Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/26/2005 11:20:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 11:21:02 AM EDT by LonePathfinder]
Does the idea of building a self escorting super carrier have merit? Is it practical with current technology? What about with near future technology such as lasers and hypervelocity missiles?

I've toyed with this idea off and on for years. If a carrier didn't need to rely on escorts then would it not have longer endurance, higher transit speeds to theaters of action? It would mean a rewriting of tactics. Sure you loose the patch of ocean a modern CBG could cover for maritime interdiction, but you could still retain surface forces for such missions.

A Carrier with sufficient SAMs and CIWS to be able to defend itself seems like an idea. This would mean less space devoted to aircraft related items, but most air wings are on the smaller size these days anyway. ASW could be beefed up with some more helos and maybe building the S-3 force back up. It does mean you can’t have a Missile Cruiser or destroyer hiding up a threat axis, but with newer developments in hypervelocity missile systems and lasers wouldn't the savings on man power and being able to get by with fewer ships be an attractive alternative? You could even hand off terminal guidance to SAMs to an AWAC; I don't know if they can do this yet or not.

In turn you could make the surface warships more oriented towards classical surface ship roles of interdiction etc. The biggest problem is lack of redundancy in a sustained attack and the likelihood leakers would get through. Could adding more CIWS mounts or more effective CIWS help alleviate this problem to an acceptable degree?

In reality this will never happen, I was just wondering in a theoretical sense.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 11:25:58 AM EDT
One thing to remember is that any warship we field has to able to fit throught the Suez and Panama canals.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 11:29:32 AM EDT
You'll still need auxuiliary ships to haul jet fuel and ordnance, a hospital ship, radar pickets, and other such vessels. The modern CV(N)BG is a pretty efficient fighting unit. Each vessel is well-suited to its task.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 11:50:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 11:59:34 AM EDT by Dolomite]
Keep in mind that the job of the numerous frigates in a carrier group is to physically put themselves between the carrier and any threat against it, and then fight the threat until one of them is dead. This battle would preferably take place hundreds of miles away from the carrier.

Also, even though fighting technology is allowing ships to see farther and farther – there’s still no substitute to being able to divert a guided missile destroyer to go and check out a radar blip first hand.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:01:01 PM EDT
Naval engineering is a series of trade offs. For every item you add, something else has to go away. Loading all of those SAMs mean magazine space that won't be available to hold aircraft ordnance, fuel, or other supplies. A true SAM shooter has to have an Aegis radar. A CVN would need more superstructure to mount the radar antennas - that would increase turbulence for landing aircraft.

You would have to add more manpower to operate the radars and maintain the missiles - those bodies would have to come from somewhere else.

Where would the missiles go? Couldn't have them launching through the flight deck or from under it. That would be a nasty surprise during a cat shot or trap - your own SAM taking you down.

Things generally evolve the way that they are for very good reasons. The trick is knowing when circumstances have changed enough that one should alter design or capabilities. If anthing, the trend should be towards smaller carriers since air wings are smaller and more capable and surface ships are becoming ever more vulnerable to precision weapons.

No, I don't think that a battle-carrier is a good idea. The Ruskies tried it and it didn't work very well for them.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:02:51 PM EDT
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Small and fast is the future, not big and slow.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:08:05 PM EDT
I don't know if I'd say it didn't work well. I worked out the number of ready-to-fire surface-to-air missiles on Kuznetsov as somewhere akin to 350. In various wargames I've played (usually Harpoon), pretty much the only way to sink it is with a submarine.

They just had a different point of view of things compared to the USN. The Russians realised they could never compete with the US's supercarrier fleet, so they took their own path to a different, non-competing solution to the problem.

NTM
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:18:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
One thing to remember is that any warship we field has to able to fit throught the Suez and Panama canals.



Not quite true.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:06:42 PM EDT
That's true. I don't think the current generation US carriers can fit through the Panama canal.

