Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

reply to post by travis911


I should have been a pilot.
My grandfather worked for the special forces for years and I always wish I had his brains.

carriers are fearsome weapons systems for their ability to reach out and touch an enemy while way out in oceans safety. yes some high tech countries are trying to devlop high speed anticarrier missiles but you got to remember carriers are but one part of the equation you got lots of pother ships in the battle group just to protect the carrier you got hawkeye aircraft looking for air threats you got subs looking for sub threats so carriers are well protected. really only china maybe or russia can pose a serious chance of severely damaging one of our carriers. iran wouldnt get close

Just to add another thought to this thread...

One reason that the aircraft carrier remains dominant on the world's oceans is that an aircraft carrier ages well. When battleships (or, for that matter, any gun-armed ship) gets outdated, the ship is done. You can't just remove the 12" guns from the USS Arkansas and replace them with 16" guns, slap on more armor, and have a new, up-to-date weapon. The guns are part of a structure that goes from deck almost to the ship's keel, and replacing them with a newer model is usually more expensive than building a new ship...adding appropriate armor is out of the question on displacement and stability grounds. That means that gun-armed ships had a definite lifespan. (Before anyone brings up the German "Twins" and Japanese "Mogami" class, they were very much the exception that proved the rule).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, is a box that carries aircraft. When her "Main battery" becomes outdated, it can be easily replaced, since it's *not* integral to the ship's structure...it's a totally separate set of systems that basically park in and on the box. That's why the Essex and Midway classes built in or just after World War 2 could still be front-line fleet combatants in the Vietnam war. Change the air group, update the electronics, and even an old carrier can bring the latest technology to the battle space. I'm not even sure the UAV will mean the "end of the aircraft carrier"...after all, UAV are aircraft, just without pilots. I don't want to think how many of the things a Nimitz-class would have room for. Are they vulnerable? Certainly...anything is. That doesn't make them obsolete...it simply means that they need to adapt, and due to the unique nature of the carrier and its armament, they're surprisingly good at that

I wish they brought back the battleship, nothing demonstrates human excess then a giant weapons platform sporting the largest and most destructive weapons possible.

I found the idea of a "battleship" interesting, even though it is not as practical as other vessels.

Will we see something similar in the future?

My opinion on carriers are that they fulfill an essential role and are truly a statement of military power.

Because they are Nuclear powered, Each carry more firepower than most countries on the planet. They are supported by vessels [which have to varying degrees] the most advanced technology on the planet and GO where the POTUS tells them to.


Aside from the jingoist perception.

They are a representation of what humanity will build in space.


Space carriers.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
I wish they brought back the battleship, nothing demonstrates human excess then a giant weapons platform sporting the largest and most destructive weapons possible.

I found the idea of a "battleship" interesting, even though it is not as practical as other vessels.

Will we see something similar in the future?

My opinion on carriers are that they fulfill an essential role and are truly a statement of military power.

edit on 23-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

Aircrfaft killed the Battleship. They look impressive, but they are a complete waste of money and serve literally no purpose any more. Other than to blow your mind when they fire their weapons.

Yup but then again, how else do you mass transport a crap load of tanks, stock, ammo and entire aircraft wings and not to mention who battalions of soldiers so simply? A carrier can do that all in one go. Though I do agree come a full out war the carrier would be highly useless. Then again, thatd only be in a war such as a world war. .And in a world war theres much bigger issues such as nuclear weaponry whichd mean the use of a carrier would be fairly redundant. I think america and most of the world knows most wars will be conducted against small to medium sized powers in the world such as middle eastern and african countries for the next while, atleast combat wise. Future wars if any occur between the big powers will surely be financial, through rejections, embargos etc just like the cold war. Exclusion amongst allies, such as Nato, the EU vs the USSR.

So in modern warfare, an aircraft carrier is fairly handly. Anyway the designers have definately considered all options, theyve some fairly nifty intercept weapons onboard, and a fairly, fairly thick hull and core. And im assuming here theyve a system to prevent sinkage and enable bhoyancy if it is pierced or damaged. You dont make a multi billion dollar vehicle without some sort of contingency plan.

reply to post by TheDubs


There is no known weapon capable of sinkinga US carrier, except a nuclear weapon, and then only if it hits and is not intercepted by our defenses. What happens to said country upon launching Nuclear weapons at US assets? That's right, they get turned to glass.

So tell me what makes a Carrier group useless? To me it really sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about, or the amount of money invested in just 1 carrier.

A few people have hit on the non-military side of the subject, but...

