• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where are our carriers today ?

It is a combination of a great many things.

For training basic technicians to operate boilers and turbines, it only takes a few months. And the maintenance is pretty straightforward. Every part of the system can be worked on at any time, so any port call can be used to do various levels of maintenance.

For a nuclear ship however, it takes at least 9 months to train them, they have to have significantly higher ASVAB scores, and be able to hold a Secret security clearance. This means you have a lot fewer available technicians able to hold down the job.

And a lot of your maintenance can only be done in ports that are able to handle that kind of work. So many routine services done anywhere for a conventional destroyer can only be done in the home port or specialized shipyards (this was a major task for Mare Island, doing major overhauls of nuclear subs).

Also because of safety requirements you simply needed more people. This is not a problem on a large ship like a Carrier, but it was more troublesome on a smaller ship like a Destroyer.

Also there is the main issue that so much power really is not needed on a ship the size of a destroyer. With the advances in naval power plants, not even the Ticonderoga class cruisers with their large RADAR and fire control systems needed a nuclear power plant, a gas turbine was more then enough.

During the decades where we operated the "Nuclear Navy", it was realized that nuclear destroyers and cruisers were simply not needed, and it was a better use of manpower and money to put them into the large ships that could really benefit from that kind of power (or submarines, where silence is of the utmost importance). And unless some kind of new propulsion technology which renders the screw obsolete and requires a large amount of electricity comes out, I do not see this changing any time soon.

And when you think about it, the Destroyer is basically the least expansive and most expendable ship in the fleet. That is why they stand picket for the big ships they protect, to take the hits instead of your major surface combatants. Putting nuke plants in ships like that is simply foolish (which is another reason why the Bainbridge was designated from a Destroyer to a Cruiser).

All good points. But I am thinking because of the need for major amounts of electrical power now with the all electric ships the Navy wants, it might want to reconsider the nuclear option again for at least the ships equipped for the upcoming railgun technologies which are very power intensive. They may well have to upgrade their ports to handle a more nuclear navy.

I am surprised that the nuclear ships now would need more personnel considering the automation technology we have. Further the 4th gen reactors like pebble bed and others can be made quite a bit safer and bubba resistant, (notice I said bubba resistant not proof. Bubbas ALWAYS find a way to **** things up. Its their life's work ya know.) and MUCH less maintenance intensive. With far fewer radioactive critical parts as well.
 
Don't need a manned helo. So I would yes they could quite frankly the LCS is a glorified coast guard ship. I say give it to the coast guard.

A bird provides stand off and invulnerability vs. speedboats. With a radar platform and airborne mind sweeping capabilities, this vehicle can pwn the seas and gulfs (against 2nd and 3rd world regimes) though not the oceans vs. 1st world. It's not intended to fight the Russians or Chinese.
 
No one is against women serving in the military. they do a great job in support on shore stations. The Navy does not need them at sea. PC has gone crazy. It affects the readiness of the fleet and hampers their mission.............

Sexist babble.
 
A bird provides stand off and invulnerability vs. speedboats. With a radar platform and airborne mind sweeping capabilities, this vehicle can pwn the seas and gulfs (against 2nd and 3rd world regimes) though not the oceans vs. 1st world. It's not intended to fight the Russians or Chinese.

The proposal of the Navy building a corvette to be able to operate in the littorals (green water) goes back to the 1960's. Pick up back issues of the USNI "Proceedings."

It was 9/11 that finally got Congress to sign off on the idea.

The LCS was designed to fight against China, Russia and developing countries. Fighting off shore of third world nations or fighting piracy was a second mission of the LCS. That second mission was used to get Congress to sign off on the CLS.

The Air Force had to do the same thing to get Congress to sign off on the F-22. The F-22 was designed for one mission, air superiority. When Congress was having second thought, the Air Force said we would have the F-22 to be able to carry a bomb and drop it on the enemy. That sold the Congress.

