[Comrade Ogilvy]

Now we can all agree carrier fleets are obsolete to say the least?

[Piano Red]

No we can't, the modern carrier fleet as we now it today may be obsolete within the next 75 years or so but i'm certain that the purpose and overall role of the aircraft carrier in addition to the aircraft carrier battlegroup will have by then been reassessed and reapplied much like the British Navy did prior to WWI when it introduced the HMS Dreadnought as the first of a new kind of battleship. But to say that carrier fleets are obsolete either now or in the near future is foolhardy at best.

[Lejonet från Norden]

Waste of cash and time. Costs far excede practical use, and developement time has already encroached onto projected deployment time. Big ole' waste of metal.

Why is that? It will replace the current fighters and be a multi-tasking, all-around aircraft for the military. It would save money, because it is impractical to have many types of jets and have to make specific repairs and gear for all the different types. The F-22 is an idea to make the system of jet matenance more efficient and have a universal aircraft.

Bigger does not mean better. Period. In fact, in this case the exact opposite is true.

It isn't bigger, atleast if it is, not much. It is a new, up-to-date version of the aircraft carrier for the modern world. It will replace the old steam powered catipult system with new magnatic system that will revolutionize the field. It will add new technology and be a big improvement.

They can be easily matched and are already out of date. The only issue is one of Imperialism-- is it worth spending billions to maintain these rust buckets of American Naval Power? I doubt it.

Matched by what?! I'd like to see something tried to take on a US Carrier Fleet on the open seas.

If anything, these smaller craft requiring less service were a better idea then the modern Super Carrier.

Not much smaller at all. They have now become rust buckets, and in need of constant matenance. The are relics of a by-gone era. Most designs date back from the late WWII to the early Vietnam era.

Now we can all agree carrier fleets are obsolete to say the least?

No.
What can defeat it? They have gone unchallanged on the seas for decades. They are the masters of the seas.

@AlexanderTheGreat

I agree.

[MB.]

No.
What can defeat it? They have gone unchallanged on the seas for decades. They are the masters of the seas.

So let's try this scenerio:

The John C. Stennis Strike Group comes under attack by Russian submarine missile forces-

So that'd be:

CVN 74
CG 57
CG73
DDG 73
DDG 83
DDG 88
DD 992
FFG 33
FFG 46
FFG 54
SSN 716

vs

K 119
K 410
K 442
K 456
K 266
K 186
K 530

Each Oscar II class is armed with 8 missile tubes, loaded with 4 SS-N-15 and 4 SS-N-16 missiles respectively. So that's 8 missiles per boat with a mean range of 50 kilometers, which deliver 82 and 85 type torpedoes against their targets. So that's 56 missiles/torpedoes in the first wave.

On the defence we've got 5 ships with AEGIS capability.

So, the question is, how rapidly could those 5 ships respond to those 56 missiles within 50 k before they deploy their torpedoes, assuming those 7 ships, due to satellites survailance are firing undetectaded? The factors of importance would be:

1) Detection of attack time
2) Distance for the missiles to travel
3) Response speed with AEGIS systems
4) Deflection/jamming
5) Damage assesment
6) Retaliation


You're talking about stopping 56 missiles in less then a few moments. Even if you get some of them, once they deploy their torpedoes, you *cant* stop them. And it only takes one or two torpedoe to cause severe damage to your prescuis and very expensive carriers

[Piano Red]

So, the question is, how rapidly could those 5 ships respond to those 56 missiles within 50 k before they deploy their torpedoes, assuming those 7 ships, due to satellites survailance are firing undetectaded? The factors of importance would be:

1) Detection of attack time
2) Distance for the missiles to travel
3) Response speed with AEGIS systems
4) Deflection/jamming
5) Damage assesment
6) Retaliation

Any warship equipped with the AEGIS System is more than capable of tracking and responding to 56 incoming missiles Bill, and because the USN has performed numerous scenarios like the one you've just shown where the attack originated as close as 20k out, 50k would be more than enough room for the battlegroup to deal with the missiles as they come piecemeal with their defense systems. Furthermore, the damage assessment factor wouldn't even be figured in under those cirucmstances unless a ship in the battlegroup was actually damaged.

You're talking about stopping 56 missiles in less then a few moments.

Moments? Don't you think you're giving the Russians the benefit of the doubt here? Despite, the scenario, which in itself isn't very realistic because the Russian submarine force would've long been detected. Even if the Russians were in perfect firing positions and were totally concealed, it would take time for them to 1.) Coordinate among themselves to launch the attack simultaneously. 2.) Launch the attack simultaneously and actually get the first wave of missiles in the air, which takes longer than you may suspect. 3.) For the missiles to lock onto their targets (if they haven't already been pre-programmed) and home in on them.

Even if you get some of them, once they deploy their torpedoes, you *cant* stop them.

I don't think so, a combination of countermeasures as well as evasive maneuvers would ensure that note all of the torpedoes would hit the carrier, need I add that the USN will be upgrading the carriers with newly developed anti-torpedo ASW systems pretty soon as to reduce the amount damage inflicted from heavy numbers of torpedoes being fired at the carrier simultaneously.

And it only takes one or two torpedoe to cause severe damage to your prescuis and very expensive carriers.

More like anywhere from 5-7 actually, 1 or 2 torpedoes, even if they happen to be direct hits are not going to sink a modern aircraft carrier like a Nimitz. The damaged compartments would evacuated and sealed off, and damage control parties would be dispatched to futher contain any additional flooding.

Finally, another thing that needs to be taken into consideration for this scenario is that once these events took place the carrier and other ships in the battlegroup would immediately scramble their ASW helicopters aswell deploy ASW systems of their own, not too mention the submarine accompanying the battlegroup, and coordinate a search and counterstrikes operation in the immediate vicinity from where the missiles originated.

Not only would this mean that the Russian subs probably wouldn't be able to get off a second wave, but a number of them would probably be detected by sonar buoys dropped from the helicopters (realistically they would've already been detected before they even got that close to the battlegroup) and destroyed by either torpedoes dropped from the ASW helicopters, torpedoes from the battlegroups own attack sub, or from ASW torpedoes from one of the ships in the battlegroup itself.

The only way the Russian subs would survive would be to go into silent running, cut their propulsion and dive as deep and as fast as they could to prevent detection from the rain of sonar buoys that would no doubt be dropping on them, or from the active pinging the surface ships and American subs would be conducting.

[NickDucote]

Let's not forget their incredibly efficient tanks!

.7 MPG.