How vulnerable is an air craft carrier? ***OFFICIAL*** & ***CONFIRMED***

[UltraQuiet]

<< but because of the inherit homoerotic nature of the sub (j/k!!!!) >>


Pfffffffffffffftttttttttt!

 

[CocaCola5]

<<

<< How about making a carrier from a submarine, a super large one. It would be nearly invincible even by itself. >>



I believe I have seen this proposed, but the cost is usually prohibitive. The proposals for the future generation carriers
are pretty wild. Alot of the future designs include quite a bit of stealth technology. The one about the floating islands
was especially interesting. Basically, the equivalent of a land base at sea. I think it involved linking several carrier sized
ships together. I wish I had links to this stuff, but I haven't read about it for quite some time. >>






I just thought a fleet of say 50 to 75 of these things, each carrying only about 10, 15 fighters each and 20 or so support helicopters in all would be quite something.

 

[freegeeks]

interesting stuff in this thread -- especially the russian super torpedo -- i didn't know that the US was building a new carrier

When the Belgium Navy is attacked by 2 canoes we have to surrender

 

[Hammer]

Actually, the us is building another carrier after the Reagan. It will be the a transitional carrier and the last of the class.



<< interesting stuff in this thread -- especially the russian super torpedo -- i didn't know that the US was building a new carrier

When the Belgium Navy is attacked by 2 canoes we have to surrender >>

 

[Bignate603]

Somebody brought up a comparison of the amount of bombs dropped in the Afghan conflict to sorties flown, seperated by whether the aircraft was from a carrier or land based. It was my understanding that a carrier's aircraft was designed to only do moderate bombing and primarily serve as a transportable base to move the fighters, with their limited range, into a closer position to keep air superiority while the big land based bombers with longer ranges took advantage of this and could drop the majority of the bombs.

 

[AnMig]

A few radical thoughts come to mind

Trained dolphin with explosives can keep up with a carrier on the move. Althought PETA will not allow it

I think its pretty naive for us to think that we are the only ones with stealth technology. If I where a 2nd or 3rd world country this is where i would invest my money since it would be fairly futile to fight a superpower ship for ship. Biological weapons is where future warfare is heading its cheap easier to deploy than conventional weapons. Once they are able to weaponize these bio agents no amount of defense or firepower can help us.

 

[XMan]

<< It's not there Navy we have to worry about, it sucks. We would spank them easily. They're Air Force though is pretty large, we might get overwhelmed, its hard to stay just how many inbound threats a CBG can deal with.

Here's an interesting fact on China:

Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 366,306,353 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 200,886,946 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 10,089,458 (2001 est.) >>



Without a Navy to move all of those men around though, China isn't much of a threat to anyone save their next-door neighbors.

 

[shiner]

<< Trained dolphin with explosives can keep up with a carrier on the move. >>


Already been done....U.S. Navy had( I think they got rid of them) dolphins that were trained to hunt mines, kill divers, and be biological torpedoes...

 

[Bignate603]

China currently does not even pose a threat to Taiwan as long as Taiwan uses it's superior naval power (yes, it has superior naval power, not in numbers but in tech, it can chew through china) or air power to prevent a landing. The only thing China has going for it is the largest group of unmounted infantry in the world, useless except for over running a place with shear numbers.

 

[Hammer]

wrong. China has a crapload of short and medium range missiles it can lob into taiwan.



<< China currently does not even pose a threat to Taiwan as long as Taiwan uses it's superior naval power (yes, it has superior naval power, not in numbers but in tech, it can chew through china) or air power to prevent a landing. The only thing China has going for it is the largest group of unmounted infantry in the world, useless except for over running a place with shear numbers. >>

 

[AndrewR]

Do you realize for 2 Billion you can get the USS Ronald Reagon(unequiped) or you can get a single stealth bomber(original price).

Of course, the entire carrier air wing would be lost attempting to bomb the same amount of targets that the B-2 could hit without an exceptional amount of danger. The carrier also REQUIRES the air wing to be effective and REQUIRES the escort ships to be protected and REQUIRES thousands upon thousands of sailors to operate and REQUIRES large port facilities. $2 billion for a carrier only scratches the surface of the costs of operating one. That's not saying it isn't worth it, only that you aren't comparing total cost.

More importantly -- different missions, different capabilities.

titaniums a bitch to use.. don't think we have that much either.

The Russians apparently don't think it's hard to use, and they have plenty. I think our aversion to using it is a matter of cost, not desire.

I think its pretty naive for us to think that we are the only ones with stealth technology.

Then who else has it? It's not simply a matter of putting some black electrical tape over a plane's surfaces (or a ship, for that matter). There's a reason why we have invested billions of dollars and why no one else has it -- we've put more money into that one technology than most countries put into their entire military.

 

[Kenazo]

<< << but can they stand up to China? not likely >>


Yes....one U.S. CBG could take out the entire Chinese Air Force & Navy.... >>



Can you say hubris? Of course ideally this should work, remember that the US has been held at bay by far smaller countries (vietnam) It would be folly to assume invincibility.

