Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon - Page 7




 
--
 
December 30th, 2009  
splat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
Just as soon as it is figured out how to ignore the laws of physics.



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.



"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.



How do you reckon? Slow flying (relative to ballistic missle) long range UCAVS are going to "nullify" ballistic missile attack?


Carriers and their escorts will not protect against a saturation attack of a few hundred DF-21 ballistic missiles...end of story.

The chinese are building over the horizon radars and space based sensors for locating and targetting.

Land basec UCAVS are easier to disperse and hide as opposed to a carrier battle group.

Wake up to yourself and smell the roses...the carrier battle group is on its last legs,soon to go the way of the dodo.
December 30th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
Carriers and their escorts will not protect against a saturation attack of a few hundred DF-21 ballistic missiles...end of story.
If DF-21 work as designed you should not need a "few Hundred". These are not toys and cost money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
The chinese are building over the horizon radars and space based sensors for locating and targetting.
As well they should. Apparently, the US is going to wait until all the carrier groups are destroyed before responding. If a carrier group is deployed on a operation and is attacked, would it make sense for the US to try and protect them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
Land basec UCAVS are easier to disperse and hide as opposed to a carrier battle group.
Apparently, at the first sign of trouble we are to hide our UCAVS instead of using them to "nullify ballistic missile attack" as you previously suggested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
Wake up to yourself and smell the roses...the carrier battle group is on its last legs,soon to go the way of the dodo.
From my stand point, I would welcome the US reducing military spending on carriers(This would save the US Billions of dollars). Keeping enough to protect US interests. Let the rest of the western nations shoulder their share of costs.

You act like you believe carriers have been stagnant and no changes or advances have been made. Carrier task groups are OFFENSIVE WEAPONS. Their purpose is to take the fight to the other guy. IF they cease to be able to accomplish that they will be obsolete.

This topic is really pretty silly as unless you see the Chinese, Indians, British, and French as incompetent naval powers then why are they planning on using carriers in the future.

Go to the US Navy website and learn about future carriers. Increasing the reactor size to supply electrical power for the new electromagnetic catapults. (They don't use steam anymore). The Navy is very interested in rail guns or lasers to defend carriers. (both will use a lot of electrical power).

You need to get your head out of the sand and quit thinking of carriers as WWII relics. Like all weapon systems carriers evolve.
December 30th, 2009  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_420
Other then a humanitarian mission or fighting piss ant countries 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 missile and torpedo technology but if a enemy fires enough Cruise Missiles, torpedo's (Supercavitation or not) the Carrier is doomed. Am on wrong on this? I hope the US doesn't waste the money on another one of these. I love the carrier and all its capabilities but its one big floating liability with no role against a Modern Navy.
I didn't rad the whole thread, this post was enough for me. Since I have been deployed and launched from the U.S.S Forestall, U.S.S Saratoga,, U.S.S Nimitz, U.S.S Carl Vinson, U.S.S Dwight D. Eisenhower, and U.S.S America, Dropped from sevreal destroyers, launched from LPD's LHA's and LCACS, I feel I am fully qualified to say somebody needs to take his meds, go back to school, and pay attention to the teachers. The Aircraft Carrier proved its usefulness in WW2 as a paltform to attack or defend, in the Falkland Island war, Great Britain used Carriers to defeat the enemy, in the early part of Desert Storm it was Intruders, and Hornets and Tomcats from the flight deck's involved in the first days of the war, the current Nimitz class Carrier is 4.5 acres of Sovereign United States that can be placed within striking distance of ANYWHERE in the world in 3 days, move an entire Army in that time, once the Carrier battle group is on station it can attack, defend, provide humanitarian missions, or whatever else they are ordered to do. And given the current battle group configuration, your better off trying to sink a child's toysail boat in a bath tub than a Carrier.
Aircraft Carriers will ALWAYS be a National asset to the countries that have them, granted I also feel like they cost way to much, and instead of building new ones I think it would be wiser to maintain the ones we have now, but yes they will always have a place in modern Navies.
--
December 30th, 2009  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

A few Hornets (off a Carrier)can take out an DF-21 launcher site easily enough. Or maybe a cruise missile or two.
A intercontinental UACV is as unrealistic as a Xwing being in the Air Force by next year
December 30th, 2009  
COMSUBLANT
 
 

Topic: Clearing DF-21 and............... Carrier Obselete?


