StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You obviously missed the reason why the U.S. maintains a dozen Nimitz class carriers, is busily building another one, and working on a successor class, and meanwhile canceled the Montana class construction and retired the Iowas. Fighters are a force multiplier and furthermore they can strike at far longer ranges than any ship's guns.

Edit: Changed the title to actually be relevant to the thread.

You obviously missed the reason why the U.S. maintains a dozen Nimitz class carriers, is busily building another one, and working on a successor class, and meanwhile canceled the Montana class construction and retired the Iowas. Fighters are a force multiplier and furthermore they can strike at far longer ranges than any ship's guns.

And the US has 9 nimitz class carriers with another under construction, not 12. A carrier can only be used if the enemy has no advanced anti-ship missiles. If the US carriers (nimitz or otherwise) were to face a real enemy like Russia for example, then they would be sunk quite easily by some of the latest supersonic anti-ship missiles. If you don't believe me then check them out for yourself, they are frightening. In future warfare the large super carriers such as those the US has will become obsolete, and smaller cheaper and more easily maintained substitues will replace them. Afterall, it makes no sense to build something as large as a nimitz carrier if it will be sunk by a few hundred dollar missile. This is exactly what happened to the battleship. A small plane could destroy something that was too large and expensive to replace. I'm not saying that carriers havent got their uses, i'm just saying that they will have to be scaled down.

Allbran_Sustain wrote:
And the US has 9 nimitz class carriers with another under construction, not 12. A carrier can only be used if the enemy has no advanced anti-ship missiles. If the US carriers (nimitz or otherwise) were to face a real enemy like Russia for example, then they would be sunk quite easily by some of the latest supersonic anti-ship missiles. If you don't believe me then check them out for yourself, they are frightening. In future warfare the large super carriers such as those the US has will become obsolete, and smaller cheaper and more easily maintained substitues will replace them. Afterall, it makes no sense to build something as large as a nimitz carrier if it will be sunk by a few hundred dollar missile. This is exactly what happened to the battleship. A small plane could destroy something that was too large and expensive to replace. I'm not saying that carriers havent got their uses, i'm just saying that they will have to be scaled down.

Umm no the anti-missile defenses will just be upgraded to meet the threat of supersonic missiles. The fact that a super carrier can project american airpower anywhere in the world is a massive strategic advantage.

A small plane might have been able to sink a battleship with WW2 technology but a BB w/ modern defenses is a whole different story.

And the US has 9 nimitz class carriers with another under construction, not 12.

My mistake. Toss in the Enterprise (the carrier, not the starship), Kitty Hawk, and John F. Kennedy. I was referring to total active general-purpose carriers and said Nimitz because its the most common class. Now we're talking about a dozen.

A carrier can only be used if the enemy has no advanced anti-ship missiles. If the US carriers (nimitz or otherwise) were to face a real enemy like Russia for example, then they would be sunk quite easily by some of the latest supersonic anti-ship missiles. If you don't believe me then check them out for yourself, they are frightening. In future warfare the large super carriers such as those the US has will become obsolete, and smaller cheaper and more easily maintained substitues will replace them. Afterall, it makes no sense to build something as large as a nimitz carrier if it will be sunk by a few hundred dollar missile.

Two words. AEGIS and Phalanx. And though its beside the point, a supersonic missile with a warhead large enough to pose a threat to something as a carrier costs far more than a few hundred dollars.

Umm no the anti-missile defenses will just be upgraded to meet the threat of supersonic missiles.

Lets just say for arguments sake that the missile defence onboard the carrier and its escort vessels is 100% accurate (obviously its not), all that the Russians would do is send in a whole swarm of anti-ship missiles. If 20 anti-ship missiles smashed into a carrier group all at once, then you can bet that there will be ships sunk. And this is if we assume that the defence missiles are 100% accurate. There is no chance that 20 hypersonic anti-ship missiles can all be taken out before one hits your ship. Do you get my point? As good as the ship defence systems are, they simply are not good enough when large numbers of enemy missiles are invovled. Why do you think the Soviets never built carrier battle groups? The Reason was that they prefered to build subs that had anti-ship missles anboard and they knew how powerful those weapons were.

The fact that a super carrier can project american airpower anywhere in the world is a massive strategic advantage.

I never disagreed with that point. Super aircraft carriers are awsome, of that there is no doubt. They give a huge offensive boost to any war they are used in. But just because those carriers can kick the crap out of a 3rd world country, that doesn't mean a militarily advanced nation like Russia or any other western nation couldn't take them out.

