Actually the current aircraft carrier is going to be obsolete. Too big,too expensive and too vulnerable. In future,the pilotless drones will be advanced enough and numerous enough to punch through all her defended. Better to have small littoral stealth vessels with capabilities to launch pilot drones to do the same job.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
what is the best smart way to destory a aircraft carrier???
- Thread starter cheowyonglee
- Start date
With current technologies advancing in USA, they are now finishing their F-35 (Lockheed Martin Lightning II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
there is one variant, F-35B, which consist of short take-off, and vertical landing (like a harrier).
With such variant, it is possible to make a smaller AIRCRAFT CARRIER, which is more maneuverable, travel faster, and risk being diversified, as all the F-35B's can land in other smaller ships, like landing on the Destroyer, Cruisers, Support Ships, or even modifying the Battleship, Destroyer, Cruisers, Support Ship to become Aircraft Carrier, while just carrying a few units of F-35B.
The whole point of having an Aircraft Carrier is to have AIR SUPERIORITY over AREA OF OPERATION. An Aircraft Carrier by itself provides the means to that Goal.
So, with the F-35B, this makes it possible for USA to modify their ARMADA to install short take off ramps and landing pads to Battleships, Destroyers, Cruisers, Support Ships. Making existing AIRCRAFT CARRIER redundant.
However, with all combined information as per discussed from all Military Experts, would be, or otherwise, IT IS STILL POSSIBLE to destroy AIRCRAFT CARRIERS with;
1. SATURATION of ASBM (ANTI-SHIP BALLISTIC MISSILE)
2. SATURATION of AIRCRAFT attack
3. Nuclear AIR Blast.
Leaving politics aside, EVERYTHING HAVE A WEAKNESS... NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
there is one variant, F-35B, which consist of short take-off, and vertical landing (like a harrier).
With such variant, it is possible to make a smaller AIRCRAFT CARRIER, which is more maneuverable, travel faster, and risk being diversified, as all the F-35B's can land in other smaller ships, like landing on the Destroyer, Cruisers, Support Ships, or even modifying the Battleship, Destroyer, Cruisers, Support Ship to become Aircraft Carrier, while just carrying a few units of F-35B.
The whole point of having an Aircraft Carrier is to have AIR SUPERIORITY over AREA OF OPERATION. An Aircraft Carrier by itself provides the means to that Goal.
So, with the F-35B, this makes it possible for USA to modify their ARMADA to install short take off ramps and landing pads to Battleships, Destroyers, Cruisers, Support Ships. Making existing AIRCRAFT CARRIER redundant.
However, with all combined information as per discussed from all Military Experts, would be, or otherwise, IT IS STILL POSSIBLE to destroy AIRCRAFT CARRIERS with;
1. SATURATION of ASBM (ANTI-SHIP BALLISTIC MISSILE)
2. SATURATION of AIRCRAFT attack
3. Nuclear AIR Blast.
Leaving politics aside, EVERYTHING HAVE A WEAKNESS... NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.
cheowyonglee,
Your question should have been: What is the smartest way for USA to cripple the PLA?
Answer: Offer a US$10-M reward created out of thin air to each and every PLA military officers and a US Green Card for himself and his family provided that they lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders from the chain of command.
USA will surely cripple the PLA without a shot being fired! That's the main advantage of having the world's reserve currency and being a country where millions of people from other countries are on waiting list waiting for many years sometimes decades to get their Green Cards.
What the USA have that China don't have are intangible values that people hold so dearly. An example: I know of a rich Chink in China who is so pro China and anti-America with his words. I've heard him say bad things about America almost on a daily basis. But actions speak louder than words. When his wife was about to give birth to their child, they went through all the trouble of securing a US Tourist Visa for themselves and travel to the US to give birth to their daughter who was born an American citizen. Moreover, his choice of cigarette is Marlboro which is a US brand. His choice of soft drink is Coca-Cola which is another US brand. He never smokes and drinks local Chink brand cigarettes and soft drinks.
May God Bless The USA And The American People!
Your question should have been: What is the smartest way for USA to cripple the PLA?
Answer: Offer a US$10-M reward created out of thin air to each and every PLA military officers and a US Green Card for himself and his family provided that they lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders from the chain of command.
USA will surely cripple the PLA without a shot being fired! That's the main advantage of having the world's reserve currency and being a country where millions of people from other countries are on waiting list waiting for many years sometimes decades to get their Green Cards.
