Why are American Cars so BIG?

[mr bill]

You do realise that the much vaunted "Carrier Group" is actaully both totaly obsolete and totaly vunerable to modern weapons? Thus, its hardly a good measure of "military might".

[IBrake4Rainbows]

ah, but the carriers are still the only group of floating fortresses in the world, and by far the most symbolic and the most intimidating show of American might.

To be vunerable to modern weapons means little when it has the latest planes on board to eliminate the threat first.

[Coventrysucks]

Until I can see absolute proof that communism and dictatorship was never a threat in Central America, I will continue to believe they were.

I am always slightly amused by the perception of "communists".
The American government put in many, many years of hard graft convincing the American people of the "communist threat".

Do you really think that communists wanted to take over the world?

Your funny!

[Matra et Alpine]

To be vunerable to modern weapons means little when it has the latest planes on board to eliminate the threat first.

The world is a-changing.

Carriers could not put enough aircraft and munitions in the sky to stop a concerted 'swarm-weapon' attack. The concept of these is un-manned, small and fairly dumb, but launched in their hundreds. Yes it would take 20 or 30 to do any damage, but all it takes is enough to ground the air-defense flights and helos and an aircraft carrier is just a BIG bulssey in a soft target

As the Cole showed, it's no longer the big smart attak, the defences are made to repel those. It's the lateral-thought-out attack that can put it down.

As Britain realised in the Falklands and relied on intelligence, aided by the US, to prevent Exocets being purchsed by Argentinia in the open market. Brits new that exocets could find the weaknesses. And gatling guns are a defense now , but again 6 simultaneous launches and they cant' hold them off.

and now ANYOEN can build a unmaned vehicle for a few 10s of thousands to do one flight with a reasonable payload powered by the latest small jet engines. 300mph is awesome to see in somethign small

[more-boost1555]

You do realise that the much vaunted "Carrier Group" is actaully both totaly obsolete and totaly vunerable to modern weapons? Thus, its hardly a good measure of "military might".

Man, may I ask? WTF are you talking about? Obsolete? Compared to what?
Name a better way to move that amount of troops, munitions, and aircraft around the world. An aircraft carrier is always ready to deploy, can move anywhere on the globe. It has unlimited range for christs sake! It only needs to resupply the wepons and men it carries. Every month or so, lol.

It's a floating air base man.

Vulnerable to what? Torpedoes? That's why they have sonar and support ships (like the best subs in the world, and antisub planes). Planes? That's why they have radar and F-18's + F-14's. Cruise Missiles? Gatling guns and more interceptors.

Matra...small realtively dumb weapons, would obviously need to be launched from a short range. Which bears the question, why is the carrier within range? It wouldn't be, unless it was another sort of terrorist attack as with the Cole. Because any known hostile area would not be enhabited by the aircraft carrier, it uses it's planes to deal with threats, or the Destroyers that escort it, or the guided missile frigates.

Secondly, this kind of attack, even if it were launched, would not ground the air defense flights. Planes are always in the air, and obviously missiles launched at the aircraft carrier whether they be dumb or smart would be no threat to a plane on patrol (because their trajectory is set for one target).

Third, lol, I'd like to see an unmanned vehicle get close to an aircraft carrier. Besides isn't it called a missile? If they are prepared for a cruise missile attack, then they are prepared for a so called un manned vehicle attack.

A small surprise attack of some sort, like the Cole incident, is the only way I can see a Carrier getting caught off guard.

[mr bill]

Man, may I ask? WTF are you talking about? Obsolete? Compared to what?

Compared to the Corsair project being undertaken by the United States and other countries, which is meant to produce hundreds of small carrier craft with crews of about 20, each capable of loading and launching hundreds of indiviudal drones.

Name a better way to move that amount of troops, munitions, and aircraft around the world.

Marine troopships and amphibious assault craft are much better at moving equipment then carrier groups

An aircraft carrier is always ready to deploy, can move anywhere on the globe. It has unlimited range for christs sake! It only needs to resupply the wepons and men it carries. Every month or so, lol.

Every week. And that's just the carrier. The actaul ships involved in its operation (such as destroyers, missiles frigates, submarines, fast attack craft), are often not nuclear powered, and require even more supplies. Infact, in actaul battle conditions you'd be hard pressed to keep a carrier running for more then a day or two without resupply- which is a logistical nightmare.