A small plane might have been able to sink a battleship with WW2 technology but a BB w/ modern defenses is a whole different story.

Not if offensive weapons are getting better and better.

And though its beside the point, a supersonic missile with a warhead large enough to pose a threat to something as a carrier costs far more than a few hundred dollars

Yep, your quite right. i was just trying to make the point that a carrier + planes cost billions, while an anti-ship missile costs alot less.

How are these missiles going to be delivered? What's their range? How about their flight profile? Do you have any idea what the rate of fire on a Phalanx battery is? Or how many SAMs an AEGIS cruiser carries? It'd take a hell of a lot more than 20. Further, hypersonic is mach 10+ if memory serves. No one has a missile that fast short of a descending ICBM.

Not if offensive weapons are getting better and better.

Wait, Stop right there. There's just one thing.

Defensive Systems will improve along side the Offensive Systems. Note the Flak jacket, it improves allside improvements in firearms. In fact the current inserts can withstand direct hits at point blank range from AK47s.

Also Carrier Groups exist to protect the Carrier from such tactics, counter measures being called such things has overlapping defenses and circular formations, you may have heard of them.

Also on the Soviet Carrier, where would such a fantastic beast be stationed? The Black Sea? At the mercy of Nato Member Turkey? Vladivostok? At the ass end of Siberia? Great spot to wage naval war on the US, it only has to fight the entire fricking Pacific Fleet! They have no real warm water ports with the ability to service large carrier groups and since they land linked to most of their theathers of engagment, no need for one.

Of course the Soviets did build one carrier (I'd like to thank Rogue 9 for this information, thanks dude!) despite every reason not to. So what your excuse for that?

How are these missiles going to be delivered? What's their range? How about their flight profile?

The missiles can be fired from subs, ships, planes and possibly coastal batteries as well. Range depends on its flight profile. For High-low flight they can travel about 300km, for low-low they travel about half that distance. These missiles use ram jets and when closing onto the target, they can have a speed of over 700 m/s. Now thats fast. They have a smart guidance system which is meant to be hard to fool, but I bet the US has some tricks of its own. They are designed to attack solo or in swarms, making them a fearsome weapon.

Do you have any idea what the rate of fire on a Phalanx battery is? Or how many SAMs an AEGIS cruiser carries?

The phalanx can throw a huge amount of material infront of a missiles path, but it is a short ranged weapon (1 mile maybe?) and given the speed of the anti-ship missle, that will only give the phalanx a few seconds to engage and destroy the enemy missile. It wouldn't be able to handle a swarm of them. Now the SAMS will have a better chance since they can engage at a greater distance, but even so, they are going to find it difficult to cope with many fast moving missiles.

hypersonic is mach 10+ if memory serves

woops , my mistake thats a typo. It should be supersonic (about mach 2). Hypersonic is anything above mach 5, I believe.

You're kidding. There are fighters that can hit mach 2. Missiles regularly exceed that. As far as that tracking system is concerned, twice the speed of sound is a standstill target. AEGIS is designed to take out antiship missiles and attacking supersonic aircraft.

hmmm, this is getting a little of topic. Maybe we should continue this in another area. I would like to discuss this tommorow since its getting late here in uk. It will be interesting to learn more about the defensive capabilities of the aegis.

Allbran_Sustain wrote:

How are these missiles going to be delivered? What's their range? How about their flight profile?

The missiles can be fired from subs, ships, planes and possibly coastal batteries as well. Range depends on its flight profile. For High-low flight they can travel about 300km, for low-low they travel about half that distance. These missiles use ram jets and when closing onto the target, they can have a speed of over 700 m/s. Now thats fast. They have a smart guidance system which is meant to be hard to fool, but I bet the US has some tricks of its own. They are designed to attack solo or in swarms, making them a fearsome weapon.

http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb9.html

"In fact, although it would seem that such a weapon would give a target vessel less time to react, supersonic performance has drawbacks. A weapon with supersonic performance is more expensive and has less range than a subsonic weapon. A supersonic antiship missile also cannot fly as low over the waves and has a more prominent infrared signature than that of a subsonic antiship missile, and the warning time for a subsonic missile is short enough. The current thinking seems to be that stealth technology and clever guidance system do more to improve missile effectiveness at lower cost than supersonic performance."

Seems like these mythical weapons aren't quite so omnipotent.

