"You can't hide a CVBG, or a single (vulnerable) carrier for long from Satellite surveillance for ever, even with Electronic Warfare. You might lose it for a few hours at most, but thats all."
Wrong. The Soviets developed all sorts of RORSATs etc to try and cover the North Atlantic. They still didnt have enough Satelites to cover the area. Sat orbits can easily, are are avoided as a matter of course.
"Now you're claiming no-one will dare attack a carrier using a sub(like no-one would ever attack Pearl Harbour from the air?)."
No, what Fltcpt said, was that the only thing a US CVBG has to fear from Sub attack, is RN SSNs IIRC.
"Aegis is primarily an anti-air platform"
Aegis is a Combat system mounted on CG-47 and the Arliegh Burkes, not too mention Kongos etc. It isnt a platform.
"its ASW capability is primarily for self-defense."
The ASW capbility of a Sprucan is about the same as that of a Arleigh Burke IIa or a Tico. They mount equivilant systems, and benefit from being newer designs.
"And Arleigh Burke may have good sensors, but neither is it as good as the Spruance at ASW and, anyway, isn't it a bit underarmed(anti-air, anti-ship, anti-sub)???."
Underarmed? An Arliegh Burke is the most heavily armed DDG in the world, not too mention the most expensive. Any other contempory or future design for a DDG pales in comparison to a Arliegh Burke. Even DDX wont carry as much VLS.
"You appear to be ignoring the fact that the S-5 was the Nimitz's best ASW asset, the Seahawks being too short ranged."
The S-3 Viking was used when the Sub threat was very high, not only to the CVBG itself, but to the Convoys that would be dashing across the Atlantic. A S-3 also lacks when compared to a Seahawk in certain areas. Dipping Sonar?
"And isn't the USAF providing a huge chunk of carrier aviations infight refueling needs these days?. :)"
During Afghanistan, yes.
"Bombers can do SEAD with stand-off weapons, thank you very much."
Why does Dale Brown, suddenly pop into my head.
"I also noticed you didn't even try to compare the F/A-18F against the A-10, F-15E and the A-6."
The SHornet is an Air superiorty fighter. An A-10 a CAS aircraft, F-15E interdicton Aircraft and the A-6 a Bomber.
"More hulls, less eggs in one basket, easier to defend, not to mention cheaper to buy and cheaper and far easier to maintain (unless cost is not a factor to you). Can be harder to spot too, even by sats, if you play it right."
Not really. Smaller Hulls mean less aircraft can be carried. Smaller hulls mean less combat stores can be carried. Smaller hulls mean that Flight Ops cant take place during bad weather due to the inherently greater Pitch and role of smaller ships. Due to the smaller size of the hulls, mean you need more hulls. Which mean you have to pay for the most expensive parts of a ship again. a 100'000 tonne CV costs less than two 50'000 tonne CV's, or 5 20'000 tonnes CVs.
"yeah right, noticed all the naval experts running to build battlecruisers"
Any surface ship has to wait until an attacker is over the horizon and in range before defending themselves. A CVBG can defend itself 200nm + away from its outer pickets.
Do you like USS Aircraft Carriers ?
Moderator: Latest news team
-
BlondeLeffe
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 22 Jan 2004, 00:00
- Location: Schoten
Hi all,
One of my favorite airplanes is the E-2C Hawkeye, a typical carrier-plane.
I've read some books of Stephen Coonts, where I found a lot of information about aircraft carriers. Some parts of the carrier (like the steam catapults, the all-day-living-on-board, the landing procedure) are very comprehensively described.
One of my favorite airplanes is the E-2C Hawkeye, a typical carrier-plane.
I've read some books of Stephen Coonts, where I found a lot of information about aircraft carriers. Some parts of the carrier (like the steam catapults, the all-day-living-on-board, the landing procedure) are very comprehensively described.