What will make carriers obsolete?

[Pacfanweb]

crewing is NOT an issue. Modern military can easily field an army of 10 million+ men. A 1900 crewed battleship is a tiny drop in both manpower and budget that many governments would not even noticed.

Wow, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Crewing is absolutely, 100% the primary reason the Iowas were retired.
Crews cost money. To train, to feed, to pay salary to.

You really couldn't be more wrong about this. We only have 1.4 million men/women in our entire military right now. 10 million is laughable. We only had 12 million at our peak in 1945, and that was with the entire country mobilized for war, and it still took years to get to that level.

The Navy realized that they could crew 7-8 Arleigh Burke class ships with what it took to crew one Iowa. It's really that simple.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Wow, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Crewing is absolutely, 100% the primary reason the Iowas were retired.
Crews cost money. To train, to feed, to pay salary to.

You really couldn't be more wrong about this. We only have 1.4 million men/women in our entire military right now. 10 million is laughable. We only had 12 million at our peak in 1945, and that was with the entire country mobilized for war, and it still took years to get to that level.

The Navy realized that they could crew 7-8 Arleigh Burke class ships with what it took to crew one Iowa. It's really that simple.

how does that refute my premise that carrier has more crew and yet not decommission like the battleship? I dont see why you are so persistent despite your lacked of credible facts. You reminded me so much of myself in an intel vs amd flame war but with an even lesser brain.

 

[Darwin333]

Pearl Harbor, the ships were at peace. They were not buttoned up internally and prepared for combat. That is in no way representative of what would happen in combat.

What happened to the USS North Carolina at Guadalcanal IS. Hit by one of the dreaded Japanese Long Lance torpedoes, it blew a 30' hole in the side of the ship. (these are ship/sub torpedoes, not the smaller aerial versions)
She slowed up to shore up the damage, then resumed maneuvers with the fleet at 26 knots. Was never in danger of sinking. Returned to Pearl for repairs later on.

The Yamato was sunk by air power. Air power that had basically no opposition and it still took a couple of hours. That wouldn't have happened to a US Battleship, because our AA fire was the best there was.

Fact is, the US never lost, or came close to losing a Battleship after Pearl Harbor.

Again, you really think it would hold up against 4-8 modern torpedoes? Especially torpedoes that are designed not only to explode after hitting the hull but also detonate under the keel to "break the back" of ships? Then you have modern missiles like the KH-22 which comes in at Mach 4.6 with a 2,200lb RDX warhead that dives down on it's target hitting the superstructure or the least armored deck area. I'd wager they are a bit more effective than the bombs used in WWII and can be delivered with precision en masse.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Again, you really think it would hold up against 4-8 modern torpedoes? Especially torpedoes that are designed not only to explode after hitting the hull but also detonate under the keel to "break the back" of ships? Then you have modern missiles like the KH-22 which comes in at Mach 4.6 with a 2,200lb RDX warhead that dives down on it's target hitting the superstructure or the least armored deck area. I'd wager they are a bit more effective than the bombs used in WWII and can be delivered with precision en masse.

Sigh.

No, no ship will hold up under 8 torpedoes.
Point is, how is anyone going to HIT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE??

That's what the escorts are for. If any of our ships gets hit that many times, our ASW has failed and it really doesn't matter at that point. It's far more likely that one torp MIGHT leak through, and one isn't going to sink an Iowa, modern or not.

Same with any missiles. I'm not saying they won't hurt the ship. I'm saying the Iowa is the most survivable ship that exists in the world today against such a thing. Nothing in the fleet has a better chance at surviving, much less still carrying on its mission. An Iowa most certainly has that chance.

 

[Pacfanweb]

how does that refute my premise that carrier has more crew and yet not decommission like the battleship? I dont see why you are so persistent despite your lacked of credible facts. You reminded me so much of myself in an intel vs amd flame war but with an even lesser brain.

One of us here clearly is lacking in the gray matter, but it's not me.

