quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Have drones and UAVS marginalized carriers?

Aircraft carriers are very effective and haven’t been marginalized by UAS or drones per my understanding. The problem seems to be that carriers are more at risk due to advances in anti-ship missiles, area denial technologies, and swarms of small go-fast boats. So is putting so many expensive eggs in a basket a smart thing to do given the risk of one being taken out?

Again, that question has been asked for decades.

The Soviets came out with the SS-N-22 'Sunburn' missile. It was designed to kill US carrier groups. It, IIRC, had a low-altitude flight profile, popping up and diving on its target at supersonic speed. Even CWIS would have a hard time engaging these things. The Chinese bought 4 Sovremennyy-class destroyers equipped with these missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nnyy-class_destroyer

They are VERY bad news and a serious threat to our carriers. Only time will tell if our carriers are worth the money in a 'real' shooting war (with a peer or near-peer nation).

Drones don't concern me. At present, they are less capable than manned aircraft, and are horrible at self-defense (easy targets for intercepting aircraft and missiles). Same with 'go-fast boats.' Anything big enough to carry a big enough missile to be a threat would be a big radar target for our missiles and aircraft. IMO, of course.

Umm...I like carrier based air? Where do I fit in?

Oh wait... "Just shut up. See that beach? Go sun tan....roger that...boys deploy the SPF 50!"

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Have drones and UAVS marginalized carriers?

Aircraft carriers are very effective and haven’t been marginalized by UAS or drones per my understanding. The problem seems to be that carriers are more at risk due to advances in anti-ship missiles, area denial technologies, and swarms of small go-fast boats. So is putting so many expensive eggs in a basket a smart thing to do given the risk of one being taken out?

That’s why the Navy made the Little Crappy Ship, I mean LCS...

Some light investigation will tell you how great that is working out...

No worries though. Our politicians that don’t understand the difference between a suppressor and a silencer are all over this problem.

Even if carriers are less effective now than previously they are not yet INeffective. They still have different constraints than land based air.

Even in the years when naval fighters were significantly hampered by their reduced performance compared to land based aircraft due to the need to construct them heavily enough to withstand carrier land dos, we still has naval air.

The ability to park an airfield off your enemy's coast trumps a lot of downside, and I'm not sure there IS much downside yet.

quote:

Not really an apples to apples comparison to a US CVN, with 50-ish VFA/VAQ F-18s plus other support E-2 / H-60 assets.

And not a single Tomcat... What's the point of having a carrier without Tomcats?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
At the same time, the RN did quite welll with the original Harrier, while the USMC was chucking AV8As left and right - so they have a solid history of knowing what’s what with carrier ops, but it is a very perishable skill set.

I think the big challenge is the RN big decision makers and mission planners will have their hands full trying to figure out what they want out of their carrier and more importantly how to use it. To date, their big boats have been geared towards amphib ops, while these carriers certainly can support that, and their close training with the USMC reflects it, this big deck carrier is gonna wanna play joint ops with the USN and French. Sea control and power projection is a role the RN hasn't done in a very long time and the Fleet Air Arm currently dominated by rotary wing will now fight for resources with the reformed fixed-wing department. They've got the history to tap into, hopefully there's no further budgetary cuts before it's all realized.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
They are VERY bad news and a serious threat to our carriers. Only time will tell if our carriers are worth the money in a 'real' shooting war (with a peer or near-peer nation).

Drones don't concern me. At present, they are less capable than manned aircraft, and are horrible at self-defense (easy targets for intercepting aircraft and missiles). Same with 'go-fast boats.' Anything big enough to carry a big enough missile to be a threat would be a big radar target for our missiles and aircraft. IMO, of course.

Survive the initial onslaught of missiles and you'll survive, just a matter of how many get through the defense net and what kind of damage are you are dealing with. Naturally, if our SSN's are able to take out those ships with said missiles before they're able to launch them, then that reduces the threat level.

