Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon

Might look at this site to understand what the Navy expects for the new Carriers
1. 150% increase in power from the reactors.
Increase needed to power the electromagnetic catapults.
Power will be needed for rail guns in the future.
2. The ability to support UAVs as developed.
3. Increased automation reducing crew by between 500 and 900.

The Navy already has Helicopter ships. The are LPHs for Landing Platform Helicopter.
Interesting reading:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

The designation CVN-21 was used during development to reflect the new designs for the 21st century.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Like I said, the carrier will be obsolete when missiles and UAVs can do what fleet aircraft can do, and even then, it will probably be more of an evolution of the aircraft carrier than a complete phase out. Probably something smaller, faster and stealthier and possibly not the center of the fleet anymore, rather simply, a ship that serves as a flight deck for UAVs and helicopters.
Click to expand...
I think we'd be foolish to do away with CVNs. If we get too reliant on our ultra high tech gear, and something bad happens to where that gear is no longer available, which can happen, what then?

Just because something is highly improbable does not completely rule it out. Remember, the Titanic was unsinkable. Where is she berthed now?

Exactly.

If a nuclear weapon is detonated in orbit, not only would it physically wipe out a good number of satellites, but the EMP could wipe out the majority of satellites as well.

"Could" it? You betcha. "Would" it? Who knows. BUT the capability is there. Maybe it's a nuclear weapon. Could be lots of other stuff as well. If something happens to wipe out the satellite network, that just disabled nearly all forms of communication. Could a UAV operate without satellite contact? You guys know this, I don't. What are the operating capabilities of our armed forces without satellite contact?

We're getting to fancy with this high tech gear. When the satellites aren't there to use, we're in a worse spot than most third world nations. High tech gear doesn't mean jack squat if it doesn't work.
 
An EMP attack would render any CVN and its aircraft useless anyway.
Basically when we mean by low tech, it's got to be no more sophisticated than a flash light in order for it to be low tech enough to be immune to EMPs and other electronic attack. We're talking about grunts with rifles using mirrors to communicate.
Actually a more autonomous and flexible fleet would be harder for anyone to hit.
 
What an interesting discussion. I wish I'd have gotten in this a bit earlier.

It seems to me that both sides of the debate have valid points, here. Air superiority is the qualifier for any victory, and this is a role the CBGs fulfill very well. It is a first-strike capability that we enjoy, an unprecedented one in comparison to any other nation on the planet.

UAVs do have a unique mission, but they have many limitations, as well. The 3D perspective is one, but their weight limitations make them ineffective as strike aircraft. I suppose we could just put a remote control in place of a pilot in a B2, but surely there must be so much more to it than that.

Carriers are not going anywhere in the near future. I am convinced of that. They have been one of the most decisive factors in victory for 60 years now, and their mainstay in our current and probable conflicts cannot be denied in their necessity.
 
