Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon - Page 2




 
--
 
April 4th, 2009  
rock45
 
Quote:
rattler
nuclear subs are out of the question, as they cannot go stealthy enough
I'm not strong in naval warfare at all but I think American or UK nuke boats can get closer enough to launch torpedo and have a chance to evade after. Most navies don't have the high number of picket ships really needed to screen out such a pressed attacked.

Subs are just plain nasty and basically nothing stops a torpedo once launch and in the water headed toward a target. I think more is known about F-22s then modern subs in general. There is very little public information released on what USN subs really do. Hope it stays that way.
April 4th, 2009  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock45
I'm not strong in naval warfare at all but I think American or UK nuke boats can get closer enough to launch torpedo and have a chance to evade after. Most navies don't have the high number of picket ships really needed to screen out such a pressed attacked.

Subs are just plain nasty and basically nothing stops a torpedo once launch and in the water headed toward a target. I think more is known about F-22s then modern subs in general. There is very little public information released on what USN subs really do. Hope it stays that way.
I am not doubting the qualities of the tripulation, it is just that Nuclear Subs need pumps for water cooling the reactor, those pumps produce - fairly loud in comparison to a simple diesel and a cacaphony in comparison to the newest hydrogen fuel cell powered (check this one which is top of the stealth curve: German 212A class: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjYZUiOkUw) - noise.

Nuclear subs are EITHER missile launch platforms OR sub hunters, but never carrier attackers (if not by the mentioned 0.1% chance), they´d be caught by the oldest sonobuoys way out of attack range (and these get dropped plenty, even the advanced versions) by *helos* off the frigates. Curtains as dense as the door to your house aginst intruding noisy stuff underwater.

You then have picket ships (like the SURTASS) or even (on the NATO side) the GUIK covering SOSUS and the Russian equivalents to give you the general loc of threats. Also, all those attack subs (especially the missile launch platforms) always have the enemy tracking, even in peace time, more so in a war scenario. No chance, really, IMHO.

Rattler

EDIT: P.S.: And if you have really one of the superquiet stuff getting close, openig the torpedo hatches will be enough to get all counter measures going... R.
April 5th, 2009  
rock45
 

Topic: Subs


Hi rattler
Thank you for posting that link very interesting learn a lot. Watch that ex-Seal on the military channel all the time.

Quote:
it is just that Nuclear Subs need pumps for water cooling the reactor, those pumps produce - fairly loud in comparison to a simple diesel
You may be 100% right but that doesn't mean a nuke Boat can't get close enough to take a shot without being tracked.

I honestly don't know enough about anti--sub warfare I was hoping some Navy guys would join but always thought surface personnel dreaded subs. American nuke Boats are very effective and I don't think surface asset using sonobuoy's and sonar can't hear through every level there are limits to what they can hear and subs know this. It's like fighter pilots staying out of each other strengths in air to air combat subs and surface ships fight these battles. I'm not saying subs can't be beat just that I think American nuke Boat are better or more effective then you make them out to be.

I've heard stories of American subs following Russian and Chinese subs right out of there bases without knowing there being followed so I can't see how surface ships couldn't be attacked. If sub killers types don't know there being tracked and I assume near there bases there also surface ships pinging away as well, I just think there are places to hide and shoot.

Thanks again for the sub link
--
April 5th, 2009  
-- Dusty
 
 
A carrier is merely a mobile airport & city, in it's own regards. Long term sorties from the states or an allied nation don't have the same recovery as that from a carrier.

Sure the carriers are essentially "sitting ducks", but that's IF they can find the carrier group, and then IF they have the resources left to HIT the same group. And unless they have a nuclear weapon on board the weapon fired, it's literally a shot in the dark to hit the carrier.

Though I have no idea what the carrier can take when fired upon. I suspect that once a weapon is fired against the carrier, the likelihood of the attacking "whatever" surviving the next hour is exceptionally slim.
April 5th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_420
Other then a humanitrian misson or fighting piss ant courtries the Modern Aircraft Carrier is a waste of money. If the US or any country fighting a modern Navy can expect to lose a carrier (and the poor soles on board) within the first 30minutes of war. Its a huge target. Sure there is anti missle and torpedo technology but if a emeny fires enough Crusie Missles, torpedos (Supercavitation or not) the Carrier is doomed. Am on wrong on this? I hope the US dosen't waste the money on another one of these. I love the carrier and all its capabilites but its one big floating liablity with no role against a Modern Navy.
I would say, yes you are wrong.
You need to understand what a carrier groups purpose is.
1. Very few countries have a "Modern Navy" capable of taking out a carrier group "in the first 30 minutes".
Is the carrier obsolete? Maybe in 30 years, but who knows?
A carrier acts as a forward airbase. Which is easier to find, a moving carrier or a land base?
As far as being a huge target. Might look at a map and determine how large the oceans of the world are.
Apparently India and China don't agree they are obsolete, as both are in the beginning stages of building them.
I was a sonar technician while serving in the US Navy and know how hard it is to locate a submarine.
I will give a little insight which is readily available if you look.
Conventional powered subs when running on batteries are quiet.
They also have very limited speed and submerged duration. They do not have the ability to replenish their air supply as nukes do.
On diesel power they are the noisiest submarines bar none.
It would probably be a nuke sub that had the speed, range, and stamina to maneuver to attack a carrier group.
Might also be aware that during WWII there were plenty of subs, but the number of carriers sunk by them was small. As compared to aircraft.
The bottom line is that aircraft carriers give a country a quick way of getting an airbase close to a belligerent to fight a conventional war. Also carriers are just like any warship they expect to fight.
If it is not a conventional war then none of this will matter much.
April 5th, 2009  
mmarsh
 
