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.

Our brand new, shiny aircraft carrier (£6 billion to build) sets sail for sea trials.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40402153

But to get straight to the point, as a keen student of military history, I've been watching youtube videos on anti-ship missiles, and they scare the gak out of me

So are aircraft carriers turning into floating bullseyes, or will they endure for a few more years?

I don't want to see my hard earned tax money end up on the bottom of the ocean.

If an aircraft carrier is parked off your backyard, you can assume it isn't alone.

It's friends also pack a fair amount of missile and other weapon countermeasures. So it's not like you will just be shooting at the one big ol' target. Sure, you can shoot at the big thing, but bear in mind, ALL of its friends will also be shooting at you.

Plus it can Maintain a defensive pose many miles out with its aircraft.

it can reach out and hit a target in hundreds of miles around the ship, plus missile range with air to ship And air to air missiles.

it can command the sea for 2-300 + miles around it

As long as you don't pick a fight with the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Israelis, or Japanese you're probably ok. Also, New Mexico-they just hurl radioactive muties at you via catapult. Oh and Australia. They have guided flying great white sharks there.

These are all good points, but what defence is there against those super-fast anti-ship missiles of death? Or railguns in a few years time.

This ain't the 1940s anymore.

Hopefully they didn't use the Titanic as a template to build this one.
There'll have developed many ways to take a hole on the side since Argentina (being the last Royal Navy sinking?).

Super fast anti-ship missiles are countered by hyper fast anti-missile missiles.

Railguns aren't combat ready for a while now and won't have the range to be fired at a carrier from outside of the carriers defensive network for even longer than that.

The scary thing against carriers is a submarine. Repeatedly in NATO exercises, a lone diesel electric submarine has gotten into position to launch torpedoes at carriers.

Jefffar wrote:
Super fast anti-ship missiles are countered by hyper fast anti-missile missiles.

Railguns aren't combat ready for a while now and won't have the range to be fired at a carrier from outside of the carriers defensive network for even longer than that.

The scary thing against carriers is a submarine. Repeatedly in NATO exercises, a lone diesel electric submarine has gotten into position to launch torpedoes at carriers.

Diesel submarines? I thought advanced sonar, anti-sub helicopter patrols, and of course, a screen of destroyers, would have made the submarine obsolete? How the hell did they get so close?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Hopefully they didn't use the Titanic as a template to build this one.
There'll have developed many ways to take a hole on the side since Argentina (being the last Royal Navy sinking?).

Yeah, the Falklands was the last major naval conflict. It's an area of military history I'd recommend to anybody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
As long as you don't pick a fight with the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Israelis, or Japanese you're probably ok. Also, New Mexico-they just hurl radioactive muties at you via catapult. Oh and Australia. They have guided flying great white sharks there.

True, but we still have our giant Winston Churchill robot in storage from WW2. Don't mess with that

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Super fast anti-ship missiles are countered by hyper fast anti-missile missiles.

Railguns aren't combat ready for a while now and won't have the range to be fired at a carrier from outside of the carriers defensive network for even longer than that.

The scary thing against carriers is a submarine. Repeatedly in NATO exercises, a lone diesel electric submarine has gotten into position to launch torpedoes at carriers.

Diesel submarines? I thought advanced sonar, anti-sub helicopter patrols, and of course, a screen of destroyers, would have made the submarine obsolete? How the hell did they get so close?

Diesel-electric submarines are orders of magnitude more stealthy than nuclear because they don't have a nuclear reactor that needs constant cooling. Further, when Russia is your biggest potential enemy you tend to focus on countering nuclear submarines, rather than random Swedish submarines that you have no reason of fighting in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Super fast anti-ship missiles are countered by hyper fast anti-missile missiles.

Railguns aren't combat ready for a while now and won't have the range to be fired at a carrier from outside of the carriers defensive network for even longer than that.

The scary thing against carriers is a submarine. Repeatedly in NATO exercises, a lone diesel electric submarine has gotten into position to launch torpedoes at carriers.

Diesel submarines? I thought advanced sonar, anti-sub helicopter patrols, and of course, a screen of destroyers, would have made the submarine obsolete? How the hell did they get so close?

Diesel-electric submarines are orders of magnitude more stealthy than nuclear because they don't have a nuclear reactor that needs constant cooling. Further, when Russia is your biggest potential enemy you tend to focus on countering nuclear submarines, rather than random Swedish submarines that you have no reason of fighting in the first place.