Where should I begin.........?




1.The DF-21 is practically an IRBM and the specifications contained along with it cannot possibly go hypersonic and pull off the maneouvers it suggests. The Chinese make good propagandic expressions that are also emphasised by the U.S. to make the public feel unsafe about the U.S. as a superpower thus pressuring congress into spending billions in countering these weapons when in reality they either don't exist or their capabilities are easily countered with our defensive systems. Why do they do this? To be ahead. This tactic was easily exemplified during the Cold War when the U.S.S.R. or how it used to be reffered to-especially in the 80's-were believed to be ahead in the arms race in every aspect. Thus congress spent billions of dollars on defence project that not only defeated most Soviet technology but put the U.S. decades ahead of any rival. That is now shown in this scenario. China or to be specific the PLAN is stating it has the capability to intredict the capacious U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Projection Capabilities to make the public feel unsafe. So what has happened since? We have seen the introduction of the SM-3 and THAAD (Land Based SAM with Superior Interception Abilities far more advanced than PATRIOT PAC-3). We also have witnessed the U.S. Navy pour millions into developing SM-6 missiles to be able to extend the defense barrier for the Aircraft Carrier.


2.The PLAN, especially, has vessels that are far outdated. There Ships barely go to sea and if they even do they encounter disasters. Sure its expensive, but because Chinese ships tend to get involved in nasty incidents. Like the submarine that killed its crew when the boat submerged (and the diesel engines did not shut down when the batteries kicked in, thus using up all the oxygen.) Breakdowns are more common, as well as a lot of accidents you don't hear about (weapons and equipment malfunctions that kill and maim.) So your telling me that Subs especially for Nations that don't like the West to much are able to counter Aircraft Carriers when they can barely even get to sea to start there patrol? Even than the PLAN still don't even have technologically superior SSBN's compared to the Le Triomphant, Vanguard (Ohio SSBn for the U.k.), or even the magnificent Ohio itself. The PLAN also don't have alot of nuclear subs, 10, compared to the U.S. which has 71 which actually all U.S. Subs are nuclear powered. The PLAN navy also has a large portion of their subs pertaining mostly to diesel-electic class which a good chunk of them are obselete. The Kilo, Song, and Yuan class-subs are only the actual diesel-electrics in the PLAN inventory and they only possess 22 of these subs. But again, they rarely go to sea. As for Chinese Carriers.......when I see I will believe, and I am going to leave it as that.

3.Now that I have supposedly in my respective terms cleared that up, let me begin with how the Aircraft Carrier is NOT obselete. First off, I am seeing alot of historical recalls of the Aircraft Carrier being sunk repetitively during its infancy. The Taiho was WWII I believe and thats when Aircraft Carriers especially were evolving. Also Japan and the U.S. in the Pacific were either equal or near equal to during the early stages of the war. The Japanese had more ships and aircraft and inflicted major damage to the U.S. Navy but the U.S. Navy learned and adapted to counter Japan. Since then the U.S. Navy has barely been rivaled in terms of possesing Aircraft Carriers since then they have still not witnessed in any major breakthrough to actually put the Carrier out of service. No other Navy in the world can match our capabilities especially displacement. In fact, 17 of the largest Navies in the world combined cannot counter the tonnage of our Vessels and thats greatly due to our Aircraft Carriers. If in case anyone has heard of Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, than they would probably know that 65-85% of this conversation was pointless. These ships equipped with SPY-1B, SPS-49 and SPQ-9B Radars would detect the aircraft before the aircraft is even in range of firing. These ships are also constantly being updated and probably could counter the Moskit and put it right into where it belongs which is in the obselete section.

4.Shkval time. The Shkval I must say has accomoadated my admiration for simply being supercavitating. Though I read an article in 2007......did I mention 2007? That it is easy to evade the Shkval with just a certain adjustment in raising the depth of the SSN at a certain point. So if thats simple enough than it won't be long until the Carrier is able to evade the Shkval. Than the Shkval will be out of service or obselete.