 
Chupike

I don't agree.

1. They don't need a modern Navy to sink a Carrier. A Land based Missile system is quite sufficient. And there of plenty of backwaters with surface to surface missiles capable of taking out a Carrier. Land based Exocets took a heavy toll on the RN during the Falklands.

2. An Airfield might be easier to find. but an Airfield is far more difficult to Destroy. The Germans during BOB can assert to that. Furthermore given the increased range of land based modern aircraft, it renders carriers less useful.

3. Concerning India and China, both countries are building much smaller carriers specifically because the larger carriers are so vulnerable. The UK and France are doing the same. All are about 40-50K Tons. Compared to the 90T+ of US carriers.

4. Hiding in the Ocean didnt work for the giant Battleships of WWII. And they didnt have satillites that can read license plate numbers back then either.

There is a funny story about that actually: The Chinese parked one of their latest ultra-secret subs outside its shed overnight confident that they would be out of view of CIA spy Satillites. Except they forgot about the public one used by Google EARTH. So the next day their new ultra secret sub was all over the internet via Google.

4. Subs did account for alot of sunk Carriers in WWII. Wasp, Yorktown, Taiho, Shinano, Unryu, Shokaku, Corageous, Ark Royal. I grant you that aircraft sank more, but the submarine threat is not idle. There was an incident a few years ago where a Chinese Song Class Sub (Diesel-Electric) surfaced undetected next to USS Kitty Hawk, within 5 nm, easily with Torpedo range.

My feeling (and this is just a guess) is that the Carrier is on the decline, and that it will be obsolete within a few decades. I just dont see how it can survive in its present form given the rate that technology is advancing.
April 5th, 2009  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Chupike

I don't agree.

1. They don't need a modern Navy to sink a Carrier. A Land based Missile system is quite sufficient. And there of plenty of backwaters with surface to surface missiles capable of taking out a Carrier. Land based Exocets took a heavy toll on the RN during the Falklands.

2. An Airfield might be easier to find. but an Airfield is far more difficult to Destroy. The Germans during BOB can assert to that. Furthermore given the increased range of land based modern aircraft, it renders carriers less useful.

3. Concerning India and China, both countries are building much smaller carriers specifically because the larger carriers are so vulnerable. The UK and France are doing the same. All are about 40-50K Tons. Compared to the 90T+ of US carriers.

4. Hiding in the Ocean didnt work for the giant Battleships of WWII. And they didnt have satillites that can read license plate numbers back then either.

There is a funny story about that actually: The Chinese parked one of their latest ultra-secret subs outside its shed overnight confident that they would be out of view of CIA spy Satillites. Except they forgot about the public one used by Google EARTH. So the next day their new ultra secret sub was all over the internet via Google.

4. Subs did account for alot of sunk Carriers in WWII. Wasp, Yorktown, Taiho, Shinano, Unryu, Shokaku, Corageous, Ark Royal. I grant you that aircraft sank more, but the submarine threat is not idle. There was an incident a few years ago where a Chinese Song Class Sub (Diesel-Electric) surfaced undetected next to USS Kitty Hawk, within 5 nm, easily with Torpedo range.

My feeling (and this is just a guess) is that the Carrier is on the decline, and that it will be obsolete within a few decades. I just dont see how it can survive in its present form given the rate that technology is advancing.
Have you actually checked the simulation layout and results I posted?

You keep referring to long bygone wars/engagements, which I think are obsolete in this discussion as the lessons have been learned (speaking conventional war here).

Rattler
April 5th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Chupike

I don't agree.

1. They don't need a modern Navy to sink a Carrier. A Land based Missile system is quite sufficient. And there of plenty of backwaters with surface to surface missiles capable of taking out a Carrier. Land based Exocets took a heavy toll on the RN during the Falklands.
Never said they did. I was answering jason-420's post and his reference to "modern Navy".
Please expand on "backwaters" with data and who you referring too.