NTM
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:17:33 PM EDT
All the eggs in one basket? Sooner or later, overwhelming numbers of cheaper assets will win.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:48:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I don't know if I'd say it didn't work well. I worked out the number of ready-to-fire surface-to-air missiles on Kuznetsov as somewhere akin to 350. In various wargames I've played (usually Harpoon), pretty much the only way to sink it is with a submarine.

They just had a different point of view of things compared to the USN. The Russians realised they could never compete with the US's supercarrier fleet, so they took their own path to a different, non-competing solution to the problem.

NTM



You're taking information from a BOARD GAME as militarily accurate and applicable to real life combat scenarios ???

Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:11:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I don't know if I'd say it didn't work well. I worked out the number of ready-to-fire surface-to-air missiles on Kuznetsov as somewhere akin to 350. In various wargames I've played (usually Harpoon), pretty much the only way to sink it is with a submarine.

They just had a different point of view of things compared to the USN. The Russians realised they could never compete with the US's supercarrier fleet, so they took their own path to a different, non-competing solution to the problem.

NTM



A path with horrible sea keeping characteristics (because of all those weapons topside), a not very capable aviation wing, and tremendous reliability trouble with those weapons all exposed to the weather and salt spray.

Also, you don't have to sink a ship to render it useless. Blind it, limit its ability to maneuver, or stop it dead in the water - all as good as sinking.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:13:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JB69:

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I don't know if I'd say it didn't work well. I worked out the number of ready-to-fire surface-to-air missiles on Kuznetsov as somewhere akin to 350. In various wargames I've played (usually Harpoon), pretty much the only way to sink it is with a submarine.

They just had a different point of view of things compared to the USN. The Russians realised they could never compete with the US's supercarrier fleet, so they took their own path to a different, non-competing solution to the problem.

NTM



You're taking information from a BOARD GAME as militarily accurate and applicable to real life combat scenarios ???




I'm betting it's a VIDEO game
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:16:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:33:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
That's true. I don't think the current generation US carriers can fit through the Panama canal.

NTM




Ships classified as Panamax are of the maximum dimensions that will fit through the locks of the Panama Canal, each of which is 1000 ft long by 110 ft wide and 85 ft deep.

Thus a Panamax ship will usually have dimension of close to 965 ft long (294m), 106 ft wide (32.3m) and a draft of 39.5 ft (12.04m).

This is considered a mid-size ship by today's standards.

Many modern post-Panamax container ships are as large as possible, for greater cost-effectiveness.

However, merchandise such as bulk grain products is moved primarily on Panamax ships.

U.S. Navy supercarriers are one type of vessel which are unable to fit through the canal locks.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:35:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 2:37:37 PM EDT by LonePathfinder]
Interesting points. Perhaps the idea could be more along the lines of reducing the number of escorts. Perhaps the ship could get away with one or two escorts vice five or six they normally have. The ship wouldn't need close escort for anti-air and the escorting ships could be much further up the threat axis.

I'd like to point out I wasn't envisioning these ships going up and bombing the Kola by themselves and facing Backfire regiments all on their lonesome. However in the middle of the Atlantic, or off the coastline of a country with no naval or airpower the ship could fend for itself.

I had envisioned a ship that was basically like our current CVNs, maybe with a more Enterprise style superstructure for the SPY radars. The older super carriers and Big E had twin terrier launchers in the notches at the two rear corners of the flight deck. I don't think they were on for very long, but that’s where this idea came from. If you extended the hull sponsons back father for VLS cells I think you could fit a substantial number of missiles in there. Something like 32-48 Standard SAMs, double if they can be packed two per cell and numerous quad packed ESSM. Add CIWS liberally. I like the gun systems but missiles systems like RAM might be more space efficient. Two ram launchers per side on the forward sponsons and one per side at the rear of the ship would give a lot of leaker coverage. I don't know if placing two RAM launchers next to each other forward would cause problems with the second launcher locking on to the first's missiles. This with a decent fleet defense interceptor, or Super Bugs with missiles longer ranged than AMRAAM (ramjet missiles yet?) I think could work.