Good point.

Jefffar wrote:
Super fast anti-ship missiles are countered by hyper fast anti-missile missiles.

Railguns aren't combat ready for a while now and won't have the range to be fired at a carrier from outside of the carriers defensive network for even longer than that.

The scary thing against carriers is a submarine. Repeatedly in NATO exercises, a lone diesel electric submarine has gotten into position to launch torpedoes at carriers.

They cam solo shorter ranges battery only. Very quiet as no engines, cooling, just electric propulsion systems.

Yes. Rail guns are planned 100 miles so far...
Far short of the carriers 300 + mile air screen + missiles.

And. Even if they get them, the escorts bow have them maybe. And you gotta gunnery duel.

Plus a carrier with air can hot a wider range of targets, do wider duties and also act as a centre unit for stores, gear and support smaller ships abit.

There will always be the need to get your air power to its destination in force. Protection of the carrier is the duty of the carrier task group, which consists of many other vessels and aircraft. Heck, even in Sci-Fi there is the big cruiser with all its small fighters out in space, so this type of military practice will never go anywhere for a long time.

Albeit, my knowledge of the current systems might be a bit outdated (I retired from the Navy with 20 years quite a while ago...) the Exocet type missile that cruised the top of the waves was the ship destroyer threat back in the 80's and still is today. Even back to the 80's, we had CIWS weapon systems (which are amazing) on every ship to counter missile threats as a last resort. I am sure they have advanced significantly since way back then on better countermeasures. My one son is a Naval pilot right now, so could probably rattle off a lot more than I can.

CVs/CVNs are still very much the terror of the seas. The only real other class that counters them are submarines (as they say, the only other class of ships that submarine captains see are targets ). Anti-ship missiles are powerful, but not so much that they negate everything else, especially with the more recent focus on anti-missile defense and stealth. CIWS (close-in weapon systems) are fun. Some sort of railgun equipped battlecruisers (BC/LC) may some day compete with CVs, but that's not happening any time soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in regards to submarines, it's still moreso helicopters equipped eith dipping sonar and ani-sub torpedoes that really scares them. AFAIK.

Yeah, Aircraft Carriers are still the king of the sea, and are going to be for a long time yet.

Here is a somewhat basic look at why killing an aircraft carrier is a pretty daunting task.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/five-reasons-us-aircraft-carriers-are-nearly-impossible-sink-17318

Yeah, don't forget warfare is a constant struggle of measures and countermeasures. Anti-ship missiles are not the end all of warships. Keep in mind ships can survive hits depending on a number of factors, as has been demonstrated in several encounters. And that assumes the missile ever gets fired. The whole point of combat air patrols is to use the superior maneuverability and range of aircraft to sink would be attack missile boats. Anything that slips past this must contend with the rest of the warfleet and its anti-missile measures (including missile boats). CIWS are the last resort, but still capable defenses.

Railguns are still research at this point and we still don't know if they will turn out to be practical. Especially when they seem to be less effective than existing missile technology but have much higher logistical demands.

And my brothers across the sea, I hope you don't take offense to this, but my god is she an ugly ship.

Carrier groups have not faced an equal opponent in going on eight decades. Whether or not they can survive in the modern era is completely in the air (pardon the pun).

There are few instances where 80 year old technology survives the next war. I would not want to be on one when that war starts.

One carrier countermeasure that hasn't been mentioned-nuke.
Its problematic in that the countries that would pose a threat to carriers (and alternatively have carriers) have nukes as well, and they were a definite fear in the Cold War.

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...

Jut noticed something: did you guys really name a carrier after Gerald Ford?

Never let it be said the Americans don't have a sense of humour.

I'm going to kill two birds with one stone and save myself the bother of starting another thread, but are there any modern naval wargames out there? Carriers, destroyers, battleship, that kind of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
And my brothers across the sea, I hope you don't take offense to this, but my god is she an ugly ship.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:
Yeah, don't forget warfare is a constant struggle of measures and countermeasures. Anti-ship missiles are not the end all of warships. Keep in mind ships can survive hits depending on a number of factors, as has been demonstrated in several encounters. And that assumes the missile ever gets fired. The whole point of combat air patrols is to use the superior maneuverability and range of aircraft to sink would be attack missile boats. Anything that slips past this must contend with the rest of the warfleet and its anti-missile measures (including missile boats). CIWS are the last resort, but still capable defenses.

