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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by Exoh92
 


It's not that far out, the Japanese had a submarine that held about three planes with folded wings that they could launch from it's deck once it surfaced. But nothing that I know of that is big to house a lot aircraft.


Iv spent alot of time on youtube checking out old weapons from ww2, korean, and vietnam war that were theorized and or produced but never became big hits. There has been a ton of sci-fi ish weapons that I didnt even know about.

I could totally see a convertable style ship in the new future that has a outer shell that can withstand a ridiculous amount of damage.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


and how many destroyers carry nuclear weapons? can you even name one? most of the nuclear armed ships were either old battleships or Russian heavy cruisers armed with nuclear cruise missiles(before the ban on such things) other the that to have nukes at sea you need to be on a SSBN or an aircraft carrier to employ most nuclear weapons now conventionally armed cruise missiles are legal

only the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers(closer in size to ww2 cruisers in size then ww2 destroyers) is theoriezed to be able to shoot nuclear armed cruise missiles and im pretty sure nuclear armed cruise missiles are banned by some form of treaty on the matter start 2 i think is the specific one(its why the only planes in our fleets that can use them are B52's others(usa) are banned from using nuclear armed cruise missles) i think the russians got an exception to them as well (problay their "bear" bombers) but would not apply to countries that have not signed the SALT treaties like Israeli for example


Partially for those reasons, nuclear-armed cruise missiles are amongst the least deployed of all nuclear weapons, as their deployment is restricted by treaties such as SALT II.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Make a cannon with artillery and AA capability, put it on a tank and you'll see that a MBT platoon is superior to an infantry platoon in absolutely every way.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Exoh92
 


I understand that but most everything is built for the damage that it can give, than what it can recieve.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Jepic
 


and how many destroyers carry nuclear weapons? can you even name one? most of the nuclear armed ships were either old battleships or Russian heavy cruisers armed with nuclear cruise missiles(before the ban on such things) other the that to have nukes at sea you need to be on a SSBN or an aircraft carrier to employ most nuclear weapons now conventionally armed cruise missiles are legal

only the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers(closer in size to ww2 cruisers in size then ww2 destroyers) is theoriezed to be able to shoot nuclear armed cruise missiles and im pretty sure nuclear armed cruise missiles are banned by some form of treaty on the matter start 2 i think is the specific one(its why the only planes in our fleets that can use them are B52's others(usa) are banned from using nuclear armed cruise missles) i think the russians got an exception to them as well (problay their "bear" bombers) but would not apply to countries that have not signed the SALT treaties like Israeli for example


Partially for those reasons, nuclear-armed cruise missiles are amongst the least deployed of all nuclear weapons, as their deployment is restricted by treaties such as SALT II.
en.wikipedia.org...


Nuclear weapons are primitive weapons intended to kill civilians with monstruous fallout to cause suffering. No thank you. Be on the good side. Not the crazy side.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Exoh92
 


Just from what I see...but damage reduction technology(lol) has not, and IMO, will not catch up to damage producing technology(lol again)....

For example, MBT's (tanks) are regularly equipped with Explosive Reactive Armor....But ERA is relatively easy to bypass with tandem charges....Also, newer penetrator designs are relatively effective against ERA as well....



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
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.


US carrier force only exists to push around third world nations. If there was a war with China or Russia all carriers would be toast, unfortunately.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


www.youtube.com...

the prince Eugen did at bikini atol and she was just a cruiser skip to about 349 for the bomb test she got hit with a 12 kiloton yeild blast and stayed a float had to be towed to a area to sink her as she could not be decontaminated after the 2nd test i believe

as this was one of if not the only test done on atomic weapons vs a fleet of ships done id have to say we wont be seeing anything like it again.
en.wikipedia.org...

The ship was then allocated to the fleet of target ships for Operation Crossroads in Bikini Atoll. Prinz Eugen was towed to the Pacific via Philadelphia and the Panama Canal.[57] The ship survived two atomic bomb blasts, Test Able, on 1 July 1946, and Test Baker on 25 July. Prinz Eugen was thoroughly contaminated with radioactive fallout, but suffered no structural damage from the explosions.[61] The irradiated ship was towed to the Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific, where a small leak went unrepaired
Hit with two nukes and still didnt sink until a small leak (she had no crew after the first test to reapir it due to radiation) but i think the point stands if you cant sink a cruiser sitting still with 2 nukes hitting one at sea protected by her battle group is a whole different situation

few more links en.wikipedia.org... first test 23 kilioton blast

en.wikipedia.org... 2nd test this one by a nuclear weapon positoned 90 feet below the fleet now this one had much greater effect but still didnt sink the german cruiser but it did toss a battle ship around



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



Make a cannon with artillery and AA capability, put it on a tank and you'll see that a MBT platoon is superior to an infantry platoon in absolutely every way.


