Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
08-04-2011, 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFP-Magnis View Post
The only way you can hit a carrier with this sort of missle is if it comes from outside the atmosphere. Any where else it can be shot down as a carrier has a wide area of control and electronic warefare equipment. not to mention several interceptor platform guns and missles. anything is possible but training gives it better odds.
Well it would be interesting to see how effective it is from an academic point of view not to see how many people it would kill.
Anyway it seems current defenses are not really sufficient to shoot down a mach 10 missile with an unpredictable flight path

http://www.military.com/news/article...er-killer.html

time will tell...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
08-04-2011, 07:32 AM
Why are we worried about the Chinese military?

They're never going to go to war with us... their economy depends on us buying their exported goods.

I don't understand why our military is so concerned about a possible war with any first world nation... it will never happen. The economy is global now, there won't ever be another war between superpowers because we are all interconnected and depend upon eachother to a large degree for survival.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the future of warfare. Very limited fought in urban areas with small teams of men. What good is a $50mil plane when it can be brought down by a shoulder fired missile built 30 years ago? What good is a tank when it can be disabled by a crude IED? What good are huge ships when they can be damaged in harbor by suicide attackers?

21st century warfare is going to be far removed from what we saw in the 20th century. Airstrikes by piloted planes are going to be replaced by drones and long range cruise missiles. On the ground it's going to be street fighting with tactics at the squad level. On the high seas there will be very few large carriers or C&C ships. Most of the Navy is going to move to smaller, faster more stealthy ships that are better able to respond to a variety of threats.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
08-04-2011, 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvsaris View Post
Why are we worried about the Chinese military?

They're never going to go to war with us... their economy depends on us buying their exported goods.

I don't understand why our military is so concerned about a possible war with any first world nation... it will never happen. The economy is global now, there won't ever be another war between superpowers because we are all interconnected and depend upon eachother to a large degree for survival.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the future of warfare. Very limited fought in urban areas with small teams of men. What good is a $50mil plane when it can be brought down by a shoulder fired missile built 30 years ago? What good is a tank when it can be disabled by a crude IED? What good are huge ships when they can be damaged in harbor by suicide attackers?

21st century warfare is going to be far removed from what we saw in the 20th century. Airstrikes by piloted planes are going to be replaced by drones and long range cruise missiles. On the ground it's going to be street fighting with tactics at the squad level. On the high seas there will be very few large carriers or C&C ships. Most of the Navy is going to move to smaller, faster more stealthy ships that are better able to respond to a variety of threats.
dude.. you're derailing my thread.. it's not about those, it's about carriers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
08-04-2011, 08:28 AM
Carriers don't need to be catamaran for stability, they use aerofoil type surfaces below the waterline controlled by gyroscopes and computers. And those helipads look pure dangerous. Having them recessed like that'd create all sorts of weird turbulance, and trimming the main deck for dedicated heli space just seems stupid. Also, a centerline "island" structure's ridiculous, if it was offset you could land larger planes on that deck. It's pretty, but it's about as practical as sandles at the north pole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UFP-Magnis View Post

The only way you can hit a carrier with this sort of missle is if it comes from outside the atmosphere. Any where else it can be shot down as a carrier has a wide area of control and electronic warefare equipment. not to mention several interceptor platform guns and missles. anything is possible but training gives it better odds.
Well, that's the case in ideal drills and exercises, but in the real world things don't always work as intended, and a force of bombers launching cruise missiles would be able to throw a lot of them into the mix, and you wouldn't need many to get through to cripple a carrier. I'm not sure if China purchased TU22Ms from the Russians, but that's one of their mission profiles, to take out carrier groups by firing cruise missiles, being vectored in to their targets by Bears running passive equipment and satelite surveilance.

