5 ms·

The problem is that most of your logic also 'proves' that aircraft would render tanks obsolete; yet tanks and aircraft have existed for quite a long time on the

by nickff 10y ago

The problem is that most of your logic also 'proves' that aircraft would render tanks obsolete; yet tanks and aircraft have existed for quite a long time on the battlefield. The argument you are making is a very common one (and the subject of many Quora posts), yet I would still bet that carriers would be very useful in small and large future conflicts.

vacri 10y ago
The only actors that can actually threaten the destruction of an aircraft carrier have nukes anyway. It's hard to imagine a situation where they're willing to destroy your biggest ship but not be concerned about MAD. I mean, it's a bit hard to do an "oops, my finger slipped!" with the kind of arsenal it would take to destroy a carrier (like the OP's thousand $1M missiles).
- uuuuiojhcxxbgg 10y ago
  The issue is that we look at MAD as the end of the world. It's not (for countries). There were battle plans in place for an invasion of NATO/Warsaw pact
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Hardly. State of the art missiles have been sold to countries that don't have nukes.
  - hga 10y ago
    Aren't you assuming that only one of these missiles hitting it would "destroy" it? They're rather big, and we gained a lot of experience in WWII in making fleet carriers fairly survivable in the face of big hits. And those carried fuel oil for their boilers and gasoline for their planes, naval jet fuel isn't quite so volatile as the later.
hackuser 10y ago
> most of your logic also 'proves' that aircraft would render tanks obsolete; yet tanks and aircraft have existed for quite a long time on the battlefield. To be clear, it's not my logic, but what I've read from experts (I'm no expert myself). Anyway, aircraft do render tanks 'obsolete' AFAIK. Tanks that operate without their forces control of the airspace above them are highly vulnerable.
- simonh 10y ago
  So if you have every intention of maintaining air superiority, they're not obsolete at all.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > if you have every intention of maintaining air superiority, they're not obsolete at all. I don't understand. If the system isn't effective, it doesn't matter what it's intended to do, it's still obsolete. You can also use WWII-era equipment intended to provide air superiority, but it won't help.
uuuuiojhcxxbgg 10y ago
Sure, knocking out tanks is possible with an airplane, but at what cost? And when a tank gets knocked out, you build a new one and deploy. If a carrier gets knocked out, you lose force projection. Now how hard will it be to rebuild a carrier? Its the same as the B-2, F-22, and F-35. They're amazingly powerful, but so expensive that you can't afford to lose them in battle
- oconnor663 10y ago
  > at what cost How expensive are the rounds for this thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-...

by nickff 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

The only actors that can actually threaten the destruction of an aircraft carrier have nukes anyway. It's hard to imagine a situation where they're willing to destroy your biggest ship but not be concerned about MAD. I mean, it's a bit hard to do an "oops, my finger slipped!" with the kind of arsenal it would take to destroy a carrier (like the OP's thousand $1M missiles).

uuuuiojhcxxbgg 10y ago
The issue is that we look at MAD as the end of the world. It's not (for countries). There were battle plans in place for an invasion of NATO/Warsaw pact
zigzigzag 10y ago
Hardly. State of the art missiles have been sold to countries that don't have nukes.
- hga 10y ago
  Aren't you assuming that only one of these missiles hitting it would "destroy" it? They're rather big, and we gained a lot of experience in WWII in making fleet carriers fairly survivable in the face of big hits. And those carried fuel oil for their boilers and gasoline for their planes, naval jet fuel isn't quite so volatile as the later.

hackuser 10y ago

> most of your logic also 'proves' that aircraft would render tanks obsolete; yet tanks and aircraft have existed for quite a long time on the battlefield. To be clear, it's not my logic, but what I've read from experts (I'm no expert myself). Anyway, aircraft do render tanks 'obsolete' AFAIK. Tanks that operate without their forces control of the airspace above them are highly vulnerable.

simonh 10y ago
So if you have every intention of maintaining air superiority, they're not obsolete at all.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > if you have every intention of maintaining air superiority, they're not obsolete at all. I don't understand. If the system isn't effective, it doesn't matter what it's intended to do, it's still obsolete. You can also use WWII-era equipment intended to provide air superiority, but it won't help.

uuuuiojhcxxbgg 10y ago

Sure, knocking out tanks is possible with an airplane, but at what cost? And when a tank gets knocked out, you build a new one and deploy. If a carrier gets knocked out, you lose force projection. Now how hard will it be to rebuild a carrier? Its the same as the B-2, F-22, and F-35. They're amazingly powerful, but so expensive that you can't afford to lose them in battle

oconnor663 10y ago
> at what cost How expensive are the rounds for this thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-...