Battle for Hamburger Hill...Vietnam...
Battle of the Suez Canal....Yom Kippur War
Battle of the Bulge...

Just 3 quick examples right off the top of my head where Infantry did what Airstrikes and Tanks couldn't....

a2d



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by Komodo
something to think about..

Exocet Missile

check the range and the Altitude on right hand colum and remember.. this was back in 74'.......


It just proves my point... Missiles is where it's all at.


Thx you, and agreed.. even though AC's have the phalanx.. I'm not sure if they can detect surface skimmers like this one..



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Ok. Huge disaster on an island that is heavily populated, but is geographically isolated. The island is extremely poor and has virtually no medical or law enforcement resources left. Suffering and crime are rampant. You need a platform that can get there in a hurry, with the ability to immediately place aircraft in the air to survey the situation, assist with rescue, bring ashore medical supplies and food, provide ESM services, Something that has a massive lift capacity and does not require support itself. You need something that can get there fast, that has a lot of highly skilled people on board, engineers, doctors, law enforcement personnel, communicators, cooks, air traffic controllers, electricians, plumbers, nurses, pharmacists, weathermen, machinists, environmental specialists, harbor masters, dispatchers etc.

Any other dumb questions you'd like to ask about what a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier can do if you need one? Of course, I'm sure you could design a ship to do all these things, tell me, which ship that exists today can do all the above, 24/7/365, without breaking a sweat?

The nuclear powered aircraft carrier only has one natural enemy. That would be a nuclear warhead.

Finally, how much time have you spent on an aircraft carrier?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 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.


personally ..

I'd like to see that in a mock-up.. !!! cuz' the exocet can break a batleship in half ~!



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


There is a huge difference between a nuke going off near a fleet and a direct hit by a nuclear tipped missile.

That cruiser could be destroyed by a few WW2 torpedo hits. A strike by a modern tactical Nuke would vaporize a large chunk and blow the remainder to little pieces.

No Carrier can survive a direct strike by a Nuke of any size!

BTW, nice video!

P



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


and what fairy tale magic is this supposedly infallible missile defense coming from? even the Israelis dont have 100% success rate although it is higher then our patriot batteries were in the gulf not even the usa has a fully operational missile defense nor russia the combined fleet of usa SSBNS has something like 4090 independently target able warheads on MIRV warheads and that is just the nuclear stuff and from just 14 of our 16 SSBN's(two are set aside for conventional cruise missiles and are tasked primarily with special operations)you sink a carrier and your not russia we will level you MADD mostly applies to russia who has more nukes then we do,other nations could do some dammage with counter strikes but only russia could completely obliterate the USA and it that case were all dead and the planet is an irradiated husk

also u keep bringing up fleets of destroyers well mostly these are conventional powered(ie non nuclear) and are limited by range and distance from port and supplies not to mention the jamming technology the usa has (ask zaphoid for this one as thats his area not mine) weather you like it or not america tends to own the skies and its naval dominace has not been challenged since the cold war (in types and numbers of vessels we outnumber the next 4 countires combined) in world war two we feilded more vessles then all of the other participants combined.......and we keep spending and spending and spending since that point about the only thing we are lacking now adays is a healthy merchant marine
en.wikipedia.org...

317,464 active duty personnel[2] 109,596 Reserve personnel [2] 283 ships[2] 3,700+ aircraft 10 aircraft carriers 9 amphibious assault ships 8 amphibious transport docks 12 dock landing ships 22 cruisers 62 destroyers 17 frigates 71 submarines 3 littoral combat ships

en.wikipedia.org... indian navy
en.wikipedia.org... here is Russia navy for comparisons sake
en.wikipedia.org... chinas as well and as they only have 26 destroyers that would mean they would either have to attack one carrier bg at a time 26vs the battle group or try to take out all of the battle groups and split up ie 12 carrier bgs vs about 2 destroyers not to mention we can hit naval targets using b1b bombers flying from America to hit them when they are about doing their naval buisness where as to strike most of the bases of the usa airforce arent really probable
www.globalfirepower.com... compare any navies you want and usa will tend to be at the top on all of them at least where it matters



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic
Nuclear weapons are primitive weapons intended to kill civilians with monstruous fallout to cause suffering. No thank you. Be on the good side. Not the crazy side.


