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: 28
8
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Here... I found some pictures. I also looked up where the Enterprise class Carriers were rated about the same as the Nimitz class Carriers. "30+" knots. Well, I think that "+" works out to a HUGE number beyond just the claimed 30. These didn't happen at that rather sedate speed. After all, these suckers are 4 1/2 acres of deck alone! ...that size, doing this?








Go Navy! ...Just hang onto something when they push the throttles forward and GO!




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I have been a follower here for years and finally decided to sign up with the Boston bombings, since I live around the area. This thread was entertaining. I think it was Garzok that mentioned the new carriers. I was curious and found that Newport News Shipbuilding is making them and wanted to see if I could find it on Google Earth.

I believe I found it, image is from 4/2010 though, I think it is supposed to be ready by 2015. I would post an image but since im a noob here still I haven't got that far.

If you are curious look up the shipbuilder in Google Earth, looks like it is in drydock right behind the retired Enterprise.

Pretty cool!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
If we are including advanced technology in the equation then you would
have to count the newer FEL based anti missile systems that would
be equipped not only on carriers but on its support ships as well,
those would have the capability of shooting down multiple targets
with an accuracy in 98-99% range, with multiple targeting and
multiple systems all tied together the threat of a missile attack is
much much less, the truth is technology is always a game of constant
development, one side gets a new weapon, the other counters,
then the other counters that as best they can, to make a blanket
statement that carriers are obsolete is too early in my opinion.
edit on 24-4-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


reply to post by MrJohnSmith


well yeah in theory you could take out a carrier with a massive barrage of missiles but as that has yet to be acheived(but was russian doctorine for years) it then brings up the point well congratulations you killed a carrier.....now what is going o happen to your country? unless your russia its not a good fate. aircraft carriers are basicly mobile cities and if you destroy and american city you will have hell to pay when we occupy your country and then charge u war reparations and make u pay us for the carrier u sunk.....or do what we did to the japanese bomb you fire bomb you then nuke the frak out of you,remove your leaders and re-write your constitution so you cant have an offensive military....so by all means enjoy the bragging rights of taking out the fist super carrier while your nation burns around you and your people are killed as stated earlier the term Pyrrhic victory comes to mind as by killing that many Americans you pretty much give us cart Blanche to respond how ever we like...hell 911 killed what 2,900 people and injured 6000 and we bombed the crap out of iraq and afganistan over the matter what you think happens when you take out a carrier?

Respectfully, that was a hell of a jingoistic literary broadside, and I was' nt bragging, that was not my intent, if you had read further comments I have made since the post you pounced on...



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Here... I found some pictures. I also looked up where the Enterprise class Carriers were rated about the same as the Nimitz class Carriers. "30+" knots. Well, I think that "+" works out to a HUGE number beyond just the claimed 30. These didn't happen at that rather sedate speed. After all, these suckers are 4 1/2 acres of deck alone! ...that size, doing this?








Go Navy! ...Just hang onto something when they push the throttles forward and GO!



Ever tried a really sharp turn in your car doing 30!!!!!
That's a really sharp turn for a ship that size it's the amount it's turning not the speed it's amazing how many people on here look at pictures but don't really see what's in them

edit on 25-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I had no idea you could drift an aircraft carrier lol. Isn't it about the radius of the turn AND the speed its going that determines the sliding effect on the vehicle? That's what makes sense to me.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jepic
 


No reply on the average speed then


Average speed depends on engine power. Increased engine power, increased speed.


Let me re quote your exact piece of BS YOU said this


A nuclear powered destroyer fleet can be anywhere in less than 5 days


That would need a constant minimum speed of at least 100 mph please show a link to any ship weighing a few thousand tons that can achieve that.

