Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon

About Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon Page 14


  International Military Forums > Military Hardware, Gear and Technology Forums > Naval Surface Vessels and Submarines Discussions
User Name
Password

 
December 28th, 2011   #131
Wheelgunner
 
 
I'm not a navy guy either, but I was told by an former submarine officer that in war games they were not allowed to "take out" a carrier. He is under the firm conviction that it can be done easily with the technology they have on board today.

He could have just been blowing smoke up my 6, but maybe a submariner can confirm or deny?
 
--
December 28th, 2011   #132
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
George

If we had the European model in the USA, no one would ever vote Republican ever again. I promise you that. People would take all the freebies that it has to offer and tell the Republican party to stick their fear mongering where the sun don't shine. And that ultimately is what you Republicans fear the most.

But what does the *nanny state* have anything to do with the actual topic? How come you always turn every subject into a bashing of the Democrats, you beginning to sound desperate. If I were you I'd stop worrying about the Democrats and start worrying about GOP campaign because if you have been watching the polls for 2012 the Republicans are in very serious trouble.

The fact reminds that we spent far too much on military spending, and namely on weapons like aircraft carriers which we don't need. You seem to confuse good defense as synonymous to the amount spent. Allow me to refer you to the Soviet Union who spent their whole economy on Defense, never used it in a hot war, and still lost the cold war.
The Americans have another attitude than most Europeans. I like their attitude. I don't need a government to pamper me up. In Belgium I have to give half of my wages to the government of which I don't get much in return. But I do respect your opinion....if you respect mine.

Quote:
$9 billion on a new AC than can be sunk by a $1 million AS missile.
You don't sink an AC with one AS missile.

Quote:
$138 Million on a aircraft like the F-22 for a terrorist enemy that has absolutely no air force at all.
The F-22 is not made to counter terrorists but for a war against a powerfull enemy. As long as there is no war every weapon is useless but if you wait until there is a war and you have no weapons you're doomed.

Quote:
Building a billion dollar ABM system against Iran which even if hey do get a nuke (doubtful), they would be suicidal to use.
Iran is doomed if they attack the US, but here's the difference between having a ABM system or not (example): We still have New York or there is no New York anymore.
 
December 30th, 2011   #133
mmarsh
 
 
VDKMS

1. Actually Americans DON'T have that attitude, that's a myth propagated by the GOP but we have seen time and time again that is simply untrue. Even George knows what would happen if the GOP tried abolishing Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Last person to try it was Bush in 2006, and it ended very, very badly for him when he tried to privatize SS. Pure Political suicide, and his party lost BOTH houses on Congress because of it. and its a good thing he was stopped because had he succeeded a lot of peoples retirement money would have been lost when the Stock Market collapsed 2 years later.

So there is a major difference between the propaganda and the reality.

If you are really paying half your wages you must be a multi-millionaire. I am in France, make a very good salary and am in a 23% bracket, and France is more expensive than Belgium. If that's the case, then I can understand your frustration but you are not getting any sympathy from me. I'd much rather be a multimillionaire that pays 50% in taxes then not be a multimillionaire (and I am nowhere even close to that type of money).

And you *do* get a lot for your taxes, you just don't realize it. You have TONS of advantages that Americans DON'T have like 100% healthcare, free schools, a pension, lots of other social protections etc. You don't get this in the USA and you have to pay for it. Its Americans that pay less taxes than Europeans, but they are the ones get anything for their taxes (except for wars and tax breaks for billionaires). The American government social programs pale in comparision to what the Europeans offer. Its precisely the reason I stay here.

2. You couldn't be more wrong. It has been done with weapons much weaker than the ones we have today. A few examples, HMS Sheffield (destroyer) was hit by a single Exocet which failed to explode and she still sank. ROMA (Battleship) was sunk by a single Fritz X ASM launched by a JU-88. IJN Taiho (aircraft carrier) sunk by a single Torpedo (WWII torpedoes carries less power than a missile) IJN Kirshima (battleship) single Torpedo. HMS HOOD sunk by a single devastating hit from a 14" shell.

USS Stark was nearly sunk by a single Exocet. USS Samuel Roberts hit a WWII mine and nearly sank, as did USS Cole (suicide boat).

And these are OLD weapons. Wait till you see the Soviet/Russian stuff in combat.

