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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Aliensun
 


The aircraft they have now are designed to do all functions in one. it's a multi purpose aircraft that does the job of many with many capabilities, not just air to air.


So what can an aircraft do better than a missile?


Make multiple passes over multiple targets for a number of years provided the proper maintenance is performed. How many runs does your missile have? From a defense budget standpoint...which is going to be cheaper...initial cost of said aircraft and maintenance or mass production of a missile capable of causing as much damage as what the payload would carried on an aircraft...more the aircraft carrier. How many missiles can you fit on a destroyer...and what is the cost of said destroyer(s)?




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
Well, the Chinese managed to surface an attach sub in the middle of a Carrier Battle Group and the Battle Group with all its assets di not know about its presence until it surfaced.

In warfare, that would have been 1 dead as a door nail Carrier.

All ships can be overwhelmed by a massive missile attack. That is the reason the Soviets did not build them. They were aware of the vulnerabilities.

In the beginning of WW2 the most powerful navy in the world openly scoffed at Japanese Air Power until they lost their most modern warship The Prince of Wales. Carriers are vulnerable.

P


Subs are the ultimate platform. Nice comment.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Everything is vulnerable and can be overwhelmed. But everything plays it's role and has thier job to do. It is still the top notch carrier that the world has. The Chinese carrier is the same as the French one, which is not all that great but they see a reason to have one.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Your post simply serves to prove the point of the necessity of air cover...The aircraft carrier took the place of the battleship as the flagship because of this...you could have just as easily referenced the Bismarck...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


A carrier has it's defense against missle attacks as well and it can launch aircraft at the same time. I understand what your saying but is highly improbable that a strike of such a force would happen.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


Do you not think that aircraft carry missiles with them? Besides the aircraft could be a distraction as the rest of the fleet will show no mercy on anything in its way.


Yes they do. Won't change the fact that they will get shot down. If you are lucky the third jet will make it past the runway.

I have no beef with the rest of the fleet. The thing is a standard US carrier group is completely vulnerable to a fleet of ten destroyers.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Well its just another version of a drone command ship.

Or at least it will be soon.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


A carrier has it's defense against missle attacks as well and it can launch aircraft at the same time. I understand what your saying but is highly improbable that a strike of such a force would happen.


It would happen if there is a war.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


In that case there would be more than one fleet to deal with, double or triple the amount of aircraft in the air, plus all fleets there to protect and destroy what comes.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Aliensun
 


The aircraft they have now are designed to do all functions in one. it's a multi purpose aircraft that does the job of many with many capabilities, not just air to air.


So what can an aircraft do better than a missile?


Make multiple passes over multiple targets for a number of years provided the proper maintenance is performed. How many runs does your missile have? From a defense budget standpoint...which is going to be cheaper...initial cost of said aircraft and maintenance or mass production of a missile capable of causing as much damage as what the payload would carried on an aircraft...more the aircraft carrier. How many missiles can you fit on a destroyer...and what is the cost of said destroyer(s)?


What is the point of making multiple passes when you have satellites?

I would think missiles are cheaper than aircraft with missiles.

A destroyer is significantly cheaper to build, operate and maintain than an aircraft carrier.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


In that case there would be more than one fleet to deal with, double or triple the amount of aircraft in the air, plus all fleets there to protect and destroy what comes.


Depends of course. But what I mean is that a standard US carrier battlegroup loses against a destroyer group.

Let's see:

A US carrier battlegroup consists of:

1 aircraft carrier
2 guided missile cruisers
2 anti aircraft ships
2 anti submarine ships

How will they fare against a fleet of (going down from 10 to be fair) 7 destroyers?

I would say that the standard of 10 destroyers will dominate.
edit on 23/4/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Aliensun
Perhaps you picked up that idea from some of my posts in that regard.

Aircraft carriers are relics from WWII, the same as battleship except a bit more useful for the time being, being sitting ducks for the missiles that will announce WWIII and thus, giving us a reason to get involved a la Pearl Harbor.

Nothing is going to stop a rain of missiles upon a flattop, nothing. Missiles of all manner will be the main weapon, both those from the ground, standoff a/c and space.