Here's how it refutes your "premise that carrier has more crew and yet not decommission like the battleship":

Because the Navy would rather have 7 or 8 other smaller ships than one Battleship. THAT'S why.

They crew carriers because they are considered a "must", AND because it's mandated that the Navy have a certain number of them.
They do not crew Battleships because of the crew requirements, e.g:, budgetary reasons. If they had an unlimited budget, they would have never been decommissioned in the 90's. But they did not, so the Navy chose to decomm the Battleships and use the 1800 or so crew members to run multiple smaller ships.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Because the Navy would rather have 7 or 8 other smaller ships than one Battleship

I would rather have a boat that has engine instead canoe with paddles. why? because one is better at what it does, traveling though the water. same analogy applies to battleship. it is more expensive and does poorer job than smaller vessels. It isnt because BA are so goddamn powerful but so goddamn expensive and manpower demanding that most nations would rather have smaller vessels. even if a vessel requires thousands to crew, as long as it prove useful, world powers would still spend countless resources on it such as during the dreadnought race, sometimes just for the prestige of having one.

Today, battleship cant even defeat a modern nuclear powered submarine on one vs one, on equal footing, without loads of escort ships. you are arguing for an old tech. it just doesnt work

 

[Kaido]

We only had 12 million at our peak in 1945, and that was with the entire country mobilized for war, and it still took years to get to that level.

I wonder if that's the largest single-country deployment in history. I don't imagine the generations before that had nearly as large numbers due to issues with food production, lifespans, and so on.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

I wonder if that's the largest single-country deployment in history. I don't imagine the generations before that had nearly as large numbers due to issues with food production, lifespans, and so on.

Logistics is the issue but with modern transportation, mass factory production, and communication, 10 million+ troops are easily doable.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I wonder if that's the largest single-country deployment in history. I don't imagine the generations before that had nearly as large numbers due to issues with food production, lifespans, and so on.

You forget the expansion of China wars.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I wonder if that's the largest single-country deployment in history. I don't imagine the generations before that had nearly as large numbers due to issues with food production, lifespans, and so on.

The Red Army was probably close in total numbers....but keep in mind, their navy was insignificant. Most of their numbers were actual feet on the ground.
They also did not have the ability (due to their lack of a navy) to put soldiers all over the world, and fight from sea to sea. Only the USA was able to do all that.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I would rather have a boat that has engine instead canoe with paddles. why? because one is better at what it does, traveling though the water. same analogy applies to battleship. it is more expensive and does poorer job than smaller vessels. It isnt because BA are so goddamn powerful but so goddamn expensive and manpower demanding that most nations would rather have smaller vessels. even if a vessel requires thousands to crew, as long as it prove useful, world powers would still spend countless resources on it such as during the dreadnought race, sometimes just for the prestige of having one.

Today, battleship cant even defeat a modern nuclear powered submarine on one vs one, on equal footing, without loads of escort ships. you are arguing for an old tech. it just doesnt work

No Battleship could ever defeat a sub one on one, at any point in history. A carrier can't, either. That's what their escorts were for. Battleships had other jobs which only they could perform, so things like ASW were left to smaller, more agile ships.

And it seems you now agree with me that Battleships were expensive to operate (mostly because of crew requirements) and that's why they were put to rest.

 

[zinfamous]

very small rocks.

lots of them

 

[zinfamous]

a little smack and a needle will take care of that train.








sorry, couldn't help it. Fricking love the dude, though.

 

[urvile]

very small rocks.

lots of them

That seriously made me lol. Thank you.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

No Battleship could ever defeat a sub one on one, at any point in history. A carrier can't, either. That's what their escorts were for. Battleships had other jobs which only they could perform, so things like ASW were left to smaller, more agile ships.

And it seems you now agree with me that Battleships were expensive to operate (mostly because of crew requirements) and that's why they were put to rest.

OK, tell me, what job can an obsolete battle ship perform better? name me just one.

 

[Darwin333]

The Red Army was probably close in total numbers....but keep in mind, their navy was insignificant. Most of their numbers were actual feet on the ground.
They also did not have the ability (due to their lack of a navy) to put soldiers all over the world, and fight from sea to sea. Only the USA was able to do all that.

