Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon - Page 6




 
--
 
June 2nd, 2009  
Blackout
 
aircarft carriere are by no means obsolete, yes you can sink them from miles away and yes they are poorly armed but the fact still remanis more countries are bulding them, anyway i think wars nowdays are decided economically i mean do you have to money to support a campaign or no and aircraft carriers reduce tremedously the cost of the campaign by the simple fact that in their huge size they can store anything and take it with them thousands of miles away
June 2nd, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmmm
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.
Or make it law that your next of kin has to lead the charge.
World peace overnight.
June 2nd, 2009  
LeEnfield
 
 
China is building its own carriers based on a Russian design. If you got rid of your carriers where is your CAP coming from for the rest of the fleet. Also how are you going to give air support to any forces that you might put ashore in some far away spot. In all wars you will lose ships and the only way you can over come this is not to have any ships.
--
June 3rd, 2009  
noobkins
 
This can be disproved by playing starcraft.
Protoss carriers own everything. EVERYTHING!!!
June 3rd, 2009  
AVON
 

Topic: Re: Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon


Despite the perceived vulnerabilities of aircraft carriers, the reality is that in most navies their carriers are the most survivable ships.
In the USN, carriers are the only ships being built that have metal armor on the outside of the hull. Then there are two to three rows of compartments between the outer hull and the vital areas within the ship. At least two deck between the flight deck and the hangar deck. The flight deck and the floor of the hangar deck are both armored. Ammunition storage as well as fuel storage and ballast have over FORTY cells each, with partitions between to contain any explosion! The hull is double bottomed and the keel is a network of beams, not a single massive beam.
It was once stated that the fire fighting capability of a carrier is equivalent to the ability of a city of 1 million people.
So the survival ability of a carrier is considerable and the destruction required to sink one is massive. There is a reason all navies that can possibly afford an aircraft carrier is trying to obtain at least one.
The individual fighting ability of a single carrier is modest at best, each navy places as much protection as possible in the escorts. That is where the defensive ability must be if the carrier is to survive in a high threat environment.

To me the problem of defending a carrier in the open ocean is not much compared to defending high value amphibious ships (LHD, LPD, LPH, etc.) in the litorals.

I personally feel, the US carriers were more potent back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, until the A-6 Intruder was retired. The Intruder gave the carrier a significant offensive capability with good range! The retirement of the A-6 reduced the offensive range of the carrier by 30%. The F-14 was a "domnator" in carrier aerial defense. The retirement of the F-14 now translates into the USN will no longer fight in the 'outer defense zone'.
December 27th, 2009  
kuziaks
 

Topic: Carriers, Necessary


Our CVN's represent America's presence almost anywhere in the world without impinging upon another countries sovereignity. A forminable force that must be considered before any national leader chooses to do something rash, assuming our presence is not solely for our own economic benefit. Also, keep in mind that a carrier is a continuing evolving weapons platform whose function today may not be the same tomorrow. Drones have now made night landings and take-offs. Imagine the capabilities of future fighters that don't have to carry a life support system.
December 28th, 2009  
splat
 
Problem is missiles like DF-21 and there follow on evolutions will make carriers nothing more than for show and tell.Carriers are soon to be useless.

You watch how quickly we will be seeing intercontinental ranged UCAVS.
December 29th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Is anyone aware the UCAVS and any unmanned aircraft do not operate in real time. While on-board computers respond and "fly" the aircraft according to conditions. The flight orders for direction and weapon launches come from remote locations. UAVS may be fine as long as they are not opposed by maned aircraft. By the time a threat registers, data goes to the remote control center, and a response is sent back, the UAV is history.

Also, what is to keep UCAVS form operating from carriers. If a UCAV is 5 times smaller than a comparable manned aircraft, can't an aircraft carrier carry 5 times more?

The term Aircraft Carrier has never included the word Manned.
December 29th, 2009  
splat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
Is anyone aware the UCAVS and any unmanned aircraft do not operate in real time. While on-board computers respond and "fly" the aircraft according to conditions. The flight orders for direction and weapon launches come from remote locations. UAVS may be fine as long as they are not opposed by maned aircraft. By the time a threat registers, data goes to the remote control center, and a response is sent back, the UAV is history.

Also, what is to keep UCAVS form operating from carriers. If a UCAV is 5 times smaller than a comparable manned aircraft, can't an aircraft carrier carry 5 times more?

The term Aircraft Carrier has never included the word Manned.

Yes you do have a point in regards to UCAVS dont operate in real time so mabey in the not to distant future we will be seeing UCAVS that will adress that shortcoming.

As far as carriers go...yeah you could operate UCAVS with far greater range than manned aircraft...true

Just that at what ranges will ballistic DF-21 and evolutions be able to engage a carrier battle group from?

S o i rekon it would be better to have long ranging UCAVS operating from land so as to nullify ballistic missile attack...escpecially with dispersal.
December 29th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
Yes you do have a point in regards to UCAVS dont operate in real time so mabey in the not to distant future we will be seeing UCAVS that will adress that shortcoming.
Just as soon as it is figured out how to ignore the laws of physics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
As far as carriers go...yeah you could operate UCAVS with far greater range than manned aircraft...true
Carriers are just one weapon used in warfare. Currently US super-carriers may be the most lethal weapon in force projection, but are still only one component.
The US is quite capable of eliminating ballistic missile capabilities of a country that chose to use them against US assets.
Carriers are just one chess piece on the board. Granted they may equal the queen, they are not the end prize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
Just that at what ranges will ballistic DF-21 and evolutions be able to engage a carrier battle group from?
"Only one ASBM is currently in operation. China has successfully developed and tested the DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile, with a range of up to (3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) or more, in 2005, according to the US Department of Defense. Other analysts are less sure that China has sufficient technical capability for an accurate ASBM system. The DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile is expected to enter active service by 2009."

Being polite here. You need to learn to supply your own sources to support your view.

Also 1900 miles is a drop in the ocean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
S o i rekon it would be better to have long ranging UCAVS operating from land so as to nullify ballistic missile attack...escpecially with dispersal.
How do you reckon? Slow flying (relative to ballistic missle) long range UCAVS are going to "nullify" ballistic missile attack?
 


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