‘We don’t need aircraft carriers, we need weapons to sink them with’ – Russian defense minister

[beijingwalker]

Air craft carriers are just prestige weapons, sitting ducks in a modern warfare.

 

[gambit]

Those who believes powers like the former Soviet Union or the current Russia and China are not afraid of the aircraft carrier are being shortsighted, which is no surprise considering their countries never really contributed to naval knowledge in the first place.

An aircraft carrier and its escorts are not merely power projection devices but proven instruments of war. Russia do not need aircraft carriers? Fine. That is Russia's loss. Russia want weapons to sink a carrier? Fine. That is Russia's problem. To date, the last time an aircraft carrier was sunk was the JPNese Amagi which was sunk in port, not in combat, in July 1945. Since then, the aircraft carrier under US leadership went thru major revolutions in design making the class %90 different than its predecessors. The Soviet Union and later Russia contributed practically nothing to the class. That is like Rolls Royce seriously considering criticism about car design and manufacturing from someone STILL struggling to build a horse drawn carriage.

The bottom line is this -- NO ONE likes to see or even hear that a US aircraft carrier is heading his way.

 

[LeGenD]

In WW2 what USA did to Japanese carriers?
And how Japan was bombed(nuked).
I think it was enough to tell the world how useful these carriers are.
Carriers are only good against countries like Afghanistan or may be Somalia.

Bro, are you kidding or something?

Aircraft carriers have significantly evolved in all aspects since WW2, American to say the least. UK and China are also developing their own with modern capabilities in mind.

Aircraft carriers are extremely important in that they provide Air Force where ever needed. There is no substitute for Air Force in warfare, mind you. Not even ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. And so-called carrier killers do not make Aircraft carriers obsolete unless they are left unguarded.

Back in WW2, USN played a major role in American methods of projecting power in different theaters around the world. Aircraft carriers were deeply involved.

 

[fitpOsitive]

Bro, are you kidding or something?

Aircraft carriers have significantly evolved in all aspects since WW2, American to say the least. UK and China are also developing their own with modern capabilities in mind.

Aircraft carriers are extremely important in that they provide Air Force where ever needed. There is no substitute for Air Force in warfare, mind you. Not even ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. And so-called carrier killers do not make Aircraft carriers obsolete unless they are left unguarded.

Back in WW2, USN played a major role in American methods of projecting power in different theaters around the world. Aircraft carriers were deeply involved.

It's no kidding. The issue is, they are way more costly, and when it comes to power multiplication against modern militaries, they are simpling sitting ducks. Yes they can be guarded heavily, but again, this very thing fails its purpose.

 

[gambit]

It's no kidding. The issue is, they are way more costly, and when it comes to power multiplication against modern militaries, they are simpling sitting ducks. Yes they can be guarded heavily, but again, this very thing fails its purpose.

The aircraft carrier is a sitting duck?

In order to call something a 'sitting duck', you must have actual experience in hunting to start to know how and when a target is so vulnerable. So tell us, how many navies in the world have combat experience AGAINST the US Navy, let alone a single carrier strike group? How many won in how many engagements? What were technology comparables? If the carrier is well defended, then it cannot be called a 'sitting duck'. You contradicted yourself and did not even know it.

Most pictures of the aircraft carrier and its escorts are always in close and neat formation, but in reality, there is no way to take a picture of the fleet in battle array, so here is a representation of a carrier fleet in actual combat formation...

You are looking at MILLIONS of square miles in open ocean to find a single MOVING target. That alone does not make any target a 'sitting duck'. Now add in the many defense layers, from mechanical to electronics, so how does that make the carrier a 'sitting duck'?

I know you want to suck up to the Russians and the Chinese on this forum, but try to exercise some critical thinking, will ya?

 

[fitpOsitive]

The aircraft carrier is a sitting duck?

In order to call something a 'sitting duck', you must have actual experience in hunting to start to know how and when a target is so vulnerable. So tell us, how many navies in the world have combat experience AGAINST the US Navy, let alone a single carrier strike group? How many won in how many engagements? What were technology comparables? If the carrier is well defended, then it cannot be called a 'sitting duck'. You contradicted yourself and did not even know it.

Most pictures of the aircraft carrier and its escorts are always in close and neat formation, but in reality, there is no way to take a picture of the fleet in battle array, so here is a representation of a carrier fleet in actual combat formation...

You are looking at MILLIONS of square miles in open ocean to find a single MOVING target. That alone does not make any target a 'sitting duck'. Now add in the many defense layers, from mechanical to electronics, so how does that make the carrier a 'sitting duck'?

I know you want to suck up to the Russians and the Chinese on this forum, but try to exercise some critical thinking, will ya?

I always respected you and still respect as my senior sir. So, with all due respect, here is small piece of thought, that what people are thinking about carriers :
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-10-22/aircraft-carriers-are-the-navy-s-sitting-ducks

I mean, even if a carrier is well guarded, can aircrafts take off from it, when it comes to facing some modern military? I repeat, carriers are still effective against countries like Sudan, Somalia, Mongolia, Srilanka or may be Afghanistan.. But has no use against countries like Iran, North Korea or Russia. That was my point.

 

[gambit]

I always respected you and still respect as my senior sir. So, with all due respect, here is small piece of thought, that what people are thinking about carriers :
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-10-22/aircraft-carriers-are-the-navy-s-sitting-ducks

I mean, even if a carrier is well guarded, can aircrafts take off from it, when it comes to facing some modern military? I repeat, carriers are still effective against countries like Sudan, Somalia, Mongolia, Srilanka or may be Afghanistan.. But has no use against countries like Iran, North Korea or Russia. That was my point.

