-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
@Brutoni
Why is a Carrier needed to find a target?
As you say that's what AWACS does and they certainly don't need a Carrier. But Sattelites, Submarines or even a fisherman or "civilian" airliner in disguise could theoretically work just as well as your forward sensors aquiring a target.
I do ofcourse agree that you need a combined fleet with many different weapons but I still argue that a Carrier doesn't nessecarily have to be one of them.
If you take a step backwards and think about it you have the Carrier to launch the airplane to launch the missile.
Any sensible man would just cut out all the deadweight and lauch the missile right away (with a slightly larger fuel/engine to provide range).
That AEGIS cruisers and Frigates can engage incomming missiles has nothing to do with what a Carrier is good for. I bet you could get dozens of Frigates for the price of a Carrier and as an added bonus those will be many times harder to knock out with incomming missiles due to their manouverability, size and being spread out.
The same thing can be said about the ASW Helos. Infact that dozen Frigates you would get instead can probably host at least one helo each again giving you far superior ASW cabability then a single Carrier ever could dream off providing. Again a large group off Frigates/AEGIS cruisers would be a nightmare knock out for a sub or for approaching aircraft.
UCAV, again why the need off a Carrier?
Getting subs to launch SAMs is just a technical/practical problem.
So getting down to point, what CAN the actual Carrier do?
¤ CnC (pretty obvious it doesn't really matter where the CnC sits)
And it's airgroup can:
¤ Provide scouting (which AWACS/subs/sattelites can do just as fine or better)
¤ Provide aircover (which you can do with SAMs just as fine, but SAMs will get there faster then a slow jet)
¤ Provide strike capability (which you also can do with cruise-missiles just as fine, again the missiles are much faster)
I'm all for the rest of the battlegroup, but why have a Carrier? Splitting the battlegroup into a network would make it loss redundant and many times less vulernable. I know this is against most military hirerarchy thinking, but when it comes to combat it has been proven again and again to be the best.
I do think Carriers are cool. But that doesn't mean they are very useful. I mean most off us also think the Battleships from the 40's are pretty cool too?
Why is a Carrier needed to find a target?
As you say that's what AWACS does and they certainly don't need a Carrier. But Sattelites, Submarines or even a fisherman or "civilian" airliner in disguise could theoretically work just as well as your forward sensors aquiring a target.
I do ofcourse agree that you need a combined fleet with many different weapons but I still argue that a Carrier doesn't nessecarily have to be one of them.
If you take a step backwards and think about it you have the Carrier to launch the airplane to launch the missile.
Any sensible man would just cut out all the deadweight and lauch the missile right away (with a slightly larger fuel/engine to provide range).
That AEGIS cruisers and Frigates can engage incomming missiles has nothing to do with what a Carrier is good for. I bet you could get dozens of Frigates for the price of a Carrier and as an added bonus those will be many times harder to knock out with incomming missiles due to their manouverability, size and being spread out.
The same thing can be said about the ASW Helos. Infact that dozen Frigates you would get instead can probably host at least one helo each again giving you far superior ASW cabability then a single Carrier ever could dream off providing. Again a large group off Frigates/AEGIS cruisers would be a nightmare knock out for a sub or for approaching aircraft.
UCAV, again why the need off a Carrier?
Getting subs to launch SAMs is just a technical/practical problem.
So getting down to point, what CAN the actual Carrier do?
¤ CnC (pretty obvious it doesn't really matter where the CnC sits)
And it's airgroup can:
¤ Provide scouting (which AWACS/subs/sattelites can do just as fine or better)
¤ Provide aircover (which you can do with SAMs just as fine, but SAMs will get there faster then a slow jet)
¤ Provide strike capability (which you also can do with cruise-missiles just as fine, again the missiles are much faster)
I'm all for the rest of the battlegroup, but why have a Carrier? Splitting the battlegroup into a network would make it loss redundant and many times less vulernable. I know this is against most military hirerarchy thinking, but when it comes to combat it has been proven again and again to be the best.
