Jump to content


Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

CVs carriers

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

TheGreatBlasto #1 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:12 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 825
  • Member since:
    08-05-2016

Lingering question lingers.

 


The Royal Navy of Kekistan Rules the Waves!

 

:child:


tcbaker777 #2 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:16 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,372
  • Member since:
    11-04-2015
   and shame on thee for thinking they could be

" Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die" - Herbert Hoover 

"War never ends, it only rests"

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity" - Dwight D. Eisenhower 

Official Meme Lord of HiNon Clan


The_first_harbinger #3 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,267
  • Member since:
    10-28-2015

It better not be obsolete, otherwise we would be screwed...

Common, with trillions of dollars spent and decades of engineering genius, how can they be obsolete?


"May the Meteorblitzkrieg begin!"
Battleship Cult Cardinal

Ships that deserves Admirals' love series

Latest addition: Algérie

 


the_majestic_eagle #4 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 494
  • Member since:
    06-11-2014

View PostTheGreatBlasto, on 25 April 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Lingering question lingers.

 

Yeah I generally like BPS's content, this is an interesting video to say the least

 

To be honest though, I doubt it. The advantage of projecting air superiority to basically any part of the world with mobile airstrips is honestly immeasurably valuable and it as big a part of defense as offense. Assuming we can provide adequate protection to them, then their value will remain  


Edited by the_majestic_eagle, 25 April 2017 - 05:28 PM.


admiral_noone #5 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 131
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016
Speaking of missiles, defending is easier and cheaper than attacking (and the carriers are more often than not on the attacker team)

T10 ship aesthetics polls:

DDs

BBs

CA/CLs


Lonewolfpj #6 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:42 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,991
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
No they are still a valuable asset to the nation.

AdmiralMudkip #7 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:55 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 344
  • Member since:
    06-25-2015

View PostLonewolfpj, on 25 April 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

No they are still a valuable asset to the nation.

 

I still support the creation of a few more Gerald R. Ford carriers built, but how dangerous would it be if the U.S. loses a carrier in a war? There's the problem. No one knows if modern carriers have any feasibility anymore. 

Umikami #8 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:57 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,568
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

yes, they are, as 1 SSBN can neutralize a carrier and all it's support ships from halfway across the globe.

IF they choose to.

USN carriers need to go submarine, using only drones, to become better able to survive active combat operations.


Edited by Umikami, 25 April 2017 - 05:58 PM.


TTK_Aegis #9 Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:57 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,282
  • Member since:
    01-27-2016
Carriers offer a logistic advantage in many, many ways. Even with humanitarian efforts. I strongly doubt that anything that shortens the time between takeoff and target will ever be obsolete in any meaningful way. 

TTK_Aegis #10 Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:01 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,282
  • Member since:
    01-27-2016

View PostUmikami, on 25 April 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

yes, they are, as 1 SSBN can neutralize a carrier and all it's support ships from halfway across the globe.

IF they choose to.

USN carriers need to go submarine, using only drones, to become better able to survive active combat operations.

 

You're discounting the advances made in anti-missile weaponry. From miniguns and anti-missile missiles to lasers, these ships are heavily fitted with systems to defeat incoming missiles, as are their escorts. 

 

Unless you're suggesting that something is obsolete because it could be nuked?



Doomlock #11 Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 1,697
  • Member since:
    07-09-2013

View PostUmikami, on 25 April 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

yes, they are, as 1 SSBN can neutralize a carrier and all it's support ships from halfway across the globe.

IF they choose to.

USN carriers need to go submarine, using only drones, to become better able to survive active combat operations.

 

The problem with that is as soon as the sub fires the missile, it's caught on radar and the carrier's escorts Arleigh Burkes, Ticonderogas, LCSs, and our own sub's) would immediately begin defense of the carrier, lighting up the Phalanx's, firing off tomahawks, and throwing chaff. The CAP would follow the rocket trail to the target and the destroyers would begin torpedo attacks.

 

Suffice to say, I have a hard time believing one ballistic missile would be enough to take out the carrier, having to go through all of her escorts which are specifically there to protect her against any threat she could face.


Fair winds and following seas! -Doomlock

Hit hard, hit fast, hit often! -Fleet Admiral William "Bull" Halsey.

Current ships: IJN: MikasaTachibanaIshizuchi, Yūbari, Kamikaze R, AobaAkatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Amagi, Atago, ZaōUSN: Albany, Texas, New York, Arizona, Farragut, Pensacola, Indianapolis, Sims, Alabama. VMF:  Aurora, Gremyashchy, Budyonny, Molotov, Minsk, Mikhail Kutuzov, Udaloi.  RN: Leander, Belfast. KM: Emden, Admiral Graf Spee, Nürnberg, Ernst Gaede, Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Prinz Eugen. MN: Friant, Émile Bertin. Fleet of Fog: Kongō, Hiei, Haruna, Kirishima, Myōkō, Haguro, Nachi, Ashigara, Takao. MW: Błyskawica.  CW: Perth. 

My Complete list of Warship Pics and AHLA's


Xenomancers #12 Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:26 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,230
  • Member since:
    07-14-2015

Nuclear guided torpedos kind of make everything obsolete. Why do you think the US does everything it can to prevent nations from developing nuclear weapons. In a conventional war - aircraft and subs are the most powerful weapons. So carriers will always be viable in conventional war.

 

There are also advancements in rail-gun tech that will soon make battle-cruisers the new super weapon in conventional warfare.


