If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   The Navy is worried that their flattops are groovin' up slowly   (wired.com) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, U.S. Navy, aircraft carriers, killer, USS Ronald Reagan  
•       •       •

5153 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Mar 2013 at 2:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-21 12:14:16 AM
They said the same damn thing during the Faulklands war...
 
2013-03-21 12:28:13 AM
Oh god, they got joo joo eyeballs.
 
2013-03-21 12:33:49 AM

baka-san: They said the same damn thing during the Faulklands war...


And battleships used to be the kings of the ocean.  Times change, tactics change.
 
2013-03-21 12:45:50 AM
I'm sure it will all come together. Maybe not right now.
 
2013-03-21 12:54:30 AM

Mentat: Times change, tactics change.


Yes but all of the suggested replacements are absurdly bad ideas, and the days of the battle line ended due to a major technological innovation that made them into big fat targets with absurdly short target ranges when compared to their replacements. That hasn't happened here. This is just some analyst playing devil's advocate games to spark discussion.

Carriers as we know them will be with us until drones can handle all required missions, and at that point they'll shrink and simplify a bit, but they'll still be carriers.
 
2013-03-21 01:35:17 AM
"The carrier USS Ronald Reagan tests a flight deck sprinkler system last week."

Was the carrier aware of this?
 
2013-03-21 01:41:25 AM

gameshowhost: "The carrier USS Ronald Reagan tests a flight deck sprinkler system last week."

Was the carrier aware of this?


Well... it doesn't quite recall. Can we have peanut butter sandwiches for lunch, Mommy?
 
2013-03-21 02:14:02 AM
A single new carrier costs $14 billion to build plus $7 million a day to operate.

Damn.
 
2013-03-21 02:17:22 AM

baka-san: They said the same damn thing during the Faulklands war...


I remember. When that Argie Exocet took out the Sheffield. Everybody was all, "The end of the surface navy! A cheap missile can take out an expensive ship!"
Forgetting that cheap fire arrows and cannonballs and rams had been taking out expensive ships for thousands of years.
Oh, and the Royal Navy retook the Falklands.
 
2013-03-21 02:20:13 AM

CaptSacto: I'm sure it will all come together. Maybe not right now.


I just hope it's not over me. because that would hurt
 
2013-03-21 02:21:57 AM
FTA: A single new carrier costs $14 billion to build plus $7 million a day to operate. "Not a good use of U.S. taxpayer money,

Like that ever mattered.
 
2013-03-21 02:22:48 AM

0Icky0: baka-san: They said the same damn thing during the Faulklands war...

I remember. When that Argie Exocet took out the Sheffield. Everybody was all, "The end of the surface navy! A cheap missile can take out an expensive ship!"
Forgetting that cheap fire arrows and cannonballs and rams had been taking out expensive ships for thousands of years.
Oh, and the Royal Navy retook the Falklands.


Goddamned phalanx took out my battleship again. Reload.
 
2013-03-21 02:26:42 AM
I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.
 
2013-03-21 02:51:51 AM
If they think that's bad they should look up how much it costs per day for Obama to be in India!
 
2013-03-21 02:54:50 AM
They just need to buy container ships and fill them with VTOL drones. How many ridiculous sized container ships can they buy for the cost of one carrier?

Hell, put a 3d printing machine shop on one end of it, which can on the spot manufacture replacement drones.
 
2013-03-21 02:57:11 AM

spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.


No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

www.doolwind.com
 
2013-03-21 03:05:18 AM

WhyteRaven74: spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.

No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so


Is that white cylinder a magazine?
 
2013-03-21 03:06:50 AM

duffblue: WhyteRaven74: spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.

No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

Is that white cylinder a magazine?


I'm not a military cannon guy, but I'm guessing its a sensor array/radar kind of thing, and the cannon is fed from under the deck.
 
2013-03-21 03:07:17 AM

WhyteRaven74: No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

[phalanx]


The CIWS is real good and all, but I believe these new missiles being developed are explicitly designed to defeat it. I think there is a maximum velocity above which it won't attempt to engage an incoming target. It's also limited by ammunition supply.
 
2013-03-21 03:09:37 AM

duffblue: Is that white cylinder a magazine?


Nope, radar. Gun has two radar systems actually

www.fas.org
 
2013-03-21 03:20:18 AM
Most excellent headline!
 