What the USA have that China don't have are intangible values that people hold so dearly. An example: I know of a rich Chink in China who is so pro China and anti-America with his words. I've heard him say bad things about America almost on a daily basis. But actions speak louder than words. When his wife was about to give birth to their child, they went through all the trouble of securing a US Tourist Visa for themselves and travel to the US to give birth to their daughter who was born an American citizen. Moreover, his choice of cigarette is Marlboro which is a US brand. His choice of soft drink is Coca-Cola which is another US brand. He never smokes and drinks local Chink brand cigarettes and soft drinks.
May God Bless The USA And The American People!
Backward !
Aircraft Carriers have to be PHASED OUT soon. It's far too dangerous and expensive to operate.
Tank must phased out soon. But, stupid Sinkingland SAF bought so many. Eat waste rice ! :*:
Infantry ... (TOP SECRET)
Aircraft Carriers have to be PHASED OUT soon. It's far too dangerous and expensive to operate.
Tank must phased out soon. But, stupid Sinkingland SAF bought so many. Eat waste rice ! :*:
Infantry ... (TOP SECRET)
Missiles
Pilots and their aircraft have to be PHASED OUT. If our cars can be 'driverless' in the future, why not developing advanced UAVs with fewer capabilities ? Cruise missiles are "fire and forget", they are a bit ex but less human loss.
:*:
Pilots and their aircraft have to be PHASED OUT. If our cars can be 'driverless' in the future, why not developing advanced UAVs with fewer capabilities ? Cruise missiles are "fire and forget", they are a bit ex but less human loss.
:*:
Re: Missiles
now you're touching on the real thorny issue facing the usaf and usn. the usaf have a strong tradition and proud history of basing their design decisions and war doctrines around the pilot. same with carrier forces in the usn. in fact, while it's understandable that the upper echelons of the usaf are heavily staffed and commanded by former pilots, the same echelons in the usn should be dominated by former ship officers but are filled with ex navy pilots. these two high flying and high powered camps in the pentagon have been resisting adoption of drones for many mission types over the years. the army have been the most aggressive in deploying drones, for obvious reasons. they don't have a strong pilot "union" like the usaf and usn, and they want to have real air power besides having choppers and ground attack aircraft for tactical missions. robert gates, now retired and former secdef, faced tremendous resistance in the usaf and usn in pushing his drone proposals in the pentagon. he fired several high ranking air force generals to get the program going in the usaf. the usn fell into line after the high profile firing, and carrier forces are now toying with drones in csg's. they are used for intell, surveillance and covert ops now, but very soon, they can replace many manned missions. they are getting larger, faster, more powerful, more maneuverable and can carry higher weapon payloads. the combo of smaller faster carriers and larger more powerful drones is the next gen navy system. the new carriers need to be of a certain size to house at least 1 nuclear reactor. 2 provide redundancy, and the pentagon will prefer redundancy over cost and size. the advantages of nuclear powered ships outweigh conventional ones by a factor of 10 to 1.
Pilots and their aircraft have to be PHASED OUT. If our cars can be 'driverless' in the future, why not developing advanced UAVs with fewer capabilities ? Cruise missiles are "fire and forget", they are a bit ex but less human loss.
now you're touching on the real thorny issue facing the usaf and usn. the usaf have a strong tradition and proud history of basing their design decisions and war doctrines around the pilot. same with carrier forces in the usn. in fact, while it's understandable that the upper echelons of the usaf are heavily staffed and commanded by former pilots, the same echelons in the usn should be dominated by former ship officers but are filled with ex navy pilots. these two high flying and high powered camps in the pentagon have been resisting adoption of drones for many mission types over the years. the army have been the most aggressive in deploying drones, for obvious reasons. they don't have a strong pilot "union" like the usaf and usn, and they want to have real air power besides having choppers and ground attack aircraft for tactical missions. robert gates, now retired and former secdef, faced tremendous resistance in the usaf and usn in pushing his drone proposals in the pentagon. he fired several high ranking air force generals to get the program going in the usaf. the usn fell into line after the high profile firing, and carrier forces are now toying with drones in csg's. they are used for intell, surveillance and covert ops now, but very soon, they can replace many manned missions. they are getting larger, faster, more powerful, more maneuverable and can carry higher weapon payloads. the combo of smaller faster carriers and larger more powerful drones is the next gen navy system. the new carriers need to be of a certain size to house at least 1 nuclear reactor. 2 provide redundancy, and the pentagon will prefer redundancy over cost and size. the advantages of nuclear powered ships outweigh conventional ones by a factor of 10 to 1.