"Argentine losses were heavy, but so was the Royal Navy's, and only the hit on "Glamorgan" by a land-based Exocet at the end of the war was not due to aircraft."
Source: http://www.naval-history.net/F41argaircraft.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
2. An Airfield might be easier to find. but an Airfield is far more difficult to Destroy. The Germans during BOB can assert to that. Furthermore given the increased range of land based modern aircraft, it renders carriers less useful..
Is it given current weapons?
Also forward land bases require agreements with other countries. Do you see a lot of countries friendly to the US begging us to open strategically located airbases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
3. Concerning India and China, both countries are building much smaller carriers specifically because the larger carriers are so vulnerable. The UK and France are doing the same. All are about 40-50K Tons. Compared to the 90T+ of US carriers..
Do you even have a clue? Do you honestly believe that a 40-50K Ton ship is even remotely less vulnerable than 90k Ton ship?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
4. Hiding in the Ocean didnt work for the giant Battleships of WWII. And they didnt have satillites that can read license plate numbers back then either..

There is a funny story about that actually: The Chinese parked one of their latest ultra-secret subs outside its shed overnight confident that they would be out of view of CIA spy Satillites. Except they forgot about the public one used by Google EARTH. So the next day their new ultra secret sub was all over the internet via Google..
Carrier Groups do not necessarily hide they are just harder to locate than a land base. Requiring more resources to be used in neutralizing them. More to the point, unlike forward air bases they do not need approval from foreign states in International waters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
4. Subs did account for alot of sunk Carriers in WWII. Wasp, Yorktown, Taiho, Shinano, Unryu, Shokaku, Corageous, Ark Royal. I grant you that aircraft sank more, but the submarine threat is not idle. There was an incident a few years ago where a Chinese Song Class Sub (Diesel-Electric) surfaced undetected next to USS Kitty Hawk, within 5 nm, easily with Torpedo range..
Basically repeating what I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
My feeling (and this is just a guess) is that the Carrier is on the decline, and that it will be obsolete within a few decades. I just dont see how it can survive in its present form given the rate that technology is advancing.
Also basically what I said.
"Is the carrier obsolete? Maybe in 30 years, but who knows?"chukpike
I guess we don't disagree as much as you thought.
Given the service life of a US Nuclear Attack Carrier of 50 years (Kitty Hawk 1961 is still active but not nuclear powered) there may be little need to build anymore. The Enterprise (1961) was the first nuclear and is still active and the latest George HW Bush just christened. Total 11 active + the George HW Bush.
Also, given the complexity of operating a carrier it will be at least 10 years before either the Chinese or Indians can field their carriers.
April 5th, 2009  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
Also, given the complexity of operating a carrier it will be at least 10 years before either the Chinese or Indians can field their carriers.
My take also.

@ mmarsh: I am not saying a CVBG cannot be attacked and a certain carrier cannot be sunk, but it will be drawing so much power that it will be lacking in other fields (like Stalingrad did bring the Russians to a point of breaking - as you like old scenarios -) that for any not 1st world power it would be a *nationwide* effort to achiev the goal, not really a war strategy IMHO.

As we have no current WWIII scenarios based on Cold War at hand, I would guess that carriers are not obsolete yet. Any other idea on how to project power?

On another angle and as I am really not qualified to comment seriously as a non Navy guy with just peripherical knowledge of the subject (INTEL/CI chief during the mentioned simulation, aka "Rear Admiral R. Atlerov" in the sitreps) I will try and lure our naval strike planning chief "Rear Admiral B. Rad Leytowsky" - aka Brad Leyte - to comment from todays 1st world powers take on that as he is way more proficient with the details as of 1998 and probably later, should turn out interesting (but will probably take some time to raise him):



Rattler

P.S.: @ MODS: Can someone please correct the spelling in the title, it is really hurting the eye... R.
Mod edit: Done
April 5th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_420
Other then a humanitrian misson or fighting piss ant courtries the Modern Aircraft Carrier is a waste of money. If the US or any country fighting a modern Navy can expect to lose a carrier (and the poor soles on board) within the first 30minutes of war. Its a huge target. Sure there is anti missle and torpedo technology but if a emeny fires enough Crusie Missles, torpedos (Supercavitation or not) the Carrier is doomed. Am on wrong on this? I hope the US dosen't waste the money on another one of these. I love the carrier and all its capabilites but its one big floating liablity with no role against a Modern Navy.
Its 'very' hard to sink a modern carrier, its much easier to damage or destroy the flight deck also the AC is the greatest thing god invented in terms of power projection, unless US is willing to relinquish its status as worlds main empire its going to keep them.
 


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