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: 33
8
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel
 


And how do you plan to base the interceptors when there is no land within hundreds of miles or more?




I know what you mean Zaph..



From time to time I like to examine Google Earth and look at the atoll at Diego Garcia.

Diego Garcia is at the bottom end of a series of islands out in the middle of the Indian Ocean.. or the IO as it is sometimes called.

Then there is literally nothing else out there. When you sort of step back and look at what is there and what is not there...a carrier makes sense....if a nation can afford such. Even conventional carriers are a huge huge expense on most nations.

Diego Garcia makes one realize how big the ocean is...same thing with Islands in the Pacific Ocean.
A mobile platform for launching and recovering aircraft makes sense if one can protect it...or conceal it.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

datasdream

Been there and done that for 12 years on USS America and USS Coontz. Talking about the power of projection of a carrier we once ran a simulated attack run on an Admiral off the coast of Gibraltar. We were in the Red Sea at the time. The attack was simulated but the aircraft were real.


Wow......for those not very good with Geography, that's a mighty long reach.

Take a look.

Google Map Link

edit on 14-12-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


are you for real, an aircraft carrier doesn't come on its own, it has its aircraft and attack helicopters, Its destroyers and attack vessels, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sub or two patrolling around, would make short work of a few destroyers.

Wee Mad



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

weemadmental

are you for real, an aircraft carrier doesn't come on its own, it has its aircraft and attack helicopters, Its destroyers and attack vessels, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sub or two patrolling around, would make short work of a few destroyers.

Wee Mad


Just to clarify, US Carriers, at least the big ones. don't carry attack copters, in the classical sense. They are more ASW Copters. The are armed, but nowhere near an Apache.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

pavil

datasdream

Been there and done that for 12 years on USS America and USS Coontz. Talking about the power of projection of a carrier we once ran a simulated attack run on an Admiral off the coast of Gibraltar. We were in the Red Sea at the time. The attack was simulated but the aircraft were real.


Wow......for those not very good with Geography, that's a mighty long reach.

Take a look.


Excellent point, pavil. Tell me datasdream, the America was a Kitty Hawk Class and probably carried F-4's, which had a range of about 2500KM with two wing tanks (thus reducing armament). The distance from the Red Sea to Gibraltar is over 5,000 KM, and that's being charitable putting the carrier at the northern end, so in order to have enough time over target there would have had to have been at least three refuelings enroute. (Note: Modern F-18's have LESS range.) Those refueling couldn't be from the carrier, but from tankers based in Europe.

In other words, if a carrier were in the Red Sea, it would be far out of range of Gibraltar. The whole point of having carriers is to get them closer to the action. But in your scenario they could more profitably get to Gibraltar with F-15s from Germany. Sorry, but your story doesn't make much sense. It would be like sending fighters from the East Coast of the US to attack a target in the Pacific Ocean off Los Angeles.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


It was done with F-14's. All refueling was provided by other F'14 acting as tankers. Just a little demonstration flight by the way we caught the Admiral in a helicopter moving from ship to ship. I have no knowledge about what other ships were involved.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
ACC's are big fat target's, i agree projecting airpower inland is nothing but a good thing for combined ops, but if a ACC ever got sunk the death toll alone would make the public cry out for a smaller option, the marine corps has a mini ACC that carries troops, tanks, helis, and harriers.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

totallackey
reply to post by Jepic
 


Once again, you have absolutely zero knowledge on this subject. I served in the US Navy for four years, and four of my uncles served in the same US Navy, one of them as a carrier pilot.

All of the carriers, since the first nuclear-powered carrier, USS Enterprise, have been built with the ability to withstand tactical nuclear strikes without sinking...

I am not going to write anything more on this topic because it is patently obvious you have absolutely no freaking idea of this subject.


No use to this logic..........if a carrier is hit with a tactical nuke then electromagnetic pulse created with fry all the electricals and electronics onboard.........leaving the carrier to be just a floating piece of metal and wood. I doubt if all of the carriers are insulated against the EMP, especially those built even 10 years ago. Now countries have special EMP bombs to render cities useless in one hit without 'immediately' killing anyone. However in 3 weeks without electrical and other power, the problems will start to take their toll on that or that items.

To comeback to OP's views, ACs are very heavily defended by the battle group which also include planes on patrol, submarines, space assets for various purposes etc. Although new missiles like Yakhonts in a swarm of 24 each at a time can overwhelm defenses and get more than a couple of hits. And yes! these are called the Carrier Killer missiles. The logic to that would be that even 1-2 hits would cripple or soften up defenses enough making it 2-3 times more vulnerable to further hits and eventual sinking or something similar in terms of warfare capabilities.

However, there are also some very advanced destroyers like Type 45 of UK navy and these are said to be fairly adequate in facing off 'carrier killer' missiles. However, how much would 3 dozen Yakhonts cost $18M in total fare against a $500M destroyer. A repeated wave after wave attack even costing $50M will still have 1 to 10 odds in favor for the Yakhonts. A real danger point would be if range of these missiles is increased from 300 km and speed doubled or trippled. The the carrier battle group is in real danger. It is only a matter of actual events which can decide what works and in which conditions.




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
In my own opinion, a Carrier Battle Group is an awesome and extremely effective show of the U.S.A. 's ability to project power. Unfortunately, a 1 megaton weapon launched either by sea (under sea) or air could render this might to a new spectacular new artificial reef.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I've posted this tale before and it look as if it is time to so do once again.

Many years ago..we were having lunch at second shift in the hydraulic store room. Olde Charlie (may he rest in peace) told us a tale which left us young guys with our mouths hanging open...sort of like the people in a Stephen Speilburg Movie as that is one of his traits in his movies. Leaving people in stunned shock with their mouths hanging open.

Charlie told us he had been on a ocean going navy tugboat after the war.

His tugboat was given an unusual assignment along with numerous other tugboats.

What they were assigned to do is tow ships...cruisers, battleships, destroyers, and other vessels to an island. They were considered prizes of war. Japanese, German, and some of ours which were no longer needed.
This went on for months while they occassionally moved them about at the behest of the scientists and engineerss who were also there. Sort of like moving furniture in Mom's living room or dining room.

They never had any idea what was going on until they were instructed to move their tugboat...way way back..a long ways away ..out to sea. They were told to lay on the deck and not look until they were instructed to so do.
Only when instructed did they look up and realize what it was in which they had been involved. They were stunned to see the plume..the mushroom cloud.

Now Olde Charlie told me that they did this twice. One was an underwater burst..the other an air burst.
What he told us of interest was that not all the ships sunk. Many did but not all. They were however..very contaminataed.


What Charlie told us which left us with our mouths hanging open was that barges were also towed in and on these barges were animals in cages...dogs , goats, sheep and cows. They were tied off on these ships in many places.

He told me most of the animals died immediately..but not all. They suffered horrible deaths the ones he saw.

I never saw this stuff on discovery until some 10 to 12 years after olde Charlie related this tale to us. And there suddenly one day it was all there...just as Charlie related it to us so many years before...including the presence of the animals.

She surviving ships were "crapped out" ..contaminated. You see photos or film of them being sprayed down with water.

Nonetheless...it was interesting to note that not all the ships sank.

What I also know from other hams who were in the Navy after the war..was that there was a period of very severe Atlantic Storms in which several Navy ships were not able to escape or outrun. These ships had their structures ...severely damaged or bent in these storms. This caused the navy redesigned their structural requirements for surface ships. Made it heavier from lessons learned in these severe storms.

I can tell you with surety that it is the same with Aircraft Carriers. I know the difference in the deep internal structure design between the USS Enterprise and the Nimitz class carriers and it is significant. And the USS Enterprise is a step up from the WW2 Designs.

Remember too that metalurgy has changed significantly in key areas since WW2 as well. Just ask any submariner. These metalurgy changes also apply to surface ships and especially carriers.

You do not see near as much brazed piping on these ships as was in years past..it is welded and structurally hung..suspended much better than in years past. This means it is designed with taking a hit in mind.

The sailors about which I feel concern are the guys on the small boys..the cruisers and destroyers. What some have posted about them being the first ones out there and to take a hit is true. I have run in to several sailors who had served on small boys and they enlightened me as to this status. I was left with my mouth hanging open on this revelation. Expendability and disposability to put the carriers in a position to launch and recover their aircraft. Talk about warm fuzzies.

Hope this helps some of you.

Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join