Aircraft Carriers?

[Dinner]

Frigats can't move as fast as planes. When a sub is found you need to drop a torpedo right on its head. Bottom line, ships just are extremely vulnerable without aircover.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Frigats can't move as fast as planes. When a sub is found you need to drop a torpedo right on its head. Bottom line, ships just are extremely vulnerable without aircover.

AND JET PLANES CAN'T FIND SUBS!!!

This isn't WW2 when subs had to surface. This is the nuclear age when a sub can be underwater for 6 months. A jet aircraft can only respond to ASW calls when someone else, a much slower plane like an orion, or a ship, finds a sub. Even then, only a few specialize aircraft can actually carry ASW weaponry, and an helicopter from a frigate or destroyers does the job just as well.

So, NO, carriers are not a primary ASW weapon- they have a few Viking aircraft, but if you need serious sub hunting done, you certainly DO NOT call in a CV. Also, CV's are extremely vulnerable to submarines, because of their weak inherent ASW abilities.

As for ships being in danger without air cover- danger from what? Missiles. Aircraft are simply missile delivery platforms. So use an even better missile delivery platform.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by GePap


ASW can be run cheaper and more effectively by frigates than aircraft from carriers. Carriers don't play a central ASW role.

And you get what you pay for...

Say it with me people, the best ASW asset is ANOTHER SUB.

Why would you need escort fighters with missile ships?

To Provide aircover for said missile ship?

Incidently, the Navy is going towards Long range "electromagnetic railguns" for shore bombardment of the future with the DD(x)

And what the **** would anyone be doing with a nuclear carrier escorting convoys? This isn't WW2 and there are NOT baby flattops.

True...but if they are nearby they can help. And unlike missiles, aircraft can loiter over a target.

We are talking the realities of 2005 technology, not 1945 naval combat.

Right, which brings us to Power projection. Bets method of Power projection? Carriers and Marines. Oo-rah!



Re:

AND JET PLANES CAN'T FIND SUBS!!!

The S-3 Vikings Can! Vikings and Boeing 737's!

[GePap]

Power projection can be done sans planes. Its called cruise missiles. As for Marines..whatever. Even in 1991 the landings on Kuwait were not that important a blow. Certainly against third world states a few Marines and a couple of Carriers are impressive. BUt of course, against third world countries far less would work just as well.

As for loitering over a target- depends wholy on how far away the carrier is. The Oceans are , well, BIG. Given the very small number of CV's the likelyhood of carrier planes coming to defend some convoy in the middle of the ocean are, well, absurd.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by GePap
Power projection can be done sans planes. Its called cruise missiles. As for Marines..whatever. Even in 1991 the landings on Kuwait were not that important a blow. Certainly against third world states a few Marines and a couple of Carriers are impressive. BUt of course, against third world countries far less would work just as well.

Said carriers turned out to be absolutely nescecarry(sic...I'm tired) for OEF, especially in the early stages when the only air assets we had were carrier based craft and a few B-52s. These airplanes can carry more stuff that 'splodes than a missile, hence they are more deadly.

As for loitering over a target- depends wholy on how far away the carrier is. The Oceans are , well, BIG.

I was thinking along the lines of attacking ground forces, not convoy protection (I suspect in any war where we find ourselves needing to defend convoys for some reason, those duties would be shifted to the second-tier navies like Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc.)

A F/A-18E can unload half it's load, hang around the target while the guy on the ground goes "Nope! hit it again!" and finishe the job. All while using bombs that cost much, much less than "Tactical Tomahawks" whcih are weighing in a $3mil a pop.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Said carriers turned out to be absolutely nescecarry(sic...I'm tired) for OEF, especially in the early stages when the only air assets we had were carrier based craft and a few B-52s. These airplanes can carry more stuff that 'splodes than a missile, hence they are more deadly.

Well, that is a question of how effectively firepower can be delivered. tne tons of HE is necessary only when you can't guarantee a direct hit. BUt certainly, against enemies with no airpower, a carrier makes all the difference.

I was thinking along the lines of attacking ground forces, not convoy protection (I suspect in any war where we find ourselves needing to defend convoys for some reason, those duties would be shifted to the second-tier navies like Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc.)

A F/A-18E can unload half it's load, hang around the target while the guy on the ground goes "Nope! hit it again!" and finishe the job. All while using bombs that cost much, much less than "Tactical Tomahawks" whcih are weighing in a $3mil a pop.

Again, against an enemy with no real airpower itself and weak AA, certainly a carrier can do the job.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, that is a question of how effectively firepower can be delivered. tne tons of HE is necessary only when you can't guarantee a direct hit. BUt certainly, against enemies with no airpower, a carrier makes all the difference.

Even against the most deadly (conventional) "realistic" foe out there, The assets the Carriers provide would be enough to wreck shop on the enemy airforce. The PLAAF itselfonly has 430 high-end modern aircraft, and that's if we toss in the Su-30 trainers and assume they'll be used in combat operations, and also assuming the J-10 production line has started. 5 American Carriers easily outnumber that (and we can bet mroe than 5 would be utilize in such an operation), not counting whatever the USAF can fly out of Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, or Japan.

Again, against an enemy with no real airpower itself and weak AA, certainly a carrier can do the job.

Again, our most likely enemy with a "big ole air force" can't even muster 500 modern airplanes...which speaks for a good reason to have large carriers that can carrier 80-odd jets, not a bad one.

EDIT: Whoops, that should be 430 modern aircraft, if we include the J-11's...my bad. But my point remains.

[Sandman]

Endebting America to China, to pay for weapons to use against... China. The only way that strategy works is if you're actually going to attack China in the near future. Otherwise the economic burden will become intolerable.

[Kuciwalker]

Or if China is going to attack us.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Power projection can be done sans planes. Its called cruise missiles.

Suuuuure. Cruise missiles are sooooo cost-effective at projecting any significant amount of power compared to carriers and planes and marines.

[Sikander]

I agree that the aircraft carrier is becoming obsolete but will play a role in the foreseeable future. As to what will replace it, I suspect that bombardment from rail gun munitions utilizing the same satellite targeting capabilities currently used by the J-Dams will play a large role in replacing the carrier's strike capability. Drones can be used effectively to gather intel / reconnoiter. Note that rail guns could be mounted on all sorts of ships, including submarines (though obviously the business end of the rail gun would have to poke out of the water at least temporarily.)

As for AA protection, a combination of missles and perhaps much smaller carriers (large enough to provide constant AWACS coverage and perhaps a few fighters) could do the trick.

[Kuciwalker]

We should build submarine carriers that are also battleships with really thick armor and ****ing HUGE railguns just because it would be completely awesome.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We should build submarine carriers that are also battleships with really thick armor and ****ing HUGE railguns just because it would be completely awesome.

[BeBMan]

Submarines that are also battleships? DON'T GET IT TWISTED is all I can say here!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We should build submarine carriers that are also battleships with really thick armor and ****ing HUGE railguns just because it would be completely awesome.

Yeah! And they should be able to take-off and land on small, rough airstrips.

Anybody else remember that Three Stooges movie involving the submarine with tank treads and a helicopter rotor?