It's a floating air base man.

For light, expensive, short ranged fighters and ground attack craft. And for not that many of them.

Vulnerable to what? Torpedoes?

Yes. Try this senerio on for size (not even talking about drones yet, still talking about conventional torpedoes mind you):

The John C. Stennis Strike Group comes under attack by Russian submarine missile forces-

So that'd be:

CVN 74
CG 57
CG73
DDG 73
DDG 83
DDG 88
DD 992
FFG 33
FFG 46
FFG 54
SSN 716

vs

K 119
K 410
K 442
K 456
K 266
K 186
K 530

Each Oscar II class is armed with 8 missile tubes, loaded with 4 SS-N-15 and 4 SS-N-16 missiles respectively. So that's 8 missiles per boat with a mean range of 50 kilometers, which deliver 82 and 85 type torpedoes against their targets. So that's 56 missiles/torpedoes in the first wave.

On the defence we've got 5 ships with AEGIS capability.

You're talking about stopping 56 missiles in less then a few moments. Even if you get some of them, once they deploy their torpedoes, you *cant* stop them. And it only takes one or two torpedoe to cause severe damage to your prescuis and very expensive carrier.

That's why they have sonar and support ships (like the best subs in the world, and antisub planes).

Like old subs that are by all means out of date themselves, and no anti-submarine planes becasue they can't be launched from carrier.

Planes? That's why they have radar and F-18's + F-14's. Cruise Missiles? Gatling guns and more interceptors.

The Kh-41
Range of 250km, Mach 3 and a 320kg warhead. Can launch from Su-27. Try stopping a fullside barrage of those. I've got news for you, you can't. And that's the point- putting all your eggs in one basket, and then spending huge amounts of resources protecting that basket is really an operation in futility.

Matra...small realtively dumb weapons, would obviously need to be launched from a short range.

Firstly, Mantra, you're right bang on about your prediction for future combat there. Drones are cheap, fast, long ranged, powerful, small and smart. Thus, in answer to your question, no, they don't have to be launched from short range.

Which bears the question, why is the carrier within range?

Becuase drones have excellent range, as I've just stated above.

It wouldn't be, unless it was another sort of terrorist attack as with the Cole. Because any known hostile area would not be enhabited by the aircraft carrier, it uses it's planes to deal with threats, or the Destroyers that escort it, or the guided missile frigates.

Deal with a wave of a thousand drones attacking from multiple angles at super sonic speeds launched from craft so small you can hardly pick them up on radar.

Secondly, this kind of attack, even if it were launched, would not ground the air defense flights.

Yes it would. A smart drone weapon is controlled by users operation from the ground (or their launched ship, or even via their own AI), and can thus be retargeted to attack anything in their path. This includes airplanes, even in a multiroled air and ground attack.

Planes are always in the air, and obviously missiles launched at the aircraft carrier whether they be dumb or smart would be no threat to a plane on patrol (because their trajectory is set for one target).

As I've just stated, yes they would.

Third, lol, I'd like to see an unmanned vehicle get close to an aircraft carrier.

One getting close? Probably not... a thousand getting close? Guranteed.

Besides isn't it called a missile?

A drone is not a missile. Drones are cheaper to make then missiles. Drones have better range and are 'smarter'. Drones can be recovered if their mission fails (ie, return to their base), which means that drones have all the benifits of airplanes, in addition to being smaller, cheaper and capable of multi-mission roles.

If they are prepared for a cruise missile attack, then they are prepared for a so called un manned vehicle attack.

Not a chance in hell. Your very post demostrates just how much you actaully understand about drone warfare.

A small surprise attack of some sort, like the Cole incident, is the only way I can see a Carrier getting caught off guard.

And a thousand drones launched from multiple ships doesn't sound like that to you? I'd call that one hell of a surprise.

[Matra et Alpine]

Also against any 'advanced' enemy it could be in serious trouble.

Mate worked on TigerFish - an intelligent torpedo.
It is given the sonar profile of the shiop it is programmed to attack.
You launch it to a designated area and it goes dormant, passive sonar.
When it heres the profile of the ship it is to attack, it wakens up, and powers itself to the target.