All your posts have been hypothetical BS you should go to school not spend your time playing Call of Duty etc.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It's an effect of speed and turning radius. If you go hard over on the rudder at low speed, you have a wider turn radius, so a lower angle of lean. The higher the speed, the sharper the angle you get as it tries to turn ridiculously tight for a ship that size.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yeah... I suppose you might have missed the note I said on the other page about having first seen this on a show with a film crew on one of these Carriers during these turns on sea trials. They described a strong wind over the deck and high speed they were surprised themselves by. A very strong and from what I recall them saying, physically stressful move for the ship ..which of course, is the whole point during sea trials. Break it there if it's prone to break at all.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
oh dear - having satisfied the OP , the thread has seemingly opened the can of worms " CVN maximum speed "

the bottom line is that " nuclear powered " does not equate to magic

all the nuclear reactors do is provide steam at a given temperature , pressure and flow rate - thats it

the drives of a modern CVN have very few differences to WWII era warships - with sets of steam turbines driving 4 shafts with conventional propellors

design improvements have been made to both props and turbines - but these are minor as regard top speeds - they impact more acutley on efficiency

a conventional hullform ` sufferes ` what is called diminishing returns - ie for a given hullform of 45 000tons displacement there comes a point where adding SHP [ shaft horse power ] gives smaller ruturns in increased top speed

its difficult to compare different ships - as hullform , number of shafts and prop design all play a role in detrimining top speed

but if 200000 SHP gives a top speed of 30 kt


the " confusion " with CVN preformance largely arises from thier impressive cruising speed - far higher than previous non nuclear vessels of similar displacement

but cruising speed is ONLY the most efficient speed at which to sail - its no indication of topspeed - which many people dont seem to realise

the reason CVNs can have higher cruising speeds is simple - their reactors can operate at full power for years between refuelings - an oil fired vessel of identical size and power will have an endurace of just 25ooo km or so

as i said - cruising speed is the EFFICIENT speed - and this is determined [ for 2 vessels of identical SHP and displacement ] by hullform , shaft revolutions and propellor characteristics [ diameter and pitch ]

hullform is simply the shape of the submerged section of the hull and diffrent hull profiles obviously require more or less motive power to attain a given speed

the maths of how changes in hull form and propellor characteristics impact efficient cruising speed - is bloody complex - and beyond my understanding [ but i know that these 2 factors are the most important ]

but as a CVN designer does not have to worry about fuel consumption and range - he can give the vessel a higher cruising speed

BUT he is still limited by the rule of diminishing returns - and increasing SHP still gives smaller and smaller dividents in top speed every time it [ SHP ] is increased

thus - while CVNs can cruise at higher speeds than conventional vessels thier design includes no magic formula for highter top speeds

aircraft carriers during WWII - had top speeds of 33 ~ 35 kt .

modern CVNs actual preformance is classified - but given thier published displacement and SHP - i would expect 36 ~ 38 kt

and this is mostly derived from computer designed hullforms and propellors - not nuclear powered ju-ju

edit to add :

adding the bloody obvious observation that modern CVNs are upto twice the displacement of WWII types - and have only 1.2 times the power
edit on 25-4-2013 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It's an effect of speed and turning radius. If you go hard over on the rudder at low speed, you have a wider turn radius, so a lower angle of lean. The higher the speed, the sharper the angle you get as it tries to turn ridiculously tight for a ship that size.


I know my post was to show at the claimed max speed for this type of ship a turn like that would show that result and not what was implied by the post by Wrabbit2000 that it would have to be a lot faster than 30 knots/mph



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It's an effect of speed and turning radius. If you go hard over on the rudder at low speed, you have a wider turn radius, so a lower angle of lean. The higher the speed, the sharper the angle you get as it tries to turn ridiculously tight for a ship that size.


I know my post was to show at the claimed max speed for this type of ship a turn like that would show that result and not what was implied by the post by Wrabbit2000 that it would have to be a lot faster than 30 knots/mph


Actually the speed does have a lot to do with it.

If a ship is making 5 knots and your move your rudder to hard to port or starboard....your ship will not lean over like that.

Get in your car and have it go 5 miles an hour and cut your wheels hard to left or right, your car won't lean over either.

Now get a ship's speed up to 30 knots. That's the same as 34.5 mph. Might not seem like a lot, but then we are talking about something that masses thousands of tons going that fast. In other words: there's a LOT more energy in that carrier going 30 knots than your car going the same speed.