2013-03-21 03:30:55 AM

spamdog: WhyteRaven74: No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

[phalanx]

The CIWS is real good and all, but I believe these new missiles being developed are explicitly designed to defeat it. I think there is a maximum velocity above which it won't attempt to engage an incoming target. It's also limited by ammunition supply.


And that's why the Ford Class carriers are being built with reactors that can supply something like three times the power the equipment we're putting on them calls for, electromagnetic catapults and all. They're expecting to be putting some serious lasers on those suckers.
 
2013-03-21 03:37:15 AM
At this point, the big carriers really exist solely for peacetime force projection and geopolitics.  In a shooting war with a non-negligible enemy (China, Russia, maybe France or England) the first thing we would do is pull back all those gigantic floating targets from the theater where they might get scratched.

Carriers were built for the bygone days when we had no way of giving troops aerial cover or conducting bombing runs unless we floated a giant runway right next to the invasion.  We have progressed since then.  The future of naval warfare is in littoral combat, with a bare minimum of necessary subs, cruisers and destroyers to cover blue water.
 
2013-03-21 05:11:30 AM

duffblue: WhyteRaven74: spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.

No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

Is that white cylinder a magazine?


No, dummy, it's a clip!
 
2013-03-21 05:12:44 AM

Rogerdude58: Most excellent headline!


Indeed. Lotta people riffing off of it.  That's community!

+1 subby
 
Juc
2013-03-21 05:54:22 AM

WhyteRaven74: spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.

No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

[www.doolwind.com image 425x400]


Yeah but having R2 jizz all over incoming missles is gross.
 
2013-03-21 06:37:53 AM
The big technical issue with escort carriers is that they only have one "runway" so you can't have both catapults and traps. That limits them to VSTOL planes like the Harrier or F35B that are limited compaired to regular aircraft and support craft like helicopter for beyond visual range radar (sight range is crucial for ship defence).

If you can solve the technical problems and have cats and traps on single runway carriers then they suddenly become a much better idea and will give a much more flexible navy if you also go with a true litterol ships (unlike what the concept became due to feature/size creep). So imagine a carrier group with an Ark Royal sized carrier with small 50 to 75 foot ships for defense. All you need for these litterol ships is a six shot box launcher for anti-ship/air missile or tomahawks and a couple of phalanx/goalkeepers.
 
2013-03-21 06:39:26 AM

HotWingAgenda: We have progressed since then.  The future of naval warfare is in littoral combat, with a bare minimum of necessary subs, cruisers and destroyers to cover blue water.


This assumes we will always have friends near the battlefield in the future.
Carriers became important because our foreign policy was (and still is) a mess. Giving up the big ship in the bay means air support is coming from hundreds of miles away. Leaving the littoral fleet exposed and ground based fixed wing aircraft vulnerable to all of the same missile threats.

Big carriers do alot more than bring the boom., and the root of the problem is in the aircraft themselves.
Smaller decks mean fewer kinds and fewer numbers of aircraft can be supported (radar, refueling,reconnaissance, logistics, etc).Even if we took one of this guys suggestions and went to subs with tomahawks,  you'd lose most of the services our troops are accustomed to.   Say they didn't cancel the sub launched Cormorant drones, that just brings back recon and some loitering air support capability.
There's no room on a sub to do helicopter operations... unless you make room, to which you'll be paying more than if you just kept the carrier.
If you want enough assault carriers to put the same number of jets in the sky, you end up paying an equivalent cost of ship and launching a less capable jet (range and weapons traded for VTOL ability).

If the US wants to keep up its old habits then there isn't a way around the carrier. We could argue about the specifics of how many we need to cover a planet, but unless something big happens in aircraft design then we'll still need.
 
2013-03-21 07:12:12 AM

WhyteRaven74: spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.

No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

[www.doolwind.com image 425x400]


Needs moar lasers.
 
2013-03-21 08:05:58 AM
Ten years from now, it will be obvious that the day of the supercarrier has passed, along with the day of the manned aircraft. We'll probably keep building them anyway. To defend us from the threat of Medicare spending, or something.
 
2013-03-21 08:07:27 AM

Norfolking Chance: The big technical issue with escort carriers is that they only have one "runway" so you can't have both catapults and traps. That limits them to VSTOL planes like the Harrier or F35B that are limited compaired to regular aircraft and support craft like helicopter for beyond visual range radar (sight range is crucial for ship defence).


They might make sense for some dedicated missions.

