Aircraft Carriers have been obsolete for a long time

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


ah thank you for corecting my ignorance as how engines work is not something im too informed on so thank you for teaching me something new today!

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Why not launch UFOs directly from area 51? It would be A MUCH FASTER sortie I guarantee you.

Check my link above, seems that my idea is already being done! (yeah, I was surprised too).

I think UAVs are a bad idea. Best to keep it as personal as possible therefore less wars get declared and politicians think twice or thrice before starting them. With uav's like what Obama wants the drones, all it takes is to be declared a big bad "terrorist" and kaboom.

reply to post by Jepic


well as this is my second account as i lost my old one from 2009 i have been here for more then my fair share of times and i think we called you a troll because of your inability to see logic and common sense and having the inability to separate the real from the fiction in your war games planning funny out of all the people who called you a troll you pick on me....and fyi ive seen some of the best and informative threads from people who have joined recently so the whole i been here longer then you does not carry as much water as you would like

ps its much easier to pick on me for my mental illness and complete lack of grammar and sentence structure

reply to post by Gazrok


wow that thing looks truely impressive,i think the op would have been better to argue that the planes the carries use are more likely to become obsolete(replaced with drones) then a carrier.....imagine how many more drones a carrier could carry and with inflight refuling(make that a drone too) they could have cap or even 50% of their drones air born at one time depending on repair issues and what not

now drones on carriers that would be a huge game changer no more pilot endurance and depending on price they could even be used as kamakazis to demoralize the enemy

very good point you bring up good sir(and it never helps to disagree with a lannister )

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


like i said engine tech is not my forte and that boat does look impressive but just as an attempt to gather knowlege how does this compare to marine engines that are equipped on naval vessels? and just to clarify those are inboard engines not outboard (meaning the propeller is inside the ship as opposed to spinning on the outside correct?)

reply to post by Jepic

www.defence.gov.au...

Why is a submarine called a "boat"? One reason might be that because the submarine was known as a boat from the earliest conception of something that could travel beneath the surface. A German poem of around 1200 - Salman and Morolf - mentions a diving boat built of leather with a long tube supplying air, and an Englishman, William Bourne, in a 1578 treatise entitled Inventions and Devices describes: "It is possible to make a shippe or boate that may goe under the water unto the bottome". Bourne's boat solved the problem of achieving negative buoyancy - that is, making the submarine sink - by allowing water valves to fill leather bags. A mast let in air and when the boat needed to ascend the operator squeezed out the bags, thus expelling the water. Cornelius van Drebbel, a Dutch physician, amazed London in 1620 by submerging to 12 feet in an "oar-powered boat" and rowing it across the Thames. He did not know of Bourne's technique, however, and had problems making the boat stay down. Despite this he managed to persuade King James VI to come for a ride. The Turtle, a US vessel used in an underwater attack against the British during the American War of Independence, was described as a boat in letters of the time. She was shaped rather like a pineapple and her designer, David Bushnell, equipped her with a snorkel, a depth gauge and a detachable explosive with a fuse. A valiant attempt was made by her commander Ezra Lee to manoeuver her underneath a British ship. This failed due to propulsion difficulties and Lee was detected. In his escape he cut loose the explosive and it went off causing the British fleet to take some alarm at the first attempt at submarine warfare. Perhaps, therefore, the first submarines were called boats because they were small. Some descriptions say that a boat is a vessel that is routinely removed from the water. A ship is one that usually stays in the water, except for unusual occasions: dry-docking, careening, running up on a sandbar etc. Another interpretation is that a boat is any vessel that can be placed on another vessel.

so definitions vary

answers.yahoo.com... yahoo answers so take that for what is worth but there are a few interesting replies their

and as submarine is the short hand version of submarine boat the distinction matters
en.wikipedia.org...

the noun submarine evolved as a shortened form of submarine boat (and is often further shortened to sub).[1] For reasons of naval tradition, submarines are usually referred to as "boats" rather than as "ships", regardless of their size.

so its tradition dictionaries be dammed

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

like i said engine tech is not my forte and that boat does look impressive but just as an attempt to gather knowlege how does this compare to marine engines that are equipped on naval vessels? and just to clarify those are inboard engines not outboard (meaning the propeller is inside the ship as opposed to spinning on the outside correct?)