5.I will admit that if anyone has played Janes Fleet Command they will know what I am talking about when I Say this. I have played scenarios in which My CVNBG (Nuclear-Powered Carrier Battle Group) would be in transit to a certain location than all of a sudden would have reading on their Search Air Radar that multiple bogeys have appeard at multiple vectors around the map. Meaning that there are an buttload of aircraft that are planning to attack my CVBG from not one direction but multiple. So I immediately mobilised a pair of hornets every time they were ready to intercept as many of the Bombers which were btw TU-22M3 Backfires and saving My AEGIS for intercepting Missiles that were possibly launched from the Backfires. Next the most dreaded thing a Battle Group Admiral can hear is that we had a possible contact with a Kilo just north of my battle group. So now I had to make a tough decision. Here is what I was given:

1. Send Helos to search for the Sub and disperse my ships to make an attack on any ship(s) more harder and increase the range of my missiles but possibly face confusing my HPA( High-Priority Assets) and losing them to any batch of Backfires.
2.Send the Helos and a Destroyer to get rid of the Sub to make sure I had a clear path.
3. Screw the "possible" sub and get all the Backfires of my butt.

In the end I choose 3 and end up learning that the bot that was set on easy had used a clever technique to encircle my ships and launch salvo of missiles forcing me to exhaust all my assets on the aircraft while focusing very little on the aprroaching sub that only closed in and fired torps and sunk multiple ships just before the Interception of the backfires ended.

To make a long story short if an enemy were able to muster some possible 55-75 formidible attack aircraft and disperse them over a wide range and in multiple directions in random formations the CVNBG would exhaust its defenses and be vulnruble to anything that is lurking under the sea. Even if an SSN is avalible to the CVNBG



Thats all for now.....reply back its a friendly disscussion.
December 31st, 2009  
splat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfen
I didn't rad the whole thread, this post was enough for me. Since I have been deployed and launched from the U.S.S Forestall, U.S.S Saratoga,, U.S.S Nimitz, U.S.S Carl Vinson, U.S.S Dwight D. Eisenhower, and U.S.S America, Dropped from sevreal destroyers, launched from LPD's LHA's and LCACS, I feel I am fully qualified to say somebody needs to take his meds, go back to school, and pay attention to the teachers. The Aircraft Carrier proved its usefulness in WW2 as a paltform to attack or defend, in the Falkland Island war, Great Britain used Carriers to defeat the enemy, in the early part of Desert Storm it was Intruders, and Hornets and Tomcats from the flight deck's involved in the first days of the war, the current Nimitz class Carrier is 4.5 acres of Sovereign United States that can be placed within striking distance of ANYWHERE in the world in 3 days, move an entire Army in that time, once the Carrier battle group is on station it can attack, defend, provide humanitarian missions, or whatever else they are ordered to do. And given the current battle group configuration, your better off trying to sink a child's toysail boat in a bath tub than a Carrier.
Aircraft Carriers will ALWAYS be a National asset to the countries that have them, granted I also feel like they cost way to much, and instead of building new ones I think it would be wiser to maintain the ones we have now, but yes they will always have a place in modern Navies.

And you rekon the us navy will dare bring her carriers within DF-21 missile range in the unlikely defence of taiwan .
December 31st, 2009  
splat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfen
A few Hornets (off a Carrier)can take out an DF-21 launcher site easily enough. Or maybe a cruise missile or two.
A intercontinental UACV is as unrealistic as a Xwing being in the Air Force by next year

Yeah we may have to wait awhile before we can intercontionental ranging UCAVS but a few superhornets or cruise missles?

Gotta get through the chinese airdefence system first dont you?

You need to not take for granted that us air power will be able to nullify the chinese air defence network.Escpecially in the near term.

Besides DF-21 can be camoflaged and dispersed.

Like the serbs did with their armour against all them successfull nato airstrikes...lol
December 31st, 2009  
splat
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by COMSUBLANT
Where should I begin.........?




1.The DF-21 is practically an IRBM and the specifications contained along with it cannot possibly go hypersonic and pull off the maneouvers it suggests. The Chinese make good propagandic expressions that are also emphasised by the U.S. to make the public feel unsafe about the U.S. as a superpower thus pressuring congress into spending billions in countering these weapons when in reality they either don't exist or their capabilities are easily countered with our defensive systems. Why do they do this? To be ahead. This tactic was easily exemplified during the Cold War when the U.S.S.R. or how it used to be reffered to-especially in the 80's-were believed to be ahead in the arms race in every aspect. Thus congress spent billions of dollars on defence project that not only defeated most Soviet technology but put the U.S. decades ahead of any rival. That is now shown in this scenario. China or to be specific the PLAN is stating it has the capability to intredict the capacious U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Projection Capabilities to make the public feel unsafe. So what has happened since? We have seen the introduction of the SM-3 and THAAD (Land Based SAM with Superior Interception Abilities far more advanced than PATRIOT PAC-3). We also have witnessed the U.S. Navy pour millions into developing SM-6 missiles to be able to extend the defense barrier for the Aircraft Carrier.


2.The PLAN, especially, has vessels that are far outdated. There Ships barely go to sea and if they even do they encounter disasters. Sure its expensive, but because Chinese ships tend to get involved in nasty incidents. Like the submarine that killed its crew when the boat submerged (and the diesel engines did not shut down when the batteries kicked in, thus using up all the oxygen.) Breakdowns are more common, as well as a lot of accidents you don't hear about (weapons and equipment malfunctions that kill and maim.) So your telling me that Subs especially for Nations that don't like the West to much are able to counter Aircraft Carriers when they can barely even get to sea to start there patrol? Even than the PLAN still don't even have technologically superior SSBN's compared to the Le Triomphant, Vanguard (Ohio SSBn for the U.k.), or even the magnificent Ohio itself. The PLAN also don't have alot of nuclear subs, 10, compared to the U.S. which has 71 which actually all U.S. Subs are nuclear powered. The PLAN navy also has a large portion of their subs pertaining mostly to diesel-electic class which a good chunk of them are obselete. The Kilo, Song, and Yuan class-subs are only the actual diesel-electrics in the PLAN inventory and they only possess 22 of these subs. But again, they rarely go to sea. As for Chinese Carriers.......when I see I will believe, and I am going to leave it as that.

3.Now that I have supposedly in my respective terms cleared that up, let me begin with how the Aircraft Carrier is NOT obselete. First off, I am seeing alot of historical recalls of the Aircraft Carrier being sunk repetitively during its infancy. The Taiho was WWII I believe and thats when Aircraft Carriers especially were evolving. Also Japan and the U.S. in the Pacific were either equal or near equal to during the early stages of the war. The Japanese had more ships and aircraft and inflicted major damage to the U.S. Navy but the U.S. Navy learned and adapted to counter Japan. Since then the U.S. Navy has barely been rivaled in terms of possesing Aircraft Carriers since then they have still not witnessed in any major breakthrough to actually put the Carrier out of service. No other Navy in the world can match our capabilities especially displacement. In fact, 17 of the largest Navies in the world combined cannot counter the tonnage of our Vessels and thats greatly due to our Aircraft Carriers. If in case anyone has heard of Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, than they would probably know that 65-85% of this conversation was pointless. These ships equipped with SPY-1B, SPS-49 and SPQ-9B Radars would detect the aircraft before the aircraft is even in range of firing. These ships are also constantly being updated and probably could counter the Moskit and put it right into where it belongs which is in the obselete section.

4.Shkval time. The Shkval I must say has accomoadated my admiration for simply being supercavitating. Though I read an article in 2007......did I mention 2007? That it is easy to evade the Shkval with just a certain adjustment in raising the depth of the SSN at a certain point. So if thats simple enough than it won't be long until the Carrier is able to evade the Shkval. Than the Shkval will be out of service or obselete.


