Notices

View Poll Results: What's your favorite naval ship?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • the submarine

    1 10.00%
  • aircraft carrier

    3 30.00%
  • battleship

    2 20.00%
  • destroyer

    2 20.00%
  • cruiser

    0 0%
  • pt boat

    2 20.00%
  • minesweeper

    0 0%
  • medical boat

    0 0%
  • tanker

    0 0%
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: the revenge of the destroyer and cruiser

  1. #1 the revenge of the destroyer and cruiser 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    135
    with modern naval warfare still focused around the aircraft carrier, the humble destroyer and cruiser has become obsolete. BUT! with the new stealth destroyer on the horizon and the new missile cruisers being put into service the navy will see a sort of re-emergence of traditional naval combat. Once again destroyers will bombard land from the sea and destroy incoming ships before planes do. missile cruisers will destroy far away targets quickly and efficiently.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA, VA
    Posts
    102
    i like a good old battle ship, i'll admit i dont know a lot about ships, but i can only see the aircrft carrier getting a little less important. having 5-10 couple hundred thousand aircraft getting shot down while still being effective against a ton of other targets, usually beats building 1-2 could billion dollar warships that can defend themselves effectively, while being able to dish out damage to only large enough targets that can be targeted with unconventional fire.

    (lets face it you dont call in a bombardment of 16" fire, when you have marines that are going to be less than 150 yards from the target to hit mabey a tank or 3....) besides, modern warfare has developed around the political belife that civilian casualties are appsolutley unacceptable. bombarding anything means an extreamly high risk of friendly fire, and a high risk of civilian casualties.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: the revenge of the destroyer and cruiser 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by the man of science
    with modern naval warfare still focused around the aircraft carrier, the humble destroyer and cruiser has become obsolete.
    I think not. What do you think provides mid-range cover for the aircraft carriers?

    And where were your frigates in the list? (Not to mention corvettes.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    135
    Oh yeah. I knew I forgot something. Carriers are pretty much able to defend themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by the man of science
    Oh yeah. I knew I forgot something. Carriers are pretty much able to defend themselves.
    With respect, why then are carriers attended by a complex task force of cruisers, destroyers and frigates, whose primary aim is to protect the carrier from attack from the air, sea and sub-sea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    135
    argh! That was true in WW2 but now a days they are usually by themselves. when heading into gulfs and things, they are protected by minesweepers and pt boats but out in the sea they are by themselves. They have long distance sonar that can detect an incoming sub 5-10 miles out and armed with depth charges, it can usually handle the threat itself. If not then 2-3 miles away are ships ready to intercept threats.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by the man of science
    argh! That was true in WW2 but now a days they are usually by themselves. when heading into gulfs and things, they are protected by minesweepers and pt boats but out in the sea they are by themselves. .
    This is simply incorrect. The cost of each carrier, coupled with its strategic importance mean that it simply cannot be left isolated.

    It is protected by a layered defence, some of which is provided by its own aircraft, but the rest comes from other surface vessels.

    For AAW it relies on EC-2 Hawkeyes to detect threats. The first line of defence is the carriers own F/A18s. Then long range SAMs from CGs and DDGs, and finally short range SAMs and gunfire (such as the CIWS, MK 15 Phalanx) from the same vessels and from the carrier itself.

    For ASUW (Anti Surface Warfare) engagements the Harpoon, long range, over-the-horizon, surface to surface missile deals with distant threats, while missiles such as the AGM119 (Penguin) handle short to mid range targets, and conventional guns (typically 5") for short range work. While the Harpoon and Penguin can be air launched they are also installed on CG and DDG craft. (Not to mention that some LAMPS are launched from CGs and DDGs.)

    Heck, the Ticonderoga class CGs, with AEGIS are essentially running the airwar, so the CVs would look kind of silly without them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    135
    well u are exactly right but the point I am making is that the supporting ships for the aircraft carriers are a large distance away from the carrier itself. Even without supporting ships, the aircraft is STILL able to defend itself. Naval bombardments are going to make a comeback btw.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by the man of science
    ....... but the point I am making is that the supporting ships for the aircraft carriers are a large distance away from the carrier itself.
    Not necessarily and the point you made was that "now a days they are usually by themselves. when heading into gulfs and things, they are protected by minesweepers and pt boats but out in the sea they are by themselves."

    Also, you are now saying the supporting ships are a large distance away, yet you also state "then 2-3 miles away are ships ready to intercept threats."
    2-3 miles is not a 'large distance' at sea in naval warfare terms. That's about ten seconds flight time for an Exocet.