Our chief navel weapons are the triangles and space weapons platforms. A sea-going navy for conducting warfare is an obsolete concept. And you can throw fighter a/c into that trash bin also. Arial plane-to-plane combat is also obsolete. Attack 'choppers and planes such as the A-10 will still have a purpose. But fighters for what when the other guy is shooting missiles?.


EXACTLY! You are probably the third person in the whole of internet I have met that gets it.
Modern warfare is all about missile technology. Missiles rule the day. Anything else is inferior to a missile.


Except Lasers trump missles and US Navy is deploying lasers that shoot missles and they already have machine guns that shoot missles down.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
LASOR

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by rowdyrich
Your just thinking of a carrier being out there all alone. If that was the case, of course it would be more likely to be attacked. But once an Alpha Strike would go into effect with all aircraft launched in a matter of 10 minutes, you might tuck tail and try to run.


No. I was counting the whole group... Missiles travel faster than aircraft. Who will destroy who first? The aircraft the destroyer or the missile your aircraft?


Most countries missles cannot even see many US Aircraft.
edit on 23-4-2013 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Maybe if no aircraft were able to launch, but if they launch aircraft then it's more than 7 on 7 and it would be more like 70 to 7. The U.S. carriers launching capabilities are unreal and that is what sets it apart from any other platform out there. Yes there will be losses but thats the price.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Not sure if this has already been mentioned or not....but here's my take...

An aircraft carrier is used more for presence...but also for utility...not only can it carry a large amount of troops but also a substantial amount of aircrafts. As far as the comment about destroyers...Carriers are always within a Carrier Battle Group..or I think they may call them Carrier Strike Groups now....Anyways...As I'm sure anyone with half of their common sense left after being on ATS for who knows how long would assume...Carriers aren't just out there floating around by themselves...Usually the composition is something like 1) obviously a carrier, some guided missile cruisers and anti aircraft ships as well as a few antisub destroyers or frigs....

Again...common sense....you don't send a carrier out....alone.....

A2D
(Information taken from my career within the USMC)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Hooyah marine! And your take is correct.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rowdyrich
 


Ahem...It's Oorah but I'll take it lol you navy kids...

Thanks!
A2D
edit on 23-4-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Jepic
 


Maybe if no aircraft were able to launch, but if they launch aircraft then it's more than 7 on 7 and it would be more like 70 to 7. The U.S. carriers launching capabilities are unreal and that is what sets it apart from any other platform out there. Yes there will be losses but thats the price.


A destroyer has around 90 missiles. That can take care of the aircraft. Now you have 6 destroyers left that can take care of the remaining group.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Jepic
 


You have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about...

You need to look up the survivability capabilities of an aircraft carrier...the carrier can withstand a small tactical nuclear strike without sinking...the armament onboard is capable of intercepting missile attacks...there are constant flying patrols conducted around a carrier strike group...

The carrier is the flagship of the fleet for a reason...


Shhh...let this clown shoes fool keep thinking a destroyer can take on a carrier, it will make him look really stupid if he ever speaks this nonsense in real life.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Not sure if this has already been mentioned or not....but here's my take...

An aircraft carrier is used more for presence...but also for utility...not only can it carry a large amount of troops but also a substantial amount of aircrafts. As far as the comment about destroyers...Carriers are always within a Carrier Battle Group..or I think they may call them Carrier Strike Groups now....Anyways...As I'm sure anyone with half of their common sense left after being on ATS for who knows how long would assume...Carriers aren't just out there floating around by themselves...Usually the composition is something like 1) obviously a carrier, some guided missile cruisers and anti aircraft ships as well as a few antisub destroyers or frigs....

Again...common sense....you don't send a carrier out....alone.....

A2D
(Information taken from my career within the USMC)


Troops are obsolete. But for the sake of discussion with some modifications to you can produce a tank bay and fit a tank platoon for amphibious operations with the main objective of securing beachheads after the destroyers have taken care of AA guns and enemy aircraft that could attack from the mainland.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join