It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Jepic

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.

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.

A destroyer does NOT carry 100 cruise missiles. Your ignorance is showing again.

Learn the difference between Surface to Air missiles and Cruise Missiles. One uses jet fuel, the other uses solid rocket propellant. One travels and tremendous speeds (above Mach 2) and one travels at the same speed as a Boeing 747.

I would LOVE to see a destroyer that can replace a submarine. Could you link that for me? That would be some cool stuff to look at.

Hey everyone! Now submarines are obsolete! Destroyers can replace 'em!

The funny thing is, like I said, I served onboard 3 destroyers: USS Preble DDG-46, USS Coontz DDG-40 and the USS MacDonough DDG-39. Loved every minute of being a "Tin Can Sailor", but you seem to have a "thing" for destroyers that goes beyond even the most dedicated "Tin Can Sailors" I ever knew.

Tell all the sailors of a "Destroyer Group" that they are going to take on a Carrier Group for real, and watch how many of them go AWOL.

Actually there is such a thing as a "Destroyer Group", it's called a Destroyer Squadron actually. aka DESRON.

Again, you've still failed to replace the Aircraft Carrier, one of it's key features of being able to do all the resupplies in a fleet is that flight deck.......which is needed for all kinds of aircraft, which are key to staying supplied and deployed.

Once you put a flight deck on a ship? It's called an Aircraft Carrier. Sorry, no way around it.
edit on 24-4-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Jepic

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.

So you going to build a screw larger than the hull? Besides, it is not the size of the is the velocity of the blade. A propellor works by pulling in a mass of water and pushes it behind it (simplified for the highschool students). According to Newton's law, then the force forward is equal the the force pushed out the back. If you created a huge blade, but it turned slowly, the mass of the water pushed back may be higher, but the velocity of the water is not greater so in order to get a faster boat, we don't incease the size of hte blade, we increase the velocity at which it turns. This increases the velocity of the water pushed out the back and increases the thrust forward (F=MA). This is where the limits of fluid dynamics limits the thrust.

Let's take a look at p + ½ρV 2 + ρgh = constant. Bernoulli's equation. You can increase the velocity of the blade only to a certain point then the low pressure on the "back end" of the blade gets to the point that gas is created and that no more water can be moved through. Once you reach this upper limit, you can't go any faster by adding more power.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by Gazrok

Actually I think we have one of these in play.
This is a well done troll thread.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Hijinx
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.

That's not a carrier group. Those are three carrier groups.

The destroyer fleet has satellite link up 24/7 and the exact same countermeasures as your group. Countermeasures against submarines, AA and anything else.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
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 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....

Yes that is what it means. Water comes in through a small cannal behind the propeller and the engine pumps the water out to create propulsion through the propeller. Just because a propeller is used to pump it doesn't make it any less of a pump jet engine.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:05 PM

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.

Low-frequency radar. And some jamming fine-tuned to the most effective frequency.
That's it.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by grey580
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.

I'll let them re-think it because they are in for a rude awakaning if they continue down these path. I don't put much stock in it though. Military is is blinded by shiny new toys all the time.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:09 PM

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....

Yes! Thank you!

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
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)

I think you'll find hypersonic missiles will reach the carrier and planes first than the other way around.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by eriktheawful

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.

Yes they can. An autonomous nuclear powered destroyer fleet that's satellite linked and houses 2 helicopters per ship capable of anti submarine, anti air, humanitarian aid and spec ops missions with more weapons than a carrier group is superior.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Jepic

Current systems have moved past the point where low frequency radar would work. But even if it did, it wouldn't matter. All that tells you is something is there, you can't shoot at it with low frequency radar.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:21 PM

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

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.

SAM systems are MEANT to work with electronic warfare components. It's the whole point. You counter-jam enemy radars and hack the system just enough to keep it busy. The fact nations used SAMs without the electronic warfare component just shows how stupid they are.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by eriktheawful

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.......

