Why on earth would the Navy want to build a very, very expensive aircraft carrier, when their own tests have shown that a hunter submarine could get through the defensive net around carriers and sink them. No other nation has these costly white elephants. The former Soviet Union did not have them, instead concentrated on building up its submarine fleet. If someone could enlighten me, I would be grateful.
shareProbably to carry aircraft?
---Skanks---
Since an aircraft carrier is a floating airfield, it can bring most of the assets of an air force within striking distance of a trouble spot. This is a very handy thing to have. While it costs about ten times as much to fly missions from an aircrfft carrier as it does from a land base, the land base is not always in a position support troops on the ground overseas.
Aircraft carriers are most useful in a conventional war. The countries we have used them against have not shown any willingness to sink them. The former Soviet Union did have aircraft carriers, but they were more like the smaller ones the British use.
Ranb
ranb40, you da man.
Why are people arguing these points that make no sense? When was the last aircraft carrier we had even damaged due to an enemy attack? WWII. They are probably the safest ships to be on because they are so well defended, both because of the amount of manpower on board and sophisticated expensive hard to replace equipment. They also have a lifespan of at least 40 years and as technology increases I'm sure lifespan will increase as well. I'm sure we defend our aircraft carriers with our own submarines and destroyers as well, because aircraft carriers are pretty much the defining point in the strength of the Navy
In the 90s, I read that in friendly war games that the navy conducted, attack subs were able to sink the carriers, even with all of their defenses, every time. If thats a lie, then the Navy told it.
The best answer was given by rambo that getting aircraft to trouble spots were the reason we have carriers. However we managed to get aircraft to Kadafy's stronghold without carriers.
Dude, what countries even have submarines capable of attacking us? Look out the British are coming!!! As stated before, nothing in the military is invulnerable, it's war and losing ships, tanks, and aircraft are all part of that. If we didn't have aircraft carriers, I'm sure we still would have 'won' the war, but the fact that we have them supporting everything else going on saves far more lives than if we didn't have them.
Maybe the military should spend more money on improving the defenses of the aircraft carriers rather than getting rid of them. Their presence in fact saves lives.
Don't give me this sh!t on cost of technology, everything we have out their is essential to protecting our soldiers and allies, while destroying the enemy.
Do you suggest we get rid of Humvee's too? They are the most vulnerable vehicles on the battlefield. I lost a good friend in one when it was hit with an IED. Oh sh!t, I guess they suck, lets scrap all of them too.
[deleted]
"Dude, what countries even have submarines capable of attacking us?"
Holland; in war games, a 30 year old sub sank a carrier.
http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/news/news_1999.htm
What does it matter if WESTERN vessels could sink American naval ships? The major threats today are Iran and North Korea.
shareWhen was the last time we thought Al Qaeda was going to attack our ships with a nuclear sub??
Our military gets gear based on the threat at hand.
Why not? 97,000 tons of diplomacy would be my answer. They carry 80+ planes (including uh... anti sub ones) Sure an enemy might try to sink one but the US would probably obliterate the country responsible for it. That would be enough to start a world war.
shareHaving the "costly white elephants" gives the United States the ability to defend itself and it's allies anywhere at any time. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan is a Nimitz-class supercarrier. It carries over 5500 people and over 80 aircraft. It is much easier to load all those people and aircraft onto a floating city and haul them to where they are needed than it is to place portions of them throughout the world and hope that they are in the right place when a conflict arises.
If you broke the 5500 people and 80 aircraft down into 4 equal units and stationed them at land bases, you would have 1375 people and 20 aircraft at each location. Fighter jets have a limited range, due to weapons and fuel constraints. The ammount of territory that could be effectively covered from 4 land bases is much less than what can be covered by an aircraft carrier. Financially speaking, I would imagine that the cost of running 4 land bases would not be any cheaper than running 1 aircraft carrier.
As someone who has a family member being re-deployed to Iraq soon, I am glad that we have carriers providing support to the troops.
MMMMM, donuts!
I read that the price per sortie for carrier aircraft compared to land based aircraft is 10 to 1. I really have no reason to doubt it. One of the reasons the carrier aircraft are so much more expensive is that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier is so expensive to build and maintain. It costs millions to re-fuel the reactor, millions more to repair the rest of the ship each year.
Ranb
The nuclear powered ships can go over 20 years without refueling, I don't think that is really an issue with its cost.
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.
Mitch Hedberg
Only partially true. While the nuclear reactor holds enough fuel for more than 15,000 hours of operation at full power, uranium is not the only fuel it consumes. The aircraft require millions of gallons of fuel each year, the crew needs also eats an amazing amount of food. The ship can only go for a few weeks until it needs support from shore or a re-supply ship. Without support, it is just large expensive powered barge.
I think it would be cheaper to pay for 20 years worth of fossil fuel than to fuel the core with uranium. The cost of enriched uranium is insane. I work at a shipyard that re-fuels submarines, they throw money at reactors like it is going out of style. The big advantage to nuclear power is the ability to steam fast for long distances to get to the trouble spot, then launch planes. If the Nimitz wants to outrun a gas turbine powered ship, it just has to put the pedal to the metal for a few days until the other guy slows down to refuel.