I think that would really not impact aviation spaces all that much, yet still give the ship substantial self defense ability. Reloading VLS cells at sea might prove practical on a large carrier rather than now as it is they only reload them in port. I can't really see a dramatic increase in man power required.

Edit: I mean is an entire CBG of upwards of ten ships needed for helping invade say Iraq or Sryia?? Or for the now gone no fly zone patrols? One to three ships are a lot less sailors and assets tied up for such a mission.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:36:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:53:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 3:10:00 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Interesting points. Perhaps the idea could be more along the lines of reducing the number of escorts. Perhaps the ship could get away with one or two escorts vice five or six they normally have. The ship wouldn't need close escort for anti-air and the escorting ships could be much further up the threat axis

I'd like to point out I wasn't envisioning these ships going up and bombing the Kola by themselves and facing Backfire regiments all on their lonesome. However in the middle of the Atlantic, or off the coastline of a country with no naval or airpower the ship could fend for itself.


No offense, but what makes you think the Navy hasn't thought these things through and are operating in a manner advantageous in these situations? I'll give you a hint, they are. I won't get into it on this board for obvious reasons.


I had envisioned a ship that was basically like our current CVNs, maybe with a more Enterprise style superstructure for the SPY radars.


The new CVN will have a SPY radar for other purposes.


The older super carriers and Big E had twin terrier launchers in the notches at the two rear corners of the flight deck. I don't think they were on for very long, but that’s where this idea came from. If you extended the hull sponsons back father for VLS cells I think you could fit a substantial number of missiles in there. Something like 32-48 Standard SAMs, double if they can be packed two per cell and numerous quad packed ESSM.

ESSM will replace the current NATO SeaSparrow.
If you add weight like you're suggesting you decrease the sea-keeping ability of the ship.


Add CIWS liberally. I like the gun systems but missiles systems like RAM might be more space efficient. Two ram launchers per side on the forward sponsons and one per side at the rear of the ship would give a lot of leaker coverage.

Again see the new carrier design.


I don't know if placing two RAM launchers next to each other forward would cause problems with the second launcher locking on to the first's missiles.

Edit. Here's a link about RAM http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/ram.htm


This with a decent fleet defense interceptor, or Super Bugs with missiles longer ranged than AMRAAM (ramjet missiles yet?) I think could work.

I think that would really not impact aviation spaces all that much, yet still give the ship substantial self defense ability. Reloading VLS cells at sea might prove practical on a large carrier rather than now as it is they only reload them in port. I can't really see a dramatic increase in man power required.


You know how many times VLS has been loaded at sea? Never. That's why the new destroyers have more VLS cells.


Edit: I mean is an entire CBG of upwards of ten ships needed for helping invade say Iraq or Sryia?? Or for the now gone no fly zone patrols? One to three ships are a lot less sailors and assets tied up for such a mission.


Do you ever read www.navy.mil under their news. Read about Carrier Strike Groups.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15471

ETA: I'm sucking with the quote function today.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:57:54 PM EDT
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:03:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 3:05:34 PM EDT by H46Driver]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.



Tried and less than successful. Nuclear works great for capital ships and subs, but is too expensive for escorts.

The training and manpower required to safely operate a reactor is large. Personnel costs amount to 2/3 of the total life cycle cost of a ship. A powerplant that requires more people to operate won't cut it.

Dport - no fair bringing up facts. Haven't you learned that yet??
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:05:39 PM EDT
Fuck that.

We need to build mobile underwater missile launching platforms, kind of like an MX Missile system of the ocean.


Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.

Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:06:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Fuck that.

We need to build mobile underwater missile launching platforms, kind of like an MX Missile system of the ocean.


Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.




LOL
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:10:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.



Tried and less than successful. Nuclear works great for capital ships and subs, but is too expensive for escorts.