I do think Carriers are cool. But that doesn't mean they are very useful. I mean most off us also think the Battleships from the 40's are pretty cool too?
Last edited:
If you need to perform sustained operations (close air support, sead, surveillance, whatever) over an extended period far away from friendly airfields, you probably need a carrier.
There's much more to all of that than just sending something that will go pop. The flexibility of an air wing is something that can't be ignored. I am genuinely quite at a loss for words over the claim that cruise missiles are equal in utility to strike aircraft and astonished at the idea that SAM's are better for air cover than fighter aircraft.
Sattelites are only available at certain times due to the nature of the way they orbit the earth. Fishermen don't have the sophisticated targetting arrays so while they can provide a GPS location they cannot provide an irradiated lock on the carrier. That means Mr.fisherman has to keep up with the CBG, something it won't do.... Fishermen are going to have even more problems in deep water where the CBG will get suspicious. Civilian airliners will have the same problem, in a combat situation the airspace around the carrier often becomes restricted, while the airliner can provide passive sensor locks as soon as it goes active it WILL be shot down.
The submarine is of course a valid choice. Then again in my mind a submarine is the perfect counter to the carrier... however you cannot have a fleet of submarines.
No but for the money it provides the best way to house a flexible organic air support group.
No any SENSIBLE man would not do this, I am convinced this is partly why we are killing civillians, hitting civillian structures in all of our conflicts. We are finding new ways to hit our targets from extreme long range but not accepting that at long range target degredation occurs in the missile. Never mind needing to find a way to FIND the target.
A bigger, longer range missile takes away the flexibility that a carrier provides you with. A carrier has a range of armaments that it's air group can use, it carries a range of aircraft. It provides superior flexibility.
The USN studied this, in specific it studied the topic of size/airgroup/cost in a ship hull and which provides the most effective value. The simple fact is that you need a large hull for proper air operations so you have a large and stable enough flight deck. Multiple smaller vessels won't provide the same number of aircraft as a larger hull, those smaller vessels all need sensors, engines, crew, weapons, seperate ammunition stores AND seperate hanger facilities. Once you go below 40,000 tonnes the number of aircraft types and the number of aircraft you can operate per tonne of your ship degrades rapidly.
It is a well aknowledge fact that you spread out in Naval combat ONLY if you have an inferior force projection. Spreading out in naval combat WILL make you weaker to elements like Submarines, fast attack craft AND aircraft which can all move fast and which don't have to worry about the cover that a gorrila force can utilise in a land setting. There is no equivalent of the "hit and run" force in naval warfare. Throughout history the larger, more capably equipped force is usually the winner so long as the commander doesn't make a stupid mistake, or the crew aren't useless.
A carrier provides such capable abilities because you think it is cheap. But lets take for example a Gerald Ford class carrier... it costs $9 billion. A new Arleigh Burke costs $1.75 billion. So you can get 5.14 vessels for the cost of a Gerald Ford Class carrier. That is a total of 10 ASW helicopters of decent size AND capability. The carrier can take 90 aircraft....
Furthermore the carrier can deliver more sorties per day, can hold more munitions, can provide better command and control. Can take larger aircraft resulting in a more flexibile airwing.
Indeed, but in my humble opinion that decision is a retarded one. Like firing Harpoon from a submarine.... A submarines main weapon is stealth.... why fire a great big ******* missile from the submarine which can then have it's flight path followed, or which at least announces the presense of a submarine inside a CBG's sensor umbrella when you can just get close enough to torpedo the group without being found.
That and firing a missile underwater is noisey. Your greatest threat is another submarine... you fire a missile and the trailing SSN's WILL find you.... Stupid, STUPID, STUPID decision.
TLAM I can understand as providing a measure of utlility... anything else is a waste of space and ammo on a vessel that can afford wasting neither.
An airfield can't do much either, but without them you wouldn't be able to operate an airforce... Ultimately it can be as simple as that... But you forget that a carrier is more capable of storing a vast amount of ammunition for the aircraft carefully. It is more capable of preforming maintenence on the aircraft. It can provide a greater number of sorties per tonne of weight as found out in a USN study.