    You mention that naval bombardments will make a comeback. When they were away? WWII, Korean war, Vietnam War, First Gulf War, Second Gulf War.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    135
    allow me to explain. In my view 2-3 miles is a large distance. At that distance the ships are over the horizon. In a gulf there is less space to maneuver and there are more likely to be tons more defenses, mines, etc. Finally naval bombardments never went away, but they are much less frequent due to increased likelihood of civilian casualties, collateral damage, and friendly fire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    135
    allow me to explain. In my view 2-3 miles is a large distance. At that distance the ships are over the horizon. In a gulf there is less space to maneuver and there are more likely to be tons more defenses, mines, etc. Finally naval bombardments never went away, but they are much less frequent due to increased likelihood of civilian casualties, collateral damage, and friendly fire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by the man of science
    In my view 2-3 miles is a large distance. At that distance the ships are over the horizon.
    No. Quite wrong. Please have a careful think about this, then come back and tell me how far away the horizon is from the bridge of a destroyer and from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    135
    ur right and I was wrong. I had a small feeling I was wrong but idk. I figured out that the equation of horizon distance is the square root of surface height divided by .5376. That would mean that if the the carrier was 250 ft. high. the horizon would be 27.565 miles away making ships 2-3 miles away relatively close.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You may find this 'distance to horizon' calculator useful.
    http://boatsafe.com/tools/horizon.htm

    I think the 250' is somewhat too large for the top of the carrier observation mast, but I can't find any clear information yet. Mashead height for the new QE class carriers for the UK is 47m. Remember, of course that the vessel you are looking at also has height.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    just a minor corrections having to do with the current war, currently bombardments are "outdated" because we're trying to maintain good relations with the countries we're fighting in. when we get a real war gonig, we're not oging to care nearly as much about civilians, if casualties were that signifigant in real wars we never would have invented the bomber, we'd have just used close air support gunships from the get-go.

    i believe that the next time germany decides it wants to own europe, we'll bring back bombardments en masse
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Let's hope we don't get one of those wars going. There's only a couple inches of diplomatic distance between bombardment and nuclear weapons. Remember that politics doesn't always make sense. A soldier knows bombardment isn't a nuke, but a soldier doesn't make nuclear launch decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by the man of science
    allow me to explain. In my view 2-3 miles is a large distance. At that distance the ships are over the horizon. In a gulf there is less space to maneuver and there are more likely to be tons more defenses, mines, etc. Finally naval bombardments never went away, but they are much less frequent due to increased likelihood of civilian casualties, collateral damage, and friendly fire.

    If Tom Clancy is to be believed on the matter (I think I'm working from his "Debt of Honor" novel.) The primary defense of a carrier is that it has incredibly long range sensory, so it can blow up an enemy before the enemy even sees it.

    It would make sense to keep most of its escort a sufficient distance away so that if they have to engage a threat, the fighting never gets close enough to make it hard to get planes in the air.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    Without antii-missile defense you are a dead duck now on land sea or air.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Yeah, anti-ship missiles can have ranges of hundreds of km, so you really want to have plenty of escort ships around your carrier to shoot down incoming missiles and scout for threats so that you can see the enemy before they get into launch range. The main soviet strategy for dealing with US carrier groups in the event of WWIII was to use heavy, long-ranger bombers to launch swarms of large, long-range anti-ship missiles. Relying on your fighter screen to protect the carrier wouldn't necessarily be effective, which is why the carrier needs lots of smaller escort ships. Of course, then you run into the problem of the bombers whittling down your escorts with their missiles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So, how effective are stealth destroyers at avoiding detection? The enemy can't hit you if they can't see you. No matter how long the range is on their weapons, they've still got to target you first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    just a minor corrections having to do with the current war, currently bombardments are "outdated" because we're trying to maintain good relations with the countries we're fighting in.
    Not really. Bombardments are "outdated" because they are simply unneeded. There only use was to bring enough mass on a target area with inherently inaccurate fire to have a reasonable assurance to destroy that target. Today, our weapons are so precise there's little need for bringing mass fires to destroy a target. Why fire a thousand rounds when a couple missiles will do the same job far more efficiently and with less exposure of the firing platform.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    A carrier group requires a multi-layered defense that is still only hypothetically capable of countering serious threats, en masse. Aircraft carriers cannot immediately launch and continuously maintain a fighter screen to counter dozens or hundreds of incoming missiles. Supporting elements like Aegis cruisers with advanced tracking systems and automated Phalanx guns are vital to aerial defense. Submarines with attendant sonar towing aircraft are needed to repel subsurface threats, ect.

    Real world combat with modern carrier groups does not exclusively involve aircraft and their carriers in defense. During the Falklands War, Argentina's only carrier, ARA Belgrano, was sunk by the nuclear powered submarine, HMS Conqueror. In return, Argentine subs launched six torpedoes at a British aircraft carrier, but hit the Atlantic Conveyor and Sheffield.