The training and manpower required to safely operate a reactor is large. Personnel costs amount to 2/3 of the total life cycle cost of a ship. A powerplant that requires more people to operate won't cut it.

Dport - no fair bringing up facts. Haven't you learned that yet??


Hey, you're doing the same thing. Glass houses and stones don't you know?
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:12:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Fuck that.

We need to build mobile underwater missile launching platforms, kind of like an MX Missile system of the ocean.


Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.




we already have those. They are called nuclear missile submarines.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:25:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:27:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.



ALL ships run on food!… nuclear is not the answer to all problems.


ANdy


The hell you say. You have to UNREP for more than just fuel? Since when? For the record, I don't want spare parts and mail either.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:30:20 PM EDT
I'm still waiting for the pycrete carrier
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:31:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.



ALL ships run on food!… nuclear is not the answer to all problems.


ANdy



Nuclear powered robot sailors don't need food.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:23:25 PM EDT
An aircraft carrier has one purpose and that is to project power with its attached air group. Nothing else is as important. Any additional offensive weapon system would take up valuable space normally used to support the air group. While we all understand that even the current and projected self-defense systems do this as well, we still build a modicum of them into the ship, primarily to deal with leakers.

Navy Fleet defense was and remains based upon a layered defensive paradigm. We use a mix of intelligence, operational deception, interceptors, and a mix of hard and soft kill defensive measures from AAW escorts and ship self defense systems to defeat the enemy's missiles and submarine torpedos.

Offensive systems are reserved for the escorts and the embarked aircraft.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:34:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
One thing to remember is that any warship we field has to able to fit throught the Suez and Panama canals.

Carriers cant fit through the Panama canal, they have a beam of 39 meters, while the canal is limited to 32.3 meters, about 20 feet too wide to fit.
I think any ship afloat can find through the Suez.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 7:40:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Fuck that.

We need to build mobile underwater missile launching platforms, kind of like an MX Missile system of the ocean.


Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.




we already have those. They are called nuclear missile submarines.



Really?
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 7:49:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
An aircraft carrier has one purpose and that is to project power with its attached air group. Nothing else is as important. Any additional offensive weapon system would take up valuable space normally used to support the air group. While we all understand that even the current and projected self-defense systems do this as well, we still build a modicum of them into the ship, primarily to deal with leakers.





There's also the fact that every missile that slams into an escort is one that's not hitting the carrier.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 7:58:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
No offense, but what makes you think the Navy hasn't thought these things through and are operating in a manner advantageous in these situations? I'll give you a hint, they are. I won't get into it on this board for obvious reasons.

You know how many times VLS has been loaded at sea? Never. That's why the new destroyers have more VLS cells.

ETA: I'm sucking with the quote function today.



Maybe you need to reread in the original post about how I said:
"In reality this will never happen, I was just wondering in a theoretical sense."

Just because something is done with one method doesn't mean it can't be done just as well with a different method. You know its just exercising the "thinking outside the box" part of the brain.

I know VLS has never been loaded at sea. My point was with a 100k ton plus ship it might be possible to do so since the shear size of the ship lends itself to a more stable loading platoform for a VLS.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 11:34:58 PM EDT
My first ship, USS Kitty Hawk, had twin-arm Talos launchers when originally built. They were taken out when Sea Sparrow was fielded, and the former missle magazine space is now used for other purposes. Port side is used for the missle launcher rail repair shop. The overhead rails used to move around the missles are still installed in a lot of places. I know, Because I used to smack my head on them with annoying regularity.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 12:09:22 AM EDT
I forsee smaller, more agile carriers that crap out predators, and Global Hawks. That in and of it's self being a good theatre projection implement. Smaller means fewer crew, un manned means fewer pilots, smaller also means less expensive. You could have multiple UAVCGs prowling the world for a similar cost. sure you would need the tender ships, but unmanned rigs could also provide 24/7 radar coverage AWACS style. You would have far less pilot fatigue to wory about. With the right links, pilots could be from New Hampshire, dropping Bunker busters in Iran ala Enders game. Interesting mental exercise.

jim
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:45:51 AM EDT
Biggest threat to a carrier is from submarines.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:46:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

Originally Posted By dport:
No offense, but what makes you think the Navy hasn't thought these things through and are operating in a manner advantageous in these situations? I'll give you a hint, they are. I won't get into it on this board for obvious reasons.