3. The F-22 was designed to penetrate a state of the art Soviet Air Defense in order to escort Strike Aircraft to their targets. Except there is no more Soviet Union all of America's potential enemies do not have a radar system anywhere near as sophisticated. Furthermore the F-22 can only carry a few bombs (and it gives up stealth to do so) so it is nowhere as useful as a F-16, FA-18, F-15, FA-35 which still have alot of life in them. And for the cost of a single FA-22 ($140 Milion) you can buy over 6 F-16s ($23 Million).

Thats why the contract was cancelled. Its a impressive but overpriced piece of kit with only limited use. the F-35 is a much better value.

4.

A. Iran doesn't have a nuclear device at all period.

B. Even if they do get a device they would need to shrink it to the size where it could fit on a missile. That took the USA 10 years just to do that (the Regulus II).

C. Then they would need to invent the missile that can accurately hit New York. They have a missile that can almost reach the USA, but they haven't the advanced guidance system to make it a real threat. Its more of a threat to the fish than New York.

Right now Iran has NONE of the above. It make more sense to build a Air Defense system to shoot down UFOs than deal with threats from Iran.

Oh and the ABM only worked about 50% of the time. So even if Iran build and launched such a nuke, there is absolutely no guarantee the ABM shield would stop it. Furthermore it was only designed to deal with an attack from Iran. A missile attack from any other country it wouldnt have done anything. An utterly useless weapon system that cost BILLION$.


"My center is giving way, my right is in retreat situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch

I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work in Paris.

Last edited by mmarsh; January 2nd, 2012 at 09:16.. Reason: Correction: HMS HOOD not HMS Prince of Wales
 
December 30th, 2011   #134
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
VDKMS

1. Actually Americans DON'T have that attitude, that's a myth propagated by the GOP but we have seen time and time again that is simply untrue. Even George knows what would happen if the GOP tried abolishing Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Last person to try it was Bush in 2006, and it ended very, very badly for him when he tried to privatize SS. Pure Political suicide, and his party lost BOTH houses on Congress because of it. and its a good thing he was stopped because had he succeeded a lot of peoples retirement money would have been lost when the Stock Market collapsed 2 years later.

So there is a major difference between the propaganda and the reality.

If you are really paying half your wages you must be a multi-millionaire. I am in France, make a very good salary and am in a 23% bracket, and France is more expensive than Belgium. If that's the case, then I can understand your frustration but you are not getting any sympathy from me. I'd much rather be a multimillionaire that pays 50% in taxes then not be a multimillionaire (and I am nowhere even close to that type of money).

And you *do* get a lot for your taxes, you just don't realize it. You have TONS of advantages that Americans DON'T have like 100% healthcare, free schools, a pension, lots of other social protections etc. You don't get this in the USA and you have to pay for it. Its Americans that pay less taxes than Europeans, but they are the ones get anything for their taxes (except for wars and tax breaks for billionaires). The American government social programs pale in comparision to what the Europeans offer. Its precisely the reason I stay here.

2. You couldn't be more wrong. It has been done with weapons much weaker than the ones we have today. A few examples, HMS Sheffield (destroyer) was hit by a single Exocet which failed to explode and she still sank. ROMA (Battleship) was sunk by a single Fritz X ASM launched by a JU-88. IJN Taiho (aircraft carrier) sunk by a single Torpedo (WWII torpedoes carries less power than a missile) IJN Kirshima (battleship) single Torpedo. HMS Prince of Wales sunk by a single devastating hit from a 14" shell.

USS Stark was nearly sunk by a single Exocet. USS Samuel Roberts hit a WWII mine and nearly sank, as did USS Cole (suicide boat).

And these are OLD weapons. Wait till you see the Soviet/Russian stuff in combat.

3. The F-22 was designed to penetrate a state of the art Soviet Air Defense in order to escort Strike Aircraft to their targets. Except there is no more Soviet Union all of America's potential enemies do not have a radar system anywhere near as sophisticated. Furthermore the F-22 can only carry a few bombs (and it gives up stealth to do so) so it is nowhere as useful as a F-16, FA-18, F-15, FA-35 which still have alot of life in them. And for the cost of a single FA-22 ($140 Milion) you can buy over 6 F-16s ($23 Million).

