Aircraft Carriers have been obsolete for a long time

So...basically OP is saying.....let me take a minute to get this right.....

If a destroyer group had all the capabilities of a carrier group....and a ridiculous amount of munitions....it would be superior to the carrier group in every way.....

mmmmm.....

amirite?
This is what he's saying....RIGHT?

LOL!!! Some people....

A2D

reply to post by eriktheawful


I did 13 years, on 4 different carriers. I wonder how many people know that carriers refuel destroyers on a regular basis. I would say that makes the carrier pretty relevant.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Jepic
Tell me a field where the carrier is still relevant and I will tell you a platform that can do the job at least twice as well.

 

Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites
please post one or two paragraphs,
a link to the entire story,
AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

edit on Tue Apr 23 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Apr 23 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: ALL CAPS in title

Show me a platform, besides a carrier, that can be anywhere in the world in 5 days, bring 5 million pounds of ordnance and 70 - 80 fighter aircraft.... I'll wait

A nuclear powered destroyer fleet can be anywhere in less than 5 days and have just as much ordinance as a carrier group.

If only there were such a thing as a nuclear powered destroyer fleet.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

yeah nuclear cruisers have been done and if my memory serves me the russians also have atomic ice breakers as well correct? you might know this what was the smallest vessel ever equipped with a nuclear power plant?

Yes, the Russians operate several nuclear powered ice breakers.

Most likely NR1

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Gazrok

 

are not diesel submarines of the German design supposed to be quieter or more stealthy then their American counter parts? sub tech has gone along way since the ww2 days so i think that as stated by numerous members that the greatest naval threat to a carrier bg is a submarine.

The US military doesn't make non-nuclear powered subs anymore, so there is no direct counterpart to diesel-electric subs from Germany. Diesel subs are very quiet when running solely on battery power, but that run time is limited before they must start their diesel(s) to charge the battery and then they are easily detected. In addition, their range is limited by the amount of fuel they can carry.

When my sub (an Ohio class SSBN) participated in some war games many years ago, the surface ships couldn't find us at all and our observers told us to intentionally make noise so they could find us... Note that this was in the late 90's, on a boat built in the early 80s, based on 60's/70's technology... I can imagine that our newest subs are much quieter.

reply to post by Komodo


Another comment from the peanut gallery...you have spent zero time at sea and have studied nothing about the capabilities of a naval warship or you would not make such a comment...you do not know what you are writing about...

reply to post by pheonix358


You do not know what you are talking about. Period.

reply to post by Jepic


Common misconception...top overall published speed for the modern Nimitz-class carrier is 70 knots PLUS...actual TOP SPEED IS CLASSIFIED! There is NO SHIP at sea that can outperform the nuclear carrier...

reply to post by totallackey


i had not heard the number 70 knots mentioned before so i went to look it up but this is all i could find.....
www.navweaps.com...

i will agree that what ever the ships top speed would be would obviously be classified

www.navweaps.com... just for informational purposes and not meant to be a direct reply to you but if you find ships interesting there is a whole lot of information on that site from propellers and info on design and how hull can determine a maximum speed of a vessel the biggest advantage that a CV has over most other ships is that it can run at full speed 24/7 with out much concern of taxing the engines or fuel sores and i guess in theory could even run faster then most of their escorts to escape danger if nessisary leave its battle group behind as a rear guard

en.wikipedia.org... another interesting read on underwater speed records with some confirmed and some theoretical devices talked about

such as the Alfa class submarine, is reputed to have a speed in excess of 70 knots (130 km/h or 80 mph). The Russian rocket-powered supercavitating torpedo VA-111 Shkval is reportedly capable of speed in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h or 230 mph).[6] German press reports of an underwater anti-torpedo missile named Barracuda that allegedly reaches 800 km/h.[7] The U.S. Navy has contracted with the General Dynamics Electric Boat Division to support development of the Underwater Express, an undersea transport capable of controllable speeds up to 100 knots (185 km/h) through supercavitation.[8]

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


The, uhm..NR-1 wasn't it? The DSRV/rescue submersible?

reply to post by bates


Yes, I do...read the thread...it is in the thread...

reply to post by Gazrok


The tails would be the hard part. Make the wings a TOP COVER type design where they lay along the fuselage.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


I can appreciate the article, but trust me when I tell you the Nimitz-class carriers can exceed 70 knots...

ETA: Can I refer you to anything in writing or some expert opinion...no...I can only tell you what I know...

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Jepic

 

Common misconception...top overall published speed for the modern Nimitz-class carrier is 70 knots PLUS...actual TOP SPEED IS CLASSIFIED! There is NO SHIP at sea that can outperform the nuclear carrier...

They are incredible, aren't they?? I don't recall which one it was now...I think the Ronald Reagan, but History or Discovery had a show years back with a crew on-board during it's sea trials.

What channel or even which Carrier isn't the important part because what they showed it doing was something I literally thought impossible for such a HUGE vessel. That had it up to "full speed" ..whatever that actually is and then had it do a full rudder turn at speed. The WHOLE SHIP actually, visibly shifted at a pronounced angle. Like a speed boat doing a high speed turn ...but it was no speed boat of course. That was a segment I'll never forget for the raw power those things have even if they rarely show anything close to it.

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)

I was thinking the same thing.

Also the ability to track and calculate trajectory lightning fast.

Also the military learns from past battle experiences. Aircraft carriers have a little bit better enemy tracking and target acquisition abilities.

There things cost more than some countries gdp. Lol

OP, you have my respect for what it's worth. It's not easy to admit when you are wrong, and kudos to you for being big enough to admit it. There are a lot of members on here that have valuable experience with military equipment, and if you want to learn a lot, I suggest finding them and talking to them.

reply to post by totallackey


fair enough would you think that an attack sub could have a higher speed then a current nuke carrier? and was not the enterprise the fastest of all the carriers or at least the one with the most reactors? figured u might know this as the only thing i have heard about our attack subs is they could in theory go at "turn pike speeds" or something like 70mph(not sure how to convert to knots)

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


One knot is ROUGHLY 1.1 mph is what I have always been told.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I did 13 years, on 4 different carriers. I wonder how many people know that carriers refuel destroyers on a regular basis. I would say that makes the carrier pretty relevant.

Yah.....I remember doing refueling ops with carriers at sea.........there we were......being tossed around, trying to keep our footing on a pitching and rolling deck.......

While all the airdales up on the carrier were standing there holding their coffee like it was a sea state of 0.

Bastards.......

Then the emergency break aways.......ALWAYS we had to do an emergency break away, just because they like to do it........and we get sloshed with fuel oil....

Do you know what fuel oil smells like? Smells like fish oil. It STINKS. And it does NOT come out of your uniform. Ever.

Just once I wanted to see someone get nailed in the balls by the monkey fist from our shot line. Teach you to laugh at us up there on your huge ship!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

 

One knot is ROUGHLY 1.1 mph is what I have always been told.

It's actually 1.15 mph.to 1 knot.

Fastest I've ever gone was on my last ship, the Might Mac. We did a power run and made for 38 knots. the deck was trembling, when we'd steer to port or starboard the entire ship would do a heavy roll........

Nothing like making something that's 513 feet long and displaces almost 6,000 tons going almost 44 mph. Whew.....seems slow in a car, but when you're on something that large? It's a rush.

Here's a link to her. The picture that they show was us coming up the Cooper River, coming home from the first Gulf War:

USS MacDonough, DDG-39

And here is a picture of her being towed from mothballs up in Philly on her way to be scrapped back in 2003:



I damn near cried when I saw how she looked. About broke my heart.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I knew that wasn't quite right, but was close.