Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon - Page 15




 
--
 
March 1st, 2012  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheCynic
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.
I thought I posted almost the same comment, seems not to be!
March 2nd, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
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.
March 3rd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
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.
--
March 5th, 2012  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.
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.
March 5th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
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.

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.
March 11th, 2012  
Jonny Reb
 
 

Topic: Vulnerability of bloated aircraft carriers


Has anyone considered how open these billion dollar monsters with their juicy atomic power plant installations are to a single specially designed missile?
March 11th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny Reb
Has anyone considered how open these billion dollar monsters with their juicy atomic power plant installations are to a single specially designed missile?

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.
March 12th, 2012  
Jonny Reb
 
 

Topic: 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?
March 12th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny Reb
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?

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.
March 12th, 2012  
LeEnfield
 
 
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.
 


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