The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2643
Location: Copenhagen
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.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2643
Location: Copenhagen
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.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 206
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
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/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 206
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
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/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:13 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 206
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
If you say so.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2643
Location: Copenhagen
@ 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.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2296
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2728
Location: UK
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2643
Location: Copenhagen
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.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2472
Location: Vancouver, Canada
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

Quote:
USS Truman's Early Retirement Could Present Questionable Future for Carriers
26 Mar 2019
Stars and Stripes | By Caitlin Doornbos
The USS Harry S. Truman will retire two decades early if Congress approves the Navy's 2020 proposed budget as-is, a move some say could indicate a questionable future for aircraft carriers.
The Navy's proposed budget -- published this month -- calls for dismantling the Truman in 2024 instead of funding the planned refueling of its nuclear reactor core that year.
Commissioned in 1998, the carrier is 20 years old, making it the fourth-youngest of the Navy's 11 active carriers, according to the service.
Canceling the Truman's refueling would open up funding for other capabilities, Rear Adm. Randy Crites, deputy assistant Secretary of the Navy for management and budget, said during a Pentagon presentation March 12.

In its 30-year shipbuilding plan submitted to Congress this month, the Navy said the change "is in concert with the Defense Department's pursuit of a more lethal balance of high-end, survivable platforms (e.g. CVNs) and complementary capabilities from emerging technologies." CVN is Navy shorthand for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
(...SNIPPED)

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

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2472
Location: Vancouver, Canada
And yet another report predicting that the carrier's role as the queen of the seas may be numbered:

Defense News(video)

Quote:
Role of aircraft carriers questioned
By: Jeff Martin   2 hours ago
Congress is taking a hard look at what role aircraft carriers could play in future war

(FULL REPORT AT VIDEO LINK ABOVE)

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

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:46 pm 
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.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 203
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2472
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Could hypersonic missiles be the final nail in the aircraft carrier's coffin?


Defense News

Quote:
Will ground-based hypersonic missiles replace aircraft carriers in the defense budget?
By: David B. Larter   5 days ago
WASHINGTON — A debate on the future of aircraft carriers is roiling the U.S. Department of Defense, and it is increasingly spilling out into the open. While the debate over the efficacy of carriers in high-end conflict is nothing new, a general understanding that the DoD will not have unlimited funds with which to deter an increasingly potent China and Russia have made the questions particularly urgent.
At issue is a choice about continuing to invest in aircraft carriers and the associated air wing — the mainstay of U.S. global power projection since World War II — or to gradually reduce investment in those systems and increase investment in new capabilities such as long-range conventional hypersonic missiles.
It’s a question that Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin put bluntly in his remarks last month at the Defense News Conference.
“Let’s just propose a thought experiment,” Griffin said. “Which do you think the Chinese leadership would fear more: 2,000 conventional strike missiles possessed by the United States and its allies in the western Pacific capable of ranging Chinese targets, or one new carrier? Because those two things cost about the same amount of money. Those are the kinds of questions we need to be asking ourselves.”
(...SNIPPED)

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

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2296
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group