Unfortunately our NAVAIR is badly outranged as combat radius has been reduced with a near all-Hornet air wing, being able to counter punch with surviving assets will be our determinate. The current USN request from industry for a air-refueling drone to help extend that range is being undermined by a cabal within NAVAIR that wants the same platform to also do 12-hr ISR work...along with in-flight refueling. The same idiocy that served us the F-35 mess, is threatening the ability for the USN to deploy an operational drone as apart of the air wing.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

And a nuclear power plant that can provide power to shore.

Please excuse my limited point of view. My longest extension cord is 100 feet. Not sure how it would work, but I'll take your word for it. I bet Jimmy's yacht has a nuclear power plant.

During the Boxing Day tsunami clean-up, a US CVN provided offshore power, hospital services, feeding services, helicoptering services [MEDEVAC], logistic services, and, for all I know, dry-cleaning services too.

That large grey thing is a floating, self-sufficient township that just happens to be nuclear-powered, too.

There was thread on this a while back, in which the OP talked about some klutz asking why the 'Yanks' had sent a carrier to the area - this response answered the why.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:

quote:

Not really an apples to apples comparison to a US CVN, with 50-ish VFA/VAQ F-18s plus other support E-2 / H-60 assets.

And not a single Tomcat... What's the point of having a carrier without Tomcats?

US CV/CVNs used to have a bigger airwing, on the order of 60+ F14/F18/A6/A7s. But today's airwing is more multirole and with weapons technology can attack more targets with fewer aircraft.

That doesn't mean it couldn't benefit from a dedicated UAV tanker, more aircraft per-squadron, or an aircraft with a long stick like the F14.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Oh Jimmy123, da shrimp boat cap'n is waxing poetic about the military's requirements?

Bahaha, love it when an armchair historian lets us know what we should be doin'!

Please, do tell us. Please.

Be respectful. The maven has spoken.

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

You obviously have some personal made up imaginary issue with me...

Notice how I haven't asked what you do? Because I don't care. Judging by your responses...

Because I'm NOT talking about the MILITARIES HISTORY. Which you seem to be stuck in. I'm talking about...

I simply asked HOW effective today's aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. A rhetorical question...

There are a lot of roles that the Aircraft carrier used to be necessary...

If carriers are such a necessity, why would Russia let their only carrier go to hell. I don't think...

AND, when was the last time we used a carrier for anything important where it was a complete necessity????

And, to the poster that mentioned the carriers can provide electricity to land. Yes, they can, but there are few places...

Let the record reflect that I nailed the prediction down to the exact number of paragraphs in this thread back on October 8th.

< cue 8 paragraphs of back-pedaling and overly-long explanation of what jimmy really meant>

That is awesome, I don't care who you are!!

quote:

... its steam boilers prone to breaking down so frequently an oceangoing tugboat always accompanies it on long distance voyages

Is this like bringing a bag lunch to a restaurant?

Wow, ski-deck aircraft carriers. Never saw one. Looked it up to be sure you weren't pulling my leg.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Have drones and UAVS marginalized carriers?

Aircraft carriers are very effective and haven’t been marginalized by UAS or drones per my understanding. The problem seems to be that carriers are more at risk due to advances in anti-ship missiles, area denial technologies, and swarms of small go-fast boats. So is putting so many expensive eggs in a basket a smart thing to do given the risk of one being taken out?

That’s why the Navy made the Little Crappy Ship, I mean LCS...

Some light investigation will tell you how great that is working out...

About as well as all of their latest and greatest inventions they've come out with in the past 10 years!

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Oh Jimmy123, da shrimp boat cap'n is waxing poetic about the military's requirements?

Bahaha, love it when an armchair historian lets us know what we should be doin'!

Please, do tell us. Please.

Be respectful. The maven has spoken.