 

[Hammer]

I don't thinks its hubris. Air and sea battles aren't the same as a long drawn out land war.



<< Can you say hubris? Of course ideally this should work, remember that the US has been held at bay by far smaller countries (vietnam) It would be folly to assume invincibility. >>

 

[FoBoT]

don't worry about our carriers

a US Navy carrier battle group covers thousands of square miles of ocean, either from air cover or support ships/submarines

they can't be touched by any country/Navy on this planet

(ex-Navy submariner 1986-1996)

 

[shiner]

<< Can you say hubris? Of course ideally this should work, remember that the US has been held at bay by far smaller countries (vietnam) It would be folly to assume invincibility. >>


Vietnam is not a good example of what the U.S. Military or CGB's are capable of. That war was fought by the politicians who held the military back and wouldn't let them fully sink their teeth into the enemy.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Can you say hubris? Of course ideally this should work, remember that the US has been held at bay by far smaller countries (vietnam) It would be folly to assume invincibility. >>


Ummm.... If you remove the rules of engagement, smaller countries, like Vietnam, would be simply reduced to bomb craters in a matter of days. You are comparing a statement that a single CBG could take out the Chinese navy & air force to a single land war? That's crazy.

As far as the Chinese navy is concerned, it is not even remotely a threat. I am not up on current Chinese fighter technology, but they do not have a lot of research into standoff weapons so they would experience great difficulty in denting the defensive umbrella of a CBG to do damage. Not sure what all technology they have from the Russians, so I'm not sure if they have access to the AS-2 missile technology or not.



<< Somebody brought up a comparison of the amount of bombs dropped in the Afghan conflict to sorties flown, seperated by whether the aircraft was from a carrier or land based. It was my understanding that a carrier's aircraft was designed to only do moderate bombing and primarily serve as a transportable base to move the fighters, with their limited range, into a closer position to keep air superiority while the big land based bombers with longer ranges took advantage of this and could drop the majority of the bombs. >>


While no one can argue with the payload capability of the B52, Navy bombers can get off the deck with a surprisingly large payload. This has been somewhat reduced by the retirement of the A-6, but the F/A-18 can heft a pretty decent payload aloft and deliver it on target. The Navy has never been about carpet bombing, but rather precision strikes. The primary role is to project power into a region in the short amount of time it takes to move the CBG in position. The army and air force require a much greater time scale to maneuver themselves into position.

 

[Hammer]

You know the more I think about the idea of a US CBG against the Chinese AF and Navy, the more I like it. It's a very interesting scenario. How many and which ships are we including in this CBG?

 

[PsychoAndy]

<< You know the more I think about the idea of a US CBG against the Chinese AF and Navy, the more I like it. It's a very interesting scenario. How many and which ships are we including in this CBG? >>


I wanna play I wanna play
How bout a nimitz class (of course), 2 Ticonderoga class crusiers, 2 burke class destroyer, 2 spruance class destroyers, 2 perry frigates, and 2 Los Angeles Class subs? Wait...i could've just said 2 of everything except for the carrier I'm not sure how a real CBG goes though, this is just my ideal little setup i guess.

 

[Cerebus451]

How about the Truman battle group. Actually a little small to take on the Chinese air force. You would probably need a double carrier battle group to do that.

This link has some good info on the typical loadout of a CBG.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< 2 Ticonderoga class crusiers, 2 burke class destroyer >>


Errr.....4 Aegis equipped ships?!? That's a bit of overkill. You really only need 1 of each and supplement with other DDGs and FFGs to provide more missiles for the systems to direct.

 

[Dually]

<< Actually, the us is building another carrier after the Reagan. It will be the a transitional carrier and the last of the class.



<< interesting stuff in this thread -- especially the russian super torpedo -- i didn't know that the US was building a new carrier

When the Belgium Navy is attacked by 2 canoes we have to surrender >>

>>



Wrong, the Reagan is the last.

 

[Hammer]

I like PsychoAndy list but I'd like to add a Seawolf-class sub, an Avenger class Mine Countermeasure ship, and some support ships like the AOE6 Supply class and Besson Class ships.

 

[Hammer]

Normally I'd agree, but the Chinese AF though outdated has over 4000 planes. A target is still a target.



<<

<< 2 Ticonderoga class crusiers, 2 burke class destroyer >>


Errr.....4 Aegis equipped ships?!? That's a bit of overkill. You really only need 1 of each and supplement with other DDGs and FFGs to provide more missiles for the systems to direct. >>

 

[Hammer]

WRONG, Reagan is CVN76, CVN77 is last. It won't be launched til 2008. As I stated earlier, it will be transitional and incorporate some of the technology planned for CVNX1 and CVNX2.



<< Wrong, the Reagan is the last. >>

 

[PsychoAndy]

<<

<< 2 Ticonderoga class crusiers, 2 burke class destroyer >>


Errr.....4 Aegis equipped ships?!? That's a bit of overkill. You really only need 1 of each and supplement with other DDGs and FFGs to provide more missiles for the systems to direct. >>


Ehhh. They're fighting an air force, remember?