    During the Gulf War, the HMS Gloucester proved the ability of the Sea Dart missile when it intercepted an Iraqi Silkworm missile. The Sea Dart also downed multiple aircraft in the Falklands campaign.

    The naval mounted Phalanx guns with automatic target-acquisition capability have to date, only been involved in friendly fire incidents but are seeing much success in their land based role, protecting US bases in Iraq. Raytheon reports that Phalanx has defeated 105 attacks, mainly mortars.

    Naval offensive capability again, is not relegated to aircraft. Cruise missile support is an important projection of force.

    If any one ship were to push the traditional carrier battle group towards restructure, it would be the yet to be developed Arsenal ship. It is a proposed missile platform boasting 500 launch bays that might contain Tomahawk cruise missiles. An Arsenal ship could be remotely controlled by Aegis cruisers or even AWACS aircraft. A stealthy, robust ship that can reach out and touch you one thousand kilometers away is an interesting prospect.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Real world combat with modern carrier groups does not exclusively involve aircraft and their carriers in defense. During the Falklands War, Argentina's only carrier, ARA Belgrano, was sunk by the nuclear powered submarine, HMS Conqueror. In return, Argentine subs launched six torpedoes at a British aircraft carrier, but hit the Atlantic Conveyor and Sheffield.
    The Belgrano wasn't an aircraft carrier, it was a light cruiser. The Argentine aircraft carrier wasn't damaged during the war. And the Atlantic Conveyor and Sheffield weren't destroyed by Argentine subs, they were both sunk by anti-ship missiles fired from Argentine fighters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Thank you for the corrections. Reciting information from memory is a bad practice.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    After the British sub sank the Argentine cruiser, it caused the Argentines to get nervous about the vulnerability of their aircraft carrier, so they moved it out of the area and effectively removed it from the fighting. So it's probably fair to say that the threat of the British subs and the sinking of the cruiser did indeed neutralize the Argentine carrier, even if it wasn't actually damaged by the subs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So, if a US carrier group found itself overwhelmed by a massive enemy force, couldn't it simply retreat, but keep attacking them? That seems to be the advantage of having a longer sensory range. You can see them, but they can't see you, so you'd just move around and shoot at them when you feel like it, wouldn't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, if a US carrier group found itself overwhelmed by a massive enemy force, couldn't it simply retreat, but keep attacking them? That seems to be the advantage of having a longer sensory range. You can see them, but they can't see you, so you'd just move around and shoot at them when you feel like it, wouldn't you?
    What are we talking about exactly? Most likely a US carrier group would be attacked by planes, either fighters or bombers. Maneuvering around isn't really an option, since surface ships are very slow compared to planes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    you are assuming the enemy plays fair--- one nuke missile-- one FLEET gone!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    you are assuming the enemy plays fair--- one nuke missile-- one FLEET gone!
    I'm not so sure of that. Most of our fleet was designed during the nuke environment of the cold war, so they might be pretty well hardened from EMP. I also remember that most ships survived testing pretty well during the above ground test on abandoned WWII ships. If something got through I don't doubt it would knock out a ship, I'd be surprised if it did wholesale damage to a fleet of ships.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Also ships in a battle group would be spread out over hundreds of miles, making it more or less impossible to get more than one or two at a time with a nuke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, if a US carrier group found itself overwhelmed by a massive enemy force, couldn't it simply retreat, but keep attacking them? That seems to be the advantage of having a longer sensory range. You can see them, but they can't see you, so you'd just move around and shoot at them when you feel like it, wouldn't you?
    What are we talking about exactly? Most likely a US carrier group would be attacked by planes, either fighters or bombers. Maneuvering around isn't really an option, since surface ships are very slow compared to planes.
    So, basically, if the enemy finds your current location, all hope of maneuvering free of them kind of goes out the window, because they'll keep sending planes to that position and they'll see it if you try to move the carrier.

    This is the scenario that's the most interesting to me. The possibility of getting overwhelmed by a massive, but less technologically advanced, enemy navy. It seems like that's pretty much what a war with China would look like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, basically, if the enemy finds your current location, all hope of maneuvering free of them kind of goes out the window, because they'll keep sending planes to that position and they'll see it if you try to move the carrier.

    This is the scenario that's the most interesting to me. The possibility of getting overwhelmed by a massive, but less technologically advanced, enemy navy. It seems like that's pretty much what a war with China would look like.
    I'm not really an expert on this, but I've been told that sort of scenario was part of the reason many ships are now going to a "lots of missiles sitting in separate launch tubes, all ready to launch vertically" configuration, rather than the older "lots of missiles sitting in racks, with an automated system to grab them and load them onto a single launcher one at a time" system. The idea is to be better that engaging lots of targets at once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •