So now that are Aircraft carriers are obsolete

Lets face it with the new missile tech our huge floating apartment complexes are defenseless and would last a few days in a real war in fact they would be 1st on the list for hyper-sonic destruction . So it's time to come up with next gen tech . Time to make our fighter jets both space to air capable not sure the science behind just what you can put in orbit but imagine an aircraft carrier in orbit able to launch space to aircraft at a drop of a hat .


I bet it would work not to mention the carrier weaponry "rods From god" type . If we can build a space station why not something like this or would it just get blown out of orbit the same as the sea .....

Inquiring minds what to know . You know tech like this is coming just how long in the future do you think this will be reality ?

I can see in the future that there will be some type of "Orbital Territory" I was always told 1st one on the bus gets the best seats . Why hasn't the USA touted our hyper-sonic tech or did we just focus on being woke ?

Aircraft carriers were obsolete when nuclear warheads got into circulation, in the 40 and 50’s.

two words:
space force

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Those so-called "Rods from God" are not the next-Gen super weapons you might think they are.

In reality, they would suffer from the same vulnerabilities and limitations that currennent ICBM-based warheads suffer: their path-to-target trajectories are predictable (since they lack any true maneuverability once launched) and thus interdictable by defensive countermeasures.

And, as such countermeasures become more effective, the "Rods" loose more of their advantage as a weapon.

As to "aircraft carriers in space"...Maybe lay off the Sci-Fi for a while and focus on the hard realities of spaceflight for a bit?

First off, there's the cost and complexity of getting something that could conceivablely considered an "aircraft carrier" into orbit. Then there is the on-going cost and difficulty of maintaining it, and all the "aircraft" it carries, while in orbit. And, of course, maintenance, and support (ie. resupply), would be made only more complex, and critical, by the fact an object in orbit must expend resources (ie, fuel) to change orbit and/or maneuver in orbit.

Finally, there is the problem that all objects in orbit share, from the standpoint of being defensible in a hostile situation: orbits are predictable, and thus easy to target.

Carriers are not at all obsolete. They remain capable of putting 10 acres of sovereign American (or British or French or Indian or Chinese) territory off your coast on a few day's notice complete with one of the world's largest most powerful air forces. In the absence of "Total War" which, if you haven't noticed, we haven't had in awhile, a Carrier Strike Group can completely control whatever area they are in. Taking one out is not trivial. They are capable of defending themselves better than you know. But if you made the decision to do so, which is not impossible, you'd have the total war mentioned above, and it might not turn out so well for you. Which is why no one has tried it. They're not that stupid.

Aircraft carriers are useful against a low tech sand people or any other civilization barely out of the basic survival stage of development. The problem is even sand people have friends who can teach and supply first tier weapons. I agree the Carrier has just about out lived its' usefulness unless you think 5000 people on a boat are not a big fat target to some first tier enemy.

Missile Tech and targeting has advanced so far that your barbecue grill in the back yard can be a target if someone does not like your set up.

Missiles for WW3 and sticks and stones for WW4 comes to mind... a shame really...

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

You want some orbital platform available to attack a spot on the surface only a couple of specific times per day?

The advantage of the aircraft carrier is it local to the area being attacked and available all the time. Most of the time, just the threat of it being there has an affect on enemy forces. There will be no constant threat from an orbital platform.

Now, if you can get a carrier to fly or float in air without being in orbit, that would work. It must be able to stay in attacking range for a single area on the surface all day every day for at lease several months to be effective.

a reply to: 727Sky

Anti targeting tech has come a long way too. Dont be so sure those df-21s will actually hit anything. Also, dont be so sure russia or china will retain the ability to communicate, navigate, coordinate or target anything. There have been advances folks dont know about. One was even in the publics face for a long time, but the public took a detour on it and started believing asinine things and lead themselves far from the truth which turns out to be quite the advantage

If some enemy started flinging super duper hypersonic weapons and taking out aircraft carriers and thousands of people on those CV's, it would be a guarantee of NUCLEAR war. Or at least some seriously ugly retaliation. Then someone would push the button.

IMO they are not obsolete in that regard. It's a very expensive target not many if any country would be willing to destroy or attempt to destroy.

Every few years some country, or countries claim to have the next great thing in missile technology...

Then the "Carriers are obsolete" chorus begins shortly there after...or even sooner...

Problem with that statement is people seem to think that a carrier is defenseless against the newest whiz-bang missile tech...little realizing, or caring, that defense technology is advancing, as well. Not to mention the tiny little fact that carriers are not by themselves while sailing into harms way...or that they're chock-full of whiz-bang gadgetry that'll make those missiles have to work just a trifle harder than they do in the sales pitch from the makers.

In those carriers in the second largest air force on Earth, piloted by some of the best pilots (ouch...I meant aviators--stop hitting me!!!) the U.S. military has to offer, and one of 'em, or more, can be sitting off your coast in a matter of days, or hours, depending on your location.

Oh, no. Not obsolete. One day they will be, but that's not this day.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

You want some orbital platform available to attack a spot on the surface only a couple of specific times per day?


Now, if you can get a carrier to fly or float in air without being in orbit, that would work. It must be able to stay in attacking range for a single area on the surface all day every day for at lease several months to be effective.

I know for a Fact that at least the USAF was thinking along those very lines 15-20 years ago.

At least, thats when the initial proof of concept prototypes were contracted.

originally posted by: seagull
Every few years some country, or countries claim to have the next great thing in missile technology...

Then the "Carriers are obsolete" chorus begins shortly there after...or even sooner...

Problem with that statement is people seem to think that a carrier is defenseless against the newest whiz-bang missile tech...little realizing, or caring, that defense technology is advancing, as well. Not to mention the tiny little fact that carriers are not by themselves while sailing into harms way...or that they're chock-full of whiz-bang gadgetry that'll make those missiles have to work just a trifle harder than they do in the sales pitch from the makers.

In those carriers in the second largest air force on Earth, piloted by some of the best pilots (ouch...I meant aviators--stop hitting me!!!) the U.S. military has to offer, and one of 'em, or more, can be sitting off your coast in a matter of days, or hours, depending on your location.

Oh, no. Not obsolete. One day they will be, but that's not this day.

MAybe we should actually make them able to submerge one day. good luck tracking them visually then, or laser designating them under water. Yes i am aware this is a old idea,but one that could be possible if given enough resources.

Go google the 2005 test, get an idea of how hard it is to sink a carrier.

can you damage the deck disrupting operations sure, punch holes in it yep, sink it the US navy had a hard time sinking a decommissioned carrier not long ago.

Now throw in escorts, active defensive systems and imagine how difficult that would be.

Possible sure, since none of us know what secret off the books programs countries have you cant say 0% chance but I wouldnt give it more than a 5% chance with what we do know.

So if you've never see this. You need to watch this little gem. When an incoming missile is detected. This little gem auto launches and pretends that it's a ship to lure the incoming missile away .

Also this right here.

a reply to: yuppa

Given enough resources. ...and, time.

That time needed isn't guaranteed. The carrier, and its escorts, are going to be shooting at you, and you may not have the time, or resources, left to do the job after they're done shooting.

Air craft carriers aren't nearly as outdated as you think. Not to mention the Aegis missile ships that flank them. They are pretty sophisticated pieces of equipment. You see one on the port side fore and one starboard side aft usually. These ships can simultaneously track and defend against dozens of incoming missiles and aircraft at a time without breaking a sweat.

You want some orbital platform available to attack a spot on the surface only a couple of specific times per day?

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Each time with some time over target.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher


Russia and ccp are claiming carriers are obsolete.

(Along with many democrats)

Also, ccp has been trying to build a single carrier to match those used by the U.S. at a near bankruptcy inducing pace for 15+ years, with very little success so far.

While russia is still trying to keep one afloat without tug boats or unexpected explosions.

In other news, russia and ccp are constantly complaining about Americans putting nearly invincible carrier groups near (1000 miles) them.

Hmmm.



Does anyone else see the logic problem here?



Also, are you unaware that the 'rods' or 'spheres' can be dropped from certain long endurance 'planes' in our inventory that are flying 24x7 at the edge of space at Waaaay beyond 'hypersonic' speeds.

That each 'plane' could deploy enough rods or spheres to destroy everything necessary in either china or russia in a single pass?

That these highly maneuverable 'planes' are WAAAAY beyond hypersonic in speed (classified, but beyond jaw dropping speed), and that the rods themselves have less than 3 minutes of descent time (how much less is classified), which makes it damn near impossible to hit since it would take more time than that for any ground launched projectile to reach reach the sphere?

That the only way to stop them is detonating a massive quantity of nukes over your own territory during the first 90 seconds of descent time?

(Impossible unless the enemy launches their nukes way in advance)

That both ccp and russian silo doors take more time to open than for a rod descent?

That destroying them after that point results in a Tunguska type air burst 'explosion' on the ground?

Or that a ground strike from one of these has roughly the same localized impact as the Tunguska air burst, with zero radiation issues? (7-10 megaton, depending on conditions)

Or that air burst versions are available to destroy all troops, civilians and vehicles in a 100 square mile area without destroying the most critical ground based infrastructure?

Or that the spheres are capable of creating a supervolcano sized steam explosion and tsunami in any large body of water?

Or that a single rod can be used to instantly pulverize 3GD if desired?

Or that these fully loaded 'planes' can be drop launched from inside a certain carrier capable (barely) aircraft with near zero warning?

(Drop launch hasn't been tested yet as far as I know, but isn't all that challenging from an engineering perspective)

And that these 'planes' are so affordable (for us anyway) that we could choose to just kamikaze fleets of them into additional targets after dropping rod instead of returning to CONUS for reload?




Sure, I can see why russia and ccp are so desperate to call our carriers, which they have so far been unable to replicate, 'obsolete'.

Doesn't make it true.

Just desperate.



We publicly acknowledged having built 5 of these 'planes' before they stopped giving updates when the program went dark, and there are almost always at least 2 in the air 24x7.

That we know of.

A key component of Chrome Dome 2.0, along with several better known air breathing aircraft.

I guarantee we didn't build those massive hangers for only 5 of these small planes.



Our Carriers are NOT obsolete.

We have more than 15 (including ghost fleet), with additional upgraded models under construction now, which will bring our total to over 20 in a few years.

While Russia and China have never been able to build a single one that wasn't already obsolete when completed.

Nobody else has ever even attempted to build one yet.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Every country has plenty of secret armements for space, you just can't put em' there, it's illegal. Noone wants space armed unless it's absolutely necessary.

Ground weapons, well they have a lot of kool new ground weapons. A drone nowadays can protect ships from any hypersonic missles or can destroy a ship too. Drones are so fast now you can't even see em', one time use drones are even faster.

A missle needs a guidance system, it is extremely easy to disrupt that from many miles away, either by cloaking or just transmitting irregular signals.

There are some cool gadgets but none of them make good old fashion transportation obsolete. How do suppose to transport anything without them outside of a quantam field realm?