Thats why the contract was cancelled. Its a impressive but overpriced piece of kit with only limited use. the F-35 is a much better value.

4.

A. Iran doesn't have a nuclear device at all period.

B. Even if they do get a device they would need to shrink it to the size where it could fit on a missile. That took the USA 10 years just to do that (the Regulus II).

C. Then they would need to invent the missile that can accurately hit New York. They have a missile that can almost reach the USA, but they haven't the advanced guidance system to make it a real threat. Its more of a threat to the fish than New York.

Right now Iran has NONE of the above. It make more sense to build a Air Defense system to shoot down UFOs than deal with threats from Iran.

Oh and the ABM only worked about 50% of the time. So even if Iran build and launched such a nuke, there is absolutely no guarantee the ABM shield would stop it. Furthermore it was only designed to deal with an attack from Iran. A missile attack from any other country it wouldnt have done anything. An utterly useless weapon system that cost BILLION$.
1. Yup Americans have suckered in on the S.S. ponzi scheme. We all would have been way better off if the legislation had forced people to open private stock accounts instead. The Market has done way better, fabulously better over the years. S.S.'s return is a whopping 1%. If you die it would be in your Estate instead of losing it to the Govt. Also the politicians couldn't have taken the money & spent it. Bush was only trying to privatise 5% of S.S. not all of it like the Dems were saying.
2. That was HMS Hood, not P.of W. Turns out rocket fuel makes a great warhead. Taiho sank after the crew used the ventilation system to inadvertantly spread avgas fumes through out the ship. Kirishima sunk by USS Washington.
3. F-22 Air superiority will still be important & others are working to equal the plane & the F-35 is supposed to be the fighter-bomber. We'll see if the F-15 remains airworthy.

Last edited by George; December 30th, 2011 at 23:38..
 
January 2nd, 2012   #135
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
1. Yup Americans have suckered in on the S.S. ponzi scheme. We all would have been way better off if the legislation had forced people to open private stock accounts instead. The Market has done way better, fabulously better over the years. S.S.'s return is a whopping 1%. If you die it would be in your Estate instead of losing it to the Govt. Also the politicians couldn't have taken the money & spent it. Bush was only trying to privatise 5% of S.S. not all of it like the Dems were saying.
2. That was HMS Hood, not P.of W. Turns out rocket fuel makes a great warhead. Taiho sank after the crew used the ventilation system to inadvertantly spread avgas fumes through out the ship. Kirishima sunk by USS Washington.
3. F-22 Air superiority will still be important & others are working to equal the plane & the F-35 is supposed to be the fighter-bomber. We'll see if the F-15 remains airworthy.
1. SS is a security blanket for peoples retirement, its not an investment therefore it doesn't matter what the interest rate is, it might as well be 0%. The point is its not for money to be blown on a high stakes Wall Street Backjack table. If people put there retire money on a high stakes gamble they could (and would) have lost everything. Remember these are retired people, once that money is gone its gone for good as they people can no longer work to make up their loses. If they lose there SS these people would be out on the street. You know the saying "whenever you gamble you will eventually lose". The only one who wins is the house, which in 2006 would have been Wall Street.

A wise investor invests when he is young and with petty cash that he can afford to lose. You NEVER invest money that you cannot make up later or is meant for a specific project like retirement or a kids education. That's the difference between a investor and a gambler.

2. Oops, Corrected, thanks. HMS PoW was damaged at the same battle, but you are right it was HMS HOOD that was sunk. It wasn't rocket fuel. the 14" penetrated her ammunition storage locker for he secondaries and she went up like a Roman Candle.

You're right about Taiho, but the reason he aviation gas leaked was because of single torpedo hit fired by a US submarine. USS Albacore is credited with her sinking.

Same with IJN Kirshima. She took shell hits though none were serious. Her fate was sealed a single Torpedo fired by USS Washington. The Crew didn't think the flooding from the torpedo was that serious, and she would have survived but her idiot Captain made a terrible error of increasing speed from 11 to about 18 knots in order to return to Japan. This caused the flooding to worsen and the damage control teams could keep up with the water egress. She capsized on her way back to Japan. But the point remains she was sunk by a single hit.