Yeah its an inboard engine design but other than that I don't know much. I think if the propeller is enclosed in a tube it increases efficiency quite a bit, how much I don't know and I would rather not speculate. Also by adjusting the propeller design, much like a turbo-prop airplane, that should also affect performance and play a factor in noise reduction.

I have seen a discovery documentary in the past where submarines were equipped with such tubed propellers and they gave a brief explanation but could not give details because they were classified. Anything that is really important is obviously classified.

reply to post by Jepic


Good luck getting those destroyers within attack range before having a squadron of fighters up your ar$e. Need I mention that ONE A-10 Warthog can do immense amounts of damage to a paltry destroyer? You think said aircraft carrier is just gonna sit there and wait to be attacked? You thought wrong if that's the case.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You are referring to an impeller, not a propeller. A similar mechanism is what they use on jet-skis. This is not new technology, regardless of what the military would like to have you think.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

You are referring to an impeller, not a propeller. A similar mechanism is what they use on jet-skis. This is not new technology, regardless of what the military would like to have you think.

Jepic is goddamn 12 years old not worth anyone's time, honestly hes just an annoying little crap who cant admit hes wrong, so hes sitting there doin his homeschool homework since he cant go to school, probably socially awkward to real people and ATS is the only place he feels normal and is too prideful to look like a dumbass in front of the citizens of ATS so hes just putting on a show trolling and blatantly being an immature little douche with fanciful ideas that are absolutely rubbish.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

I need to see schematics on these "smart mines" keep your subs near shore as much as you want...CBG aint going to go shallow or littoral.

Eastern Pacific Region is filled with Islands. These shipping lanes are ideal for mines. Lets ignore Russia, Korea and Iran for now and just look at China...

China’s Sea-Mine Inventory

China’s current mine inventory includes a wide array of lethal weaponry. Published, un- classified inventory estimates range from fifty thousand to a hundred thousand individ- ual weapons.81 It is worth noting, however, that mines stocks are easily hidden; therefore, these estimates must be treated with considerable caution.

Order of Battle

A recent PRC article claims that China has over fifty thousand mines, consisting of “over 30 varieties of contact, magnetic, acoustic, water pressure and mixed reaction sea mines, remote control sea mines, rocket-rising and mobile mines.”82 See table 1 for a reported list of current PRC sea mines. These range from the more primitive moored mines to sophisticated bottom and rocket-propelled mines.

www.usnwc.edu...

Just mines, just China, just "estimates". Mines are of course the most direct threat to any seagoing vessel.

I think rough seas(50ft waves) are MORE LIKELY to sink an aircraft carrier than a destroyer convey.

my last post..gotta get some work done!

Carriers are just too big a target for any enemies' precision missiles. Saturation of missiles fired at will at one point just overwhelm whatever defences those carriers could have thrown up.

Carriers are just big toys to boast to smaller countries without a navy but will never be a threat to any countries such as Russia China or any of those big boys club.

Granted, they are still the best platform for disaster relief and rescue and other than that nothing more than a very big target.


Warfare has comes a long way since the heyday of Carriers and the only reason they are still around is that they haven't been put to test since no major naval battle has been fought eversince.



Even 20 years ago, they could be effectively used to deter Chinese's aggression but since the Chinese came up with the DF-21, no carriers are safe within 1500 kms from the Chinese mainland and that's why US Navy has shown no muscles during the recent spat with Japan.


The Chinese will probably have carrier forces bigger than the USA because they could afford them sometimes in the future though unnecessary but for the reason that it feels good.



