Solution to the Carrier - Page 13 - Historum

**bartieboy** · March 29th, 2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pancho35

Across the Atlantic? and even if they did it would take far too much time.

Aircraft carriers are good if you wanted to police and third world country. Then your planes are right there. Otherwise you lose your planes and you have to wait a long time to get anymore over there.

they still would not need this many, 8 is more then enough

Pancho35 · March 29th, 2011, 02:12 PM

Yeh I guess you are right, that seems to be more than enough. It isn't like the United States isn't going to lose any wars anyway. Why am I even vouching for US power? I don't know.

**Lord_of_Gauda** · March 29th, 2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartieboy

you mean those things that cost an incredible amount of money while they are barely needed?

dump 4, what would change? nothing, they would still have more then any other country in the world!

I believe the anwer is in longe range aircraft.
What would be the point of having a Carrier if you can launch your aircraft from your own country?

Well, unless you can invent a fighter/air superiority/ground attack jet that has a range of 15,000 kms and flies at mach 4, A/C are relevant purely on sortie turn-over rates alone.
I agree that the US can ground 2-3 carrier squadrons and operate just fine with 4-5 for global force projection. But to get rid of carriers alltogether is a silly idea.

**bartieboy** · March 29th, 2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda

Well, unless you can invent a fighter/air superiority/ground attack jet that has a range of 15,000 kms and flies at mach 4, A/C are relevant purely on sortie turn-over rates alone.
I agree that the US can ground 2-3 carrier squadrons and operate just fine with 4-5 for global force projection. But to get rid of carriers alltogether is a silly idea.

well im not saying they should dump them all right now, just lose a couple and try to work on long range fighters

pablo668 · March 30th, 2011, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester

Commander Sharkey Ward and 801 Fleet Air Arm Squadron in two engagements against USAF F5E and F15 Aggressor Squadrons and both well documented with officially published scores.

If you can find another match pre Falklands against the Sea Harrier then I'll be interested.

EoR

You are pursuing a rather strange tangent here with this. Like you have pointed out subsequently it's all about the Harriers Missile/Radar suite and not the actual aircraft themselves.
The Brits came down here to Western Australia and engaged in exercises with the RAAF boys in their FA 18's and handed them their asses on a platter. It was sheerly because of the weapons/radar combination.

Should an airforce develop/equip it's planes with suitable jaming techniques then the Harrier (great aircraft, I'm a fan of it) would be in serious trouble. A change in long range radar/stand off weapons would also change the game substantially.
But once again it would have little to do with the aircraft per se'.

**diddyriddick** · March 30th, 2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isoroku295

Kevlar makes steel look like butter.

You are correct. There is a reason that Police and law enforcement choose kevlar over steel. If it can stop the kinetic energy of a bullet better than steel, then surely it can stop the kinetic energy of a missile better than steel.

**arras** · March 30th, 2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

You are correct. There is a reason that Police and law enforcement choose kevlar over steel. If it can stop the kinetic energy of a bullet better than steel, then surely it can stop the kinetic energy of a missile better than steel.

Well given that it can not stop kinetic energy of knife ...it is not as simple. And knife do not have anything near kinetic energy of bullet.

**bartieboy** · March 30th, 2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

Well given that it can not stop kinetic energy of knife ...it is not as simple. And knife do not have anything near kinetic energy of bullet.

We are seriously going off topic here but my guess is that if law enforcement that feels the need to wear vests and helmets are more often confronted by guns then by people running at them with knives

So anyone has objections to my opinion of carriers being replaced by long range fighters?

**botully** · March 30th, 2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartieboy

So anyone has objections to my opinion of carriers being replaced by long range fighters?

Of course. What is the linger time for a long range fighter? What is it's response time? Does pilot fatigue play a role? Weather? What about a damaged plane facing a long ride home? What about pilots who might be wounded, or eject?

All these "planes vs ships" arguments have been done every decade since planes
were invented.

The Second Horseman · March 30th, 2011, 01:16 PM

I think it may be a good idea to replace aircraft carriers with a new generation of battleships. 10,000 or 15,000 ton ships with a couple accurate 5" guns and AEGIS missile launcher systems. Maybe some UAV's as well. This would require a much lower operating cost.