Smart mines have exited for a long time which do the former but just passively surface and proximity explosion.

TigerFish was seen as the unstoppabel torpedo and in event of a real 'war' the UK would station TFs in all the areas and let them wait out arrival and destruciton of assigned ships.

AND THAT WAS 10 years ago.

[mr bill]

You see exaclty what I'm talking about- for some reason people just can't grasp the reality of waht we're dealing with here. The future of combat, and everyone is still tlaking about fighters and carriers like its world war two or something.

[crisis]

All of this technology is great except we are no longer in the cold war. The US picks its fight with countries that do not have smart drones, smart bombs, or smart anything. They generally have obsolete Russian and French weapons. So the chance of these guys getting close to a carrier is small. The F14s carrry 6 Pheonix missiles which can be launched from 100km at multiple targets simoultaneously. Raytheon are developing an extended range AAM wich can be launched from support ships. The scenario of a multitude of enemy subs penetrating the anti submarine net put up by ships, S3s, and Sea hawks is also questionable. In an all out fight to the death against Russia at her best, which I dont think she currently is, you would definitely loose plenty of ships, In the current environment I dont think that there are too many threats capable of eliminating all or even a significant amount of the USs carrier groups.

[mr bill]

The point is not who the US fights, it's *how* the US fights. It can fight in a manner which is both costly and dangerous to its soldiers/pilots/seamen, or it can fight in a manner safe to those people, but also in a far cheaper and far more effective manner.

[Egg Nog]

The point is not who the US fights, it's *how* the US fights.

And we return once again to my point about Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia. Everything is cyclical.

[mr bill]

No fair! I'm trying to derail this thread dangnabit.... again!

:- P

[more-boost1555]

still I disagree on a number of things...

This Corsair group sounds great, but it's not in service yet is it? No, it isn't end of debate. Eventually I believe we will move towards more cost effective systems with un-manned aircraft such as this. Still though a drone can not reach supersonic speed (as far as I know), even if it could it's range would be limited by it's small fuel load. Really can you point to one drone that can accomplish all the things an aircraft like an F-18 can? I mean given multiple sorties, they still can't do what an F-18 can. Let alone match the versatility an F-18 brings each time it takes to the air. Show me a drone that can engage ground targets and enemy aircraft in the same sortie. Drones are the future I agree, but they aren't fully developed yet.

These marine troopships and amphibious assault craft, can they launch any kind of air attack what so ever? Didn't think so.

Every week. And that's just the carrier. The actaul ships involved in its operation (such as destroyers, missiles frigates, submarines, fast attack craft), are often not nuclear powered, and require even more supplies. Infact, in actaul battle conditions you'd be hard pressed to keep a carrier running for more then a day or two without resupply- which is a logistical nightmare.

I admit the carrier is far from perfect, or cost effective. However in most cases a carrier can continually be resupplied, enabling it to hold a position indefinately.

For light, expensive, short ranged fighters and ground attack craft. And for not that many of them.

Light? An F-14 is one the most heavily armed fighters in the world. Expensive? Definately. Short ranged? I guess if you consider a range of about 400 to 500 miles short, then yes. This is why they are on an aircraft carrier, to move them closer to the objective. It's about quality, not quanity. Some of the best fighters in the world, flown by some of the best pilots. There is hardly a nation that can match the U.S.'s quality of aircraft/missile/radar technology, as well as the skill of their pilots. Besides a single carrier group was not designed to win a war independently!

Your scenario of a full compliment of russian Missile subs launching an all out attack simultaneously, and without detection is simply absurd. Not gonna happen. How would they get within range without alerting the U.S. ships on the perimeter who's soul purpose is to detect hostile submarines? How would they elude the U.S. attack sub guarding the group? It would be difficult to say the least. Not even taking into account the poor condition of the Russian sub fleet. They can barely keep their ships in working order, let alone coordinate a massive strike like you propose.

Lol, you think our subs are out of date? Ever hear of the Seawolf? Here you go read all about it. Seawolf Unforunately only three were ever commissioned, yet they are just the cream of the crop. The Los Angeles class while not as quiet as the Russian Akula class is hardly obsolete. Also the New Virginia class subs are being developed and commisioned as well.