Re: Missiles
Drones are controlled by satellites which is why the next arms race is out in space. Who can knock out the other country's satellites. Chinese are launching their own GPS system. But the countries with capability to wage such wars are few.
Initlal action might be as simple as taking down spy satellites hovering above a particular country. No satellites = no intel, no drones.
Drones are controlled by satellites which is why the next arms race is out in space. Who can knock out the other country's satellites. Chinese are launching their own GPS system. But the countries with capability to wage such wars are few.
Initlal action might be as simple as taking down spy satellites hovering above a particular country. No satellites = no intel, no drones.
Re: Missiles
Might not be as simple as that bro...
I'm sure those using beyond line of sight methods to control their forces, would have thought up redundancy plans to resume control if any one of their means are down.. I would..
E.g. like aerostats, HALE unmanned platforms to replace the satellite platforms have already been tested..
Might not be as simple as that bro...
I'm sure those using beyond line of sight methods to control their forces, would have thought up redundancy plans to resume control if any one of their means are down.. I would..
E.g. like aerostats, HALE unmanned platforms to replace the satellite platforms have already been tested..
The question is "what is the best way to destroy an aircraft carrier". A tactical nuclear strike is one of the only ways. The question does not ask what is the political implications after that. Even if a country managed to sink a US carrier through conventional weapons, that country would also be subject to all out retaliatory strike putting them back to the stone age. The US will not sit by and allow a multibillion dollar carrier to be destroyed along with the lives of thousands of american sailors.
wow, really?
The DF 21 is not meant to be a stand alone weapons system. It is part of a larger target saturation system the Chinese are developing.
Recalling Red Storm Rising scenario liao..... maybe 5 dimensional attacks on the carrier? Sub surface, land, sea, air and space?
Might be enough to punch thru Aegis and the CAP screen... it only takes for the will to break to ensure victory.. a mortal wound to the carrier may be enough to force the Americans to backtrack....
No need to destroy USA aircraft carrier.
Aircraft carrier will bleed USA gov to bankrupt. Spend too much on military about 20+% federal budget yearly.
It will slowly increase USA debt each year on average USA debt increase by 3~5%. In another few year will be par with USA GDP.
Aircraft carrier will bleed USA gov to bankrupt. Spend too much on military about 20+% federal budget yearly.
It will slowly increase USA debt each year on average USA debt increase by 3~5%. In another few year will be par with USA GDP.
No real need to bring down an aircraft carrier. Just engage its defensive cover until it runs out of fuel and ammunition and it is as good as defeated. Not a problem for the Chinese to build things in huge volumes.
Reminds me of the human wave tactics they employed in the Korean War... this time is with equipment rather than people... dunno how Taiwan will react in these situations... help USA by counter attack?
U are such a comedian. How does a nuclear powered carrier run out of fuel? Would that be in 20 years time? Ever heard of underway replenishment? A CBG has supply ships travelling with it that will go alongside the carrier and send avgas, ammo, food, spare parts etc. while both vessels are underway. The carrier will just fly rotating CAPS, and send fresh planes up when the on station planes are low on fuel. Which military has the ability to constantly engage the entire air wing for days on end?
uncle, in theory a carrier battle group can resupply via replenishment ships but the replenishment ship can be taken out by enemy as they are only escorted by frigates with no air cover. as much as the carrier ran on nuclear power but the escorts ships still need to refuel by fleet oilers which make the cbg vurenable to attacks during refueling. if the cbg is on a extended combat duty, aircrafts parts can run out in a alarming rate that the resupply rate cannot keep up. it just take a $5 part to run out to ground a $30m fighter. Then the ships need to be service and maintainence, dry dock time to do major refittings and maintainence. Lastly, the men and women who part of the crew need crew rest, breaks and most in important of all, shore leave back home to families. as good as the ships are, it the crew that make the ships work. extended combat tour only result in low morale and exhaustion.
btw, F18 is almost as old as me and there no new naval aircrafts in sight to replace it. by now, the russian and chinese shd know the weakness of the f18.
What good is an aircraft carrier when all its defensive cover of planes and ships run out fuel? Granted submarines also run nuclear. I have yet to hear this on planes and ordinary ships. If the whole carrier group runs out of ammo from shooting down enemy's ASBMs, you think they are still in a position to continue their supply lines?
Similar threads