5.I will admit that if anyone has played Janes Fleet Command they will know what I am talking about when I Say this. I have played scenarios in which My CVNBG (Nuclear-Powered Carrier Battle Group) would be in transit to a certain location than all of a sudden would have reading on their Search Air Radar that multiple bogeys have appeard at multiple vectors around the map. Meaning that there are an buttload of aircraft that are planning to attack my CVBG from not one direction but multiple. So I immediately mobilised a pair of hornets every time they were ready to intercept as many of the Bombers which were btw TU-22M3 Backfires and saving My AEGIS for intercepting Missiles that were possibly launched from the Backfires. Next the most dreaded thing a Battle Group Admiral can hear is that we had a possible contact with a Kilo just north of my battle group. So now I had to make a tough decision. Here is what I was given:

1. Send Helos to search for the Sub and disperse my ships to make an attack on any ship(s) more harder and increase the range of my missiles but possibly face confusing my HPA( High-Priority Assets) and losing them to any batch of Backfires.
2.Send the Helos and a Destroyer to get rid of the Sub to make sure I had a clear path.
3. Screw the "possible" sub and get all the Backfires of my butt.

In the end I choose 3 and end up learning that the bot that was set on easy had used a clever technique to encircle my ships and launch salvo of missiles forcing me to exhaust all my assets on the aircraft while focusing very little on the aprroaching sub that only closed in and fired torps and sunk multiple ships just before the Interception of the backfires ended.

To make a long story short if an enemy were able to muster some possible 55-75 formidible attack aircraft and disperse them over a wide range and in multiple directions in random formations the CVNBG would exhaust its defenses and be vulnruble to anything that is lurking under the sea. Even if an SSN is avalible to the CVNBG



Thats all for now.....reply back its a friendly disscussion.

So after all that what your saying is that with weight of numbers and a multi service attack that carriers are vulnerable.
No ****.......

WELL add fighters subs to the DF-21's and the carriers dog meat.

Carriers against a well equiped force are doomed.
Dont claim carrier operations today as successfull people because bombing irak or ahghanistan isnt a test.

Going up against modern subs,ships,aircraft,missiles all in significant numbers is the test,and we ALL know there is no way thje us will deploy her carrioers within range of DF-21...even with the new and unproven sm6/thadd ,pac3 or whatever.

Weight of numbers people....and we all know that is what the chimese are all about,so with their growing capability soon enough the us will be doomed to be able to be able to deploy enough ships with the anti air protection required against an avalanche of land fired ballistic and cruise missile inbounds.
December 31st, 2009  
COMSUBLANT
 
 
So your telling me the DF-21 is land based?
No ****.......

The DF-21 is a IRBM. Why the hell would they decide to fire a frigggin IRBM when it is intended to strike Land targets. The ASBM is different,
the Missile specs are stating that it is able to go hypersonic and attack a an Aircraft Carrier armed and integrated with other ships using its SPS-48E
and Mk23 TAS which would stalk the IRBM/ASBM constantly. So which one are you talking about?

The DF-21 which is a friggin IRBM?
or.......
The CSS-5 ASBM?.....the "Supposed" missile that can challenge U.S. Naval Superiority even though it's specs are ridiculous

Also the CSS-5 is considered an IRBM in terms of cost. So if the PLAN or any customer(s) assuming to purchase the CSS-5 they would only be able to launch very few due to the cost so we can now take "100" outta the equation and if any say "dozen"(s) of missiles.

Second off

The SM-3 and PAC-3 aren't unproven they have proven themselves.
The SM-3 has intercepted a friggin satellite 100 of miles in space.
I would love to see a DF-21 much less a CSS-5 even leave the atmosphere before malufunctioning.
These SAM systems have constantly gone simulation, tests, and trials to become fully updated and advnaced missiles that are able to intercept a so called ASBM.
Also if a SM-3 which is being loaded on most of our Tico and Arligehs are able to intercept a deadly outta control spy sat all the way in space. I am pretty sure it can kill the ASBM.

If you think salvos of C-801A would stop a Carrier Group. Please think again.

The U.S. specifically invented their Carrier Defense Systems especially in the 80's to counter 100s of salvos of missiles to stop them from attacking the Carrier. So if it is the 21st century and these supposed land based cruise missile strikes are still that potent as in the 80's than I guess we should just consider the whole battle group obselete.
December 31st, 2009  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
And you rekon the us navy will dare bring her carriers within DF-21 missile range in the unlikely defence of taiwan .
1st I wouldn't be defending Taiwan, but yea I'll put a Carrier battle group in range, before you even think a CV battle group can't defend itself from 1 incoming missile you better do a little more research, the Navy isn't stupid, they know more than you think about short range missile defense, the stuff you see on the tv isn't all they have
 


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