Since the war came to them, unlike us, they didn't really have the need to put soldiers all over the world. They were more concerned with holding the eastern front where they lost, consiverviitavely, 20ish million people between military and civilians. When the barbarians are literally at the door you don't tend to work on sending your warfighters across the world.

 

[jackstar7]

I expected a discussion of cell phone service providers going extinct.

 

[rommelrommel]

I thought it was actually designed to be a tank killer and it just happens to be really awesome at close air support?

It was built as a tank killer, you are correct. It was designed to have survivability in high threat environments. The main gun is WTFBBQ overkill on most CAS targets but the relatively low air speed, good visibility, and good handling has made it an effective CAS platform. It was not designed strictly for the role it’s best known for.

Other way around.

?

 

[bononos]

Fighter aircraft would become obsolete sooner than aircraft carriers by being replaced with drone for some missions. And it makes sense too since fighters have become such an expensive pork barrel gift to the arms industry.

.....
War is always war & will always be awful, but the game keeps changing thanks to technology. Everything is logged in a database somewhere these days. The amount of data available is staggering. We know the names of virtually every American soldier killed in the Iraq & Afghanistan wars:

https://qz.com/411623/the-names-of-the-6828-americans-who-have-died-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/
And speaking statistically, those numbers have decreased dramatically from wars past. Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) killed 2,351 Americans, Iraqi Freedom killed 4,412 Americans, and New Dawn killed 66 Americans. .............

Those numbers might not include mercs. And they are much higher than Gulf War 1.

 

[Ventanni]

Okay, today's warships will get cut open like a can of beans by ANY armor piercing shell or missile of any kind, from any era.
An Iowa will not. Sorry, but armor is absolutely better than no armor. And lots of armor is better than a little. And there's plenty of redundancy in the armor scheme of an Iowa as well. It's not just 'punch through 12 inches of armor and then the magazine is yours'.

There is no armor piercing anything that comes from below. Torpedoes are designed to explode beneath a ship and the shock "bubble" breaks its back. One of those will certainly hurt an Iowa....but they are more survivable than any other ship afloat, due to their triple bottoms.

Yes, the deck armor isn't as thick as the side armor. But it's still FAR thicker than any other ship afloat. And it it spaced....the first level is supposed to trigger the incoming projectile, the next two decks are supposed to contain the blast. Never were they supposed to completely reject them.

Kevlar sucks. It's worthless against armor piercing anything. If a Somali pirate is shooting at you with an AK 47 from a boat, Kevlar is okay. If they're using anything bigger, you better run.

I'm not saying the Iowas are proofed against anything and everything, but they are far, FAR safer than anything in anyone's navy today, and it's not even close.

And all this you posted assumes that a missile can get through the defenses of the task force an Iowa would be the center of. If one did, I can guarantee you which ship I'd want to be on if I know my ship was going to take a hit, and everyone else in the Navy would agree.

Put it this way: If you think an Iowa is useless because she is vulnerable to today's weaponry, then you think that every single surface ship in use today is useless, because 100% of them are much, much more vulnerable than any Battleship in existence.

Still no. At some point we may be redirected back to talking about carriers, but this applies to carriers, too. I full agree that an Iowa would overall be more survivable than an Arleigh Burke destroyer, but is more to do with the raw size and redundancy of being a capital ship than anything, not its armor. Even American WW2 carriers were very difficult to sink, and they were lightly armored. Larger ships are always harder to sink., and crew training has a lot to do with that too.

But heavy armor is not heavy armor anymore. Back in WW2, that heavy armor made sense because AP shells were steel hardened ballistic capped projectiles that punched through armor by nature of their sheer velocity and weight, and then exploded a quarter of a second later. As you mentioned above, the thinner Class A armor was designed to trigger the detonator, and the Class B was designed to absorb the explosion. Today's modern armor piercing missiles are shape charges, which hardened steel is very poor at defending against. That thick armor of an Iowa would only act as additional molten steel being blasted to everything behind it, causing quite a fiery and destructive mess. That's why today's Western battle tanks are armored with a combination of steel, ceramics, and Kevlar, and why modern warships are barely armored at all. Heck, that's why all emphasis is placed on active defenses in the first place.