Ranb
[deleted]
One day, probably not for a long time, carriers will be smaller because we are eventually going to require less planes and weapons due to the growing accuracy, and more planes are becomeing VTOL's as well. I also hear a lot about unmanned aircraft being the way of the future.
I can think of about 1000 things the government actually wastes money on other than aircraft carriers.
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.
Mitch Hedberg
well the carriers proved for the americans pretty invaluable for the war in Korea, Vietnam, and the invasion of Iraq. If however the U.S. (and probably us too) did go to war with Russia, then we'd all be f@ck£d from nuclear war anyway. Also carriers are good for national and international disasters, i.e. the asian tsunami, everything doesn't have to be about war, just 95% of it.
shareSee where the money is spending today:
- UAVs
- Precision bombs
- Intelligent networks linked with each others
- Micro-task force with Unmanned vehicles equipped with lots of firepower
Prediction:
The aircraft carriers will be replaced by a flee of stealth UAV carriers. this will cut the cost of any operation thus increasing firepower and reducing casualties.
Talk about invaluable! Without aircraft carriers, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq might have gone badly.
share[deleted]
Granted though that supercarrier and its battlegroup might have been a bit too much, that's why the Soviet Union did not (never?) invest in them.
The British have small carriers instead of supercarriers, multiple small carriers might be more efficient than a supercarrier.
Nevertheless, carriers (regular ones) are important assets as mobile military bases, many carriers are 'parked' around the world at strategic places.
Supercarrier though definetly seems to be too expensive, you might as well build a 1,2 km long flying aircraft carrier equipped with aircrafts that can change their geometry. While we are at it, why not put an entire town inside it?
Mmm, floating fortressess ahoy.
I eat Lions
Fools
In a theoretical war with an advanced country, the US would deploy their ultimate weapons. Those that you dont get as much fanfare simply because they are not as visually impressive or symbolic. Im talking about the awesome US submarine fleet, which are the quietest in the world. Since that lone dutch sub "took out" an American carrier, how long do you think it will be before they copy or top that one.
I should also mention that in a total war with another superpower, it is the legendary Ohio class submarines that would be the scariest threat of all. But they are black, non descript, and often submerged. Its easy to see why they get less attention than their supercarrier counterparts
Titan, you are a god damn moron. You are basing your opinion on aircraft carriers being useless on ONE wargame and ONE sub crew against ONE specific supercarrier. How do you suppose this warrents a decesion that all carriers are a waste?
Opinions based on facts...not FACT are usefull, you should consider it.
Also consider how 1 person on a movie forum is most likely not more intelligent in military strategy than the Department of Defense.
Find a new hobby.
I get it, you are a carrier lover. So were the worlds admiralty in the early 20th century. Except their super weapon was the battleship. And to have one meant superpower status. How many countries went bankrupt to build one? The aircraft became the dominant weapon only for the beginning of the war in the Pacific, it was soon overtaken by the attack submarine for tactile seaborne warfare.
Americans love their spectacles, and a carrier is just that. But to maintain that it makes sense as a frontline weapon system is lunacy. Did you see that PBS show carrier? Not a bomb dropped or any other actual usage in the war effort for the 6 month deployment. Must be nice to waste so much money on nothing.......I wonder why the USA is bankrupt now?
[deleted]
"Dude, what countries even have submarines capable of attacking us?"
[deleted]
[deleted]
yes amarR123, you're a moron!
[deleted]
And you talk about a bad smell when you're all about When the Defecation hits the Oscillation.
We have better facilities here in the tropics compared to your native wasteland.
Too bad milosevic didn't get you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It also got taken out by a single submarine (HMS Gotland) during a war game. That 80 lost aircraft, 5500 dead people to a submarine carrying only 35 people.You do realize we have a lot of Subs too right? Submarines and destroyers that can all help protect the carriers. So it was taken out, it's war, it's still a very useful and important weapons platform. We need planes to be able to reach targets on quick notice, aircraft carriers are the best platform for this.
Sure, it could launch its own aircrafts, but that takes time, and the attackers are free to leave if they feel they are outnumbered, the aircraft carrier is forced to stay because it's so slow and the aircrafts have to stay with the carrier, since without them the carrier is a sitting duckYou do realize aircraft carriers actually DO have defensive systems other than aircraft right?
Mate, cheers for the laugh, funniest sh*t I've read in a while...Obviously, it was an exaggeration. Seriously I don't foresee a war with Russia, the cold war is over. No other nation that is currently at odds with America or its allies has the capability of taking out a carrier, so why not have them?
What countries?
Well the obvious Mother Russia.
The fact still stands that aircraft carriers would be ana11y rap3d in a war against any modern country. It is just to many penalties on such a war machine.And what modern country are we going to be at war with in the near future? This argument holds no water because it's simply not likely to happen. That's why I made the joke of "The British are coming" The idea of the US going to war with another one of these well equipped nations is nearly retarded to think and use as an arguing point.