WELL, when one takes THIS rhetorical QUESTION and completely blow it out of proportion and then state how completely inept one is by personally attacking someone's career that one knows absolutely nothing about from someone that has the reading comprehension skills of a 1st grader, of course I am going to respond and correct that person about MY career.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ENTIRE POSTING RHINOWSO BLEW OUT OF PROPORTION:

"You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. England doesn't have any functioning ones. Russia only had 1 that was never reliable. With missle technology launched from either subs or destroyers, are aircraft carriers and their aircraft as necessary as we once thought>"

quote:

That’s why the Navy made the Little Crappy Ship, I mean LCS...

Some light investigation will tell you how great that is working out...

Don't go there; you'll get me started.

We used to have 14 operational carriers. Essentially, two for each ocean, figuratively.

We have three taunting Lil' Kim right now.

Nothing like having an adversaries carrier or two off your coast and being unable to do jack about it - to portray you as the bitch you are.

I recall Reagans "600 Ship Navy". I'd like to see something like that again.

We cannot trust China to observe territorial or maritime law, which is why we continually provoke them by sailing right by or right through their claimed island constructions. Poke the Eagle, Ching-Chong. See what it gets you.

Carriers ineffective? Obsolete? Then lets scrap ours and allow the Chinese to build a dozen of them. Would that make you feel better?

The F18 never had the range required to fulfill it's role, but it's done a good job overall. The F-35 is a waste of money and is going to prove that before it's all said and done. We also need to have another air-superiority fighter like the F-14 to be able to intercept incoming threats further out. Better air-defense missile systems and more ships carrying them. Carriers are large targets and technology is getting to the point that existing defenses could be overwhelmed with coordinated attacks using quantity over quality or weapons designed with a bit of thought in mind.

My old boss, a scot and a big EU supporter, posed the question to the work floor one day. He defied us to justify why the US needed 14 aircraft carriers (we had 11, but I wasn't going to correct him). My response?

"Because eventually, somebody, somewhere, needs a boot up their ass."

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Oh Jimmy123, da shrimp boat cap'n is waxing poetic about the military's requirements?

Bahaha, love it when an armchair historian lets us know what we should be doin'!

Please, do tell us. Please.

Be respectful. The maven has spoken.

WELL, when one takes THIS rhetorical QUESTION and completely blow it out of proportion and then state how completely inept one is by personally attacking someone's career that one knows absolutely nothing about from someone that has the reading comprehension skills of a 1st grader, of course I am going to respond and correct that person about MY career.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ENTIRE POSTING RHINOWSO BLEW OUT OF PROPORTION:

"You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. England doesn't have any functioning ones. Russia only had 1 that was never reliable. With missle technology launched from either subs or destroyers, are aircraft carriers and their aircraft as necessary as we once thought>"

Jimmy123 - I think the forum would benefit from a powerpoint brief or maybe a small handout pamphlet that would explain your posts; that way you wouldn't need to explain / backpedal / re-imagine your posts later in the threads...? Just a thought.

Nothing is / was blown out of proportion - I simply disagree with you and believe you don't have any relevant experience or factual data to back up your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Jager:Poke the Eagle, Ching-Chong.

I agree with most everything you've said, otherwise did you have to stick a racial insult in there?

quote:

Originally posted by Woodman:

Wow, ski-deck aircraft carriers. Never saw one. Looked it up to be sure you weren't pulling my leg.

There is nothing inherently wrong about ski jumps on carriers. The theory is this allows aircraft to take off without catapults. They zoom down the runway, and the ski jump throws them into the air, giving them more time to build up air speed. Cats are great, but they are a big vulnerability. A Nimitz carrier can have all 4 of its cats knocked out by 3-4 hits, rendering it a very expensive parking lot. Ski jumps obviate the need for cats, making them more robust.

It's something the Ruskies and Brits did (among others, IMO). The Brits even used them for their Harriers (they can carry a heavier load using a conventional take-off mode than by going vertical right off the deck).

The Ruskies even put large anti-ship missiles under the flight deck of their Kuznetsov carriers (SS-N-19, IIRC). This took away about a third of the below-decks hangar space, but gave them a secondary strike capability that US carriers don't have. Of course, our aircraft are generally better than theirs, so we really don't see an apparent need for this type of capability. . .