Kevlar. It doesn't suck, an in fact does a great job of minimizing the exact kind of damage described above. That's why modern warships, including carriers, are lined with a hardened version of it. It's not to protect against Somali AK-47's, it's to limit the damage of a shape charge, and it does a pretty good job at it.

I'd love to see the Iowa's reactivated just like you do, but you can't use their armor as a playing card anymore. Against modern weaponry, it's not only pure dead weight, but also a vulnerability.

 

[Darwin333]

It was built as a tank killer, you are correct. It was designed to have survivability in high threat environments. The main gun is WTFBBQ overkill on most CAS targets but the relatively low air speed, good visibility, and good handling has made it an effective CAS platform. It was not designed strictly for the role it’s best known for.

While it may be overkill you have to admit that it has some serious intimidation power.

 

[Pacfanweb]

OK, tell me, what job can an obsolete battle ship perform better? name me just one.

Better than what? A smaller surface ship? Say, a Burke class ship?
I've already listed them several times, but:
Fire support: Duh, obviously.
Command ship
Intelligence center
Refueling escort ships
"Showing the flag" missions. Nothing more intimidating and says "Murica" than a Battleship, not even a carrier.

That enough? A Battleship can do all those things better than any other smaller surface ship, and nobody in the Navy would argue differently.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Better than what? A smaller surface ship? Say, a Burke class ship?
I've already listed them several times, but:
Fire support: Duh, obviously.
Command ship
Intelligence center
Refueling escort ships
"Showing the flag" missions. Nothing more intimidating and says "Murica" than a Battleship, not even a carrier.

That enough? A Battleship can do all those things better than any other smaller surface ship, and nobody in the Navy would argue differently.

it does not refuel better than a tanker
it does not command better than any bridges on a cruiser.
it does not support better fire than a carrier or even a destoryer
intelligence? i have no idea what you meant by that.

Nothing says better that your navy is obsolete and not modern than having a battleship.

See? i just invalidated everything you posted. Your facts are wrong. No need to thank me for the enlightenment.

 

[Pacfanweb]

it does not refuel better than a tanker
it does not command better than any bridges on a cruiser.
it does not support better fire than a carrier or even a destoryer
intelligence? i have no idea what you meant by that.

Nothing says better that your navy is obsolete and not modern than having a battleship.

See? i just invalidated everything you posted. Your facts are wrong. No need to thank me for the enlightenment.

In your own mind you might have invalidated something.

However, since it's patently obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, I'm going to correct you one last time, and then you can (and probably will) continue to post your inaccuracies:

1. Who cares about a tanker? Not what we're talking about. The fact that you even mention one shows you are clueless. We are talking surface WARships. Not support ships. What can an Iowa do better than other WARships. Tankers can't keep up with warships. They have to be pre-positioned and the warships have to rendezvous with them when they can. And a tanker can ONLY supply fuel, btw.
So yes, a Battleship can most certainly supply its escorts or say, a carrier's escorts (if they're working together) with fuel, so they don't have to break off and go meet the tanker. The smaller surface WARships can't do that. So I'm 100% right here.

2. Command ship. Do you even know what that is? Clearly not. Flagship. Command center. Hint: All that doesn't happen on the bridge. An admiral's flag staff needs room, lots of it. Battleships have it. Cruisers and destroyers do not. Again, I was correct here.

3. Intelligence center. Yeah, I know you don't know what that means, just like you've demonstrated throughout the rest of this conversation. Intelligence gathering. Spies. Listening post. ESM. All of that. The Iowas have a dedicated place in the ship for it. Smaller ships don't. Certainly not as extensive, if they have anything.

