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: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
Every ship in the fleet are there to provide protection for the carrier, they are to take the hit before it does and destroy anything before it gets close. A carrier is surronded with it's own defenses against any attacks to it. No other country has a carrier as the US does. Yes other countries have them but they don't have the same capabilty is them.


Why provide protection for a platform that is inferior?




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Perhaps you picked up that idea from some of my posts in that regard.

Aircraft carriers are relics from WWII, the same as battleship except a bit more useful for the time being, being sitting ducks for the missiles that will announce WWIII and thus, giving us a reason to get involved a la Pearl Harbor.

Nothing is going to stop a rain of missiles upon a flattop, nothing. Missiles of all manner will be the main weapon, both those from the ground, standoff a/c and space.

Our chief navel weapons are the triangles and space weapons platforms. A sea-going navy for conducting warfare is an obsolete concept. And you can throw fighter a/c into that trash bin also. Arial plane-to-plane combat is also obsolete. Attack 'choppers and planes such as the A-10 will still have a purpose. But fighters for what when the other guy is shooting missiles?.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


It's primary function is air superiority, not to worry about other ships. The range that they have with the aircraft is a threat to anyone. Other ships provide the protection for an original American bad ass that nobody can compare to. Once anything is in its range, aircraft are launched.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Inferior to what?
I'd like to know.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Jepic
 


You have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about...

You need to look up the survivability capabilities of an aircraft carrier...the carrier can withstand a small tactical nuclear strike without sinking...the armament onboard is capable of intercepting missile attacks...there are constant flying patrols conducted around a carrier strike group...

The carrier is the flagship of the fleet for a reason...


The carrier cannot withstand a direct nuclear strike. Absolute lies.
The defenses of a carrier are severly limited in the wake of a destroyer attack.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Let us not forget the attack subs that also tend to accompany most carriers. They would send your mighty destroyer to the bottom...cruise missiles, anti-air defenses and all then honk at you as you came sinking by...sneaky little buggars those attack subs are.
edit on 4/23/2013 by UberL33t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   


Nothing is going to stop a rain of missiles upon a flattop, nothing.


Distance will.

Or do you believe missiles have unlimited range?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


The aircraft they have now are designed to do all functions in one. it's a multi purpose aircraft that does the job of many with many capabilities, not just air to air.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Perhaps you picked up that idea from some of my posts in that regard.

Aircraft carriers are relics from WWII, the same as battleship except a bit more useful for the time being, being sitting ducks for the missiles that will announce WWIII and thus, giving us a reason to get involved a la Pearl Harbor.

Nothing is going to stop a rain of missiles upon a flattop, nothing. Missiles of all manner will be the main weapon, both those from the ground, standoff a/c and space.

Our chief navel weapons are the triangles and space weapons platforms. A sea-going navy for conducting warfare is an obsolete concept. And you can throw fighter a/c into that trash bin also. Arial plane-to-plane combat is also obsolete. Attack 'choppers and planes such as the A-10 will still have a purpose. But fighters for what when the other guy is shooting missiles?.


EXACTLY! You are probably the third person in the whole of internet I have met that gets it.
Modern warfare is all about missile technology. Missiles rule the day. Anything else is inferior to a missile.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


It's primary function is air superiority, not to worry about other ships. The range that they have with the aircraft is a threat to anyone. Other ships provide the protection for an original American bad ass that nobody can compare to. Once anything is in its range, aircraft are launched.


An aircraft is inferior to a missile. In speed, range, payload and even protection if research was more focused in that field.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
something to think about..

Exocet Missile

check the range and the Altitude on right hand colum and remember.. this was back in 74'.......



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
Let us not forget the attack subs that also tend to accompany most carriers. They would send your mighty destroyer to the bottom...cruise missiles, anti-air defenses and all then honk at you as you came sinking by...sneaky little buggars those attack subs are.
edit on 4/23/2013 by UberL33t because: (no reason given)


With enough funding a nation can come up with a missile that sinks subs "a la javelin".

Destroyers have anti-submarine measures. Torpedos they should have.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Aliensun
 


The aircraft they have now are designed to do all functions in one. it's a multi purpose aircraft that does the job of many with many capabilities, not just air to air.


So what can an aircraft do better than a missile?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
something to think about..

Exocet Missile

check the range and the Altitude on right hand colum and remember.. this was back in 74'.......


It just proves my point... Missiles is where it's all at.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Your just thinking of a carrier being out there all alone. If that was the case, of course it would be more likely to be attacked. But once an Alpha Strike would go into effect with all aircraft launched in a matter of 10 minutes, you might tuck tail and try to run.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

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.


Even leaving out the fact that there are warheads that can penetrate armored bunkers what do you think will happen to those precious aircraft on top after the burst?

But again... Bunker busters.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Do you not think that aircraft carry missiles with them? Besides the aircraft could be a distraction as the rest of the fleet will show no mercy on anything in its way.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Well, the Chinese managed to surface an attach sub in the middle of a Carrier Battle Group and the Battle Group with all its assets di not know about its presence until it surfaced.

In warfare, that would have been 1 dead as a door nail Carrier.

All ships can be overwhelmed by a massive missile attack. That is the reason the Soviets did not build them. They were aware of the vulnerabilities.

In the beginning of WW2 the most powerful navy in the world openly scoffed at Japanese Air Power until they lost their most modern warship The Prince of Wales. Carriers are vulnerable.

P



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
Your just thinking of a carrier being out there all alone. If that was the case, of course it would be more likely to be attacked. But once an Alpha Strike would go into effect with all aircraft launched in a matter of 10 minutes, you might tuck tail and try to run.


No. I was counting the whole group... Missiles travel faster than aircraft. Who will destroy who first? The aircraft the destroyer or the missile your aircraft?




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join