Uraniun235 wrote:

You obviously missed the reason why the U.S. maintains a dozen Nimitz class carriers, is busily building another one, and working on a successor class, and meanwhile canceled the Montana class construction and retired the Iowas. Fighters are a force multiplier and furthermore they can strike at far longer ranges than any ship's guns.

Hey because blue-water naval comparisons are always valid!

This one is

Range may be irrelevant. A modern aircraft can do serious damage to a battleship. That is one reason why no one uses any battleships.

Prozac the Robert wrote:Range may be irrelevant. A modern aircraft can do serious damage to a battleship. That is one reason why no one uses any battleships.

A modern aircraft can seriously damage any surface ship. By your reasoning nobody should use warships any more.

In fact the current inserts can withstand direct hits at point blank range from AK47s

now thats impressive! Are you talking about the liquid kevlar jackets?please give me a link or something this should be a good read, thanks.

Also Carrier Groups exist to protect the Carrier from such tactics, counter measures being called such things has overlapping defenses and circular formations, you may have heard of them.

I have heard of them. But they are not 100% accurate they can miss (unless you are disputing this?), and since it takes only one missile to slip through the perimeter and impact on the carrier then my money will always be on the offensive anti-ship missile and not on the defensive countermeasures.
There is tendency to exaggerate the capabilities of such weapons as the phalanx or AEGIS system. Take for example the patriot missiles that where placed in Israel and Saudi Arabia during the first desert conflict. We were told by Pres. Bush that something like 40 scud missiles had been knocked out of the sky before they hit their targets, and that the patriot missile system was a new wonderful piece of technology. In reality, only something like a handful of scuds were actually destroyed by patriot batteries. You get my point? The US is never going to admit that the AEGIS isn't always going to intercept hostile missiles, because this would lower the moral of citizens and also invite attacks from hostile forces who are willing to put the US to the test.

I found an article from a few years back that a defense analyst wrote:
"The Raduga Moskit (Sunburn) anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world...The Moskit combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead"

Also, a US missile which is able to come close to what this Russian missile can do is the Vandal and interestingly enough during trials of the vandal the AEGIS air defense was penetrated. Enough said I think. As good as the AEGIS is, there is not much it can do if a swarm of high tech anti-ship missiles are locked on and closing for the kill. The US may be developing countermeasures, but right now they are still vulnerable.

Now seriously, answer honestly here. Are really not afraid of such missiles? Can you say with 100% certainty that US ships are totally immune to these things?

Also on the Soviet Carrier, where would such a fantastic beast be stationed

my guess is that it would be stationed in the same place as this huge beast
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet ... 941-08.jpg

Great spot to wage naval war on the US, it only has to fight the entire fricking Pacific Fleet

Where do you think their subs were stationed? Their subs were a real threat and were built to take on the "entire fricking pacific fleet". The one aircraft carrier built by the USSR was the Admiral Gorshkov and it could sit in dock just fine so i'm not sure why you think it won't be able to.

since they land linked to most of their theathers of engagment, no need for one

I agree with you there. They didn't need to project their power overseas like the US or UK, so they built cheaper more numerous sub fleets instead.

So what your excuse for that

It was a show of engineering skill, a practice so that if they ever wished to build a large carrier fleet they would have the experience and know how. Also it may have been built before the Soviet navy became underfunded and the land forces took all the cash.

AEGIS is designed to take out antiship missiles and attacking supersonic aircraft

I know it is, and its a great piece of tech. But its not perfect.

The one aircraft carrier built by the USSR was the Admiral Gorshkov and it could sit in dock just fine so i'm not sure why you think it won't be able to.

No it wasn't. The USSR built four like the Admiral Gorshkov- the Admiral Gorshkov was the last of them- they were STOVL/ helicopter carriers with Bazalt (SS-N-12 SANDBOX) heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles (the predecesor to the current SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK). They carried Yak-38 STOVL fighters (crap) and numerous Kamov helos.

The Admiral Kuznetsov was designed to carry Su-27K and MiG-29K fighters- its the only vessel in Russian service now; the Admiral Gorshkov is being refitted into a CV that can accomodate MiG-29K fighters and has been sold to India. Delivery expected in 2008.

The Admiral Kuznetsov was the first among a planned Soviet CV fleet, to include at least two sister ships, one of which was cancelled before completion and the other of which was never laid down.

