Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/06/27 15:07:19
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
whembly wrote: Frazz... if our enemies are at the point of using nukes on our carrier fleet...
We have bigger problems.
This is true.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/06/27 15:21:04
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking weapon platforms purely in terms of counters. A kills B, therefore B is obselete.
But it doesn't work that way. The first issue with any weapon platform is whether it fulfills a role for you that can't be done better by another platform. Aircraft carriers give you mobile air superiority. Nothing else does that.
And sure, a carrier is a huge investment in a single ship, but if you want to be able to operate air missions around the world this is the only way to do that. So you recognise the threats, invest in counter-measures and accept there will always be some level of risk. Such is life. This is just the price of having useful, war winning military assets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/27 15:23:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/06/27 15:33:31
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's worse than that - from what I've heard, the fighter jets for it won't be ready for another 5 years or something
That's materiel appropriation for you. You don't get everything you want when you want it. It blows budgets horrifically. If we got the fighters first we'd be complaining the boats won't be around for five years making Lightning II an even bigger waste. The carriers were ordered before the strategic defence review that killed the Harrier. The carriers were seen as a good investment even without aircraft to go on them so were spared in the review. Increased international co-operation on expeditions was supposed to save money for many countries in Europe. We bring the boats, the French bring some jets, we all have a jolly time burning Avtur over the middle east and the 2% GDP we're all supposed to be spending actually achieves something.
God knows what the plan is now that we've decided we don't want to work with the rest of Europe on anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/27 15:35:13
2017/06/27 15:49:23
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
sebster wrote: A lot of people make the mistake of thinking weapon platforms purely in terms of counters. A kills B, therefore B is obselete.
But it doesn't work that way. The first issue with any weapon platform is whether it fulfills a role for you that can't be done better by another platform. Aircraft carriers give you mobile air superiority. Nothing else does that.
And sure, a carrier is a huge investment in a single ship, but if you want to be able to operate air missions around the world this is the only way to do that. So you recognise the threats, invest in counter-measures and accept there will always be some level of risk. Such is life. This is just the price of having useful, war winning military assets.
Ground based air bases are easier to disable, track and political issues. having your own mobile runway is far more practical.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
2017/06/27 15:54:44
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Ouze wrote: I've never seen a carrier with 2 islands before.
Advantages of the two island configuration on the Royal Navy carriers
Instead of a traditional single island, a current ship design has two smaller islands. The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control.
Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
2017/06/27 16:08:29
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
The 6 billion pound price tag includes the HMS Prince of Wales, due 2020. So 3 billion for the HMS QE, I guess?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2017/06/27 16:19:10
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
djones520 wrote: It's a good thing that the technology on these ships is pretty much of the current age Frazz.
We didn't have Aegis in WW2...
Just don't ask them about the operating system then. Brand new ship, uses Windows XP (the one now vulnerable to hacks and that Microsoft don't support).
I hear all new planes for it will include a credit card machine so they can pay the 100 bitcoins to launch....
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
2017/06/27 18:06:14
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Not only that, but their aircraft transform into giant robot suits that can spray clouds of missiles to thumping rock music.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/06/27 18:12:53
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Not only that, but their aircraft transform into giant robot suits that can spray clouds of missiles to thumping rock music.
Artist's impression pictured:
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2017/06/27 18:13:00
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Although being a Helicopter Carrier (or helicopter destroyer as they call it to get around their own constitution ) it doesn't have a catapult, reducing costs somewhat. The whole design was unofficially made to be able to converted into a fixed-wing craft if necessary though.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2017/06/27 23:01:47
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Although being a Helicopter Carrier (or helicopter destroyer as they call it to get around their own constitution ) it doesn't have a catapult, reducing costs somewhat. The whole design was unofficially made to be able to converted into a fixed-wing craft if necessary though.
It can still take vtol fighters and such.
Helicopters and vtol not too different and needs not a catapult or catching gear.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
2017/06/28 00:03:41
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Although being a Helicopter Carrier (or helicopter destroyer as they call it to get around their own constitution ) it doesn't have a catapult, reducing costs somewhat. The whole design was unofficially made to be able to converted into a fixed-wing craft if necessary though.
It can still take vtol fighters and such.
Helicopters and vtol not too different and needs not a catapult or catching gear.