I never said to add a flight deck... Forget the flight deck. Just build a much bigger destroyer. Hey if you want to call it a destroyer battleship go ahead.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by Jepic

It's not a true water jet engine.
It's a hybrid water jet propeller system.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Openeye
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)

You can go with whoever you may please. It doesn't change the fact that a destroyer fleet with more fire power than a carrier group will dominate.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Jepic

sorry. Won't work.

helicopters do not have the same range as cargo fixed wing craft. By limiting it to helicopters you have just strangled your Destroyer fleet. You're going to need fuel for your ships, because you can't put nuclear power on everyone of them. Sorry, not cost effective due to the equipment, refit, new ships having to be built, and now all he extra personnel that you are going to have to recruit, train and use retention on.

Basically we'd have to scrap the whole fleet of the entire navy. You are out of your mind. We need to be spending LESS on our military and more on other things.

We're doing military cuts right now.....or had you not noticed the news headlines?

You screwed up again.

You have to have fixed wing craft to bring you your supplies, and not all supplies can be air dropped. Such as high tech munitions, fuel, etc.

So you will have to have a flight deck. You've no choice. You just can't replace the carrier.

Good try though. And good attention seeking skills here at ATS. Your thread was basically "Debunked" in the first few pages, with just about EVERYONE here not only disagreeing with you, but proving you wrong.

However, you did a good job keeping this thread up and in front by moving the goal posts, and constantly posting incorrect (or just plain out WRONG) information about weapons systems, engineering, radar systems ,etc.

About the only thing you've proven in this thread to most readers is: You don't know what you're talking about.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by intrptr
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.

At 2000km distance from your shoreline the destroyer fleet will have plenty of time to prepare, plan and execute a most efficient counterattack employing electronic countermeasures and cruise missiles with jamming capabilites.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by Jepic

in the event of another ww2 style war we would take out their satellites using our aegis missile cruisers (we did it right after china shot down a satellite from the main land) and you do realize that with the exception of india china and Russia (only listing proposed enemies) not to many nations have satellites of their own right?.....and just out of curiosity can you tell us what class of DD you are talking about ddg,dd,etc as i cant think of one naval vessel that has 1000 missiles on board , old rocket ships ala ww2 had more then that many projectiles but they were shooting unguided rockets at beachheads as not one russian or american designed ship has that many projectiles on board....and 20 guns on each side...sounds like your talking about a battleship as most modern ships are armed with 5 inch deck guns as the days of broadsides has been over since the days of taffy 23(think it was them may have the number wrong)

There have been 12 US aircraft carriers sunk. They all were lost during WW II from 1942-1945. In order, they were: USS Langley (CV-1) - Sunk February 22, 1942 USS Lexington (CV-2) - Sunk May 8, 1942 USS Yorktown (CV-5) - Sunk June 8, 1942 USS Wasp (CV-7) - Sunk September 15, 1942 USS Hornet (CV-8) - Sunk October 26, 1942 USS Liscomb Bay (CVE-56) - Sunk November 24, 1943 USS Princeton (CVL-23) - Sunk October 23, 1944 USS Block Island (CVE-21) - Sunk May 29, 1944 USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73) - Sunk October 25, 1944 USS St Lo (CVE-63) - Sunk October 25, 1944 USS Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) - Sunk January 4, 1945 USS Bismark Sea (CVE-95) - Sunk February 21, 1945
notice that none of these were super carriers something only the us of a has not even chinas new carrier is a super carrier
closest we ever came to loosing a super carrier in combat was the forestal accident where a zuni rocket fired off on the deck and started a fire but even then the old girl didnt sink
2 one thousand pound bombs going off couldnt take her out even with fire supression almost non existant at the time and if not for the bravery of the crew rushing to their potental deaths to save their ship it could have ended alot worse

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:37 PM
The primary purpose of destroyers is to hunt down submarines, not engage cruisers/battleships/AC!

Battleships have gone absolete afaik because they lacked smart capabilities. Too bad, the brute firepower was awesome.

Cruisers serve a variety of purposes such as bombardment with 12in gun, anti-air protection, limited anti-sub protection, anti-ship protection, and target destruction with cruise missiles.

AC provides air support for land operations, and with its mobility it means it can almost replace the need for foreign bases.

Submarines target all ships, launch cruise missles, and launch seal forces.

Everything has its purpose in the navy and you can't really substitute each other out with reasonable effectiviness.

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:38 PM

Originally posted by howmuch4another

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.

I doubt it. Most officers are dumb as a rock. Have no clue what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. Prove? The hate shown worldwide toward the USA is your prove. Absolute disgrace all they have done since WW2.

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in