You know how many times VLS has been loaded at sea? Never. That's why the new destroyers have more VLS cells.

ETA: I'm sucking with the quote function today.



Maybe you need to reread in the original post about how I said:
"In reality this will never happen, I was just wondering in a theoretical sense."

Just because something is done with one method doesn't mean it can't be done just as well with a different method. You know its just exercising the "thinking outside the box" part of the brain.

I know VLS has never been loaded at sea. My point was with a 100k ton plus ship it might be possible to do so since the shear size of the ship lends itself to a more stable loading platoform for a VLS.


It's possible to load VLS at sea on a 10,000 ton ship. That's what the cranes in the launchers were originally designed for.

To be quite blunt. The Navy is have zero problems thinking out of the box right now. If you take a good hard look at the current shipbuilding programs, CVN-21, DD-21, LCS, CG-21 etc-and remember each of these programs brings new TTP with them- and the current manpower analysis programs the question becomes is the Navy thinking too far out of the box. It's argued, inside the Navy, that we are pursuing too many programs all at once without paying attention to the most important aspect the fundamentals.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:49:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
My first ship, USS Kitty Hawk, had twin-arm Talos launchers when originally built.


Talos, now there is a man's missile. Friggen ICBM looking thing with a ramjet. Gotta love it based on its sheer size.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 5:51:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2005 5:53:50 AM EDT by billclo]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By JB69:

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I don't know if I'd say it didn't work well. I worked out the number of ready-to-fire surface-to-air missiles on Kuznetsov as somewhere akin to 350. In various wargames I've played (usually Harpoon), pretty much the only way to sink it is with a submarine.

They just had a different point of view of things compared to the USN. The Russians realised they could never compete with the US's supercarrier fleet, so they took their own path to a different, non-competing solution to the problem.

NTM



You're taking information from a BOARD GAME as militarily accurate and applicable to real life combat scenarios ???




I'm betting it's a VIDEO game



Actually, Harpoon started out life as a board game with the option of using a hexagonal map or miniatures. It was EXTREMELY accurate for it's time, and I haven't seen a better gaming system for modern Naval battles. Eventually it was ported over to the PC, and last time I looked, it was still quite realistic. About as good as it gets for naval simulations, unless you have access to actual military simulations.

I also tried to attack that Russian Kuznetsov in a couple scenarios. It was a real cast-iron bitch, let me tell you...
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 6:21:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
One thing to remember is that any warship we field has to able to fit throught the Suez and Panama canals.



In 1942.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 12:04:16 PM EDT
The VLCC can't fit through Suez.

Most of the logistics flow in ODS was based on the assumption that the Suez would be closed.

The reason you want SPY radars on everything is to eliminate unique emitters. The SPS 32 and 33 (IIRC) on the Enterprise and Long Beach were great radars for their time, unfortunately once they were turned on you gave the bgs a line of bearing right to the hvts. Hence the move in the late 70s and 80s to standardize on 48E and others on the carriers and cruisers.

As noted the early "super carriers" had on board Terrier systems, which were removed for various reasons. Some even had SQS-23 sonar sustems

If I was on a carrier I'd want RAM or similar, granted if the missiles can get past the screening planes and forces you go big problems, but I would want some point defense capability. Just to cover that lucky sub driver that sits on the bottom and has a cvbg drive right over him allowing him to pop up and lauunch a bunch of short range missiles and he might even be able to get away by sitting tight on the bottom for a few days.

