Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
You don't just come up with a statement then saying that it is your point of view. You have to support your statement with proof, references, etc. I seen quite a number of your posts in this forum, all of them have no references or elaboration of anything.
You don't just come up with a statement then saying that it is your point of view. You have to support your statement with proof, references, etc. I seen quite a number of your posts in this forum, all of them have no references or elaboration of anything.
pugachev_diver
Banned Idiot
It's pretty easy to prevent a carrier from launching its jets (just mess up the deck), but it's near impossible to sink it, unless you have like few hundred missiles firing at it. Who truly knows how effective is saturated missile attack strategy against a carrier strike group. The Russians have launched few hundred missiles within a minute. Yes, they did! Expensive, but it proved their point. The Americans also tweaked with the Aegis system for decades now. Both the pike and the shield have been tested over and over again, but we probably will never see those being used on each other. As of the moment, in this relatively peaceful era, at least for major powers, paper tigers are quite effective. Attacking a carrier means much more than the attack itself, it is a challenge to a country's face.
In a lot of today's scenarios, the weapon might not be that effective, they still serve the purpose. For example, even if the US carrier has all four catapults damaged. As long as they send the carrier to a place with regional dispute, almost everyone there will back down and listen to Uncle Sam.
To be honest, the two carriers in 96 scenario cannot challenge China's dominance in that area. They can easily be taken out with countless missiles. But China still backed down, because a carrier is the face of a nation. China at that time still didn't have the muscle or the gut to slap the Americans in the face.
The same serves for Varyag, or whatever it will be called when commissioned. Let's be honest, Varyag is pretty small and the layout makes it not able to carry that many jets. It is half the tonnage of Nimitz class Godzillas, but probably is only able to carry 1/3 the number of aircrafts. But even so, as long as China sends the carrier to South China Sea region, countries like Malaysia and Phillipine will just protest and then back down.
Quick question,
everybody say that launching from curved deck wastes fuel, but doesn't catapult launch also require them to turn on afterburners? I mean, I have seen videos of launches, where they leave the after burner on for like 10-20 seconds. This is not any shorter than a jumpstart.
In a lot of today's scenarios, the weapon might not be that effective, they still serve the purpose. For example, even if the US carrier has all four catapults damaged. As long as they send the carrier to a place with regional dispute, almost everyone there will back down and listen to Uncle Sam.
To be honest, the two carriers in 96 scenario cannot challenge China's dominance in that area. They can easily be taken out with countless missiles. But China still backed down, because a carrier is the face of a nation. China at that time still didn't have the muscle or the gut to slap the Americans in the face.
The same serves for Varyag, or whatever it will be called when commissioned. Let's be honest, Varyag is pretty small and the layout makes it not able to carry that many jets. It is half the tonnage of Nimitz class Godzillas, but probably is only able to carry 1/3 the number of aircrafts. But even so, as long as China sends the carrier to South China Sea region, countries like Malaysia and Phillipine will just protest and then back down.
Quick question,
everybody say that launching from curved deck wastes fuel, but doesn't catapult launch also require them to turn on afterburners? I mean, I have seen videos of launches, where they leave the after burner on for like 10-20 seconds. This is not any shorter than a jumpstart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
I wonder if a couple of armour piercing/bunker busting warheads at a downwards trajectory moving at ~ mach 10 can penetrate a carriers flight deck and sink it like how dive bombers did in WWII... like through secondary explosions and such.
Most cruise missiles have relatively smaller warheads and have far less kinetic energy/armour piercing potential, so I'm thinking that against massive ships like carriers, they are not very effective in causing long term/crippling damage, never mind actually sinking one because they can't get deep enough into the carriers bowels and are only able to scratch the surface instead... Could that be why the PLA's going for ballistic missiles?
I wonder if a couple of armour piercing/bunker busting warheads at a downwards trajectory moving at ~ mach 10 can penetrate a carriers flight deck and sink it like how dive bombers did in WWII... like through secondary explosions and such.