The book "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy has a very good part in it where the Soviets attack a carrier group and bait them into shooting their wad at target drones, it is just a book though and shouldn't be taken as "what would happen" IRL, but as somebody else mentioned, conventional ideas on what was sufficient air defence at sea is/was were challenged in the Falklands, although there were different circumstances in play there, such as a Navy weakened by rampaging Tory cutbacks, and opperating thousands of miles from home in the enemy's proverbial backyard. Then again, it also proved how a single SSN can sneak into a flotilla and sink it's capital ship with seeming impunity.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
08-04-2011, 09:04 AM
Pure weapons grade bolognium. No country would even entertain such a design when two modern carriers can be fielded for 1/4 what that monstrosity will cost to build. Bigger is not always better, especially when you can't move that floating continent out of the harbor without the whole world seeing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
08-04-2011, 09:54 AM
With the Chinese cost isn't an issue. Problem is the ship is too big. As stated you would build 2 carriers for the pricetag on that target and get twice as much area coverage.

Second is engineering. Catamarans work well on small vessels. On capital ships however the torsion stresses and supports would rip the ship apart. Reinforcements needed to counter that would quickly negate any advantages you would see in a catamaran hull.

Third once again relates to size. That thing would be worse than a Galaxy in a turn. It would be even more vulnerable than our current carriers to air or submarine strike.

Fourth is experience. There is more to building heavy ships than making a 3d model on a computer. You need the shipyards. You need the experienced work crews. You need the engineering experience. You need the officers and crew who know how to operate such vessels. China doesn't have these things. While they can develop them, such experience is hard won.

Fifth is support. That monster would gobble down spare parts. And then comes the issue of drydocking. Even in the course of normal duties it becomes necessary to drydock a ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
08-04-2011, 09:57 AM
On a scale from 1 to ridicilous this thing actually rivals the H-44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_class...2_through_H-44
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
08-04-2011, 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenstein View Post
With the Chinese cost isn't an issue. Problem is the ship is too big. As stated you would build 2 carriers for the pricetag on that target and get twice as much area coverage.

Second is engineering. Catamarans work well on small vessels. On capital ships however the torsion stresses and supports would rip the ship apart. Reinforcements needed to counter that would quickly negate any advantages you would see in a catamaran hull.

Third once again relates to size. That thing would be worse than a Galaxy in a turn. It would be even more vulnerable than our current carriers to air or submarine strike.

Fourth is experience. There is more to building heavy ships than making a 3d model on a computer. You need the shipyards. You need the experienced work crews. You need the engineering experience. You need the officers and crew who know how to operate such vessels. China doesn't have these things. While they can develop them, such experience is hard won.

Fifth is support. That monster would gobble down spare parts. And then comes the issue of drydocking. Even in the course of normal duties it becomes necessary to drydock a ship.
Yeah, the support thing is why the only time the Tirpitz fired it's guns in anger was in a shore bombardment. The only dry dock in western Europe that would take it was St Nazaire, and some commandos kind of blew it up a bit leaving the Tirpitz based in Norway.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
08-04-2011, 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by superlink1 View Post


this carrier is so huge.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...er-07-2011.jpg

the new carrier of future.
Ha ha ha!

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
08-04-2011, 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeneezergoode
Yeah, the support thing is why the only time the Tirpitz fired it's guns in anger was in a shore bombardment. The only dry dock in western Europe that would take it was St Nazaire, and some commandos kind of blew it up a bit leaving the Tirpitz based in Norway.
Indeed, many people forget that ships need to go into drydock for maintenance, which can take extended periods of time (Hence why many countries try to have atleast 2 carriers. so that whilst one is in drydock, the other is in service, this is also the reason why the US has so many carriers as well).

When building a ship, you have to take into account the facilities you have at your disposal, for example the UK has had to create a new drydock for the maintenance of the new QE aircraft carriers in Plymouth. It's also worth noting many naval bases are in esturies or other protected coastal areas (for easier defence), if a ship is too large it simply wouldn't be able to get into port, for example, Portsmouth is one of the main Naval bases in the UK, American Aircraft carriers are actually to big to be able to get into the port to dock there, they have to anchor out at sea and use liberty boats to get ashore :-P

The St Nazaire raid was an amazing operation, I was fortunate enough whilst serving in the navy to meet the survivors of the raid in St Nazaire at a memorial event, I don't think the Germans saw it coming when the HMS Campbletown rammed into the drydock gates, I actually talked to one of the commandos that saw the ship explode as he was been driven away as a PoW, they really didn't see that coming either! I highly recommend touring the harbour if you are a naval buff, there were still U-boats in the subpens when I was last there.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:38 PM.