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: 22
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
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 ? )

I have no doubt a war would ensue. But the destroyer fleet would have proven itself as the new dominant fleet set up for many to come.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


artillery is on land if its on a ship its refereed to either as "naval artillery" or "naval guns" with the standard being 5inch deck guns.....a far cry from the 18inch hay-makers that were tossed about by the missori in 6 wars and smoke is not as effective as you would think and is completely vulnerable to the wind blowing it in ways that you dont want it to

en.wikipedia.org... this is the largest naval gun still in service
en.wikipedia.org...

Guided missiles began to replace naval artillery as more effective weapons against aircraft and ships in the mid-20th century. Naval artillery calibers greater than 5 inches (13 cm) were used primarily for naval gunfire support after 1944; and no new ships were built with larger naval artillery. Submarines shed deck guns as a handicap in modern naval tactics. Destroyers and frigates carry a single gun of 3- to 5-inch calibre (76.2-127mm) as a backup to missile systems and capable of land fire support. Remaining roles of naval artillery like the 20mm Phalanx CIWS system are for short-range defence against targets which cannot be engaged by guided weapons systems. The US 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun is capable of firing 20 rounds per minute to a range of 20 miles.[citation needed]
so if were gonna be ragging on "obsolte systems" naval guns are about obsolete as missiles have replaced them over the years

en.wikipedia.org... list of naval guns by caliber and their time in use hope you find this informative

en.wikipedia.org... i will give you this for teaching me something the only destroyers that have ever sunk a carrier(the hornet) was in ww2 and they took her out with torpedoes (much more effective anti carrier weapon IMO)

a few surface ships sunk a few escort carriers(smaller then our amphibious assault ships) but again these were Essix class escort carriers not a super carrier



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


American battleships carried the 16in gun. Only the yamato class japaneese battleship had the 18in gun.

Their zeros were not too bad either.
edit on 24/4/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


40 guns? we talking aa or naval guns? what caliber what is the displacement of the destroyers how wide are their hulls what happens if they fire them all at once and roll over like some battleships that were designed poorly over the years what destroyer now or ever had 40 naval guns? now if u count their bofurs or anti air then they could in theory have that many guns but how much ammo can you store on a destroyer what is the range in nautical miles of these guns you say exists give us a name of the guns and the class of destroyers if you wanna be taken more seriously



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The real problem is that a fleet of 10+ destroyers sailing out of somewhere would be tracked the second they started to load food/fuel/ammo into it via the intelligence services of probably a dozen different countries so even trying to get the ships out of the harbour before they got sunk would be a miracle

I'm sorry for my fellow Brit's bullishness but he seems to be playing top trumps or some sort of theoretical game where theres only certain number of resources and if done right you can win but with a lot of nations watching everyone else getting 10 destroyers into attack range at the same time would probably trip someones warning siren and the chances even a few thousand miles away of launching sufficient missiles to do serious damage would be low and within seconds of seeing the missiles launched the fleet would be on high alert and anything bigger than a gnat entering the zone without clearance would be shredded in seconds



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


common sense....what you are describing comes from the tactics of wooden tall ships and brodsides broad sides were rarely used in ww2 and have not been exchanged since also you put to many guns on one side of a ship the recoil can make them flip and on to your russian comment they dont have the money to put that many guns on a ship as for them arming them with missles and not deck guns is the standard of the day. the deck gun is a weapon of last resort or something to be used on pirates or smugglers not main fleet enagements hell even when we reactivated our battleships over the years we outfitted them with cruise missiles not more guns as the 16 inch guns were more then enough



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


first it was real navy now its some made up one? lol at least keep your story straight mate as your looking quite the fool going from one tangent to another



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


60km range? that is more then triple the range of any cannon/naval gun known in existence today hell i dont even think that massive land mounted gun sadam was working on to shell isreal could go that far and it was a MASSIVE gun not even the yammamoto with her 18 inch guns got that kind of range

en.wikipedia.org... even this one had a range of 38km and no one uses anything remotly this size (unless we reactivate the ohios for a 4th time)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
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.


