Aircraft Carriers III
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
QE against the Russian Kuzt?
There is no comparison
Silly article to even attempt to compare the two
When did we see Russian carrier without a tug ??
There is no comparison
Silly article to even attempt to compare the two
When did we see Russian carrier without a tug ??
Jura The idiot
General
The bit that bugs me most immediately is that the 'journalist' has bought the PR BS about the Kuznetzov being designed to operate 'independently' OR with a battle group. No carrier on this planet will ever go anywhere without escorts, no matter how well armed she is, and certainly won't deploy in harm's way without escorts. Russian Carrier design doctrine has lagged behind the west by several decades, their ships have evolved from postwar missile cruiser designs rather than from dedicated aviation support ships, and since the Kuznetzov class is only third generation (Moskva, Kiev, Kuznetzov) the missile batteries predominating in the previous designs have yet to be rendered completely redundant as evolutionary features, as the aircraft that would be expected to replace them aboard ship (for strike) have had their own development reduced to a slow crawl due to funding issues.
If the Soviets had continued their carrier programme (with the Ulyanovsk class and beyond) we would probably have seen ships resembling western carrier more closely in form by now (i.e. closer to a Nimitz in size, cat and trap layout and just PDMS and CIWS armament). Other Russian Surface ships would have taken on a more western look and purpose (AAW and ASW) to complete the Carrier Battle Groups as well. Remember most of the post war Soviet Naval Ship design doctrine was based on producing 'anti carrier' ships to combat the west's overwhelming carrier superiority, and now they having to do things a bit more like us, for the same reasons.
Over the last few decades I have heard so many 'critics' of Aircraft Carriers deride their lack of armament and pronounce them too vulnerable to any and all weapons real or imaginary (whilst conveniently ignoring the much greater vulnerability of land based airfields they so clearly favour), and frequently claim a 100,000 tonne CVN can be sunk by a single submarine launched torpedo. In reality in wartime such a hit would not cause the carrier to even stop and the sub would have alerted the battle group's ASW escorts to it's presence.
So no carrier goes anywhere without escorts, and just because the carrier itself is only armed with CIWS and/or PDMS doesn't mean it is vulnerable, you have to take into account ALL the defences of every ship in the battle group to gain a fair assessment of the Carrier's combat survivability.
Jura The idiot
General
let me change your line from:
to:
"... 'critics' of Battlecruisers ... claim a 47,430 t "51" can be sunk by a single 15" shell. In reality in wartime such a hit would not cause the battlecruiser to even stop and ..."
my point is some things we won't know until they happen
to:
"... 'critics' of Battlecruisers ... claim a 47,430 t "51" can be sunk by a single 15" shell. In reality in wartime such a hit would not cause the battlecruiser to even stop and ..."
my point is some things we won't know until they happen
kwaigonegin
Colonel
sink no but significant damage yes if the lucky torpedo impacts near the screws and rudders or other critical areas.
It would cause the ship to have flooding and significantly compromise it's speed and steering ability which would then make it an easier target for other assets.
It may also cause the ship to unable or excruciatingly slow in steering to the wind which would then make launching aircrafts at full load impossible or extremely difficult with much hassle.
As we've learnt over and over again in warfare luck beats everything else.
It would cause the ship to have flooding and significantly compromise it's speed and steering ability which would then make it an easier target for other assets.
It may also cause the ship to unable or excruciatingly slow in steering to the wind which would then make launching aircrafts at full load impossible or extremely difficult with much hassle.
As we've learnt over and over again in warfare luck beats everything else.
Jura The idiot
General
this:
makes me wonder how a Nimitz is protected right from below, in the middle ... would it be by a double bottom, triple bottom, empty/filled arrangement(s), huh?? ... no need to tell me it's classified
American carriers have probably the best passive torpedo defence in history, in the resilience of the design. They were good in ww2 and have built on that experience since then, which is the point I was trying to make. Take a look at the USS Hornet CV-8, when the Americans tried to scuttle her they practically ran out of torpedoes and she still refused to go down, and she was only around 20,000 tonnes. the CVNs have five times the displacement and several decades more experience of testing and research incorporated into their designs.this:
makes me wonder how a Nimitz is protected right from below, in the middle ... would it be by a double bottom, triple bottom, empty/filled arrangement(s), huh?? ... no need to tell me it's classified
The last time a single torpedo sank a carrier of broadly 20k Tonnes was probably HMS Ark Royal, but even then she was lost because of a combination of design flaws (funnel uptakes taken across the ship too low), a lack of diesel generators to provide electricity to the pumps and damage control parties being told to muster at abandon ship stations early on instead of being held back to fight for the ship (from eyewitness testimony. By the time they were sent back to control the flooding they were just delaying the inevitable). Even so, she still took 14 hours to sink
A single conventional torpedo will of course do damage. Possibly serious damage depending where it hits, but I stand by my remark that in a war zone, it won't even stop the ship let alone sink it.
The last image is included to show the difference between a CVN and a 20,000 tonne carrier, in this case USS Stennis and HMS Illustrious (might be wrong about the Stennis, it's an old photo and not well labelled!). For all the comments yolu will all have heard over the years about how flimsy the wooden flight decks of USN WW2 carriers were, the ships underneath them were incredibly tough and could soak up a lot of damage. The Essex class were an evolution and enlargement of the Yorktowns, and although many took a beating, none of the larger ships were sunk. And it's worth repeating, no Aircraft Carrier has been lost to enemy action anywhere in the world since the end of WW2, whilst quite a few Military Air Bases have been handed over without a shot being fired, simply because of political expediency. Hence my preference for investing in sea based power projection rather than static bases if you want to participate in world affairs.