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: 29
8
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

The one unknown about carrier warfare is that to date a task force has not been tried in the modern weapons era. During WWII, carrier to carrier battles between Japan and US occurred and we saw how that turned out. We also saw the sub warfare on both sides and how effective that was.

Today it is a different theatre. The likes of satellites, advance radar and sonar, guided missiles, homing torpedoes and stealthy subs have all changed. The only thing that hasn't is the carrier task force. It remains to be seen how a modern order of battle against an old technology will play out.

I would not want to be on a carrier in that event.

Edit to add: I know you have read this, I bring it for others.

www.sinodefenceforum.com...
edit on 25-4-2013 by intrptr because: link




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Can someone with current knowledge of navy affairs tell me how many battleships are active in the USA navy, if any? I love the roar of those 16in cannons and the flashes of light at night that they produce. Were those guns innacurate enough to be rendered useless with smart weapons aka missiles(that tend to be more expensive)?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


None. All but one, I believe are now museums. They gutted them before towing them to their new homes.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


not and was never in the navy but i think we have the bulk of them retired in either inactive reserve or the mothball fleets of the eight remaining
(Texas,north Carolina,Alabama,Massachusetts,Iowa,Missouri,Wisconsin,and the New jersey)

i had heard rumors that they might be using one as a research test bed but i did not find anything to confirm it,this article talks about how in theory they could make good drone control ships and still possibly be used in modern combat but i doubt that will happen

www.g2mil.com...

if they get used for anything now a days it would most likely be cruise missile launches and shore bombardment of which they are pretty much the undisputed kings of the latter

www.modernfaqs.com... link that asks if they could serve a purpose in today's navies


Another role battleships can provide is defense against Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM)s. An April 1996 Naval "Proceedings" article by ballistics expert Commander Rick Denny "A Better Naval ABM System" describes the battleship's 16-inch guns as "the quintessential anti-TBM system". Firing nine 2000 lbs air-burst shells at a missile will guarantee a kill; like skeet shooting on a massive scale. Current anti-TBM plans require MACH 3+ missiles to hit MACH 3+ missiles, referred to as "hitting a bullet with a bullet". Tests have been very expensive and mostly disappointing. Cost is a factor since experts insist that two missiles should be fired at each target to increase chances for a kill. Therefore, for every $100,000 SCUD launched, two million-dollar missiles will be launched is a desperate attempt to shoot it down. In contrast, a 16-inch shell costs around $500 and can create a huge airburst to guarantee kills. When all four battleships were decommissioned a decade ago, the Navy said it could fill the shore fire support void with new "arsenal ships". However, none were built because counter battery radar can easily determine the precise origin of missiles and naval gunfire offshore. A single missile hit, torpedo, or a volley of rocket fire could instantly destroy an arsenal ship loaded with missiles and no protective armor. A heavily armored battleship cannot be seriously damaged by modern anti-ship missiles, so its the only ship which can safely approach a shoreline and engage hidden coastal defense forces. Navy ships today have just a quarter inch of armor, while the battleships are protected by several inches of steel. During World War II, one Iowa battleship was hit directly by a solid steel 5-inch round, which caused a small dent. A battleship suffered a direct hit by a 152mm shell off Korea, but it only broke open one hatch. Since Pearl Harbor, when semi-manned World War I battleships were sunk in port, no US battleship has been sunk, let alone severely damaged. In contrast, over the past 20 years, whenever a modern cruiser, destroyer, or frigate has been hit by a single missile or mine, they have struggled to stay afloat. The Navy is always in need of target ships, so why not use one of the older battleships. Navy task forces could fire hundreds of harpoon missiles, tomahawk missiles, hellfire missiles and even 5-inch gun projectiles at the target battleship and cause only minor damage.
this may answer your missile question but i am unsure as to if they could still survive hits from a modern anti ship missile but they do bring up a few good points of possible uses for them instead of just scraping them or museum ships
edit on 25-4-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


None. All but one, I believe are now museums. They gutted them before towing them to their new homes.


All true. I did do a midshipman cruise on the Wisconsin in the late 80's and was on her when she did some broadsides.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


You're still looking for a needle in three haystacks, even with the current advanced systems. The Burke class is fairly stealthy, and quiet. Unless someone has a SOSUS style net up there is no way to monitor the entire Pacific. It's over 60 million square miles, and you are talking about something the size of the Empire State Building in that. That's a lot of luck.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Didn't seem to be much of a problem during WWII? Finding ships? Back then they didn't have any modern conveniences.

What they had was tenacity, search planes and code breaking. Plus known routes and bases. Sometimes planes would follow flights back to their carriers. Sometimes planes would follow wakes or ships returning to groups of vessels. Sometimes Island Watchers sitting on lonely outposts high atop Pacific Islands with hand cranked radios...

In Pearl Harbor fisherman that spied for the Japanese sat and watched as ships came and went from the harbor. How vast a network do you suppose the Chinese have around their nation of just such watchers... with cell phones?

The pacific is filled with shipping traffic, fishing vessels and Islands. All good lookout posts. I know its a big ocean, today there are many more people living on and around it.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


It was a big problem in WWII. At Midway, the US new just about every detail of the Japanese plan, and STILL only found their carriers through sheer dumb luck.

If a major war broke out do you really think shopping would continue? Even if out did the carriers wouldn't be anywhere a shipping route.

Also in WWII you were talking about massive fleets of ships. There were times you had (between full deck and escort) 6-8 carriers, plus a lot of escorts, as opposed to the 7-8 today that can do the same mission.
edit on 4/25/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


And what happens if that aircracft carrier has a fleet of 10+ Crusiers and destroyers


Just look at the Falkland war. Argentina had excocet missles that could take out a ship as well as destroyers of there own (some which the UK sold them ) yet all they could do was destroy or damage UK destroyers.

Reason being a Aircraft carrier is never alone in. It has escorts which will be tailored to what ever threat that being faced. This escorts will shoot down any missles or aircraft and if that fails take the hit themselves. And then you have a attack subs that will be following any enemy ships from the moment they leave port.

Fact is if the royal navy can destroy Agentinas aircraft swams and survive its missles then the US navy that 20 times bigger can for the time being handle any threat.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I'm obviously late to the party here. There have been some pretty crazy assertions here, but I see zaphod is here, so hopefully they are beaten down by now. If I can add anything, probably not, but.

The issue is not that in a theoretical situation a carrier, alone or as part of a Strike Group, could not be defeated. They are not defenseless, to be sure, and comments that they are are ignorant at best. But think of what would have to happen for a modern Carrier Strike Group to be sunk.

First of all, basic asymmetrical warfare is not going to do it. Guys with pipe bombs, or even guys with a boat load of explosives is not going to do it. The only way to do it is for a nation state to go for all out nation vs nation warfare. An ICBM missile hit might do it, and it might not. A so-called Chinese "carrier killer" missile might do it, but it might not. (Frankly, I think this is just hyperbole.) The point is that it would take a significant amount of firepower in a completely coordinated attack where nothing went wrong. In terms of the world's oceans, there IS NO competition to an American Carrier Strike Group. China has one, a converted Russian ship. France has one. The UK has one. India has two, I think. The US has 10 if you count just the CVNs and 20 if you count the smaller Expeditionary Group carriers. (There are arguments both ways. I tend to discount the smaller LHDs, myself. It's often a matter of definition.)

The most pertinent question to ask is, what would happen if a nation tried to do this, successful or not? Do you think the United States would say, "OK. Got us. We owe you one. Have a nice day!"? A carrier is ten acres and of sovereign American territory. It's been called 100,000 tons of American diplomacy. You can call that jingoistic, unfair, or any other negative you want, but it is THERE, regardless of what you think about it. That's "Real Politik."

So the issue isn't really that you CAN sink a carrier. The issue is if you WILL sink a carrier, and if someone actually was foolhardy enough to do it, there would be hell to pay. You can't ignore something like that any more than you could ignore Pearl Harbor, a masterful tactical victory and the worst strategic blunder in history that resulted in a complete and utter smack down of Japan and cost millions of lives. Sinking a carrier could cause WW III. Best not to test out the theory.