Railguns are still research at this point and we still don't know if they will turn out to be practical. Especially when they seem to be less effective than existing missile technology but have much higher logistical demands.

China's efforts to gain islands in the South China sea make an awful lot of sense to me now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MDSW wrote:
There will always be the need to get your air power to its destination in force. Protection of the carrier is the duty of the carrier task group, which consists of many other vessels and aircraft. Heck, even in Sci-Fi there is the big cruiser with all its small fighters out in space, so this type of military practice will never go anywhere for a long time.

Albeit, my knowledge of the current systems might be a bit outdated (I retired from the Navy with 20 years quite a while ago...) the Exocet type missile that cruised the top of the waves was the ship destroyer threat back in the 80's and still is today. Even back to the 80's, we had CIWS weapon systems (which are amazing) on every ship to counter missile threats as a last resort. I am sure they have advanced significantly since way back then on better countermeasures. My one son is a Naval pilot right now, so could probably rattle off a lot more than I can.

Good insight

 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...

Didn't have ICBMs and computer viruses turning your Aegis into a blank screen either.

ut noticed something: did you guys really name a carrier after Gerald Ford?

Its the only carrier that occasionally trips in the middle of the Pacific for no reason. : )

A note about those Diesel subs. Most of the Chinese submarine fleet is diesel/electric submarines.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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...

Didn't have ICBMs and computer viruses turning your Aegis into a blank screen either.

Neither of these are a threat for the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And not just a carrier, but a whole class of carriers have been named after him.

When people name warships, they usually go for things such as: Terror, doom, invincible, victory etc etc

And given America's military history, you'd expect it to be named Sherman, or John Paul Jones, or that guy who was naval secretary in 1823 or something

But Gerald Ford? God almighty! From what I've heard, he was the first president to get lost in the White House.

That is not a name to strike fear into the hearts of America's enemies.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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...

Didn't have ICBMs and computer viruses turning your Aegis into a blank screen either.

Neither of these are a threat for the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And not just a carrier, but a whole class of carriers have been named after him.

Did you just say a nuke is not a threat to a carrier battle group?

Well if you're just going to go around saying things are useless because of Nukes...

It's basically the equivalent of godwining a thread.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But Gerald Ford? God almighty! From what I've heard, he was the first president to get lost in the White House.

Now now, he might get lost - but that also means the enemy don't know where he is. Not knowing where an enemy carrier group is, that's scary!

As for the nukes, well, if someone upgrades a conflict to nukes the carriers are irrelevant and losing them is the least of our concerns...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When people name warships, they usually go for things such as: Terror, doom, invincible, victory etc etc

And given America's military history, you'd expect it to be named Sherman, or John Paul Jones, or that guy who was naval secretary in 1823 or something

But Gerald Ford? God almighty! From what I've heard, he was the first president to get lost in the White House.

That is not a name to strike fear into the hearts of America's enemies.

Most of our carriers are named after US Presidents. Ford actually served on an Aircraft carrier during WW2. It's a fitting name as far as I care.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But Gerald Ford? God almighty! From what I've heard, he was the first president to get lost in the White House.

Now now, he might get lost - but that also means the enemy don't know where he is. Not knowing where an enemy carrier group is, that's scary!

As for the nukes, well, if someone upgrades a conflict to nukes the carriers are irrelevant and losing them is the least of our concerns...

I'll say this to djones as well, but the selective use of nuclear weapons against a carrier group, shouldn't be ruled out.

For example, imagine a war between China and the USA over Taiwan or something. China might calculate that using ONE nuclear weapon to knock-out a US carrier group might be worth the gamble.

If the USA lost a carrier group to ONE nuclear weapon, wouldn't the USA think that a nuclear retaliation, that could wipe out half the Earth, is not worth it?

Yes, losing a carrier group would be a big deal, but I don't think anybody would risk nuclear Armageddon over it. The USA might retaliate by nuking ONE Chinese city as a proportional response or something,

but I think the USA would chalk up the loss of a carrier group as 'acceptable casualties' in that scenario.

 djones520 wrote:
Well if you're just going to go around saying things are useless because of Nukes...

It's basically the equivalent of godwining a thread.

Its not a Godwin. that was Soviet strategy in the event of a major war with the US.

Carriers are fine against the People's Republic of Slabovia, but they have not been tested against a first rate power since their inception.

Frazz... if our enemies are at the point of using nukes on our carrier fleet...

We have bigger problems.