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Oh Jimmy123, da shrimp boat cap'n is waxing poetic about the military's requirements?

Bahaha, love it when an armchair historian lets us know what we should be doin'!

Please, do tell us. Please.

Be respectful. The maven has spoken.

WELL, when one takes THIS rhetorical QUESTION and completely blow it out of proportion and then state how completely inept one is by personally attacking someone's career that one knows absolutely nothing about from someone that has the reading comprehension skills of a 1st grader, of course I am going to respond and correct that person about MY career.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ENTIRE POSTING RHINOWSO BLEW OUT OF PROPORTION:

"You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. England doesn't have any functioning ones. Russia only had 1 that was never reliable. With missle technology launched from either subs or destroyers, are aircraft carriers and their aircraft as necessary as we once thought>"

Jimmy123 - I think the forum would benefit from a powerpoint brief or maybe a small handout pamphlet that would explain your posts; that way you wouldn't need to explain / backpedal / re-imagine your posts later in the threads...? Just a thought.

Nothing is / was blown out of proportion - I simply disagree with you and believe you don't have any relevant experience or factual data to back up your opinion.

How do you disagree with a question??? It is not an OPINION it is a QUESTION!!!!! There is no back peddling, I asked a question! "You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare?" "are aircraft carriers as necessary as we once thought?" Anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a first grader would clearly see they are both questions.

As for little kim, we could take out every single military offensive postion he has as well as every missle building site with a volley of short to medium range missles from 2 destroyers OR a volley of bombs from 2 B52's before he ever had the chance to launch a single fighter jet.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Oh Jimmy123, da shrimp boat cap'n is waxing poetic about the military's requirements?

Bahaha, love it when an armchair historian lets us know what we should be doin'!

Please, do tell us. Please.

Be respectful. The maven has spoken.

WELL, when one takes THIS rhetorical QUESTION and completely blow it out of proportion and then state how completely inept one is by personally attacking someone's career that one knows absolutely nothing about from someone that has the reading comprehension skills of a 1st grader, of course I am going to respond and correct that person about MY career.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ENTIRE POSTING RHINOWSO BLEW OUT OF PROPORTION:

"You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. England doesn't have any functioning ones. Russia only had 1 that was never reliable. With missle technology launched from either subs or destroyers, are aircraft carriers and their aircraft as necessary as we once thought>"

Jimmy123 - I think the forum would benefit from a powerpoint brief or maybe a small handout pamphlet that would explain your posts; that way you wouldn't need to explain / backpedal / re-imagine your posts later in the threads...? Just a thought.

Nothing is / was blown out of proportion - I simply disagree with you and believe you don't have any relevant experience or factual data to back up your opinion.

How do you disagree with a question??? It is not an OPINION it is a QUESTION!!!!! There is no back peddling, I asked a question! "You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare?" "are aircraft carriers as necessary as we once thought?" Anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a first grader would clearly see they are both questions.

As for little kim, we could take out every single military offensive postion he has as well as every missle building site with a volley of short to medium range missles from 2 destroyers OR a volley of bombs from 2 B52's before he ever had the chance to launch a single fighter jet.

If you don't understand the strategic advantages of having a self-sustaining, fully operational and weapons equipped, mobile military airfield in a radius of anything between 13 and 400 miles off your coast, then military strategy and dominance is not a yachtsman forté.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:




As for little kim, we could take out every single military offensive postion he has as well as every missle building site with a volley of short to medium range missles from 2 destroyers OR a volley of bombs from 2 B52's before he ever had the chance to launch a single fighter jet.

I wonder why this has never occurred to SECDEF Mattis?

Maybe you would be so good as to contact the Pentagon Joint Chief’s Duty Officer with the idea and the plans and details. By happy coincidence, GEN. Dunford is in S. Korea now, probably hoping you will call.