"Carrier Killer"

[joevol320]

all I am going to say is they will get one chance to use the ACBM, whether we hit or miss in our defense systems.

There are as many problems on getting the missile to target as there are in engaging it.

yeah, i know the France has some tough anti ship missles to track but have some problems being accurate. of course that was a few years.

 

[MontereyVol]

To put everyones mind at ease, and JoeVol can probably back this up. Everything we have discussed in here is the last line of defense a carrier has. If we are worrying about our ships defense system taking out a missile then there are bigger problems in how it got that far and that particular ship is probably dead anyway.

 

[MontereyVol]

So we have terminator robot soldiers and what are the carriers going to be replaced with?

Subs

 

[joevol320]

Pretty sure you already know this but the Seasparrow would be ineffective against this type of missile. Great system for its time though.

seasparrow is more effective against air-surface and surface-surface missles.

i know they can be effective again the chinese made silkworm missle that iran uses. that missle is like a tank in the air.

 

[joevol320]

I am really not sure if it was a problem with the missiles or the AEGIS or the people who were doing the shoot. Just wondering the effectivness of the SM2/SM3 agaist a large missile like this "carrier killer"

they should be very effective, if they can track it, the sm2 should be able to knock it down even if it's not a direct hit. it doesn't take much to knock a missle off course or damage its guidance.

 

[joevol320]

To put everyones mind at ease, and JoeVol can probably back this up. Everything we have discussed in here is the last line of defense a carrier has. If we are worrying about our ships defense system taking out a missile then there are bigger problems in how it got that far and that particular ship is probably dead anyway.

yeah, my buddy was an ET on the roosevelt. he said the same thing. If a missle gets within a couple hundred miles of the carrier, they get extremely worried.

 

[DC Vol]

Subs

maybe I'm out of the loop here, but how could a sub possibly replace an aircraft carrier?

 

[MontereyVol]

maybe I'm out of the loop here, but how could a sub possibly replace an aircraft carrier?

The methodology for naval warfare is changing rapidly over the last decade. Carriers are becoming big targets that become harder to defend as countries develop better systems. It also has the added problem of being a huge psychological blow.

The talk is of making special subs that launch hundreds of UAV's that will be superior to anything a carrier can tote around. (thats not as far off as people think)

or relying on many smaller ships with much better capabilities that wouldn't destroy a fleet if lost in battle.

Keep in mind that subs are more a threat than China's new missile.

 

[joevol320]

The methodology for naval warfare is changing rapidly over the last decade. Carriers are becoming big targets that become harder to defend as countries develop better systems. It also has the added problem of being a huge psychological blow.

The talk is of making special subs that launch hundreds of UAV's that will be superior to anything a carrier can tote around. (thats not as far off as people think)

or relying on many smaller ships with much better capabilities that wouldn't destroy a fleet if lost in battle.

Keep in mind that subs are more a threat than China's new missile.

yeah, carriers look cool but subs can put a country to its knees.

 

[hndog609]

The methodology for naval warfare is changing rapidly over the last decade. Carriers are becoming big targets that become harder to defend as countries develop better systems. It also has the added problem of being a huge psychological blow.

The talk is of making special subs that launch hundreds of UAV's that will be superior to anything a carrier can tote around. (thats not as far off as people think)

or relying on many smaller ships with much better capabilities that wouldn't destroy a fleet if lost in battle.

Keep in mind that subs are more a threat than China's new missile.

It just seems like a CG can , I don't know, project so much more. Being able to not only have 18's flying around for direct attack ground or aerial threats you've got Hawkeyes that can be tracking any number of things. The list goes on but I'm sure you know where I'm coming from.

I guess the real question is are we talking about projecting power from a CG or actual no BS naval warfare against a technologically advanced opponent.

 

[MontereyVol]

It just seems like a CG can , I don't know, project so much more. Being able to not only have 18's flying around for direct attack ground or aerial threats you've got Hawkeyes that can be tracking any number of things. The list goes on but I'm sure you know where I'm coming from.

all of those things are going to be replaced by UAV's. Which can be made smaller, faster and deadlier.

I guess the real question is are we talking about projecting power from a CG or actual no BS naval warfare against a technologically advanced opponent.

This missile reminds me of the mega-nuke Russia created that everyone got so worked up about. Thats all this missile is, a nuke to take out a carrier, thats not new we have had that in our gameplan for decades.

 

[joevol320]

all of those things are going to be replaced by UAV's. Which can be made smaller, faster and deadlier.



This missile reminds me of the mega-nuke Russia created that everyone got so worked up about. Thats all this missile is, a nuke to take out a carrier, thats not new we have had that in our gameplan for decades.

what was that missle we had during vietnam, it was a rolling airfraim missle i think. it was the size of a rocketship (almost) and was meant for aircraft. it would increase speed continuously until it either hit the target or run out of fuel.

i had stories of vietnam ships almost landing at their home base and would get destroyed by these missles. not sure how true it is, but they did have a really long range.

 

[joevol320]

all of those things are going to be replaced by UAV's. Which can be made smaller, faster and deadlier.



