Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Peyomp, Aug 30, 2006.
I can't spell missile.
This article reminded me of this one by the humorous if not credible source the War Nerd: http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war_nerd.html
Does democratization of missile technology mean the carrier is the next dreadnought?
I take that back.
My answer is:
Yes, just not anytime soon.
Anti-ship missiles already exist in great numbers, and whether a carrier can defend against them en mass is questionable. Submarine carriers on the other hand:
I believe the US Navy is smart enough to not let Iran or whomever to get close enough to their carriers to allow them to do such a thing.
And there doesn't seem to be any very dangerous and very hostile enemies of The United States that have the capability to cause destruction to an Aircraft Carrier, except in that last paragraph of 2nd post - Anything's possible.
Of course, doing so would probably deplete such an enemy force from repeating with that same strategy, and The US would adapt.
Carriers are not invicible.
I didn't say there were any in use today, I said they are the next evolution.
It's strange how The US has used ideas from the German Military, but has rarely used ideas from the Japanese Military.
Maybe they have, and I just haven't noticed.
Iran is thought to have more than 300 anti-ship missiles. Wargames indicate that carriers cannot defend against them launched en mass.
What you say is true in the sense that the British used this technique against Argentina: they had to keep their carriers out of range of Exocet missiles. But thats a problem in the Persian Gulf, isn't it, because the entire length of Iran is a launching ground for those missiles. Carriers would have to remain well out into the Arabian Sea, and shipping would have to be totally stopped, as any ship can carry and launch an anti-ship missile. I probably don't need to remind you what kind of critical shipping MUST go through there.
I would expect something more like the X-ship. Highly mobile, stealth, holding fewer planes that take off vertically. A less valuable target, capable of spreading out and easier to defend.
I'm not sure if you're using Iran as an example or if Iran is the main concern of this thread, but The US has forces in 2 countries surrounding Iran which can be used as bases of attack against Iran.
Right. In this example we're talking about a conflict with Iran which compels them to attack a carrier group. China would be another example. If China has thousands of anti-ship missiles then what chance does a carrier group stand off the coast of China, defending Taiwan?
So you are saying an X-Ship would be better than "YourLink" ??
I'm saying the Navy actually seems to be going in this direction. The X-Ship completed its sea trials and is at sea on a mission, right? It has a vertical takeoff deck.
You do realize that Aircraft Carriers do not travel on their own and are protected by various ships and aircraft, right ??
I don't seem to understand why the US Navy has not adopted the idea of a Submarine Aircraft Carrier.
Perhaps it's too expensive....
Of course. The idea is that with enough anti-ship missiles flying a few feet above the water, even these protections are not adequate, anymore than a bunch of destroyers around a battleship was adequate to protect them from a pack of zeros.
Interestingly Japan actually did have a big arse sumbmarine for launching planes in WWII. AFAIK it's the only externally asymetrical sub that's been fielded.
Would not only cost a fucking fortune but would require numerous engineering advancements.
From a fluid dynamics viewpoint a flat deck would be a nightmare both in terms of speed and noise.
There's also the point that something that big would be useless once things got reasonably shallow. At depth the required shape would be a nightmare, for proper stress resistance you want as close to a sphere as possible, untenable for a CVN as they would not have enough stability on the surface to launch and recover aircraft.
War brings about new advancments.
When/If Missile Technology becomes a problem for US Aircraft Carriers, perhaps S-A-Cs may prove to be more valuable and worth the cost and effort.
we, as an armed force need to learn from japanese anime... while yes, alot of it is fanciful, some of it is genius..
Honestly, are you lazy or just stupid ??
i wouldn't go as far as saying stupid, but it has been a very long night.. plus, what do i know about attack technologies.. i work in a rescue sqd..
i just have a lot a wild ideas for tech. i designed a few bombs.. but my bombs would all be rejected as they are indiscriminate killers..
however, i agree about sub-based carriers.. would be sweet
True but you can't beat physics.
IMO it's a cost ineffective solution vs building larger carriers (the actual steel is relatively cheap compared to the combat systems etc) and then building planes with a better fuel fraction to call them home.
The simple fact is anyway that the scenario posed by the thread starter won't happen, the USN isn't dumb enough to park a CVN where some dickhead Iranian can have a shot at it with an early gen AShM, it doesn't happen now and it won't happen.
If they wanted to attack Iran there's plenty of giant Aircraft Carriers around like the one called Iraq.