The fact is the carriers control the world's oceans, plain and simple. There is nothing that is going to change that any time soon. The only thing that can is politics, and that could very well happen, but it hasn't yet. The argument that destroyers, i.e. tin cans, are superior to carriers simply betrays ignorance. The issue is far more complex than that.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
What you don't understand is the actual carrier is NEVER alone. It's an integral part of a system. And that system will include at least one destroyer. Look it up!



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Can someone with current knowledge of navy affairs tell me how many battleships are active in the USA navy, if any? I love the roar of those 16in cannons and the flashes of light at night that they produce. Were those guns innacurate enough to be rendered useless with smart weapons aka missiles(that tend to be more expensive)?


The Battleship... Now.there is something that is obselete... You can tell by how the US doesnt have at least 20 of them.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
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...


well.. if you're trying to say that just because I haven't spent any time at sea, I know nothing about sea warfare, you're sadly mistaken; if you're saying that a battleship can't be sunk by a exocet, I disagree, even more so, if more than 1 is used

If you're saying that a battleship can't be sunk at all, or is difficult to sink, difficult yes, impossible.........LMAO, not even hardly.. but here's just a couple of clips that prove the point that just ONE of these bad boys can screw up your day.... more than one, it's clearly over.. and we're not even talking carrying a nuke head........or 16"s ... and trust me, 16" guns WILL bring it down.....but you knew that .. right ?

So here's something to think about, why even have missles when 16"s can do the job just a good or better, but.. you sound like someone who's spent some time on the sea.. so I'll let you answer that question for the class...






edit on 26-4-2013 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2013 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


not and was never in the navy but i think we have the bulk of them retired in either inactive reserve or the mothball fleets of the eight remaining
(Texas,north Carolina,Alabama,Massachusetts,Iowa,Missouri,Wisconsin,and the New jersey)



Wanted to comment on some of the battleships you have listed up there:

The USS Iowa, USS Missouri, USS New Jersey and USS Wisconsin are all the same class battleship, known as the Iowa-Class Battleship.

They were the very last battleships to ever be built by the USA back during WW2. No other battleships have been built since then, however these for have been decommissioned and mothballed, but then brought back out into service following different modernization upgrades. The last of which happened during the cold war in the 1980s.

They have all been mothballed and the US Navy as has been posted by others, does not have any battleships in service at this time.

The other battleships you have listed are older classes of battle ships:

USS Texas BB-35 was a New York Class BB, only 2 of them built (the USS New York being the other one), built during WW1 and were both retired in 1946.

USS North Carolina was the North Carolina Class, only 2 built, the USS Washington being the other. Built during the 1930s and were retired in 1947.

The USS Alabama, USS Massachusetts were South Dakota Class BBs. 4 were built during the 1930's. The others being the USS Indiana and the USS South Dakota. All 4 were retired just after WW2.

The Iowa Class ships were brought out of mothballs and modernized (upgrading electronics, radars, and adding weapons systems on her such as CIWIS and Tomahawk missile launchers) during the 1980s as the US was trying to make a 600 ship fleet to counter the Soviet Union during the cold war.

By the end of the cold war and after the Persian Gulf War, the US Navy was directed to start cutting back and cutting costs. Build newer, but cheaper ships that do not cost as much to maintain and operate, with the exception of the Aircraft Carrier.

Many of our ships then used boilers that burn fuel oil in massive quanities to make steam for power and propulsion. Newer ships that used jet turbines were able to power and move the ship a lot cheaper than the older boiler ships.
At the same time, the navy was building ships that used the newer Agies weapons system that was slowly replacing the older Terrier weapons system.

So to cut costs and to make room for the newer, lower costing ships, the US Navy decommed a LOT of old ships that were either mothballed, scrapped, made into manmade reefs, or even sold to other countries.

The Iowa class was seen as a huge money hole. Here you had a very large armored ship that takes over 1,000 men to man, with no modern AAW platform on her. Her boilers gobbled up fuel oil at a staggering cost. Her huge 16 inch guns, while devastating, and cheaper to use than missiles were still limted in their range, where as modern missiles and aircraft had a much longer, over the horizon range.