[/quote]
No it isn't you may be talking about land combat but you are most certainly not talking about naval combat. It is a proven factor that the only time a naval force splits into multiple small force structures is when it cannot meet the oposing naval force in weight, size and capability. Everytime this has happened the opposing Naval force has lost BADLY. The equivalent of Gurreilla warfare at sea is done by submarines. Lightweight fast vessels usually fail to work, the best example here is of course the battlecruiser which was a monumental failure and followed your line of tactical and strategic thinking.
A CBG focuses your flexibility and capability around one central command point that becomes exceptionally difficult to engage. It provides real presense. At the same time due to the organic air group components provided by the escort helicopters and the carrier you CAN do this "multiple small components" while still retaining a solid command and control that can only be disrupted by a focused attack that is unlikely to be easy to combat. IF needs be you can detach your escorts.
Any "Network" requires a server, a primary focus that organises the network... That is the primary weak point of the network. A carrier is the natural choice for this as it's airgroup are then based on the weak point and make it hard to engage. Furthermore it enables the network to still function if you so wish. A piddly little escort doesn't have the height and so therefore the sensor advantage, it doesn't have the stability, it doesn't have the size for a capable organic air group. It doesn't have the size to be a good triple C vessel. Contray to your opinion triple C vessels are usually best served by larger vessels that are harder to sink, more stable, more able to hold the triple C staff, more able to provide good communications and at the centre of the "network" as you put it.
At the end of the day, before WW2 battleships had been sunk, battleships had failed in their tasks... Since WW2 name me a major conflict that a component part of a carrier hasn't been engaged in? Name a conflict that has failed when a carrier has been involved? Name me a carrier that has been sunk? Name me a more cost effective way of delivering organic air power.
Libya is showing this to Britain right now, what would have been a cheap intervention with an Invincible class carrier, Harriers and Sea King ASaC could cost the country £1.75 billion.... More than keeping the Ark Royal, Harrier AND sending them to Libya AND also keeping the Albion fully operational.
Last edited:
I appear to have killed this thread? Apologies if I seemed a little aggressive there.
Not at all, I thoroughly enjoy your posts all the time. They're very educational and interesting. You seem to know a lot of current strategic/tactical developments in naval wars. I only know what I can catch up from discussions with my dad
It probably does help that he's seeking a job as a naval officer in the near future (afaik?)
It probably does help that he's seeking a job as a naval officer in the near future (afaik?)
Yes, in fact I recently passed my Admiralty Interview Board. Hopefully I will soon hear that I have been selected for Dartmouth, although apparently even passing is not a gaurentee that you will recieve entry to Britannia Royal Naval College!
good luck to you, but even if they take you, dont stop posting here
This. Both.
Good luck, and don't forget about us once you're the First Sea Lord!
This. Both.
Good luck, and don't forget about us once you're the First Sea Lord!
Somehow I doubt that will happen. I'm far to politically independent to ever be allowed an opportunity to even be remotely involved in the decision making of how our forces are structured.
EDIT:
Not to mention the step between being accepted as an Officer and becoming First Sea Lord is an exceptionally large and lengthy step!!!
Ah, you'll make it in time for Naval War 9. It will have your picture on the cover!
I'm wayyyyy to ugly to be on the front cover of anything
. Besides, why put the picture of a man when you can have a lovely ship on the front... Breaking through the waves as it engages incoming targets... .
Brutoni, when you're First Sea Lord, push for the name of a major surface combatant to be 'HMS Imperial George'.
LOL, it's not actually too shabby a name.. Though you have to compete with HMS Warspite, HMS Revenge, HMS Resolute, HMS Triumph, HMS Renown, HMS Nelson, HMS Rodney etc
Safferli, i think that is more than just details
Once you've been appointed Flag Officer Sea Training, be sure to implement a navy-wide training regime revolving solely around NWAC
Giant multi-national LAN party where everone controls one ship each in a fullblown war.