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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLDRAFT
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.


Good. Still won't save the group of being neutralized by the fleet.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
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


They do have a close to 100% success rate.
Also if aircraft carriers are nuclear powered then destroyers can be too.
edit on 23/4/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


U.S. Nuclear Powered Aircraft carrier, going into combat with another sea going power has ability to observe and track ALL contacts in a 3,000,000 NM 'bubble'. That includes contacts underwater. The battle groups ESM capabilities are global, at all times. Even when it's sitting in port.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. if missles were being shot at you would you be happy with the 84% success rate the Israelis have had? but to give credit where credit is due theirs is the most advanced and one of the only battle tested types of missile defense in existence but some how i dont see the us navy fighting the isreli one any time soon so you have any other examples of working proven and battle tested missile defence systems in use by Americas enemies?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CarbonBase
 


yep they have some interesting kit on those carriers that is for sure you do bring up a diffrent situation that has not been mentioned by any one yet that carriers are more vulnerable in port but not by much



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Jepic
 


close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. if missles were being shot at you would you be happy with the 84% success rate the Israelis have had? but to give credit where credit is due theirs is the most advanced and one of the only battle tested types of missile defense in existence but some how i dont see the us navy fighting the isreli one any time soon so you have any other examples of working proven and battle tested missile defence systems in use by Americas enemies?


The only reason why they had 84% is because they simply did not have enough batteries to counter the number of incoming projectiles. Some more batteries and the succes rate would have been essentially a 100%.

And no I don't know any other platform that can match the Israeli which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
rense.com...

en.wikipedia.org... for any one interested this is on the intentional sinking of the uss america and is the only post nuclear test of the survivalbility of carrier

basicly to summarize they sunk her to so that all future designs will be stronger and more resliant and they specificly used underwater explosions to simulate torpedo strikes using 500 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) which to be honest i have no idea what type or scale of explosives they used but i would assume all the data they got from this went into future designs



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
An Aircraft Carrier is a BIG boat with BIG vulnerabilities and BIG shortcomings. An Aircraft Carrier Battle Group is still, by far, the most powerful mobile projection of military power OR 'on the spot' disaster relief in the world, IMO.

Escorts without their Carrier are just ships to take their chances. A Carrier without her escorts is a fat target waiting to get sunk in modern warfare. Combined? Nothing quite matches it that I know, let alone beats it.


I can respect that opinion. But I still see more efficient ways in which to project military power and give disaster relief.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Really? How many destroyers does it take to equal the lifting capacity of a CVN? And, if that was the case, why didn't the US send ALL of it's destroyers to Haiti after the Earthquake? Personally, I don't give a lot of 'credit' to any warship in time of conflict. They're expendable. Question is, How much damage do you think that CVN is going to inflict against say, 10 destroyers, before the destroyers can take the CVN out? Just the CVN against the destroyers, and you can't use US destroyers.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
No offense intended but this is one of the strangest, non-sensical threads I've read in awhile. The intent of the thread is not very forth-coming but rather antagonistic in its simplicity. It's no wonder the thread has over 6 pages of responses but only 2 flags and no stars. Better try next time...again, no offense.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonBase
reply to post by Jepic
 


Really? How many destroyers does it take to equal the lifting capacity of a CVN? And, if that was the case, why didn't the US send ALL of it's destroyers to Haiti after the Earthquake? Personally, I don't give a lot of 'credit' to any warship in time of conflict. They're expendable. Question is, How much damage do you think that CVN is going to inflict against say, 10 destroyers, before the destroyers can take the CVN out? Just the CVN against the destroyers, and you can't use US destroyers.


Let's be conservative and say the destroyer has 100 missiles. A CVN has between 75 and 90 aircraft. Now it's very unlikely that the CVN will be able to get all 90 aircraft airborne before the missiles hit. Let's do the math. The carrier is out. The rest of the group is potatoes. I'll lose a destroyer. Okay, two at most with a third badly damaged but still able to get to port. I'll give you that. Your group is completely in the bottom though.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


your still not thinking of the missle defenses of the carrier itself.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 

How are your destroyers going to acquire and target a CVN that's about 1200 NM's away? Why would a CVN that's going into combat have it's planes just sitting on the flight deck? Why would you think a destroyer sitting on the surface of the ocean will have the ability to defeat BGPHES? What crappy video game have you been playing ?
How many destroyers do you know of that have existed, ANYWHERE in time or space that have a 'conservative' complement of 100 SSM's. Did you know that a CVN can acquire and control ALL weapons in the battle group, including the weapons available on it's SSN screen? I said 10 destroyers against one CVN, not the CVN's screen. How do the destroyers get close enough? I can't understand what your saying because I have a hard time understanding gibberish!

edit on 24/4/2013 by CarbonBase because: Content

edit on 24/4/2013 by CarbonBase because: spelling



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Jepic, one of the problems both in attack and defense is to answer the question how many missiles can you fire and at what rate.

It is all very well to say this ship or that ship can track a thousand contacts. The question is how many of those targets can you engage simultaneously. That is the real question. In a war scenario the Carrier will have various aircraft aloft at any point in time to give the group enough time to destroy a threat. The range of aircraft plus missile is greater than the range of ship fired missile therefore the Destroyers are likely doomed before they even get to strike range. That being said, so are many of the attack aircraft.

Now if the Destroyers come in at night and are stealth capable, anything could happen.

Now if you said a wolf pack of submarines initiated the attack, that would be very different.

A Carrier group has a layered defense. You either attack in stealth striking before they know you are there or you mass attack to overwhelm the defenses. Both work.

P



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


carrier if properly maintained and readied they can launch one fighter ever 20 seconds problay faster if they toss safty out the window



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


it's actually fster than that when your launching off all four catapults. So your looking at about four every 20 to 30 seconds.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rowdyrich
 


ah thank you for correcting my error i would not want to spread ignorance,suprisingly enough its almost impossible or at least using the terms i did to find a magnum launch of aircraft off a carrier perhaps my google fu is failing me today



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Jepic
 


Jepic, one of the problems both in attack and defense is to answer the question how many missiles can you fire and at what rate.

It is all very well to say this ship or that ship can track a thousand contacts. The question is how many of those targets can you engage simultaneously. That is the real question. In a war scenario the Carrier will have various aircraft aloft at any point in time to give the group enough time to destroy a threat. The range of aircraft plus missile is greater than the range of ship fired missile therefore the Destroyers are likely doomed before they even get to strike range. That being said, so are many of the attack aircraft.

Now if the Destroyers come in at night and are stealth capable, anything could happen.

Now if you said a wolf pack of submarines initiated the attack, that would be very different.

A Carrier group has a layered defense. You either attack in stealth striking before they know you are there or you mass attack to overwhelm the defenses. Both work.

P


Completely in accord with your views above. An attack would have to be with no prior or very, very short notice. Stealth is always a plus too of course.

Of course the submarines are a different league. You know I might trade my destroyers for your submarines if things continue like this. Deal?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Jepic
 


carrier if properly maintained and readied they can launch one fighter ever 20 seconds problay faster if they toss safty out the window


That is impressive I must say.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rowdyrich
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


it's actually fster than that when your launching off all four catapults. So your looking at about four every 20 to 30 seconds.


Even more impressive.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join