I thought I posted almost the same comment, seems not to be!
Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I believe the only time that the carrier itself becomes truely obsolete will only be by the devlopement of an asymetrical counter to the presence of a carrier.
Such as highly effective, cheap and widley used anti ship munitions.
Or when aviation transcends the boundries of the planet's surface atomsphere and we acheive orbital air arms.
Both seem to be a ways away in the future.
Such as highly effective, cheap and widley used anti ship munitions.
Or when aviation transcends the boundries of the planet's surface atomsphere and we acheive orbital air arms.
Both seem to be a ways away in the future.
Last edited:
It all depends on who your enemy is. Most nations have no means to destroy a AC, so against such nations it has all the benefits it allways had. But against a nation with anti-ship ballistic missiles or the fearsome SS-N-22 or the BrahMos the AC becomes a vulnerable target. You do not even have to sink it, just enough damage so it is not usefull enymore and the Air Force the size of a small country is out of action.
Oh, I forgot the submarine threat.
Oh, I forgot the submarine threat.
mmarsh
Active member
Actually most countries do have the means to destroy a AC, even a terror cell could do it with abit of luck. Remember what a AC is, a giant floating fuel and ammunition dump. One hit in the right place from anything, is all it takes.
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I think the U.S.S. Cole Instance was a demonstration of the danger asymetrical means can pose to any modern warship.
Or even traditional military threats for that matter, past examples are the dangers of submarines, such as the sinking of the Shinano which, submarines like other areas of naval technology, is still progressing into more silent and lethal iterations of the submarine itself and undersea weaponry.
As in the case of a carrier, just destroying fuel relay capabilities to where underway replensihment is no longer an option forcing her to port, or damage the elevators or flight deck, ship may not sink, but she will no longer be of any use as a combat platform.
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
The nature of the nuclear reactors onboard are highly classified, with what little information exist on them was most likely obtained from potential adversaries of the U.S.
What has been mentioned on them, is that they are manufactured to survive extreme situations. Most importantly not to become a ecological disaster if the ship is attacked.
That the ability for the entire vessel to be submerged on the seafloor without leaking is unkown, but widley speculated.
In short, the reactors are very likely the structually strongest portion of the vessel, some claims are that they are able to survive a detonation of the entire ships ordance load and still not leak.
Whether or not this is true will most likely never be known due to operational security parameters around this sensitive technology.
Back to another topic in regards to carrier's longevity.
You may not even need a specially designed piece of gear to take one out of operation, which is easier to do and about all you need to make it no longer useful in the conflict area, forcing it to return to port, or even be towed there, all the while eating up man power and logistical assets to get it there.
More accurately speaking, a specially designed and executed plan would be more helpful.
Even with using a unseen threat such as a submarine. Timing would be almost as important when taking on a carrier as with the munitions themselves.
How well adversaries the world over achieve this, and how often, is more or less tied to how long carriers remain on the seas.
Last edited:
Bang!
I am not arguing against aircraft carriers per se any more than I have argued against tanks, Its just the 'bloatification' which has more to do with the 'virility' of higher command then rational thought. Quick examples: Germany Bismark Class as opposed to snorkel submarines, Maus and Tiger as opposed to Panthers. Japan the gastly load of rubbish that was an 18 inch calibre, 70,0000 ton floating target. Such nonsense ties up vast resources.
One way of getting rid of Aircraft carriers - below radar horizon fire 'vertically' missile ( angular construction not detected by radar ). When it decends vertically it will know approx. GPS of target, although supersonic it has the means of displacment at right angles to transit ie it can home in. It has a visual recognition computer system plus a wide angle camera. Not only does it recognize target, but using the superstructure arrangement it homes in to where the reactor is. It does not explode on impact instead using a metal 'cutting' leading edge ( Barnes Wallis ) part of it goes thru the decks and is stopped just above the reactor where it deternates a low level explosive. You don't want to eliminate the reactor - bulkheads will ensure that you can still use it as a floating runway. No you want melt down and leaks. Pilots are intelligent men they can see what's happening - are they going to land back on a floating Chernobal?
I am not arguing against aircraft carriers per se any more than I have argued against tanks, Its just the 'bloatification' which has more to do with the 'virility' of higher command then rational thought. Quick examples: Germany Bismark Class as opposed to snorkel submarines, Maus and Tiger as opposed to Panthers. Japan the gastly load of rubbish that was an 18 inch calibre, 70,0000 ton floating target. Such nonsense ties up vast resources.
One way of getting rid of Aircraft carriers - below radar horizon fire 'vertically' missile ( angular construction not detected by radar ). When it decends vertically it will know approx. GPS of target, although supersonic it has the means of displacment at right angles to transit ie it can home in. It has a visual recognition computer system plus a wide angle camera. Not only does it recognize target, but using the superstructure arrangement it homes in to where the reactor is. It does not explode on impact instead using a metal 'cutting' leading edge ( Barnes Wallis ) part of it goes thru the decks and is stopped just above the reactor where it deternates a low level explosive. You don't want to eliminate the reactor - bulkheads will ensure that you can still use it as a floating runway. No you want melt down and leaks. Pilots are intelligent men they can see what's happening - are they going to land back on a floating Chernobal?
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
U.S. Budget appropriation committees want no leaks, just another selling point for American ship builders.
Anyway, there will be a continuing struggle all centered around software in this case.
By software, I mean reaction, detection and ranging systems.