But munitions are also getting smaller and more precise. UAVs can provide close air support. They have better loiter time and they are cheaper. You can deploy more of them for longer. Truly any ground pounder will really appreciate air cover that is timely and doesn't have to turn back 15 minutes after arriving on station.
As for the real heavies, B-52s have immense range and don't fit on aircraft carriers anyway. Truth is, the best CAS birds, AC-130 and the A-10 don't fly from carriers.
I think the UAV's vision is outstanding because it can look easily at places traditionally the conventional manned airplane's blind spot: below the aircraft, which is actually the most important place to look especially when hunting ground targets. The operator on the ground will actually see the image on a bigger screen and have staff to share the work with. It's like having a very large crew in an aircraft too small to hold a single person. As for 3D perspective, I don't think it's that important. If you can judge the range, that's probably good enough and UAVs can do that no sweat.
I think the nature of the carrier will change as the nature of aerial warfare will change. It's still going to take a little time before the UAV can really over take the manned aircraft but it's probably not too far off.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
But munitions are also getting smaller and more precise. UAVs can provide close air support. They have better loiter time and they are cheaper. You can deploy more of them for longer. Truly any ground pounder will really appreciate air cover that is timely and doesn't have to turn back 15 minutes after arriving on station.
As for the real heavies, B-52s have immense range and don't fit on aircraft carriers anyway. Truth is, the best CAS birds, AC-130 and the A-10 don't fly from carriers.
I think the UAV's vision is outstanding because it can look easily at places traditionally the conventional manned airplane's blind spot: below the aircraft, which is actually the most important place to look especially when hunting ground targets. The operator on the ground will actually see the image on a bigger screen and have staff to share the work with. It's like having a very large crew in an aircraft too small to hold a single person. As for 3D perspective, I don't think it's that important. If you can judge the range, that's probably good enough and UAVs can do that no sweat.
I think the nature of the carrier will change as the nature of aerial warfare will change. It's still going to take a little time before the UAV can really over take the manned aircraft but it's probably not too far off.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said, but think it will be later, rather than the sooner. Yes, the technology is there. But implementing it and retrofitting for it without losing today's edge will be massively time consuming and expensive.
 
I'd rather keep war simple and expensive. When you have men battling it out with broadswords and shields it makes wars less common. The more remote and high tech, the more frequent because killing someone on TV is so much easier than in person, when you watch their eyes glaze over. When you wipe their blood off your face. When you pick up your dead partner.

War HAS to be hell so people will realize how wrong it really is.

IMO.
 
aircarft carriere are by no means obsolete, yes you can sink them from miles away and yes they are poorly armed but the fact still remanis more countries are bulding them, anyway i think wars nowdays are decided economically i mean do you have to money to support a campaign or no and aircraft carriers reduce tremedously the cost of the campaign by the simple fact that in their huge size they can store anything and take it with them thousands of miles away
 
Hmmm said:
I'd rather keep war simple and expensive. When you have men battling it out with broadswords and shields it makes wars less common. The more remote and high tech, the more frequent because killing someone on TV is so much easier than in person, when you watch their eyes glaze over. When you wipe their blood off your face. When you pick up your dead partner.

War HAS to be hell so people will realize how wrong it really is.

IMO.
Click to expand...

Or make it law that your next of kin has to lead the charge.
World peace overnight.
 
China is building its own carriers based on a Russian design. If you got rid of your carriers where is your CAP coming from for the rest of the fleet. Also how are you going to give air support to any forces that you might put ashore in some far away spot. In all wars you will lose ships and the only way you can over come this is not to have any ships.
 
Despite the perceived vulnerabilities of aircraft carriers, the reality is that in most navies their carriers are the most survivable ships.
In the USN, carriers are the only ships being built that have metal armor on the outside of the hull. Then there are two to three rows of compartments between the outer hull and the vital areas within the ship. At least two deck between the flight deck and the hangar deck. The flight deck and the floor of the hangar deck are both armored. Ammunition storage as well as fuel storage and ballast have over FORTY cells each, with partitions between to contain any explosion! The hull is double bottomed and the keel is a network of beams, not a single massive beam.
It was once stated that the fire fighting capability of a carrier is equivalent to the ability of a city of 1½ million people.
So the survival ability of a carrier is considerable and the destruction required to sink one is massive. There is a reason all navies that can possibly afford an aircraft carrier is trying to obtain at least one.
The individual fighting ability of a single carrier is modest at best, each navy places as much protection as possible in the escorts. That is where the defensive ability must be if the carrier is to survive in a high threat environment.

To me the problem of defending a carrier in the open ocean is not much compared to defending high value amphibious ships (LHD, LPD, LPH, etc.) in the litorals.

I personally feel, the US carriers were more potent back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, until the A-6 Intruder was retired. The Intruder gave the carrier a significant offensive capability with good range! The retirement of the A-6 reduced the offensive range of the carrier by 30%. The F-14 was a "domnator" in carrier aerial defense. The retirement of the F-14 now translates into the USN will no longer fight in the 'outer defense zone'.
 
Carriers, Necessary

Our CVN's represent America's presence almost anywhere in the world without impinging upon another countries sovereignity. A forminable force that must be considered before any national leader chooses to do something rash, assuming our presence is not solely for our own economic benefit. Also, keep in mind that a carrier is a continuing evolving weapons platform whose function today may not be the same tomorrow. Drones have now made night landings and take-offs. Imagine the capabilities of future fighters that don't have to carry a life support system.
 
Problem is missiles like DF-21 and there follow on evolutions will make carriers nothing more than for show and tell.Carriers are soon to be useless.

You watch how quickly we will be seeing intercontinental ranged UCAVS.
 
Is anyone aware the UCAVS and any unmanned aircraft do not operate in real time. While on-board computers respond and "fly" the aircraft according to conditions. The flight orders for direction and weapon launches come from remote locations. UAVS may be fine as long as they are not opposed by maned aircraft. By the time a threat registers, data goes to the remote control center, and a response is sent back, the UAV is history.

Also, what is to keep UCAVS form operating from carriers. If a UCAV is 5 times smaller than a comparable manned aircraft, can't an aircraft carrier carry 5 times more?

The term Aircraft Carrier has never included the word Manned.
 
Chukpike said:
Is anyone aware the UCAVS and any unmanned aircraft do not operate in real time. While on-board computers respond and "fly" the aircraft according to conditions. The flight orders for direction and weapon launches come from remote locations. UAVS may be fine as long as they are not opposed by maned aircraft. By the time a threat registers, data goes to the remote control center, and a response is sent back, the UAV is history.

Also, what is to keep UCAVS form operating from carriers. If a UCAV is 5 times smaller than a comparable manned aircraft, can't an aircraft carrier carry 5 times more?

The term Aircraft Carrier has never included the word Manned.
Click to expand...


Yes you do have a point in regards to UCAVS dont operate in real time so mabey in the not to distant future we will be seeing UCAVS that will adress that shortcoming.

As far as carriers go...yeah you could operate UCAVS with far greater range than manned aircraft...true

Just that at what ranges will ballistic DF-21 and evolutions be able to engage a carrier battle group from?

S o i rekon it would be better to have long ranging UCAVS operating from land so as to nullify ballistic missile attack...escpecially with dispersal.
 
splat said:
Yes you do have a point in regards to UCAVS dont operate in real time so mabey in the not to distant future we will be seeing UCAVS that will adress that shortcoming.
Click to expand...

Just as soon as it is figured out how to ignore the laws of physics.:lol:


splat said:
As far as carriers go...yeah you could operate UCAVS with far greater range than manned aircraft...true
Click to expand...
Carriers are just one weapon used in warfare. Currently US super-carriers may be the most lethal weapon in force projection, but are still only one component.
The US is quite capable of eliminating ballistic missile capabilities of a country that chose to use them against US assets.
Carriers are just one chess piece on the board. Granted they may equal the queen, they are not the end prize.

splat said:
Just that at what ranges will ballistic DF-21 and evolutions be able to engage a carrier battle group from?
Click to expand...

"Only one ASBM is currently in operation. China has successfully developed and tested the DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile, with a range of up to (3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) or more, in 2005, according to the US Department of Defense. Other analysts are less sure that China has sufficient technical capability for an accurate ASBM system. The DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile is expected to enter active service by 2009."

Being polite here. You need to learn to supply your own sources to support your view.

Also 1900 miles is a drop in the ocean.

splat said:
S o i rekon it would be better to have long ranging UCAVS operating from land so as to nullify ballistic missile attack...escpecially with dispersal.
Click to expand...

How do you reckon? Slow flying (relative to ballistic missle) long range UCAVS are going to "nullify" ballistic missile attack?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top