The Ship Model Forum

For sure there are also communications, not only sensors. But for one ship the sensors are crucial if operating alone (which is for sure unlikely to be the case for a carrier). If the sensors are lost by damage, it is likely that also the main channels for communication are at least impaired. The crucial point is that the question is if the fighting capability is maintained - not if the ship is sunken.

@ DavidP: a Aichi D3A could deploy usually only one 250 kg bomb, in some cases two additional 60 kg bombs - it could not deploy two heavier bombs. The Yokosuka D4Y usually would deploy one 500 kg bomb, the Kamikaze version one 800 kg bomb (probably also two 60 kg bombs) (there appears to be some confusion about its bombs on different websites, perhaps is a confusion between kg and pounds?). Wikipedia mentions that there are reports that two 250 kg bombs could be deployed, but I have not yet found a confirmation that two of them fit into the bomb bay.

_________________

..

Many ships have their sensors and communication antenna very close together - for sure close enough to destroy a lot of them with a single anti-ship missile (and I am not talking about the very heavy ones, but the normal Chinese and Russian ones). A good example for closely grouped antenna is the Arleigh Burke class - or carriers with most or all antenna on the island.

_________________

..

Any hit which interrupts ship's power takes down all the sensors, along with everything else. Really eerie when you lose power at sea. Too quiet.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/

..

I won't pretend to know anything specific about taking down ship's power on a carrier. I have experienced it on two different battleships during normal peacetime operations though, and on a frigate on ship's power alongside a pier. So I suspect it's somewhat more likely on a ship which is receiving damage if can happen when everything is normal.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/

..

If you say so.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/

@ Carr: do you have seen the extend of damage caused by modern anti-ship missile? I guess not. Otherwise you would not think a Arleigh Burke bridge structure or a carrier island are too big.

See e.g. this hit by an NSM, which only has a 125 kg warhead, i.e. a very small one compared to many Russian or Chinese missiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jspEovlEK-w


In case of carrier it is not necessary to even hit the island - a hit on the aircraft would cause much more damage, because all the secondary explosions of the aircraft fuel and ammunition, which would disable flight operations.

_________________

what was the frigates superstructure made of, steel or aluminum? remember that frigate was not moving nor defending itself so not a fair appraisal. might disable flight operations as depends if aircraft fully fueled & armed plus the number of aircraft hit.

..

Back to the original question; I would ask those who think the the aircraft carrier is no longer viable, what will replace it?

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire

Here is nobody thinking that the age of carriers is over...

@ carr: Perhaps should read more carefully.

1.) a carrier can be disabled simply by hitting armed and fuelled planes, because the secondary explosions will disable flight operations (see WW2 and the fires on Forrestal and Enterprise). It is very obvious that several explosions at the stern do not damage the island - for sure not an argument, how resistant the island is against damage. Its sensors and communications are not longer important, if flight operations are disabled.

2.) in the test - which for sure only demonstrate the destructive power of the missile and was for sure not a test of the ability of the frigate to defend itself - the superstructure of the frigate was destroyed at a length, which is equivalent to the length of the bridge of an Arleigh Burke or the island of a Ford class carrier. For sure from that impact is not possible to tell if a taller superstructure would have been destroyed to a similar level, but most antenna on the two mentioned US classes are not distributed over many decks, but are relatively concentrated - and everything above is likely damaged or disabled, if the structure below is destroyed (including energy and data connections). And that was a very light anti-ship missile!

As comparison:
Norwegian NSM: 125 kg warhead, Mach 0,9
Russian 3M54T (Kalibr): 200 kg warhead, Mach 2.9 (there are also versions with a 400 kg warhead, described as armour piercing)
Russian 3M45 (P-700 Granit): 750 kg warhead (also described as armour piercing), Mach 2.5

That means NSM is a light-weight anti-ship missile, typical for many western designs. Its warhead is much weaker and the kinetic energy on impact is much smaller compared to Russian missiles. I.e. the missiles likely fired on carriers are much more destructive than the one, which was tested on that Norwegian frigate.

_________________

This question/issue brought into the spotlight again with the looming early retirement of the USS Harry S. Truman mentioned in another thread:

Stars and Stripes/Military.com

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

And yet another report predicting that the carrier's role as the queen of the seas may be numbered:

Defense News(video)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

I think they are now too vulnerable to all kinds of threats. Some carriers should be retained in case they can be used in low threat environments. In the next large scale war, they will be devastated as the battleships at Pearl Harbor were. The casualties will be horrendous. The history of naval warfare has been the dominance of increasingly longer ranged weapons.

The age of the aircraft carrier depends on the next war as others have posted before, just as the battleship, the tank, the airplane.

This topic reminds me of Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, the way the carriers were taken out.
Way before swarm drones, swarm boats. Saturation, overwhelming the defenses. How fast does it take
to replenish vertical missles a battle group screen these days?

Carriers will still be viable, but with the cruise missle they'll still be vulnerable in port.
And what ports are defended? Dont think the enemy would pass up a fat stationary target.
If carriers doubled their Phalanx and Rim fire armament, I'd feel better.
In fact, if the whole fleet doubled their AA that would be a plus.
Not to mention all the unarmed Aux ships.

Paul

Could hypersonic missiles be the final nail in the aircraft carrier's coffin?


Defense News

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill

only time will tell as they thought of the same thing with long range bombers replacing the aircraft carrier til the Korean War came along which brought about the American super carriers like the Forrestal class.