For example, we used escort carriers to hunt u-boats in WWII.  It made good sense:  If a u-boat got lucky (and some did), you didn't lose a whole expensive fleet carrier, and it didn't take a full sized carrier to do those sorts of missions.

Today, you could apply the same philosophy:  An escort carrier that is pretty much a dedicated ASW asset, with some secondary missions.  Aircraft mix would be helicopters for ASW use, and some VTOL jets for air defense and perhaps anti-ship and land attack missions (though those would always be secondary missions).

These ships would be the ones you'd keep fairly close to shore because they would be conventionally powered, or as convoy escorts in the case of a shooting war, and that would free up the big carriers for more conventional offensive missions.

Best part:  You could build them much quicker than you could a full-sized carrier.  Essentially, you'd just pave over an existing hull  with a rudimentary flight deck and stick an island on the side.

Not saying we should go whole-hog on the idea, but keeping a couple around just to keep up on the idea might not be a bad idea.
 
2013-03-21 08:08:41 AM
The article doesn't list any alternative that could support sustained air-to-ground operations. Harriers can't take off vertically when fully loaded (but then, neither can I). Missiles are fine, but take up a lot of space and can only really be used against fixed targets.
 
2013-03-21 08:38:20 AM
Don't the Russians have subs following all our carriers, ready to attack them at a moments notice?  At the same time the US has subs following the Russian subs to attack them when they prepare to attack or attack the carriers?
 
2013-03-21 08:48:05 AM

CruiserTwelve: A single new carrier costs $14 billion to build plus $7 million a day to operate.

Damn.


It is sad that my initial thought was "Well, that's really not that much".

Over a decade of wars has me jaded. 300 million per day to sustain our invasion of Afghanistan, and something like 400 million per day during our invasion of Iraq.

This shiat is small potatoes, and that hurts my feels.
 
2013-03-21 09:27:40 AM

GameSprocket: The article doesn't list any alternative that could support sustained air-to-ground operations. Harriers can't take off vertically when fully loaded (but then, neither can I). Missiles are fine, but take up a lot of space and can only really be used against fixed targets.


$14 billion would get you 150 or so B-52's. I know I wouldn't want to see how long they could keep a bombardment going.
 
2013-03-21 09:46:50 AM

Archie Goodwin: GameSprocket: The article doesn't list any alternative that could support sustained air-to-ground operations. Harriers can't take off vertically when fully loaded (but then, neither can I). Missiles are fine, but take up a lot of space and can only really be used against fixed targets.

$14 billion would get you 150 or so B-52's. I know I wouldn't want to see how long they could keep a bombardment going.


$14 billion would get you zero B-52s since they are not being built anymore. You also can't really use B-52s as a "show of force" like you can with a carrier. You also need someplace somewhat close to the action to support sustained operations. Sure, the B-52 can eventually get wherever you need, but if it is a 20 hour round trip, you are not going to keep up much of a pace.

Finally, I'm not sure that ground troops would be real happy with getting close air support from B-52s. Navy aircraft can full that role.
 
2013-03-21 09:54:01 AM
Tactics change, but the only thing that can replace the aircraft carrier is strike aircraft with enough range to fly anywhere from anywhere. And that's not going to happen until someone invents a jet engine fueled by magic.

What I do think will happen in the next 20 years is the replacement of manned carrier aircraft with drones, followed by heavy automation in the handling of those drones... which means a future carrier may be a bit smaller and have much less crew than they do now.
 
2013-03-21 09:57:56 AM

GameSprocket: Archie Goodwin: GameSprocket: The article doesn't list any alternative that could support sustained air-to-ground operations. Harriers can't take off vertically when fully loaded (but then, neither can I). Missiles are fine, but take up a lot of space and can only really be used against fixed targets.

$14 billion would get you 150 or so B-52's. I know I wouldn't want to see how long they could keep a bombardment going.

$14 billion would get you zero B-52s since they are not being built anymore.


True, but starting up a line would be a tad quicker than building an aircraft carrier from scratch.

You also can't really use B-52s as a "show of force" like you can with a carrier. You also need someplace somewhat close to the action to support sustained operations. Sure, the B-52 can eventually get wherever you need, but if it is a 20 hour round trip, you are not going to keep up much of a pace.

A fleet of planes can do a hell of a lot. Just ask Berlin. Anyway, having just one B-52 overhead every 15 minutes would get pretty discouraging after a while.

Finally, I'm not sure that ground troops would be real happy with getting close air support from B-52s. Navy aircraft can full that role.