"Nevermind about maneuvers, go straight at 'em" - Lord Nelson


BB3_Oregon_Steel #13 Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:27 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 214
  • Member since:
    10-26-2015

This argument has been going on since the 1950's and while there is some truth to it, it doesn't tell the entire story.  What the last 70 years has shown is that warfare in almost all cases is going to be a conventional conflict, or at least it's highly likely to start out that way.  Once you start taking nukes off the table, nothing beats a carrier task force for being able to project combat power almost anywhere in the world it's needed as well as the ability to gain control of the seaways so that you can use them while the enemy force can not.  If you are going to fight a nuclear war then almost all weapons other than the nuke launchers and the means to defend against them are also obsolete. 

 

The rest of it comes down to the never ending struggle between offense and defense.  The carriers themselves have always been very vulnerable and it is it's escort's job to keep them safe and a huge amount of investment has been made to screen their charges from the encroachment of other arms.  

 

Now, will the carrier remain the ultimate expression of sea power into the future.  After all history has shown us that nations tend to be superbly equipped to fight the last major war they were involved in and not so greatly equipped to fight the war they are actually in.  It may be that some other form of warship will supplant the CV as the Queen of Battle just as the CV's managed to replace the Battleship in that role.  However even were that to occur, it might be well to remember that the arrival of the carrier did not eliminate the usefulness of Battleships.  They remained invaluable as anti-aircraft platforms to protect the carriers, excelled at shore bombardment missions and supporting amphibious operations and yes, when called upon, they could perform their designed function, killing other battleships when called upon to do so. 

 

I don't currently see any real threat to any of the various naval combatants being able to supplant the carrier in it's role, but even if that were to occur, the carrier is simply too useful a tool to become and will remain so for some time to come.  


Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel, 25 April 2017 - 06:30 PM.


Flashtirade #14 Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 492
  • Member since:
    02-14-2013
The only things that would make planes (and hence carriers) obsolete would be teleportation and/or FTL.

StingRayOne #15 Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:42 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,490
  • Member since:
    07-18-2013

No

what is obsolete is thinking we can fight a politically correct or limited war or semi proportional combat,

as soon as we remember WWII again we can get back to winning or get out completely as our troops are not allowed to kick the heck out all before them.


 

Sting Ray One's Avatars Alive Here

  My You Tube Channel       "YouTubeWest"    www.youtubewest.com       contact@youtubewest.com 

This channel has movies, military,satire, a news show and a entertainment show

Naval Historian, Government Worker and former maritime person on San Francisco Bay                                                    
 


Stauffenberg44 #16 Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:55 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,326
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
They are certainly obsolete given missile defenses, not to mention the Shkval 230 mph torpedo and more advanced versions of this being developed. These will force carrier groups to stand well offshore for defensive purposes thus negating their ground attack role (since Midway type sea battles are a thing of the past). One hit with a Shkval that CV is dead in the water. You cannot intercept a 230 mph torpedo. A barrage of anti-ship missiles would also overwhelm whatever interception capabilities a CV group has at hand and keep them far off an enemy coastline.

Edited by Stauffenberg44, 25 April 2017 - 06:56 PM.

A toast--to our ships at sea !
 

 

 

 


TabbyHopkins #17 Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 2,651
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

View PostUmikami, on 25 April 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

...useing only drones...

 

So, the main reason I disagree with you right there...is not "what happens when someone steals the keys", but rather...Okay, it's 2100 or so. All US Combat forces are now automated drones. How exactly is that not a [edited]video game? You literally turn war, the most horrible thing on Earth, into a video game. I'm not saying I want US Troops to die. I'm saying you're turning something horrible into something you can sell to a 13 year old.

 

 Recon drones are fine, as you are literally doing just that. Recon. But the moment you send armed drones into combat it turns into a video game. Drones are the worst military invention. Yes. I see drones as worse than nuclear weapons.


 

Top 5 favorite ships to play: 1)Arkansas Beta 2) Scharnhorst 3) Belfast 4) Senjo 5) Imperator Nikolai I (Bonus) Dunkerque

*Official Brick thrower* "I always see you everwhere asking for stuff,... You're like a hobo-ninja 0.0" - Abyssal_Flaggship


K538 #18 Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:17 PM

    Ensign

  • Alpha Tester

  • 847
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013
BB3_Oregon_Steel said it pretty well.  In an all out WW3 scenario with China or Russia, I think the USN would find that carrier battle groups would have a pretty short lifespan or at least a much more limited role.  But the reality is that this is a very unlikely scenario, so up until that point they have a great deal of value to the United States Navy.

Apaosha #19 Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:20 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,546
  • Member since:
    09-05-2016


AVR_Project #20 Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:41 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,710
  • Member since:
    10-31-2015

First of all.  The current carriers do more than just blow crap up.

They do all kinds of force projection, disaster relief, and surveillance activity that a high-stealth SSBN simply can't do.

...

In war, the object is not to be seen.

Leading up to, and in trying to prevent that war, however, the US carrier force is the most VISABLE deterrent to aggression.

You actually WANT to shove that billy-club into the face of some tin-pot dictator in order to back him down.

It's a diplomacy thing that carriers and Battleships can do, that submarines can't do.

..

And yes, once the shooting starts, admittedly the carrier is a bad place to be.  But we have the SSBN classes of ships to take over.


 


So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what? I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. But there is still time to seize that one last, fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference.  -- Babylon 5






Also tagged with CVs, carriers

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users