They were dinosaurs that the only way to modernize them further would have been to replace the boilers with something like a nuclear plant (which is still expensive), and to completely remove her superstructure from the main deck up, and replace it with a superstructure that could house more modern weapon systems (such as Agies).
The cost of doing that would have exceeded the cost of simply building a new ship.

The other reason for them being decommed: World Events. The cold war was over, the USSR gone, and with it, it's fleet that the US Navy had been building up to face off against. No other country in the world has the same sea power as us, and basically the "need" for something like a "super battleship" was not there at all.

The Carrier Group had dominated the seas during and since WW2. There just simply was not a real need for battleships anymore. While the article you cited does have truth in it, it's also old and out of date with today's modern weapon systems of both offensive and defensive abilities.

Still.......there is something about a battleship. They are massive. I've been tied up along side one and my destroyer felt like a toy boat next to it. They were majestic looking ships that during their time, ruled the seas.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


and STILL only found their carriers through sheer dumb luck.


That is the "official" story. I think code breaking had a lot to do with it. Midway wasn't the only "anomaly". Our carriers were't at Pearl Harbor (luck?). We found the Japanese at Truk lagoon (Mariana's "turkey shoot"), Leyte gulf, etc. It seems we had quite a lot of this "sheer dumb luck" ?

Edit: If code breaking had something to do with our intel being so good, then it stands to reason that today, that theatre of warfare is even better. On all sides. Wasn't there something about recent hacking of US defense computers by the Chinese?


edit on 26-4-2013 by intrptr because: additional...



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Code breaking only told them they were coming. The actual location to launch the attack from was left open depending on weather and other factors. Again, you're talking much larger fleets, and much more predictable locations. The aircraft of the time were very short ranged. That means there were only so many places they could launch from. Every one of the battles you mentioned had massive fleets involved, which made them resort to find, but still needed a lot of luck.

The current carrier only needs a small group, and if it's operating with land based support such as having E-3 and KC-135 support, makes her aircraft range MUCH longer, and more unpredictable than carriers in WWII could every dream of being.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Every one of the battles you mentioned had massive fleets involved, which made them resort to find, but still needed a lot of luck.

Massive? I thought the Pacific is enormous? Corks bobbing on the surface.


The current carrier only needs a small group, and if it's operating with land based support such as having E-3 and KC-135 support, makes her aircraft range MUCH longer, and more unpredictable than carriers in WWII could every dream of being.

Not sure your point. The "carrier group" is fighting the whole continent of Asia, really. That is where all our focus is from Japan, Phillipines, Korea and Guam to name a few. That "backyard" is not ours...



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
 

The current carrier only needs a small group, and if it's operating with land based support such as having E-3 and KC-135 support, makes her aircraft range MUCH longer, and more unpredictable than carriers in WWII could every dream of being.


I have no comment on the vs portion, but on the finding portion...

Without consumer level electronics, it would take 2,004 fishing trawlers to sweep the Pacific in 4 days.

With consumer level electronics, it would take approx 500 fishing trawlers to sweep the Pacific in 4 days or less.

That, btw, is enough vessels to cover the entire circumference of the globe with LOS (for no electronics) and over the counter imaging and radar equipment (with electronics).

By that count, I know of at least a dozen countries (with more than 2,000 blue water trawlers on hand) with the capacity to find any fleet in any ocean relatively quickly. China and the US both on that list.

Now, unless the US Navy plans on sinking anything civilian that comes on their radar, they will be forced to give away their position or allow the civilians to come within visual range.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
You talking a lot about world war II but there has been a war since then in moden times between two opposing navys.

The Falkland war showed how usefull carrier groups are and how they are not as vulnrable and obsolete as the OP suggests.
Just because it was not a US war does'nt mean the data doesnt count!
edit on 26-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


They are still hard to find, buy when you are looking for 300 ships, and have a general idea of where they have to be, it makes it much easier to narrow the area to look, and to find them, than when you are looking for 8 ships that can be over 1000 miles off shore. During Midway the carriers were as far out as they could be and hit the island, and that was nothing compared to modern ranges.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join