Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon - Page 5




 
--
 
April 13th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
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.
April 13th, 2009  
-- Dusty
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
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.
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.
April 13th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
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.
--
April 14th, 2009  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
An EMP attack would render any CVN and its aircraft useless anyway.
AFAIK all this stuff today is rather EMP hardened, part of the huge cost (all vital stuff engulfed in a Faradayan Cage).

Rattler
April 14th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
You could give the smaller UAV / Helicopter carrier the same technology.
April 16th, 2009  
AZ_Infantry
 
 
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.
April 16th, 2009  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry
What an interesting discussion. I wish I'd have gotten in this a bit earlier. -snip-.
You are definitely weclome right now, from my POV...

Rattler
April 16th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
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.
April 16th, 2009  
AZ_Infantry
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
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.
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.
April 17th, 2009  
-- Dusty
 
 
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.
 


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