4. Fire support. Battleships have 16" 50 caliber naval rifles. Game. Set. Match. There is no equal in any navy to those. The one Zumwalt class ship the US Navy has possesses 155mm guns that can shoot 50 miles. Each shell costs one MILLION dollars. So expensive, the Navy can't afford to fire them and are now developing new, less expensive shells.
Now, the 16" guns on the Iowa (406mm) fires shells out to over 26 miles, accurately. They weigh anywhere from 1900lbs to 2700lbs. The Zumwalt's guns can fire 50 miles, and the one MILLION dollar shells weigh 225lbs.
New shells for the Iowa were designed tested to shoot roughly that far. They just needed to be produced, but the ships were mothballed before that could happen. So call the range even, and tell me which gun you want firing for effect. Iowa wins that, easily.

So again, I was correct. No ship afloat matches the Iowa for fire support.

What's really funny is that for your "examples", you used 4 different types of ships that can do things ONE type of ship can.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

In your own mind you might have invalidated something.

However, since it's patently obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, I'm going to correct you one last time, and then you can (and probably will) continue to post your inaccuracies:

1. Who cares about a tanker? Not what we're talking about. The fact that you even mention one shows you are clueless. We are talking surface WARships. Not support ships. What can an Iowa do better than other WARships. Tankers can't keep up with warships. They have to be pre-positioned and the warships have to rendezvous with them when they can. And a tanker can ONLY supply fuel, btw.
So yes, a Battleship can most certainly supply its escorts or say, a carrier's escorts (if they're working together) with fuel, so they don't have to break off and go meet the tanker. The smaller surface WARships can't do that. So I'm 100% right here.

2. Command ship. Do you even know what that is? Clearly not. Flagship. Command center. Hint: All that doesn't happen on the bridge. An admiral's flag staff needs room, lots of it. Battleships have it. Cruisers and destroyers do not. Again, I was correct here.

3. Intelligence center. Yeah, I know you don't know what that means, just like you've demonstrated throughout the rest of this conversation. Intelligence gathering. Spies. Listening post. ESM. All of that. The Iowas have a dedicated place in the ship for it. Smaller ships don't. Certainly not as extensive, if they have anything.

4. Fire support. Battleships have 16" 50 caliber naval rifles. Game. Set. Match. There is no equal in any navy to those. The one Zumwalt class ship the US Navy has possesses 155mm guns that can shoot 50 miles. Each shell costs one MILLION dollars. So expensive, the Navy can't afford to fire them and are now developing new, less expensive shells.
Now, the 16" guns on the Iowa (406mm) fires shells out to over 26 miles, accurately. They weigh anywhere from 1900lbs to 2700lbs. The Zumwalt's guns can fire 50 miles, and the one MILLION dollar shells weight 225lbs.
New shells for the Iowa were designed tested to shoot roughly that far. They just needed to be produced, but the ships were mothballed before that could happen. So call the range even, and tell me which gun you want firing for effect. Iowa wins that, easily.

So again, I was correct. No ship afloat matches the Iowa for fire support.

What's really funny is that for your "examples", you used 4 different types of ships that can do things ONE type of ship can.

1) why would you use “war”ship as a tanker. This is like me using public bus as armored carrier.

2) oh boy. Choosing the right battleship is not like choosing a home to buy. No government is asking if the bridged is spacious enough to allow for several bathrooms, sofas, or a luxurious cocktail bar. Main issue is whether or not your ship is so bulky with useless armor that it is just easy picking for the enemy. Also, choosing an obsolete ship as a mere status symbol to awe other nations is pure stupidity.

3) what do you think naval ship is? Headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency?

4) fire support for what? Modern ship to ship engagement is not where a ship see each other face to face like in the old days. It is using radar to fire missiles or torpedoes or send off aircrafts from carriers before one fleet even see the other fleet on the horizon. How are you gonna shell a ship with that superior naval guns of yours when enemy is fleet is about as far apart as the distance between New York and Washington DC and who are already sending waves of aircrafts and missiles at you? Please tell me


Also, asserting a partronizing intellectual superiority when you are so ignorant and misguided is nothing to boast about.