The Ul'yanovsk was a CVN, supercarrier, similar in displacement to the Nimitz CVN. It was scrapped incomplete in the early 90s. And yes, the Kuznetsov is a Northern Fleet vessel (which is where all Pr. 941 Typhoons are stationed).

They're not equivalent to US carriers, however- they use up space that could be used for fighters for a cluster of Granit ('SHIPWRECK') anti-ship missiles (the best in the Russian arsenal by far, far in excess of the overhyped Moskit aka 'SUNBURN' in the relevant characteristics, including range- 550km).

Two words. AEGIS and Phalanx. And though its beside the point, a supersonic missile with a warhead large enough to pose a threat to something as a carrier costs far more than a few hundred dollars

AEGIS is indeed designed to counter former Soviet heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles; but Phalanx is a complete non-starter- even if it managed to score a hit, that massive missile weighing several thousand kilos is still going to slam into your vessel with tremendous explosive and kinetic force. Hit them out as *far as possible*

Wait, Stop right there. There's just one thing.

Defensive Systems will improve along side the Offensive Systems.

Naturally!

That's what Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is for, and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) too, if I'm not mistaken- hitting the incoming, sea-skimming, heavy supersonics from as far out as possible. Of course, nothing will be 100% effective against a properly conducted missile strike from any current Russian group of vessels wielding SS-N-19 SHIPWRECKS (Oscar II SSGNs, Kirov nuclear battlecruisers, the Admiral Kuznetsov CV), and you definitely will see some sunk ships, but it's better than nothing.

The Russians subscribe to this as well, the anti-air defense systems on the Kuznetsov are extremely heavy- the 30mm gun/10km range missile Kashtan CIWS systems for combined long/short defense (as far as I'm concerned, the most impressive CIWS capability wise anywhere), AK-630 30mm CIWS, and the capable Klinok SAMs are distributed all around the ship. Of course, the Russians don't have heavy supersonics to worry about, really. But the defensive armament is still jaw-dropping.

AEGIS is indeed designed to counter former Soviet heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles; but Phalanx is a complete non-starter- even if it managed to score a hit, that massive missile weighing several thousand kilos is still going to slam into your vessel with tremendous explosive and kinetic force. Hit them out as *far as possible*

*Glares at Hotfoot.* I originally only said AEGIS, but noooooo... Oh well. Point conceded.

Batman wrote: A modern day battleship could be 'shielded' the same way a carrier is:with dedicated antiair escorts (read:AEGIS). The reason nobody uses them anymore is
a)a carrier caries a vastly superior offensive potential, with a significantly longer range, for a comparable price tag, and

That is nothing like star trek shileding. AEGIS will intercept some percentage of attacks, but anything that gets through will hurt.

The shileds on a rek ship are different. They could concievably soak up the firepower of entire carrier groups and then restore the shileds to full strength before engaging the enemy propper. Sending fighters out on a strike beyond the range of the big ships would be a waste of fighters.

b)what offensive punch a battleship does have can nowadays easily be packed into a cruiser-size vessel.

I'm not convinced on this one. Anyone else?

So this negates the usefulness of a fighter force how? So fighters are not the primary ship killers they are today.Bick fucking' deal. They still free capital ships from cleanup/harassment duty, and can support them in battle. Sure, unlike in modern days fighter carriers propably can't replace big-gun ships, but they can certainly augment them

Since they would only be useful once ships have already started battering each other, and since they would be horribly voulnerable to proximity detonations of all the torpedos flying around, I see no reason for the federation to deploy more of them.

No it wasn't. The USSR built four like the Admiral Gorshkov- the Admiral Gorshkov was the last of them

No, the Admiral Gorshkov (launched in 1982) was the first of this kind of carrier, it was a sort of mini version of the much larger Admiral Kuznetsov which was launched in 1985.
Of course the USSR built more than one carrier, my earlier statement was a badly worded sentence (the sort you write when you are talking and typing at the same time). It should have read something like: one of the more succesful carriers the USSR built was...blah blah. since they their carrier fleet was poorly maintained it was never as great a threat as their subs.

I'm not convinced on this one. Anyone else?

The raw power of a battleship is awsome. It can pulverized a beach and all its fortifications into dust. I think that what was meant by his comment was that the accuracy of modern day ships means that they don't need all that raw power. They can do a similar job as the battleship did but with missiles or other precision weapons instead.

