Aircraft carriers.

[joe-90]

The UK is placing an order for two new aircraft carriers at a cost of about 2 billion pounds (and the rest when the politicians get their fingers in the till.)

But my question is : Is there really a place for them in modern war against an enemy equipped with medium range missiles? It only takes one missile or torpedo to get through and the whole lot goes to the bottom of the ocean. If that enemy was someone like China they could chuck a hundred missiles a day at them every day until one gets through.
So what is the point of them unless the enemy is a third-world country that's just about broke? Had Argentina had just a handful more Excocets then the Falklands war might have had a very different ending.

 

[ellal]

Don't forget we probably won't have enough money to buy the aircraft to go with them...but they are adaptable!

 

[Deluks]

There are lots of counter-measures and defences against such attacks, and if our weapons have a longer range than theirs then we can strike first. Anyway, a carrier is a strike platform, so we can send the planes in to take out targets.

If we were to scrap the ID card scheme we could have another 5 carriers on top of that.

 

[JohnD]

I suppose BAE or someone must be short of business and requires a government subsidy.

 

[joe-90]

There are lots of counter-measures and defences against such attacks, and if our weapons have a longer range than theirs then we can strike first. Anyway, a carrier is a strike platform, so we can send the planes in to take out targets.

If we were to scrap the ID card scheme we could have another 5 carriers on top of that.

There's not really any way to protect something that size when missiles can rain down on it and torpedoes can take it out from miles away. And i can't see how aircraft can take out mobile missile launches either. It's pretty well accepted that China cannot be beaten in a traditional war.

 

[Thermo]

an aircraft carrier allows a country to exert a very real and quick presence in a region. They also offer a strong military strike platform with a whole range of aircraft based attack options. ANy aircraft carrier is placed at the centre of a battle group and is carfully protected by other ships and submarines. Thats why so many of our ships were hit by the exocets in the falklands as they were on picket duty at the outer edges of the carrier group. They were in effect sacrificed for the carriers.

They are a very real asset and definetly not outmoded. Thats why america always sends them to a trouble spot to show its strength in many political crossings of swords.

 

[joe-90]

That may be so, but Argentina was tin-pot military with just 6 Super Ettendard (sp?) jets and a handful of Excocets. It would have been a completely different matter if they had 500 jets and unlimited missiles.

Think back a few years and how the Patriot anti missile missiles were totally useless against the primitive Scud missiles.

 

[Thermo]

our ships at the time had fairly out of date defence systems, which is literally why they were put in harms way of the exocets


ever had of phalanx?

 

[JohnD]

The new one might not be out of date today

but perhaps it will be tomorrow

 

[bernardgreen]

Aircraft carriers are often used very effectively in disaster areas where they provide services from drinking water supplies to fully equiped hospitals, from search and rescue aircraft to reliable communications.

 

[joe-90]

Phalanx systems cannot stop multiple warhead missiles, and they aren't 100% effective anyway.

 

[JohnD]

Aircraft carriers are often used very effectively in disaster areas where they provide services from drinking water supplies to fully equiped hospitals, from search and rescue aircraft to reliable communications.

Wow! You mean we're spending all those biliioooons a humanitarian aid? Won't the guns and missiles get in the way of the blankets and bottled water?

 

[Thermo]

Phalanx systems cannot stop multiple warhead missiles, and they aren't 100% effective anyway.

nothing is ever 100% effective, but im sure the admirals of the fleet have given it all a bit of thought!

 

[Trazor]

Phalanx systems cannot stop multiple warhead missiles, and they aren't 100% effective anyway.

nothing is ever 100% effective, but im sure the admirals of the fleet have given it all a bit of thought!

But not as much thought as joe-90 obviously..........

 

[joe-90]

Common sense alone should tell you that there has never been anywhere near a 100% effective anti missile system.

In regard to the Phalanx in use: From Wikipedia

Phalanx in combat


The Phalanx system has never been credited with shooting down any enemy missiles or aircraft.

February 25, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the USS Missouri and the Phalanx-equipped USS Jarrett were in the vicinity of an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the 'Seersucker') that had been fired, either at Missouri or at the nearby British destroyer HMS Gloucester. After Missouri fired its SRBOC chaff, the Phalanx system on Jarrett, operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon Missouri's chaff and fired a burst of rounds (not destroying the incoming missile). From this burst, four rounds hit Missouri which was two to three miles (5 km) from Jarrett at the time. There were no injuries.[2] The Silkworm missile was then intercepted and destroyed by a Sea Dart missile launched from Gloucester. Incidentally, this is the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile, during combat at sea.

June 4, 1996, a Japanese Phalanx accidentally shot down a US A-6 Intruder. The US plane was towing a radar target during gunnery exercises. A Phalanx aboard the Asagiri class destroyer Yūgiri locked onto the Intruder instead of the target. Both pilots ejected safely.[3] A post accident investigation concluded that the Yūgiri's gunnery officer gave the order to fire before the A-6 was out of the CIWS engagement envelope.[4]

Phalanx is considered inadequate against some modern threats and is being gradually supplemented and replaced by the Rolling Airframe Missile, which has greater range and higher hit probability. The RAM system uses an automated and self-sufficient radar fire control similar to that of Phalanx.