The problem with the current LCS, it's weapons systems are modal. First introduced by Scandinavian navies, never tested in combat. As usual with the geeks who are embedded with in the Nav, Sea. Syst. Com. they think high tech is the answerer to every thing. These are geeks who never have served, never been exposed to history because the history taught today is liberal revisionism. They live in a Pac-Man/GTA computer game mentality.


The LCS goes to sea with only one modal, either the anti ship surface modal, ASW, A/A, anti mine, land strike or inserting special warfare troops. If a LCS has the anti ship modal and comes across an enemy sub, there ain't #### the LCS can do.I f the LCS has the A/A modal and an enemy boat larger than a ski boat appears on the horizon there isn't #### that the LCS can do. Get the drift ?
 
All good points. But I am thinking because of the need for major amounts of electrical power now with the all electric ships the Navy wants, it might want to reconsider the nuclear option again for at least the ships equipped for the upcoming railgun technologies which are very power intensive. They may well have to upgrade their ports to handle a more nuclear navy.

Sorry, not a fanboi of railguns, and they have been telling us those are "around the corner" for multiple decades now.

Personally, I just don't see a point to them, other then maybe putting them on Littoral Combat Ships, so they have yet another worthless item to brag about.

Flat trajectory, no warhead, hypersonic velocity, limited kill potential entirely to kinetic energy.

Nice for a defense system, like a last minute ABM-AM system, but I don't really see a point to them otherwise.
 
Sorry, not a fanboi of railguns, and they have been telling us those are "around the corner" for multiple decades now.

Personally, I just don't see a point to them, other then maybe putting them on Littoral Combat Ships, so they have yet another worthless item to brag about.

Flat trajectory, no warhead, hypersonic velocity, limited kill potential entirely to kinetic energy.

Nice for a defense system, like a last minute ABM-AM system, but I don't really see a point to them otherwise.

The kinetic energy and hypersonic delivery are the selling points. The trajectory depending on range can be flat or plunging. Time on target solutions can be set up with one gun at range. Velocity can be varied and if desired different warheads can be utilized, though that does defeat some of the advantages. Short range kinetic penetrators would be able to punch though bunkers and armor very easily. The kinetic energy delivered at range would be equivalent to a tomahawk missiles.

The rail gun is just about here. They have done very successful testing from BAE systems. The problem all along has be rail ablation which has been solved enough to make the rail gun a viable system. The systems have been demonstrated successfully, the next problem is going to be packaging and targeting.
 
Short range kinetic penetrators would be able to punch though bunkers and armor very easily. The kinetic energy delivered at range would be equivalent to a tomahawk missiles.

Oh, I have seen railgun tests myself. Pretty flat trajectory, they have never really had much success in "plunging" and keeping the speed high enough to do serious damage (this is a problem of all kinetic weapons, from bullets to rocks). Increase the distance, increase the angle, and you loose a lot of it enroute or in ascending (which is then never recovered in a descent). And when that kinetic force is entirely what drives the damage, damage is greatly reduced in the end if not outright negated.

And I doubt we have to worry about our ships attacking tanks or bunkers with such a weapon anytime in the near future (other then once again as a short range last line of defense weapon as I already stated). They would have to be so close that they could come under fire from these positions, and that makes no sense when you can strike farther with more conventional weapons without putting the ship in danger.
 
The kinetic energy and hypersonic delivery are the selling points. The trajectory depending on range can be flat or plunging. Time on target solutions can be set up with one gun at range. Velocity can be varied and if desired different warheads can be utilized, though that does defeat some of the advantages. Short range kinetic penetrators would be able to punch though bunkers and armor very easily. The kinetic energy delivered at range would be equivalent to a tomahawk missiles.

The rail gun is just about here. They have done very successful testing from BAE systems. The problem all along has be rail ablation which has been solved enough to make the rail gun a viable system. The systems have been demonstrated successfully, the next problem is going to be packaging and targeting.