Allbran_Sustain wrote:No, the Admiral Gorshkov (launched in 1982) was the first of this kind of carrier, it was a sort of mini version of the much larger Admiral Kuznetsov which was launched in 1985.

Someday, good sir, look very carefully at both ships in pictures. You might notice that The Kuznetsov has a ski-jump ramp, while the Gorshkov with its missiles kind of sticking in front and a relatively small flight deck on the side. There are a bunch of Sandbox missiles blocking the bow, while on the Kuznetsov, you don't see any such protrusion.

You see, the Kuznetsov is the first of the Soviet CTOL carriers. To get a normal CTOL plane to launch off the short space of a carrier, you need either a ski-jump or a catapult. The Soviets opted for the ski-jump, so that they don't have to research the engineering on catapults, and supposedly not using a catapult reduces stresses on the landing gear and such so they can reinforce it less.

If you try and get say a Su-27K (Su-33) to launch off any Kiev, including the Gorshkov (which is a transitional ship with some new weapons like the Klinok), the plane is almost certain to stall into the sea. It needs that ski-jump to buy it a few meters of height , so it could fall a little while picking up the rest of the speed it needs.

The entire flight deck of Gorshkov is under 200m, while Kuznetsov's is over 300 and the American CVs are perhaps 320. That's why Gorshkov is the last of the Kievs and the last of the Soviet STOL carriers, while the Kuznetsov is the first of the Soviet CTOL carriers.

The Indians, if they actually buy the Gorshkov (there are some recent reports of them buying it for good after years of wrangling) will supposedly take off the Sandboxes create a ski-jump on the bow. That might make it barely long enough to take a MiG-29K.

Vympel wrote:The Admiral Kuznetsov was designed to carry Su-27K and MiG-29K fighters- its the only vessel in Russian service now; the Admiral Gorshkov is being refitted into a CV that can accomodate MiG-29K fighters and has been sold to India. Delivery expected in 2008.

Really, so they sealed it at last.

They're not equivalent to US carriers, however- they use up space that could be used for fighters for a cluster of Granit ('SHIPWRECK') anti-ship missiles (the best in the Russian arsenal by far, far in excess of the overhyped Moskit aka 'SUNBURN' in the relevant characteristics, including range- 550km).

Yeah, we all know the Shipwreck has a much longer range plus bigger warhead, it is a good bit bigger.

And I thought the Moskit is seaskimming (not quite as low as something slow like a Harpoon.) The Shipwreck seems to have a bunch of profiles, like high-flying at 60000ft or one high missile leading three low altitude missiles, but I never heard of the Shipwreck having seaskimming ability.

AEGIS is indeed designed to counter former Soviet heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles; but Phalanx is a complete non-starter- even if it managed to score a hit, that massive missile weighing several thousand kilos is still going to slam into your vessel with tremendous explosive and kinetic force. Hit them out as *far as possible*

Be fair. It might successfully defend against a SS-N-9 Siren.

And the Soviets don't have to worry about supersonics (but when the Kirov was designed, it was the Cold War, and countries such as France were trying to build their own supersonics), but they had to worry about 50 Harpoons in simultaneous, all-angle attack from Hornet and (in the Cold War) Intruder squadrons.

Prozac The Robert wrote:

So this negates the usefulness of a fighter force how? So fighters are not the primary ship killers they are today.Bick fucking' deal. They still free capital ships from cleanup/harassment duty, and can support them in battle. Sure, unlike in modern days fighter carriers propably can't replace big-gun ships, but they can certainly augment them

Since they would only be useful once ships have already started battering each other, and since they would be horribly voulnerable to proximity detonations of all the torpedos flying around, I see no reason for the federation to deploy more of them.

'More of them as in supercarrier bay loads? Propably not.

Batman wrote:b)what offensive punch a battleship does have can nowadays easily be packed into a cruiser-size vessel.

Really? So they make cruisers that can do this:



now? Color me unconvinced.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Batman wrote:b)what offensive punch a battleship does have can nowadays easily be packed into a cruiser-size vessel.

Really? So they make cruisers that can do this:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/BoardPics/IowaBlast.jpg
now? Color me unconvinced.

Cute. Why don't you try to get her within gun range of a reasonable modern surface force...
A BBs missile armament, which is the only one relevant in a surface/surface engagement, can easily be packed into a cruiser size vessel.
Case in point: 32 Tom's for an Iowa vs up to 122 for a VLS AEGIS. Hell, a modified Spruance can outgun her...
Are you being deliberately dense?