When you make your rudders for a sharp turn, the ship wants to try and keep going in the direction it was headed (Newton's laws of motion), and if it has enough speed, due to it's mass, that energy is going to help make the ship lean over like that.

The water isn't helping either. It's denser than air and is trying to resist the ship's movement.

However, I can tell you from personal experience......to make a carrier lean over like that.....it really is going faster than 30 knots.
edit on 25-4-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
In this video you can see sea trials for the truman and the crazy turns they do at high speeds



I wish I could find the documentary this was taken from.
But notice in the video how the crew is on deck and having to lean sideways so they don't fall while the truman does high speed s turns.

found it


edit on 25-4-2013 by grey580 because: found the original video



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Here's an old thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it are a few guys that have been on CV's and CVN's before.
Even with one guy going backwards on one ship.
lol



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

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.


Well, yes, mining a choke-point has been around since the Civil War, however, you implied that you had these mines that were cgoing to hunt down a CBG. The CBG avoids these hazards by not allowing themselves to go into chokepoints and mindfields are not very practicable in the open sea. This actually goes for diesel-electrics that lay in wait as well.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Excellent post. Thanks for the simple language to help others understand. I would only add that a boats wake also stretches for miles behind it giving anyone searching for a vessel a trail to follow all the way up to the boat. The bigger and faster the boat, the longer and more turbulent the wake. Plus you have passive sonar detection. The faster a boat is making way the louder the machinery, the more likely detection at greater ranges from the source.

A whole task force underway is the loudest thing on the ocean. Add in inclement weather and choppy seas and its a carrier commanders worst nightmare for remaining undetected.

Especially if you know they are there... somewhere. They aren't going to submerge, fly away or "rocket" away form the theatre. And if they are launching or recovering aircraft or ship board defenses... game over



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Well, yes, mining a choke-point has been around since the Civil War, however, you implied that you had these mines that were cgoing to hunt down a CBG. The CBG avoids these hazards by not allowing themselves to go into chokepoints and mindfields are not very practicable in the open sea. This actually goes for diesel-electrics that lay in wait as well.

Mining a "chokepoint" is just one method. Placing mines along a projected path and then laying in wait is another.

I'll see your CBG and raise you ten Song Class subs with mine laying ability.


Once they have powered up their batteries, the submarines can sail to the bottom of coastal waters and remain undetected for days. Though they can’t travel long distances or sail very quickly, advancements in technologies, such as air-independent propulsion and fuel cells, have allowed diesel submarines to extend their operational ranges underwater.
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...

All a sub has to do is sit, and wait.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


A carrier very rarely uses full speed, because they outrun their escorts. All navy ships have active noise decoys that tend to help hide their noise. There are ways it will give away their location of you know what you are listening for.

The biggest problem with detecting a CSG is the sheer size of the ocean. With carrier based tanker support a strike package can extend their range a pretty significant amount. With land based tanker support that extends even more. That's a not insignificant area you have to hunt through to find a relatively small target.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Well, yes, mining a choke-point has been around since the Civil War, however, you implied that you had these mines that were cgoing to hunt down a CBG. The CBG avoids these hazards by not allowing themselves to go into chokepoints and mindfields are not very practicable in the open sea. This actually goes for diesel-electrics that lay in wait as well.

Mining a "chokepoint" is just one method. Placing mines along a projected path and then laying in wait is another.

I'll see your CBG and raise you ten Song Class subs with mine laying ability.


Once they have powered up their batteries, the submarines can sail to the bottom of coastal waters and remain undetected for days. Though they can’t travel long distances or sail very quickly, advancements in technologies, such as air-independent propulsion and fuel cells, have allowed diesel submarines to extend their operational ranges underwater.
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...

All a sub has to do is sit, and wait.




An if they don't happen to be directly in the path, they will have an awefully long wait indeed.


As the article you pasted mentions: they don't go very fast and still can't go very far on battery.
edit on 25-4-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


As the article you pasted mentions: they don't go very fast and still can't go very far on battery.

It also state they don't have to. The "projected" theatre of war in on their turf "over there". That makes our supply lines long and theres well... waiting around?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join