All supplies can be air dropped. Yes you can put nuclear power on all of them. Cost effective doesn't exist when you have the economy of China. You don't need fixed wing aircraft to supply your destroyers because there is something called a resupply ship. Most people think that something needs to tested to be seen as superior. When sheer knowledge and logic should be enough to know that something is superior.

Now as for the submarines. I actually like submarines. Add some submarines to the destroyer fleet. Your carrier group is plain chalk now.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I'm going for now. I'll check back in later...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


en.wikipedia.org... you mean this gun which was mounted on frigging rail lines and was classfied as a SEIGE gun not a naval gun cant put anything that big on a ship even this one only has a range of 29km firing this kind of weapon on a small destroyer could break the spine of the ship in theory

www.army-technology.com... now this being a land artillery peice has a estimated range of 60km with the archer round but it again is not a naval gun but a land piece

also it is used by Sweden not one of Americas enemies



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



Cost effective doesn't exist when you have the economy of China.


China's military spending for 2012 = $106 Billion
US's military spending for 2012 = $707.5 Billion

Just sayin'.... Since when does cost NOT factor into military decisions?



All supplies can be air dropped


You're going to air drop missiles? Not to mention, all anyone would have to do to find you is follow the supply planes. An unknown location is one of the biggest assets a naval asset can have, and you just negated it. The only solace I can take here, is that willing or not, at least you are learning a LOT more about naval combat and tactics than you did at the start of this thread.



All supplies can be air dropped. Yes you can put nuclear power on all of them. Cost effective doesn't exist when you have the economy of China. You don't need fixed wing aircraft to supply your destroyers because there is something called a resupply ship


Which is it? Air drop or resupply ship? Even easier to follow the supply ships.

Interesting note, do you know which nation spends a higher percentage of it's GDP on defense than the US? Saudi Arabia....interesting......they spend 10% of their GDP on defense. The US spends a comparative 4%. Food for thought.



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



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


yeah and you launch an icbm at a carrier we nuke the ever loving crap out of your country and turn vast portions of it to glass i dont give a frack if it has a conventional warhead no one will risk it not being a nuke and will respond in kind....hell with our sattlitles detroyers could not get with in 3000 miles of a carrier bg now subs possibly but destroyers naw aint gonna happen



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Slowly but surely, this theoretical "destroyer" group is evolving into a carrier group minus the carrier, with the addition of subs and resupply ships...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


not really we have the most atvanced command and control and fire controls in the world and you can mount a lot more things on a CV then you can a dd just due to size this has been fun and mildly entertaining but your obession with destroyers is a little much

we have over 60 arligeburke class destroyers not one other nation comes close to having even half that number we have more destroyers then other navies so i fail to see how some other navy is just gonna start popping out more destroyers in a time to reach parity let alone surpass us in numbers of surface ships



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


check out the crossroads tests they sunk an essx class carrier but failed to sink a ww2 german cruise with not one but two nuke strikes....yes it was rendered to radioactive but again it did not sink if the ship does not capsize it wont end up on the bottom
edit on 24-4-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Right now, there are two other powers that pose any kind of (non-nuclear) realistic threat to a US Carrier Group....Russia, and China. That's really about it. Both have planes and missiles that could penetrate the defense net of a carrier group, just as we have the same that could penetrate theirs as well. (Both Russia and China have 1 in service).
edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


tacticle nuke it can stay afloat and in theory be savalged later full on icbm with a massive warhead im sure that could in theory take out a carrier but as those have never been tested in combat or in theory

the prince ogen survived two blasts of 20ish kilotonnes and only the underwater blast did sever dammage

as the only tests of this kind were after ww2 and cuz of test bans unless some one launches a full on icbm at a carrier we will have to go off of the test results



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


there has never been a nuclear powered destroyer and even then it could not carry as many weapons as a carrier just due to size and displacement



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


we will always need boots on the ground otherwise you cant take and hold territory only deny its use sigh....i hope your either not military or if you are you work for north korea as with a general like this we cant help but win against such fantasies



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join