So how would a rail gun be able to full fill a "close" fire support mission when the target is an enemy infantry company in the open or in the tree line, 1/2 mile long and 100 meters deep ? It's an area target, the most common call for close fire support.

This is when six gun or tube artillery savos are used.

An air burst using either a VT or timed fuse is SOP. I don't think a 7 lb. rail gun projectile at $34,000 a pop is going to be effective against the enemy troops or are the tax payers going to want to foot the bill of spending over a half of million dollars to take out an enemy infantry company. I'm using a 6 gun 3 round savos as an example. The only problem is, there will only be one or two rail guns on a ship so you don't have the capability of six gun savos.

An Iowa class BB 16" three gun savo would pretty much eliminate the target and would only cost the tax payers $1,500.

Or a 5"/38 six gun three rounds savo (18 rounds) could get the job done, if the enemy troops aren't to spread out.
 
xwing_fighter_landing_accident_on_aircraft_carrier.jpg


A peek at the carriers of the future.
 
So how would a rail gun be able to full fill a "close" fire support mission when the target is an enemy infantry company in the open or in the tree line, 1/2 mile long and 100 meters deep ? It's an area target, the most common call for close fire support.

This is when six gun or tube artillery savos are used.

An air burst using either a VT or timed fuse is SOP. I don't think a 7 lb. rail gun projectile at $34,000 a pop is going to be effective against the enemy troops or are the tax payers going to want to foot the bill of spending over a half of million dollars to take out an enemy infantry company. I'm using a 6 gun 3 round savos as an example. The only problem is, there will only be one or two rail guns on a ship so you don't have the capability of six gun savos.

An Iowa class BB 16" three gun savo would pretty much eliminate the target and would only cost the tax payers $1,500.

Or a 5"/38 six gun three rounds savo (18 rounds) could get the job done, if the enemy troops aren't to spread out.

Two rail guns would be able to cycle significantly faster than 6 guns. The 7lb projectile has the Kinect energy equivalent of a tomahawk missile. That's 1000lbs of composition high explosive. If delivered at a range of 200 nautical miles it can deliver a time on target salvo superior to the 6 gun salvo at much closer range. Those salvos would be coming from suborbital altitude with a near vertical reentry retaining much of their velocity. At close range time on target delivery would be more difficult but sustain fire weight would be superior by an order of magnitude. Two rail guns could run though two 1000 magazines each very quickly. That said rail guns are not really an anti infantry weapon at close range with out special rounds. At range the plunging fire can be set up for a nesting sympathetic resonating effect which would be quite devastating to any defensive structures or emplacements however rudimentary and very unpleasant for any infantry.

A 1600lb shell isn't 1500 bucks nowadays. That's just one, a three gun salvo gona be a bit more. All typical rail gun round is a machined hunk of aluminum. The government if they wanted to go dirt cheap could get them under a hundred bucks.
 
Last edited:
Two rail guns would be able to cycle significantly faster than 6 guns. The 7lb projectile has the Kinect energy equivalent of a tomahawk missile. That's 100lbs of composition high explosive.

But with no shrapnel or explosive concussion, it is almost worthless as a weapon to support troops in the ground. About the only way TOMAHAWKs are useful for ground troops is when they fly overhead dropping submunitions on the enemy before they get within range. It may not sound like much, but almost 200 supersized handgrenades dumped over your head will ruin anybodies day.

This is really pulling away from the OP of carriers, and stepping over a discussion on another thread.

On another note, a proposed WWII carrier that was never built. Proposed by the UK, to be made of ice.

pykrete-aircraftcarrier.jpg
 
But with no shrapnel or explosive concussion, it is almost worthless as a weapon to support troops in the ground. About the only way TOMAHAWKs are useful for ground troops is when they fly overhead dropping submunitions on the enemy before they get within range. It may not sound like much, but almost 200 supersized handgrenades dumped over your head will ruin anybodies day.