The KH-41 is certainly a formidable weapon, 250 km is about 155 miles range. An enemy aircraft such as the SU-37 could be detected and engaged at that range. HARM missiles will be able to detect and destroy an active radar source such as the KH-41.

I see your point though Bill, an aircraft carrier is certainly not invulnerable. The loss of such an expensive ship would be...not quite devastating, but certainly not good!

However, there is no greater platform for the mobilization of forces on a global scale. An aircraft carrier in international waters is a sovereign entity of the United States. It can reach virtually any theater without the delay of prep for mobilization, it does not need authorization from another country to mobilize it's force. Where as any land based units will need permission to pass through or deploy on neutral nations. Also the fact remains that no aircraft carrier has been destroyed since the end of WWII.

Another thing, while your drone swarm attack scenario is feasable (well slightly..thousands of drones? Come on, who has the resources to launch that kind of attack?). No nation would dare attack a U.S. aircraft carrier for fear of the reprecussions. And while terrorists may be able to launch an un manned attack, they certainly would lack the means to launch a swarm attack.

Lastly, show me a drone that can reach supersonic speeds, has a range greater than that of a modern fighter aircraft, has the ability to be retargeted in midflight, carries seperate munitions for a multirole sortie, can be recovered after a mission, and is cheap enough to be produced in the thousands.

I DARE YOU!

[Matra et Alpine]

more-boost, I'm not going to go through point by point because I think their is a subtle differnecc in swarm-attacks that you've not grasped yet.

The vehicle doens't NEED to go head-to-head with a plane.
It doens't NEED to go supersonic.
It is NOT expensive.
$1000 gets you a turbot-jet capable of 300mph +.
Mix a little napthalene and petrol jelly and you have a VERY effective anti-ship weapon. No it doesn't sink it, but it can take it out.

Todays defences have been designed for the missile attack, the sub attack, the plane attack etc etc So 6 simultaneous defensive missile launches and you've used up all your defences. Gatling guns can only engage one target at a time and need to re-acquire before firing - they're for surface skim, not hundreds.

The point is that ANYONE could for a small investment create using off the shelf materials a flying 'bomb' for a few thousand dollars. So for the cost of one LAUNCH of a carrier F-15 you could 'launch' a hundred 'bomb's. With something the size of a shopping cart the weapons carried in defense are useless.

All the technology was for another war.
Dumb and cheap enough to deploy in hundreds and thousands is the new wave everyone is working on NOW They can be assembled in minutes and hand launched in many cases. So that little fishing boat could be carrying 100 of them NO PROBLEM. No commander can keep all boats at a distance

[crisis]

more-boost, I'm not going to go through point by point because I think their is a subtle differnecc in swarm-attacks that you've not grasped yet.

Matra old mate, whome is going to launch this massed attack? Certainly no State. The rest of the worlds mentality is on par with the US. A terrorist organisation. Their assets have been hunted down, and they will need money. Of course you actually will have to produce the hundreds that I think you are proposing. THe best the mighty Al Queada can organise since 9/11 are delivery vans with fertiliser and its getting harder to grow good lawns since Bali.

The vehicle doens't NEED to go head-to-head with a plane.
It doens't NEED to go supersonic.
It is NOT expensive.
$1000 gets you a turbot-jet capable of 300mph +.
Mix a little napthalene and petrol jelly and you have a VERY effective anti-ship weapon. No it doesn't sink it, but it can take it out.

That it/ they will be seen coming for about an hour before they get close means that what is left will be few enough to be made into confetti by th phalanx.

Todays defences have been designed for the missile attack, the sub attack, the plane attack etc etc So 6 simultaneous defensive missile launches and you've used up all your defences. Gatling guns can only engage one target at a time and need to re-acquire before firing - they're for surface skim, not hundreds.

They are automatic and ferociously fast. And as you say designed for targets approaching at double what the drones can offer.

So that little fishing boat could be carrying 100 of them NO PROBLEM. No commander can keep all boats at a distance

Poor little fishing boat. We havent seen too many little boats of any kind getting through the Persian Gulf. The place is a treasure chest of high tech, high cost big , grey targets who are still holding the upper hand.