The question is simple enough: How many countries have combat experience against the US Navy, let alone a US Navy carrier strike group?

The question is simple but its impact is wide and deep because it affect national security no matter what country you are talking about. That Bloomberg article is garbage because it failed to address reality and instead focused on simulations. WW II was the last time fleets faced and fought each other. WW II was the first time air power defeated a navy fleet. Since then, there have been no credible exploration by any naval power on how to effectively fight the aircraft carrier.

- WW II was the last time fleets faced and fought each other.
- WW II was the first time air power defeated a navy fleet.

Think about the technological and operational gap from those two facts. It is a 50+ yrs gap and continues to widen.

Statement one, for starter, how many countries can effectively wield a navy fleet today? Not many. The few that can, either they are allies or competitors, not yet adversaries. Not only that, the technological gaps among themselves made it problematic that they can fight each other long distance, so now potentially, fleets may literally have to face each other and fight pre-WW II style.

Statement two. How many countries have naval aviation in any credible form? You can count on one hand minus the thumb, and on that list, one country is so far ahead that it is not even funny to make comparisons to the others.

So if there has been credible exploration on how to fight against a US carrier strike group, how can you or anyone make a credible claim that a particular weapon system have effectively ended the utility of the aircraft carrier?

When the machine gun came out, the claim was that its horrific effects would end wars. Did that happened?

 

[merzifonlu]

Right, nobody's ever experienced anything like this in the last 65 years. Whether the Aircraft Carrier is functional or not is only revealed in a real battle.

In my opinion, with the emergence of precise guided ballistic missiles, Submarines became even more important than Aircraft Carriers.

Once the location is detected the Aircraft Carrier is an open target no matter how well protected it is. IMO even the Battle of Midway proved this early.

The Japanese lost that battle mainly because their scout surveillance capabilities were poor.

 

[KAL-EL]

Air craft carriers are just prestige weapons, sitting ducks in a modern warfare.

Which is why China plains on building quite a few of them. But wait, they’re just sitting ducks right?

 

[Zapper]

This is should wake up IN lolz.

and PLAAN lolz

 

[TOPGUN]

and PLAAN lolz

True.

 

[Zapper]

True.

It's not easy to sink an AC and if countries like US, UK, China, India are investing and building more along with few others going for helo carries...they're doing something right. If Russia or Pak economies weren't in shambles, they would go for an AC as well.

Infact, In 2005 the USN itself targeted the decommissioned carrier America in order to determine just how much punishment the vessel could withstand before slipping beneath the waves which stood up to four weeks of abuse and only succumbed to the sea after demolition teams scuttled the ship on purpose once and for all, it's clear that ACs are built to sustain heavy damage in combat and still stay afloat

For an active AC flotilla armed and guarded by air defence systems, fighter jets, destroyers, frigates, subs, ASW choppers and recon/surveillance aircrafts...that would be much harder than you assume

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...y-photo-of-a-u-s-navy-supercarrier-being-sunk

 

[TOPGUN]

It's not easy to sink an AC and if countries like US, UK, China, India are investing and building more along with few others going for helo carries...they're doing something right. If Russia or Pak economies weren't in shambles, they would go for an AC as well.

Infact, In 2005 the USN itself targeted the decommissioned carrier America in order to determine just how much punishment the vessel could withstand before slipping beneath the waves which stood up to four weeks of abuse and only succumbed to the sea after demolition teams scuttled the ship on purpose once and for all, it's clear that ACs are built to sustain heavy damage in combat and still stay afloat

For an active AC flotilla armed and guarded by air defence systems, fighter jets, destroyers, frigates, subs, ASW choppers and recon/surveillance aircrafts...that would be much harder than you assume

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...y-photo-of-a-u-s-navy-supercarrier-being-sunk

Never said it was easy but also not impossible at all !!

 

[James David]

I always respected you and still respect as my senior sir. So, with all due respect, here is small piece of thought, that what people are thinking about carriers :
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-10-22/aircraft-carriers-are-the-navy-s-sitting-ducks

I mean, even if a carrier is well guarded, can aircrafts take off from it, when it comes to facing some modern military? I repeat, carriers are still effective against countries like Sudan, Somalia, Mongolia, Srilanka or may be Afghanistan.. But has no use against countries like Iran, North Korea or Russia. That was my point.

Naaah it is effective to all countries. Iran I bet they won't even know what hit 'em. North Korea? Same.... China and Russia!? Yes. Even UK, France and Germany combined. The US Navy rules the waves. End of story.

Which is why China plains on building quite a few of them. But wait, they’re just sitting ducks right?

My thoughts exactly son of Krypton.

 

[gambit]

Never said it was easy but also not impossible at all !!

In order to make it evident that something is 'not impossible', there must be resources expended to make that something possible.

- WW II was the first time naval fleets fought each other without seeing each other.
- WW II was the first time air power defeated a naval fleet.

Since 1945, not a single aircraft carrier was sunk in combat while at the same time, the class itself continued to evolved. Challenges to evolution needs points where progress is halted, even if just temporarily. In 75 yrs, nothing have successfully challenged the aircraft carrier. That means 'not impossible' remains in the theoretical plane. No one have yet bring it down to the practical.