3. What Job can a F-22 do that a F-16C cannot? The F-16 Block 60 or F/A-18E is still a match for anything any enemy airforce has and is much capable in the AtG mode than the FA/22. And you can practically buy a full squadron of them for the price of 2 FA-22A.
 
January 2nd, 2012   #136
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
3. What Job can a F-22 do that a F-16C cannot? The F-16 Block 60 or F/A-18E is still a match for anything any enemy airforce has and is much capable in the AtG mode than the FA/22. And you can practically buy a full squadron of them for the price of 2 FA-22A.
Most opponents of F-22's just got a message that their game was over. Shot down. They didn't even know the F-22 was in "the neighbourhood".
 
January 3rd, 2012   #137
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
1. SS is a security blanket for peoples retirement, its not an investment therefore it doesn't matter what the interest rate is, it might as well be 0%. The point is its not for money to be blown on a high stakes Wall Street Backjack table. If people put there retire money on a high stakes gamble they could (and would) have lost everything. Remember these are retired people, once that money is gone its gone for good as they people can no longer work to make up their loses. If they lose there SS these people would be out on the street. You know the saying "whenever you gamble you will eventually lose". The only one who wins is the house, which in 2006 would have been Wall Street.

A wise investor invests when he is young and with petty cash that he can afford to lose. You NEVER invest money that you cannot make up later or is meant for a specific project like retirement or a kids education. That's the difference between a investor and a gambler.

2. Oops, Corrected, thanks. HMS PoW was damaged at the same battle, but you are right it was HMS HOOD that was sunk. It wasn't rocket fuel. the 14" penetrated her ammunition storage locker for he secondaries and she went up like a Roman Candle.


Same with IJN Kirshima. She took shell hits though none were serious. Her fate was sealed a single Torpedo fired by USS Washington. The Crew didn't think the flooding from the torpedo was that serious, and she would have survived but her idiot Captain made a terrible error of increasing speed from 11 to about 18 knots in order to return to Japan. This caused the flooding to worsen and the damage control teams could keep up with the water egress. She capsized on her way back to Japan. But the point remains she was sunk by a single hit.
1. To each his own opinion. Personally I believe that if the money that has been taken out of my checks for the last few decades had been invested in stocks in my private retirement account I'd be far better off in the financial security area than I am now. Sure there's been big "Bear" markets, but in the long run it is still way up.
2. I guess I clumped comments together w/o proper seperation. Hood sunk by 15" fire from Bismarck. The rocket fuel comment was in regards to the Exocet sinking the British ship in the Falklands War, warhead didn't detonate. US Battleships in WWII didn't have torpedos, Kirishima hit by up to an estimated 25 16" shells plus 5" shells from secondary armament. You may be thinking of some other Japanese Battleship.
 
February 29th, 2012   #138
Jay
 
 
I can see your point that aircraft carriers are becoming a liability. there are just too many people needed to run one, as well as the fact that (as stated) they're massive targets, with the modern jet technology we have there should be no need for a mobile airstrip anymore, a U.S. jet can be in and out of combat in minutes, and can go a country or more over to refuel no problem. that being said, why would any country put hundreds of lives and billions of dollars to risk when they can be more effective elsewhere.
 
March 1st, 2012   #139
KevinTheCynic
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
I can see your point that aircraft carriers are becoming a liability. there are just too many people needed to run one, as well as the fact that (as stated) they're massive targets, with the modern jet technology we have there should be no need for a mobile airstrip anymore, a U.S. jet can be in and out of combat in minutes, and can go a country or more over to refuel no problem. that being said, why would any country put hundreds of lives and billions of dollars to risk when they can be more effective elsewhere.
Assuming the countries you have to overfly or refuel in actually let you do so.
There's one thing a carrier can always do that the air force cannot - if a country doesn't let you use their airspace or airfields, the carrier simply goes around it.
 
March 1st, 2012   #140
BritinAfrica
 
 
Without carriers the Falkland Islanders would be speaking Spanish today, and driving on the right hand side of the road.


I try to be the man my dog thinks I am.
 



Similar Topics
JF-17 Vs LCA Tejas
Virginia Lawmakers Launch Plan To Keep Aircraft Carrier
India to join select club of aircraft carrier designers
First-Family Name May Be Weapon In Carrier Battle
India begins construction of aircraft carrier