The USS Abraham Lincoln was the first responder on scene from any international entity when the Indonesian tsunami occurred in December of '04. It was on scene, providing 400,000 gallons of fresh water per day and medical teams and supplies along with food, shelter construction and search and rescue efforts. It's not always about flexing muscles, sometimes a carrier brings the hope that survivors need in the hours and days after a natural disaster.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


you don't need to sink a carrier, manage to reduce its support fleet by 30% and it'll be looking for safer waters as no-one wants to really test the carriers ability to withstand possibly sustained incoming damage and if you do manage to sink it the problem of dealing with the nuclear reactor(s) that power it will cause more political hassle than it being afloat will ever cause

Originally posted by Maxatoria
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

you don't need to sink a carrier, manage to reduce its support fleet by 30% and it'll be looking for safer waters as no-one wants to really test the carriers ability to withstand possibly sustained incoming damage and if you do manage to sink it the problem of dealing with the nuclear reactor(s) that power it will cause more political hassle than it being afloat will ever cause

Great, now how do you reduce it's support fleet since they all have the same level of protection.

Carrier groups ar invincible, everybody knows that. Unless you have a phased plasma pulse gun with a 40-watt range, you have no chance of taking any of the ships out.

reply to post by travis911


I think there is a possibility that's where the shadow government resides until WW 3 has ended.

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Carrier groups ar invincible, everybody knows that. Unless you have a phased plasma pulse gun with a 40-watt range, you have no chance of taking any of the ships out.

Sure....
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

Tell you what. Launch 2 torpedoes at the props, bang, the carrier is dead in the water. Launch the rest below the keel in the middle and if you have missiles, target the runway. Bye, no more carrier. Even Akula class could do it, but diesel/electric subs are better, they are more quiet. Say, Kilo class

Don't believe me, ask these guys.
Sonalysts

reply to post by GakunGak


Obviously my internet sarcasm leaves something to be desired...

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
reply to post by GakunGak

 

Obviously my internet sarcasm leaves something to be desired...

Relax, I had to type something, it's all cool

Of course the carriers are vulnerable. They have been vulnerable for the last half century. (I'm speaking of the nukes.) Yet they have been engaged in every major conflict during this time. They've been in the Middle East for ages. Now they are there more or less two at a time. They have been major players in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gulf. They can be anywhere in a few days with an "air force" more powerful than 90% of countries. (Yeah, that's completely jingoistic, but the point is that they can and are.)

And yet, not a one has so much as been fired upon.

Basically they are 100,000 tons of sovereign American territory that can go anywhere in the world. No one, including the US Navy, thinks a Carrier Strike Group is invulnerable. For someone to point out that the "carriers really are vulnerable" is kind of a moot point. Yet they float, doing their job (such as it is) for decade after decade.

In an all-out conflict then no doubt the carriers would be exposed and even sunk. But we haven't had an all-out conflict. We don't want one. The conflicts have been regional in nature--fortunately. Hopefully they'll stay that way.

And so those "vulnerable" carriers continue to do their job without harm or even threat to themselves, month after month, year after year, decade after decade. They have a defensive shield that works well enough, and even though you can say, "Well, the Chinese have a carrier killer missile!" or some other kind of threat you've read about somewhere, it doesn't really matter because they are not used.

If they ARE used, we've got much bigger problem than a few carriers. YOU are as vulnerable as they are.

So when, in your infintite expertise, you feel compelled to point out that carriers really are vulnerable, please understand that what you say is really irrelevant.

Obama just took the chinese desire to own wind farms and proprietary rights to those farms as a threat to national security and said hell no you are not going to gain access.


For the reason that the chines know we are flying advanced technology and they are confident they cant figure out what we are doing with such a strategic location.


fark china

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Symbols are of limited use in a combat environment, especially multi-billion dollar ones carrying thousands or people. Just saying...

Actually, these floating symbols are of great use. Fish around the world need artificial reefs.

Originally posted by GakunGak

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Carrier groups ar invincible, everybody knows that. Unless you have a phased plasma pulse gun with a 40-watt range, you have no chance of taking any of the ships out.

Sure....
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

Tell you what. Launch 2 torpedoes at the props, bang, the carrier is dead in the water. Launch the rest below the keel in the middle and if you have missiles, target the runway. Bye, no more carrier. Even Akula class could do it, but diesel/electric subs are better, they are more quiet.

Say, Kilo class

Don't believe me, ask these guys.
Sonalysts

Maybe you should learn the full story. Such as active sonar was not being used. If it was that sub would have been as hidden as a rich white couple hanging out in the hood. The sub thing was a PR stunt, you should really look into it.