I'll grant you that.

In any case aerial bombardment alone will never win a war. Ground troops will always be needed and if they have to cross water to get there then the navy will help get them there.
 
2013-03-21 10:03:59 AM

FuturePastNow: Tactics change, but the only thing that can replace the aircraft carrier flattop is strike aircraft with enough range to fly anywhere from anywhere. And that's not going to happen until someone invents a jet engine fueled by magic.

What I do think will happen in the next 20 years is the replacement of manned carrier flattop aircraft with drones, followed by heavy automation in the handling of those drones... which means a future carrier flattop may be a bit smaller and have much less crew than they do now.


FTFY
 
2013-03-21 10:22:01 AM
Make cheesburgers, not war!

www.foodprocessorsmarketplace.ca
 
2013-03-21 10:24:39 AM
Aircraft carriers aren't terribly vulnerable considering they travel with a menagerie of military muscle, carrier battle groups are pretty set on missile defense
 
2013-03-21 10:26:41 AM
thirstyroots.com
I see what you did there, subby, and I can feel your disease
 
2013-03-21 10:53:53 AM
Carrier design has ALWAYS been shaped by the aircraft operating off of them. Back in piston engine days with low landing and takeoff speeds we could use smaller straight decked vessels. As jets required higher speeds to land and take off, we went to angled deck supercarriers with catapults. As the airplanes grew, so did the carriers. A current Nimitz class is the direct result of the F-14s, F-18s, and so on that operate off of them.

If we can shrink the aircraft down (smaller drones that don't need cat assisted takeoff) we can shrink the carriers. But that is going to take years of further development and planning and likely not a small shift in naval aircraft doctrine. I think we'll get there, but it's going to take time to go from thinking about it to flying the planes and floating the new boats.
 
2013-03-21 11:38:00 AM

WhyteRaven74: spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.

No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

[www.doolwind.com image 425x400]


The missiles the article mentions are ballistic. Phalanx cannons aren't gonna do much against those. (Lasers either.) Now are those missiles good enough to hit a carrier without having to go nuclear? There seems to still be a question about that.
 
2013-03-21 11:43:01 AM

Bullroarer_Took: WhyteRaven74: spamdog:

The missiles the article mentions are ballistic. Phalanx cannons aren't gonna do much against those. (Lasers either.) Now are those missiles good enough to hit a carrier without having to go nuclear?


That would depend on whether we built them, or the Chinese did. If the latter, No.
 
2013-03-21 12:05:29 PM
Who the hell came up with those replacement ideas? Zapp Brannigan?

"Sir, we need a replacement carrier."

"I have just the thing, Kif. They rely on technology we don't have and are inferior in every way to our current solution."

"Then why would we want them, sir?"

"Because they're cheap enough that I can throw wave after wave of them at the enemy, Kif. You've really got to start thinking like a Captain, Kif, or you'll never earn that velour pilot's suit."

"ugh..."
 
2013-03-21 12:52:33 PM

fastbow: Who the hell came up with those replacement ideas? Zapp Brannigan?

"Sir, we need a replacement carrier."

"I have just the thing, Kif. They rely on technology we don't have and are inferior in every way to our current solution."

"Then why would we want them, sir?"

"Because they're cheap enough that I can throw wave after wave of them at the enemy, Kif. You've really got to start thinking like a Captain, Kif, or you'll never earn that velour pilot's suit."

"ugh..."


I don't recall if that's an actual quote from Futurama or not, but either way  I could hear his voice in my mind.
 
2013-03-21 01:48:42 PM
Oh hey, my friend is the one that took that picture.

ThreadSinger: WhyteRaven74: spamdog: I reckon if they can come up with an awesome new laser anti-missile system, that will greatly extend the life of aircraft carriers.

No need, this handles cruise missiles just fine and as a bonus, doesn't even really require any sort of human intervention to do so

[www.doolwind.com image 425x400]

Needs moar lasers.


After personally getting to watch CWIS shoot an incoming dummy plane, I think having lasers would be a downgrade.
 
2013-03-21 02:40:06 PM
This is the same debate that was around 20 years ago, and it has the same arguments and counter-arguments. Yes CVN's are very expensive to build and maintain, and no doubt complete wastes of money and manpower during peacetime.

But during war, they are completely irreplaceable for what they do. The only ship that comes close to fulfilling that mission is the assault landing ship, and it already has a mission of carrying and supporting a boatload of Marines in an invasion.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report