But as noted you only have x amount of space and weight available. OK space you can hang a lot of weight on a CV hull. And every unnecessary system and the spares, and magazines, and operators and fixers takes away from the spares, operators and fixers carried for necessary systems.

And as an aside I'm not real sure the new LHDs can get through the Panama Canal. IIRC the Tarawa had problems on her first trip, but that was stuff added on that interfered with buildings and structures, not the actual hull dimensions. It's the side overhangs on the carriers not the hull.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 12:11:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2005 1:23:25 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 1:18:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Short of being hit by a tactical nuke, you are not going to eailly knock out a US Carrier. They are pretty much invulnerable to most conventional weapons… you can damage them, yes, but sinking them is a whole different ball game. Them hulls is VERY tough!


ANdy


Mostly it's because they're guarded by SuperBugs.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 1:24:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 1:39:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
They just need to build nuclear powered escort ships. A nuclear carrier can go for years without refueling.

The destroyer and cruiser escorts run on oil sludge.



ALL ships run on food!… nuclear is not the answer to all problems.


ANdy


The hell you say. You have to UNREP for more than just fuel? Since when? For the record, I don't want spare parts and mail either.



WTH, you are on a ship in the ocean, fish for your dinner!

Link Posted: 8/27/2005 1:43:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2005 1:43:36 PM EDT by CZ75_9MM]

Originally Posted By billclo:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By JB69:

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I don't know if I'd say it didn't work well. I worked out the number of ready-to-fire surface-to-air missiles on Kuznetsov as somewhere akin to 350. In various wargames I've played (usually Harpoon), pretty much the only way to sink it is with a submarine.

They just had a different point of view of things compared to the USN. The Russians realised they could never compete with the US's supercarrier fleet, so they took their own path to a different, non-competing solution to the problem.

NTM



You're taking information from a BOARD GAME as militarily accurate and applicable to real life combat scenarios ???




I'm betting it's a VIDEO game



Actually, Harpoon started out life as a board game with the option of using a hexagonal map or miniatures. It was EXTREMELY accurate for it's time, and I haven't seen a better gaming system for modern Naval battles. Eventually it was ported over to the PC, and last time I looked, it was still quite realistic. About as good as it gets for naval simulations, unless you have access to actual military simulations.

I also tried to attack that Russian Kuznetsov in a couple scenarios. It was a real cast-iron bitch, let me tell you...



Harpoon was probably the best naval simulator ever.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 1:43:28 PM EDT
Want to stop a US aircraft carrier dead in it's tracks?
Sink the supply ship carrying toilet paper and let the supply ship carrying beans and franks get through....


Originally Posted By vito113:
Short of being hit by a tactical nuke, you are not going to easilly knock out a US Carrier. They are pretty much invulnerable to most conventional weapons… you can damage them, yes, but sinking them is a whole different ball game. Them hulls is VERY tough!


ANdy

Link Posted: 8/27/2005 1:49:20 PM EDT


Freaking telephone pole!!


Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
My first ship, USS Kitty Hawk, had twin-arm Talos launchers when originally built.


Talos, now there is a man's missile. Friggen ICBM looking thing with a ramjet. Gotta love it based on its sheer size.

Link Posted: 8/27/2005 3:43:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Want to stop a US aircraft carrier dead in it's tracks?
Sink the supply ship carrying toilet paper and let the supply ship carrying beans and franks get through....


Originally Posted By vito113:
Short of being hit by a tactical nuke, you are not going to easilly knock out a US Carrier. They are pretty much invulnerable to most conventional weapons… you can damage them, yes, but sinking them is a whole different ball game. Them hulls is VERY tough!


ANdy




Wanna talk about the emergency toilet paper VERTREP a det from my former squadron flew to a CVN following that ship's port call to Chennai (then called Madras)?
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:02:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 11:44:50 PM EDT
USS Mississippi laid down 1915, launched 1917, firing Terrier. BTW Terriers were able to successfully engage crossing and almost inbound Talos. Tartars couldn't even successfully track.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top