AFAIK, there would need some deck changes so it can regularly take the emissions from the VTOL (those jets aren't like simple rotors), but just those changes to the launching areas and that would work. For now though, it's only equipped with ASW and rescue helicopters (I think it can take attack helicopters, they just haven't to not antagonize the Chinese more than they already do).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2017/06/28 02:59:02
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
jhe90 wrote: Ground based air bases are easier to disable, track and political issues. having your own mobile runway is far more practical.
Yeah, and its the political one that's huge. Having to go cap in hand to a neighbouring country to ask them if you can please use their airfields is pathetic, doesn't always work, and normally involves giving concessions that may or may not be related to the incident.
As a member of a part of the world that doesn't have the kind of force projection granted by a carrier, I can promise you it's not a position anyone chooses to be in.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/06/28 09:53:43
Subject: Re:Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
jhe90 wrote: Ground based air bases are easier to disable, track and political issues. having your own mobile runway is far more practical.
Yeah, and its the political one that's huge. Having to go cap in hand to a neighbouring country to ask them if you can please use their airfields is pathetic, doesn't always work, and normally involves giving concessions that may or may not be related to the incident.
As a member of a part of the world that doesn't have the kind of force projection granted by a carrier, I can promise you it's not a position anyone chooses to be in.
Although being a Helicopter Carrier (or helicopter destroyer as they call it to get around their own constitution ) it doesn't have a catapult, reducing costs somewhat. The whole design was unofficially made to be able to converted into a fixed-wing craft if necessary though.
It can still take vtol fighters and such.
Helicopters and vtol not too different and needs not a catapult or catching gear.
AFAIK, there would need some deck changes so it can regularly take the emissions from the VTOL (those jets aren't like simple rotors), but just those changes to the launching areas and that would work. For now though, it's only equipped with ASW and rescue helicopters (I think it can take attack helicopters, they just haven't to not antagonize the Chinese more than they already do).
Yes, for one you also have to be very carful on political agreements, gotta watch it incase they rescind permission and that can feth up a enitre wartime strategy, there vulnerable to regional political issues.
Far easier to have a carrier that's 100& under own control and able to do as it pleases.
UK needs one as we have intrests in places we may not have political situations to get basing agreements.
And two.
Yes. VTOL probbly would but thats a sea that takes weeks, over say months to fit out for catapults and aresting gear.
Plus training and vtol just is far easier.
B. Yeah, a attack helicopter at end of day is still a helicopter. (also I might add the Falklands sea harrier vs regular air force. You need to make adaptions to work longer term out at sea. The regular air force can work and we have used apache off a sea going heli carrier too in Lybia I believe but the reg hariers needed more work to keep airborne and its harder conditions on a non modified aircraft. )
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
2017/06/28 14:12:30
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
jmurph wrote: You also can't relocate a ground base to a more convenient location or a theater on the other side of the world.
The US military has bases on nearly every continent. I often wonder why they bother with aircraft carriers.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2017/06/28 14:42:56
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
jmurph wrote: You also can't relocate a ground base to a more convenient location or a theater on the other side of the world.
You can't sink a ground base.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/06/28 15:04:58
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
jmurph wrote: You also can't relocate a ground base to a more convenient location or a theater on the other side of the world.
You can't sink a ground base.
Last January I was involved in an exercise where the "air base" I was on was nearly overran by an armored battalion. So I beg to differ.
Despite common belief, an armored battalion cannot be so heavy as to actually sink a base, unless that base is in Louisiana of course*
*Or New Mexico and by that it means the base goes critical mass and then nuceler, which is a daily occurrence there.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/06/28 16:13:31
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
jmurph wrote: You also can't relocate a ground base to a more convenient location or a theater on the other side of the world.
You can't sink a ground base.
Last January I was involved in an exercise where the "air base" I was on was nearly overran by an armored battalion. So I beg to differ.
Despite common belief, an armored battalion cannot be so heavy as to actually sink a base, unless that base is in Louisiana of course*
*Or New Mexico and by that it means the base goes critical mass and then nuceler, which is a daily occurrence there.
We were in Louisiana.
Game. Set. Match.
How did the tanks get past the gators?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/06/28 16:36:39
Subject: Aircraft carriers in the 21st century: still viable or obsolete?
Like Lawyers and Sharks, Professional Courtesy I imagine.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
To put it simply, manned aircraft are still one of the best, cheapest and most flexible ways of delivering a wide variety firepower on to targets. They have the principle disadvantage of needing a substantial fixed ground base from which to operate. The aircraft carrier removes this disadvantage.
3000
4000 
