Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

[Disgustipated]

I hate to say it (being ex Navy guy myself), but the aircraft carrier is truly obsolete with China's new supersonic missile. But as battleships have proven, obsolete Naval technology takes a while before they are truly removed from the fleet.

Missile technology is such that I wonder if it's even possible to wage an offensive war in someone else's territory. I'm talking foes of equal strength like the U.S. and China, not piss ant countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. At this point, I really don't think we can defend Taiwan from invasion anymore. Not without huge cost and the loss of all our aircraft carriers.

The only point of having an aircraft carrier in today's age is to beat up on smaller countries with outdated missile technology. How is that fair?

 

[bugwar]

I hate to say it (being ex Navy guy myself), but the aircraft carrier is truly obsolete with China's new supersonic missile.

Interesting viewpoint.
And how well do Red Chinese missiles perform against carrier escort ships armed with the Aegis missile defense system?

 

[IglooDame]

Interesting viewpoint.
And how well do Red Chinese missiles perform against carrier escort ships armed with the Aegis missile defense system?

And with a carrier's over-the-horizon active radars (Hawkeyes on the US ones) providing substantial air/sea search without enabling the enemy to passively localize the carrier for targeting of those missiles?

 

[Disgustipated]

http://punditfromanotherplanet.com/...has-no-counter-to-chinese-hypersonic-missile/

Just a link showing we have no counter to their new missile. If we get too close, we are toast.

 

[Cutlass]

http://punditfromanotherplanet.com/...has-no-counter-to-chinese-hypersonic-missile/

Just a link showing we have no counter to their new missile. If we get too close, we are toast.

That really assumes that they can, you know, actually hit the carrier. What is that assumption based on?

 

[Disgustipated]

AEGIS can't take it out. It goes 10,000 mph. Nothing could even come close to hitting the missile. And the carrier is only traveling 30 to 35 knots most likely.

The hard part is finding one. That's what the submarines are for.

 

[bugwar]

Interesting data.

Reading the article, I notice that a member from the congressionally appointed committee remarked that “...we don’t have a counter..” to the Red Chinese missile.

Lee Fuell, a technical intelligence specialist with the Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center, told the committee “...It is very difficult to defend against...”

The article goes on to note that “...The vehicle appears to be an unpowered maneuvering vehicle that is lofted to near space and then is guided to its target at speeds of up to Mach 10 or nearly 8,000 miles per hour.”

8k mph. An impressive piece of machinery.



Back in 2008, the U.S. shot down a satellite “...travelling with a velocity of about 17,500 mph...” with a SM-3 launched from an Aegis ship.

I guess that taking out a target travelling twice as fast as the Red Chinese missile doesn’t count as a counter.

2008 satellite intercept Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-193#Destruction

 

[Flying Pig]

To get some perspective, we don't have a counter to humble bullets and bayonets yet. If somebody manages to stick a bayonet in you, you're probably going to die.

 

[Cutlass]

AEGIS can't take it out. It goes 10,000 mph. Nothing could even come close to hitting the missile. And the carrier is only traveling 30 to 35 knots most likely.

The hard part is finding one. That's what the submarines are for.

None of that means that the people firing the missile have an actual target before they fire it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

AEGIS can't take it out. It goes 10,000 mph. Nothing could even come close to hitting the missile. And the carrier is only traveling 30 to 35 knots most likely.

The hard part is finding one. That's what the submarines are for.

Submarines have been capable of doing this to Carriers since the last time submarines fought carriers.

 

[Cutlass]

Chinese submarines are a long way behind in tech to the state of the art. And a lot of what the carrier battlegroup is designed to do is keep submarines at a distance. And we have our own attack subs, which are also tasked with hunting the area that our carriers operate in clean of enemy subs.