Computer Chips would become just as important as weapons themselves.
Imagine a CWIS or RAM system, or kinetic interception system, that could range, estimate, move and lead and fire on an inbound projectile at fractions of a second.
Now have a few cruisers or destoyers running escort in a Carrier Strike Group, inter connected with the carrier with their point defense weapons. All connected, and able to cover each other with incredible speed, and effeincey.
The point defense weapons are already here, the super advanced computer guidance is coming soon.
Also just most your carrier further out to sea, which would give ample warning to surface or air threats, and give the carriers jets plenty or breathing room to launch and retrieve CAP flights while always maintianing a defensive perimiter in the air.
Further out to sea means less chance at a pot shot from a land based launch platform.
Longe Range early warning aircraft enhance the myriad of protection around the carrier from air threats.
Submarines however... Will be getting a large jump in quietness and lethality if that particular technology keeps developing at the same pace.
Last edited:
LeEnfield
Active member
What ever armaments that you have can be destroyed one way or another, it all depends on just how lucky your side is and how well trained. Planes can get shot down and submarines can get sunk, missiles can get taken out with other missiles and so it on and on. Still aircraft carriers still have an important role in supporting the the land forces on any expedition where they might not be an airfield that they can use, unless you want to fight with out aerial cover then I suggest that you keep your carriers.
franzhairilvonhipper
New Member
The only way to know the effectiveness of an aircraft carrier is to actually engage them in real combat. Fire more than a dozen anti ship missiles and see how a CV Battle Group reacts! Anybody dare????
Remington 1858
Active member
It has been said many times since the end ofWWII that the aircraft carrier's day is past. In the late 1940s and early 50s this view was advanced by the U.S. Air Force in particular in order to win the funding battle in Congress.
Then along came the Korean War and the nearest U.S, bases at the beginning of the war were in Japan. All the effective air support that U.S. ground forces received for a long time was furnished by carriers.
In the Falklands conflict, the British could not have prevailed without Harriers operated from ships.
Whether the air support needs to be furnished by huge nuclear powered behemoths with 5000 crewman is another story. UAV ( drone) technology is advancing at a tremendous rate, and we see small ships operated fleets of armed drones replacing the CVN carrier in the future.
Then along came the Korean War and the nearest U.S, bases at the beginning of the war were in Japan. All the effective air support that U.S. ground forces received for a long time was furnished by carriers.
In the Falklands conflict, the British could not have prevailed without Harriers operated from ships.
Whether the air support needs to be furnished by huge nuclear powered behemoths with 5000 crewman is another story. UAV ( drone) technology is advancing at a tremendous rate, and we see small ships operated fleets of armed drones replacing the CVN carrier in the future.
It just seems that the idea of mobile landing strips for our fastest - best fighters is a good idea. The fact being we can't maintain air bases everywhere in the globe, such as the former base at Subic Bay in the Philippines. Unlike in WW2 they are very well protected by a small armada and would be positioned hundreds of miles from any likely treat.
Last edited:
skoro
Active member
Yeah, the Aircraft Carrier is obsolete , The next war is "star war".
You must research and build many space battleship.
I design a huge space battleship weigh 10 millions tons, can carry two planetary landing ships, Each landing ships can loaded 500000 tons goods or tanks ,vechices and 1000 "star marines' .
and the space battlship can load 1500 warplanes and 5000 neclear warhead.:mrgreen:
You must research and build many space battleship.
I design a huge space battleship weigh 10 millions tons, can carry two planetary landing ships, Each landing ships can loaded 500000 tons goods or tanks ,vechices and 1000 "star marines' .
and the space battlship can load 1500 warplanes and 5000 neclear warhead.:mrgreen:
Last edited:
Remington 1858
Active member
I think we can put this thread to bed for a while because the aircraft carrier has just shown what it can do in the resurgence in Iraq. With the ISIS group advancing against Iraqi Army units, the need for heavy air support is evident. The Iraqi Air Force has really no combat aircraft and the U.S. lacks bases close by.
The U.S. George H.W. Bush was dispatched to the Gulf to provide air support to the Iraqis, if needed. A ship of this class puts a very large number of very capable aircraft within striking distance. It comes with complete fuel, munitions, maintenance and living facilities and it can stay on station until relieved by another carrier, supplied in place by replenishment ships. That is why the U.S. builds and pays for super carriers.
The U.S. George H.W. Bush was dispatched to the Gulf to provide air support to the Iraqis, if needed. A ship of this class puts a very large number of very capable aircraft within striking distance. It comes with complete fuel, munitions, maintenance and living facilities and it can stay on station until relieved by another carrier, supplied in place by replenishment ships. That is why the U.S. builds and pays for super carriers.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Like the battleship before it remained relevant until sufficient numbers of said warships were proven so by sending enough of them to the bottom via Airpower.
In hindsight we know that times had changed by the time of the 2nd WW. However it took practical experience at the time for commanders to realize this.
I see the carrier being no different. The carrier is a fearsome weapon, so I would hate to see the weapon that would be the one to make them irrelevant.
If budget cuts and downsizing doesn't do it first.
In hindsight we know that times had changed by the time of the 2nd WW. However it took practical experience at the time for commanders to realize this.
I see the carrier being no different. The carrier is a fearsome weapon, so I would hate to see the weapon that would be the one to make them irrelevant.
If budget cuts and downsizing doesn't do it first.