This missile reminds me of the mega-nuke Russia created that everyone got so worked up about. Thats all this missile is, a nuke to take out a carrier, thats not new we have had that in our gameplan for decades.

i remember them talking about those missles.

my ship was an anti-sub ship and we had nuke torpedos to fight russian subs. i couldn't imagine the hole a nuke would create under water.

 

[droski]

skynet will solve all these problems.

 

[DC Vol]

The methodology for naval warfare is changing rapidly over the last decade. Carriers are becoming big targets that become harder to defend as countries develop better systems. It also has the added problem of being a huge psychological blow.

The talk is of making special subs that launch hundreds of UAV's that will be superior to anything a carrier can tote around. (thats not as far off as people think)

or relying on many smaller ships with much better capabilities that wouldn't destroy a fleet if lost in battle.

Keep in mind that subs are more a threat than China's new missile.

I'm not arguing against the philosophy, I'm arguing against the practicality from a financial and operational standpoint. Would spending that much to develop and then build such a platform really be worth it?

 

[DC Vol]

skynet will solve all these problems.

If by "these problems" you mean "the human race"... then yes. Yes it will.

 

[MontereyVol]

I'm not arguing against the philosophy, I'm arguing against the practicality from a financial and operational standpoint. Would spending that much to develop and then build such a platform really be worth it?

not sure if I am reading your post right?

The ships we have can be retrofitted for the ops, some have already been tested. Do you know how much money goes into building a carrier?

 

[Plano Vol]

Do these things launch from mobile carries or a fixed site?

 

[Cartervol]

Thats a troubling article.

 

[MontereyVol]

Do these things launch from mobile carries or a fixed site?

mobile (if your talking to me?)

 

[gsvol]

Oh I thought this was going to be about Obama killing the production of our next aircraft carrier.

China is presently enhancing it's submarine capability greatly.

 

[joevol320]

i know one thing, i dread the day when they come out with the USS obama. i used to hate the thought of seeing uss clinton on a ship, he's fine compared to uss hussein.

 

[DC Vol]

not sure if I am reading your post right?

The ships we have can be retrofitted for the ops, some have already been tested. Do you know how much money goes into building a carrier?

Carrier - $4 billion
Seawolf - $2 billion


I'll take 1 carrier over 2 Seawolves, thank you. Let's entertain this scenario. We're boots on the ground in North Korea or China. Either scenario would place the initial component of the USMC vastly outnumbered. You wouldn't be able to support them with a sub that has "hundreds of UAVs" for very long. They'd need to come back and re-arm. So their long sustained flight time would be negated as their primary role would be fire support.

Some Marines, I'm sure, wouldn't want to admit to a squid that the Navy is good for anything but hauling them around... but the Navy is absolutely vital to sustained ops. How would you also expect to replace the EW capabilities of the Prowler?


Can you honestly say that if you outfitted (I'm assuming here) a bunch of Ohio Class boomers that you'd viably be able to replace a Nimitz class CG in total firepower and operational capabilities? Not only for the Navy, but the Marines as well?


If you said we should replace some boomers nukes with UAVs... bring those in first for precision elimination of SAM/ASM batteries. I'd agree with that. In a sustained conflict though, at this point in the UAVs development, there is no replacement for the total impact a Nimitz CG can have.

 

[joevol320]

Carrier - $4 billion
Seawolf - $2 billion


I'll take 1 carrier over 2 Seawolves, thank you. Let's entertain this scenario. We're boots on the ground in North Korea or China. Either scenario would place the initial component of the USMC vastly outnumbered. You wouldn't be able to support them with a sub that has "hundreds of UAVs" for very long. They'd need to come back and re-arm. So their long sustained flight time would be negated as their primary role would be fire support.

Some Marines, I'm sure, wouldn't want to admit to a squid that the Navy is good for anything but hauling them around... but the Navy is absolutely vital to sustained ops. How would you also expect to replace the EW capabilities of the Prowler?


Can you honestly say that if you outfitted (I'm assuming here) a bunch of Ohio Class boomers that you'd viably be able to replace a Nimitz class CG in total firepower and operational capabilities? Not only for the Navy, but the Marines as well?


If you said we should replace some boomers nukes with UAVs... bring those in first for precision elimination of SAM/ASM batteries. I'd agree with that. In a sustained conflict though, at this point in the UAVs development, there is no replacement for the total impact a Nimitz CG can have.

you're not going to replace all the ships. but with subs, you're not going to have that situation to begin with. they'll be able to drop some big stuff on the n. koreans. it shouldn't get to that point.

 

[DC Vol]

you're not going to replace all the ships. but with subs, you're not going to have that situation to begin with. they'll be able to drop some big stuff on the n. koreans. it shouldn't get to that point.

MV said, explicitly, that subs "with hundreds of UAVs" will be built to replace carriers.


I consider the subs > carriers conversation at present to be similar to the special forces > grunt infantry.

With our current operations, sure, UAVs/Special Forces are much more viable. My concern (granted by many others in the IC) is that our next major conflict will not be against a secretive foe. UAVs, at their current state, are impractical against a large and conventional military.