Submarines are the ultimate big sticks in the coming years, IMHO.

reply to post by Jepic


They are sitting ducks....

Aircraft Carriers killer..

missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minute

www.usni.org...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
An Aircraft Carrier is a BIG boat with BIG vulnerabilities and BIG shortcomings. An Aircraft Carrier Battle Group is still, by far, the most powerful mobile projection of military power OR 'on the spot' disaster relief in the world, IMO.

Escorts without their Carrier are just ships to take their chances. A Carrier without her escorts is a fat target waiting to get sunk in modern warfare. Combined? Nothing quite matches it that I know, let alone beats it.

The flagship of the naval fleet are the aircraft.

The carrier is the hangar. A hangar without its protection is a fat target waiting to be bombed too.

The threat to a carrier is not other surface ships, but submarines and the most advanced long-range missiles.

Originally posted by Jepic

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.

No, not all supplies can be air dropped. If you'd have ever served in the US Navy you would know this. Supplies can be flown in, and unloaded, but not everything can be air dropped.

So you'd have a tanker on station? Their even more vulnerable than a carrier is.

Again, however, your forgetting all the other services that are available on a aircraft carrier:

Medical surgery. Actual Dental work. Repair shops that rival that of Tenders (another ship you don't put in your fleet as it's even more of a target).

Your helicopters don't have the same range as larger fixed wing aircraft. We've tried to explain this to you over and over.

You can't just grab a ship and stick a nuclear reactor in it. It doesn't work that way.
As Zaphod mentioned we did have nuclear cruisers (CGNs). They carried the same kind of armament that my destroyers had, except they were a bit longer and held more missiles.

However, they were built to have them. They were not retrofited. And they were built in the early 1970s. By 1999 all of them have been decomissioned and are headed for scrap (many have already been scrapped).

Why not build more? Cost. It's cheaper to build ships that are smaller and use jet turbines than it is to build ships that use a nuclear pile for power. While you do have fuel costs, in the long run, it costs more to build, operate and maintain a nuclear power plant.

Most of these ships were replaced with the Tico class, the Ticonderoga class cruisers. They pumped them out down in Pascagula, MS at Ingalls shipyard like a car factory puts out cars during the 1980s. I know as I watched them being built for 6 months when my first ship was there in the yards for an overhaul.

It was during this time, Reagan was in office, and we had the USSR to deal with. The cold war was still on, and the secretary of the Navy at the time wanted a 600 ship navy.

The reason the CGNs were decommed is due to age. They were old. Just like the class ships I was on, which had pretty much all been decommed by the mid 1990s. I know, as I helped decomm 2 of them (the Coontz and the MacDonough). The keels of the ships I were on were laid back in the early 1960s.

So yes, they would have to scrap the fleet of ships we have now, and build your nuclear destroyers from scratch. And it would cost a lot more then they are worth, especially when carries that are in existence now, do everything we need them to do.

reply to post by Hopechest


Submariners recognise two types of floating vessel. Subs and targets.

Originally posted by Jepic

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?

Nothing can intimidate a well prepared and equipped general. A smart general will see a big chunk of steel that he can blow up nicely with destroyers.

Keyword, destroyer. A destroyer is much more intimidating.

Maybe you don't know the history of the Pacific battles of WW2. The carriers were the key.

reply to post by Jepic

The thing that I am not sure that you realize but, I believe that a few other posters have commented on the fact that carriers are surrounded by the support ships. In a hostile area you can expect at least 6 destroyers around an AC. Then there are all of the planes, subs, and other fleets that can get to the theater of operations. Not to mention the armaments on board the AC. Imagine that you have a gun that could launch a VW Bug to a target 30 miles away and do so with accuracy. Now, stop imagining because an AC can already do that sort of thing. Even if you had ten destroyers try to take on a battle group, then the attacking destroyers would find out quickly that they are out gunned, technologically inferior, and would probably realize that attacking an AC was a very bad idea.