 





There has not been an engagement where US aircraft have been tested against modern systems in a real wartime scenario,

I'm sorry but that's not correct.

Here is the list

We hope to jam the enemies systems But it doesn't always work.


I misread your post. You were refering all our systems. I was thinking aircraft.
edit on 24-4-2013 by samkent because: Correcting my error.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


This whole thread is very silly.

Obviously if Jepic's opinion was anywhere near valid military experts all over the world would be in agreement. However that does not seem to be the case.

There has been multiple members that have posted on this thread which I would consider experts in the field of naval technology and naval military tactics, and they have all effectively demonstrated to Jepic that a fleet of destroyers wold not stand a chance against a carrier fleet.

The whole argument coming from Jepic is wholly of the what if/maybe type that exists no where in the realm of reality. I might as well say "Well if you have super duper advanced battleships, I have super duper advanced mega robots with laser eyes, and genetically engineered dragon monsters!" (okay maybe a little bit of an exaggeration
)


Sorry Jepic I will go with the opinion of those who have actually been in the military as Naval officers and those who have devoted their lives to the study of military tactics.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I'm going to plant a string of smart mines in its pathway, hide subs along shorelines to defeat sonar that can fire a spread of torpedoes each, launch supersonic sea skimming missiles from all points of the compass to arrive at the same time as the torpedoes and mines converge...

LST Large Slow Targets bobbing like a cork.

The carrier is useful at projecting power afar...



as long as nobody shoots back.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Stealth aircraft can be picked up by any decent SAM system. I don't see the problem with that. The only difference between conventional and stealth is the distance and time requirement. The defender will get a much smaller signature, much later than normal, and with less chance of shooting it down.


What dreamworld is this? The radar signature of an F-35 is about the size of a jawbreaker candy. The Serbs shot down the Nighthawk due to stupidity on the part of the mission planners flying the same routes, and not guarding what they said. The missile battery commander used this information to shoot it down, had nothing to do with the SAM detecting it. By comparison, the radar signature of the Nighthawk is about that of a small bird, more than the F-35C's that would be coming off a carrier.




top topics



 
8
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join