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: 20
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
IDestroyers have a role but they do not perform the same role as an aircraft carrier.

The aircraft carrier provides the capability to mount air operations against an enemy nation in the case where a friendly land airstrip is not available.

Destroyers can offer cruise missile strikes against known fixed installations but they cannot-

-Take and maintain air superiority over land
-Perform recon
-Provide and sustain close air support.

The carrier aircraft can do all these things and sustain it for extended periods. The carrier is not obsolete which is why the emerging superpowers (China, India) are both developing their carrier capability.

That said, the carrier needs the destroyers in its battle group. Hypothetical scenarios where a carrier sails around defenceless are not worth discussing as it just doesn't happen.

If you want to kill a carrier and you don't have a carrier then you want a submarine. Sending surface ships against a carrier group is a suicide mission.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
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...?


That's what I'm trying to say all this time... But they won't listen.

They think a carrier group is a super secret alien weapon a la deathstar who can't be destroyed. Well we know how it turned out for the deathstar. The same could damn well happen to the US if they don't wake up. Only it won't be Luke, instead it will be a barrage of missiles from possibly Iran.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 



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 ?


I'll just say you are correct, and leave it at that. The info is out there, for those who care to delve, but I'm not going to facilitate such notions....



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 





That's what I'm trying to say all this time... But they won't listen.

They think a carrier group is a super secret alien weapon a la deathstar who can't be destroyed. Well we know how it turned out for the deathstar. The same could damn well happen to the US if they don't wake up. Only it won't be Luke, instead it will be a barrage of missiles from possibly Iran.


I don't think anyone has said that.
Not at all.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   


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!


but we choose to have 11 carrier strike groups with that 700 Billion and not focus on solely on missiles. I wonder why??? I little critical thinking will show your above statement to invalidate your entire argument. people a lot smarter than you and I have played out scenario after scenario for decades and have come to the conclusion that carriers = military superiority in theatre.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:30 PM
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?


2 million horses and bayonets...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 
name one ship or platform that can go any where in the world , launch, and retrieve air craft or all kinds, and then i will agree with you.
CV air craft carriers are the main ship in any force in the would, no other ship can do what a CV can do. Air support is the rule of any conflict, with out it, ground forces in any conflict, is doomed.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

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.


I've said it before, make the destroyers as autonomous as the aircraft carrier. How about then. You have good points by the way.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


No, you tried to make the argument that the carrier was obsolete. It isn't. Nor is it invulnerable. But, it is a difficult target. However, in order to claim it is obsolete, you need to give something else that does it's role. Now, you claim air power isn't needed. This is folly, you cannot counter an enemy's air power only with missiles...especially an enemy employing stealth fighters.

The role of a carrier group is to project military power around the globe regardless of having a nearby base or friendly base. Nations with carriers can respond to military threats to themselves or allies all over the world and with an amazing display of power and capabilities.

Mr. Smith actually hit upon the real vulnerability of a modern carrier group, but I'll leave that up to you to delve into, should you really want to, and of course...for every new weapon, a new defense is also in development...no doubt.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Thing is, though, Jepic, even if someone ( ? ) was lucky enough to sink/ disable one of the U.S. carriers, that nation / entity would find that the U.S. had maybe three or four more carriers in service at any one time, and they would be unlikely to let an aggressor " get lucky " a second time, and would find they had woken the proverbial " Sleeping lion "

( Wasn't that quote from Admiral Yamamoto, after Pearl Harbour ? )



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 


"sleeping giant"
The current status of our carrier groups is rather dismal though...most are in maintenance, due to too long at sea from current missions. Of course, the new carriers being built are damn impressive.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
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.



Correction.
1 Aircraft carrier
2 AA ships
2 Guided missile ships
2 Anti submarine
1 Submarine

A destroyer fleet has all those capabilites combined and a fleet is made up of 10 destroyers.
No way. A destroyer has about a 100 cruise missiles.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
 


.....I would agree with Gazrok, in that aircraft carriers are certainly not obsolete.

But like anything military, they do have their vulnerabilities.

And we will never know until such circumstances arise, though I hope they never do.

. I 'm disengaging now...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


" Sleeping Giant " Thank you for the correction, I did think about it after posting...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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?


As does every destroyer in the fleet with at least double the number of missiles.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Stealth systems have changed a lot since the one shot down. They are orders of magnitude harder to detect than they were. That particular aircraft was also on the same basic path that he had used the previous several nights so was predictabl



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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?


It does use a propeller and a shaft but that doesn't make it any less of a pump jet. It is still propelled by pumping the water.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
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...


Whoever has enough money for it of course. If a nation is serious about it and starts producing cold war style it can be done within a decade with enough manpower and resources directed for its construction.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
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


And I answered it. Those are all large naval ships propelled by pump jet. It's not the type of pump jet you were expecting? That's a different matter...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join