Most cruise missiles have relatively smaller warheads and have far less kinetic energy/armour piercing potential, so I'm thinking that against massive ships like carriers, they are not very effective in causing long term/crippling damage, never mind actually sinking one because they can't get deep enough into the carriers bowels and are only able to scratch the surface instead... Could that be why the PLA's going for ballistic missiles?
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
The advantage lays with the catapult. An aircraft launched by catapult can carry a full load of fuel & weapons. An aircraft on a ski jump cannot..With the exception of an Harrier. An Harrier cannot carry the load a Hornet can. Not even close.
The advantage lays with the catapult. An aircraft launched by catapult can carry a full load of fuel & weapons. An aircraft on a ski jump cannot..With the exception of an Harrier. An Harrier cannot carry the load a Hornet can. Not even close.
pugachev_diver
Banned Idiot
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
you probably overthought the whole situation. The idea is not to sink the carrier. All you have to do is to mess up the deck, which requires only damaging the surface, not the countless layers of reinforced steel. As soon as you poke a few big holes on the surface, the carrier is already disabled.
It is just like a giant howitzer, which is intimidating. But if you pull out the tiny firing mechanism, the whole thing becomes junk.
you probably overthought the whole situation. The idea is not to sink the carrier. All you have to do is to mess up the deck, which requires only damaging the surface, not the countless layers of reinforced steel. As soon as you poke a few big holes on the surface, the carrier is already disabled.
It is just like a giant howitzer, which is intimidating. But if you pull out the tiny firing mechanism, the whole thing becomes junk.
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
True..but witness the USS Enterprise CVAN-69..in January 1969 she was heavily damaged by a fire very similar to the Forrestal fire in 1967. In her case she was sent to Pearl Harbor and repaired and back in service in 6 weeks.
True..but witness the USS Enterprise CVAN-69..in January 1969 she was heavily damaged by a fire very similar to the Forrestal fire in 1967. In her case she was sent to Pearl Harbor and repaired and back in service in 6 weeks.
pugachev_diver
Banned Idiot
Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Even better if you aim at the launch area filled with those delicate magnetic catapults. A major blast not even touching it can probably cause enough damage to make it stop working. Then along with those holes on the decks, the ship is busted.
I think the steam catapults are probably much more robust, but they also have vulnerabilities. These are super highly pressurized steam, which requires insane pressure handling metallurgy and special welds. A 500kg bomb can easily cause even blast to weaken those welds and pipelines, in turn compromising its ability to launch jets.
I guess the reason that WWII carriers can last so long is due to the relative impotence of those aircrafts of its day. In today's case, there are so many ways to mess up a carrier. The most straight forward is using jets to carry penetrating bombs with super hard warheads. Jets now fly 10 times fast and carry missiles that are unimaginable during WWII.
I guess even just 3 - 4 major big holes are more than enough to limit the number of jets that can be launched, if not all of them. But of course, during war time, the enemy side would launch more than enough missiles to create at least 20-30 holes on the carrier deck.
Even better if you aim at the launch area filled with those delicate magnetic catapults. A major blast not even touching it can probably cause enough damage to make it stop working. Then along with those holes on the decks, the ship is busted.
I think the steam catapults are probably much more robust, but they also have vulnerabilities. These are super highly pressurized steam, which requires insane pressure handling metallurgy and special welds. A 500kg bomb can easily cause even blast to weaken those welds and pipelines, in turn compromising its ability to launch jets.
I guess the reason that WWII carriers can last so long is due to the relative impotence of those aircrafts of its day. In today's case, there are so many ways to mess up a carrier. The most straight forward is using jets to carry penetrating bombs with super hard warheads. Jets now fly 10 times fast and carry missiles that are unimaginable during WWII.
I guess even just 3 - 4 major big holes are more than enough to limit the number of jets that can be launched, if not all of them. But of course, during war time, the enemy side would launch more than enough missiles to create at least 20-30 holes on the carrier deck.