This is really pulling away from the OP of carriers, and stepping over a discussion on another thread.

Yep. Not going to derail the thread anymore.:mrgreen: I will look for the rail gun thread and post there or make one.

Found a thread for railguns. http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...navy-s-mach-8-railgun-obliterates-record.html posting future posts there.
 
A 1600lb shell isn't 1500 bucks nowadays. That's just one, a three gun salvo gona be a bit more. All typical rail gun round is a machined hunk of aluminum. The government if they wanted to go dirt cheap could get them under a hundred bucks.

All of the 16" AP and HC rounds were manufactured during WW ll. $500 a pop.

Kinda like the four boxes of .45 ACP Black Talon's I paid $12 per box back in 1992. Today people have offerd me up to $100 for just one box of Black Talon's.

The goal for the rail gun is 10 RPM. The current 5"/54 guns fire at 20 RPM.

Drawback of the rail gun. Unable to hit targets on reverse slopes.
This is why the Navy's 5"/38 guns did a better job in Vietnam than the 5"/54 guns. The 5"/54's could hit the reverse slopes of a hill but it was difficult.

No air burst projectiles. The rail gun frag round disperses it's fragmentation "cubes" at ground level which means a smaller dispersion area than an air burst. Supposedly a VT fuse can't be developed to withstand the high velocity of the projectile.
But who knows, DARPA has developed a lot of stuff that most believed could never work.

Since the rail gun projectile uses a GPS guidance system I can't see it being used in a "danger close" fire support mission. Unless the Marines start carrying navigation charts with them. Ground troops don't use navigation charts on land. Maps used are more comparable to surveying maps.
 
The newest and largest, littoral Destroyer- USS Zumwalt launched today at 610 ft and Captain by James Kirk (for real).

1729f44b-ba86-4369-aa95-95646d46cde7_131028-O-ZZ999-103.JPG
 
Why hasn't the Navy just went completely nuclear or close to it? I would think that would save on fuel costs big time since we already have all that uranium and plutonium from our dismantled nuke warheads. It would also reduce the size of the auxiliary fleet somewhat. Is there something here I am missing?

It is absolutely not efficient for smaller ships, particularly since the operators have to be trained as well as we are. We are shorthanded on nuclear operators with just manning the carriers and subs. If we had to man all US Navy ships with nuclear operators, we wouldn't be able to operate most of them. But that is only a small consideration. When a cost/benefit analysis is done, nuclear power as a fuel only has a net benefit (in accordance with what the military would rate "beneficial" compared to a "cost") for large ships (carriers) and submarines. At one time, cruisers were nuclear power, and they stopped because of the cost outweighing the benefits (although there have been rumors of going back to some nuclear cruisers). Better technology (propulsion and other such equipment) which would reduce our manning needs could actually mean more nuclear powered types of ships.
 
For training basic technicians to operate boilers and turbines, it only takes a few months. And the maintenance is pretty straightforward. Every part of the system can be worked on at any time, so any port call can be used to do various levels of maintenance.

For a nuclear ship however, it takes at least 9 months to train them, they have to have significantly higher ASVAB scores, and be able to hold a Secret security clearance. This means you have a lot fewer available technicians able to hold down the job.

It takes almost a year and half to train any nuke. Every nuke gets a year of strictly nuclear power training (although tailored for their rate) plus the training that gives them their rate.

And not only does it take a high ASVAB score (we're talking 80+) but it also requires a minimum score on another test plus at least a B in an Algebra course (HS or college). There is/was an age limit of 25 as well (hopefully they will eventually trash this though since it is really not important to whether a person would be able to do the job, older guys are just as able to learn nuclear power as younger ones). And over and over the Navy has found that waiving many of these just for the purpose of getting more nukes has resulted in wasted money on training people who don't make it through the program (we call them "nuke waste").
 
Back
Top Bottom