 

[bugwar]

From the article:

Crew members are shortly to be given a special app for their mobile phones to help them navigate around the ship.
...
The ship is the Navy’s biggest ever.
But it will take a crew of only 690 to drive it and man it — this goes up to 1,680 when the F35 attack jets are on board.
Alternatively the ship can carry 920 Royal Marines.
“The Americans tell me that we are either heroic or stupid,” says Captain Petitt, “They want to know how we manage it with such small numbers.”
...
However, the new design has put paid to one of the quainter traditions of British aircraft carriers, known as the “five-deck dash”.
“The idea is for a crewman to run naked all but an anti-flash mask on his head through five decks without being identified. You can’t do that with the complex layout here,” said one of the carrier’s crew.
...
The two aircraft carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, will continue to be controversial as the Government looks at further defence cuts.
The Navy argues that they are of immense value to British foreign policy and security.
...
They offer a wide range of choice — to do anything from flying aerial strike missions, to supporting troops on the ground, as a base for anti-pirate operations, and for disaster and humanitarian relief missions in devastated areas like the mission to help the hurricane-ravaged Philippines.
...
A recent Nato conference in London was told that by the year 2050 more than half of Britain’s revenue will come from trade by sea — and by then half the world’s maritime commerce will be conducted across the Indian Ocean alone.
The aircraft carriers offer some guarantee of British maritime security.
Since fewer countries will welcome the basing of British forces and aircraft, they will be needed more than ever.

Source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/n...d-an-app-to-find-their-way-about-9058214.html

 

[Disgustipated]

a mobile app.



Our society is doomed. How did I ever survive on a 1123 foot aircraft carrier in the 90's without a smart phone? Is your population that stupid they can't find their way around a ship? And they shouldn't be carrying a mobile phone when working.

 

[bugwar]

a mobile app.



Our society is doomed. How did I ever survive on a 1123 foot aircraft carrier in the 90's without a smart phone? Is your population that stupid they can't find their way around a ship? And they shouldn't be carrying a mobile phone when working.

Reminds me of when they came out with them new fangled 'tele-fones'
Youngsters just ain't what they were back in my day.

 

[Flying Pig]

And they shouldn't be carrying a mobile phone when working.

Sounds a bit Guards to me. Having a phone in your pocket is an entirely different proposition from playing games on it while you should be working. Besides, if it saves looking up and down the corridor to find a map, it's only a good thing. Several times when I was on camps that I thought I knew fairly well, I'd be told 'report to such and such a place in such and such a building', and have never had cause to go to what was usually a small office in a nondescript building in a part of the camp that we didn't usually have reason to go to. After all, they won't need to use them after a few weeks aboard.

 

[Disgustipated]

We had a certain numbering system (based off of frame number, port starboard, type of space etc.) for finding spaces on a ship, and it didn't involve maps. I never even seen a map of the Enterprise (other than a generic one for parents and loved ones on the family day cruise). And for security reasons, that's probably not a good idea.

Honestly, smart phones are inconvenient and slow. I can find the space faster than you can look it up on your phone, guaranteed.

edit: I'm assuming the Brits use the same numbering system in their spaces on board ship. Seeing as our Navy is based off of theirs, I'm sure that is true. If not, it is something similar.

 

[Flying Pig]

In that case, probably fair enough. On land, the system tends to make sense only retrospectively - you can understand why that hut is numbered G10, but that doesn't always make it any easier to find the damned thing.

 

[Glassfan]

I work in a large urban medical center - a lot bigger than a carrier and with more people. We all used to wear pagers and now it's hospital-issued special cellphones (somehow doesn't interfere with delicate medical instruments). Today it's a fact of life in a big facility - on land or sea.

 

[Disgustipated]

I have used my smart phone for getting around the city. But like I said, it's slow and clunky. A paper map is faster in some cases (although not on the smaller residential streets). Given the choice, I'll look it up on my home computer before leaving the house. My home computer is so much easier to use than a smart phone (just not as portable ) The technology is getting there though, where voice recognition is getting better, and things like google glass will make it so you aren't creaking your head at an awkward angle to look at a small display on your phone.

 

[say1988]

I doubt the crew would be using it very much. But it is for new people to get familiar with the ship and people on the ship for brief periods will likely find it quite helpful.

As for speed, assuming it is a static map or a relatively small size, a competently designed program should work on pretty much any phone. It isn't like you are running google maps that cover the entire world.