Nukes are intended to be the full stop at the end of the sentence.

Nothing about who or what they kill, or how much after effect. It's all about that "OMG" and it's over.

we all lose.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Jepic
 



Make a cannon with artillery and AA capability, put it on a tank and you'll see that a MBT platoon is superior to an infantry platoon in absolutely every way.


Battle for Hamburger Hill...Vietnam...
Battle of the Suez Canal....Yom Kippur War
Battle of the Bulge...

Just 3 quick examples right off the top of my head where Infantry did what Airstrikes and Tanks couldn't....

a2d


Battle of hamburger hill. Hill could have been cleared and 70 lives saved with a succesful airstrike.
Battle of suez canal. Stupid decision to go ahead with the attack. You don't send tanks through streets to be ambushed. Especially without good intelligence.
Battle of the bulge. Tanks did more damage than the soldiers did. Casualties mainly from infantry.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


The aircraft carrier is a "line in the sand" that says "If you mess with this sovereign 5 acres of US real estate at sea be prepared to defend your sovereign real estate. Its and "I dare you to touch it" thing.



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

Originally posted by CarbonBase
Ok. Huge disaster on an island that is heavily populated, but is geographically isolated. The island is extremely poor and has virtually no medical or law enforcement resources left. Suffering and crime are rampant. You need a platform that can get there in a hurry, with the ability to immediately place aircraft in the air to survey the situation, assist with rescue, bring ashore medical supplies and food, provide ESM services, Something that has a massive lift capacity and does not require support itself. You need something that can get there fast, that has a lot of highly skilled people on board, engineers, doctors, law enforcement personnel, communicators, cooks, air traffic controllers, electricians, plumbers, nurses, pharmacists, weathermen, machinists, environmental specialists, harbor masters, dispatchers etc.

Any other dumb questions you'd like to ask about what a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier can do if you need one? Of course, I'm sure you could design a ship to do all these things, tell me, which ship that exists today can do all the above, 24/7/365, without breaking a sweat?

The nuclear powered aircraft carrier only has one natural enemy. That would be a nuclear warhead.

Finally, how much time have you spent on an aircraft carrier?


Destroyers can have all that plus are faster. Helicopters are a platform itself specially designed for search and rescue, and humanitarian assistance.

If you need some heavy duty air drop, call a cargo plane from a regional base.

You are giving carriers too much credit...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by Jepic
Nuclear weapons are primitive weapons intended to kill civilians with monstruous fallout to cause suffering. No thank you. Be on the good side. Not the crazy side.


Nukes are intended to be the full stop at the end of the sentence.

Nothing about who or what they kill, or how much after effect. It's all about that "OMG" and it's over.

we all lose.



Agreed.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 

edit to add one was air dropped the other was underwater and positioned in the center of the fleet dosent get much sweeter of a kill shot then that and of note the underwater blast was much more destructive to the ships then the air burst was
well as the only time nukes were tested on a fleet this size was during the test its the baseline for comparison sake and as it did not sink a ww2 german cruiser id have to say as far as sending one to the bottom vs making it a radio active hell hole are two difrent situations can you disable one with nukes(and get nuked in response on your own soil not a patch of sea) sure but sink it evidently not...and its all moot cuz if you sink a carrier you get hit back and your country occupied for a few years or indefinatly like we did to japan when they sunk our ships we bombed,then firebombed them then nuked them then rewrote their laws so they could not even have a military just a self defense force and we have bases all of their country to this day so by all means hit a carrier and lose your sovereignty and as they are only nation to sink any usa carrier in history i use them as an example of what historically happens should you hit a carrier

it may change some day but for now America is king of the oceans...throw in her allies(uk germany france italy and the rest of nato) and it gets alot more one sided allies and distance from hostile neighbors is what has helped us get to this point throw in the fact of how much we spend on our military and it becomes abit more apparent
edit on 23-4-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join