| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| After the Aircraft Carrier: 3 Alternatives to the NavyÂ’s Vulnerable Flattops | |
| 2013-03-21 | |
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #19 Uncle Phester, did you notice the crash test dummy symbols plastered all over the aircraft? Doesn't exactly instill confidence. |
| Posted by: Angerenter Ghibelline1591 2013-03-21 20:59 |
| #18 ...and then there is this... |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2013-03-21 20:16 |
| #17 Sirs: They remain like pigeons on the ground. Tomorrow the Minnesota. Also be informed I also rammed a small excursion boat today. An odd thing, much loss of innocents. Yours Catesby |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-03-21 15:59 |
| #16 Sirs: I pray for the quick arrival of this Monitor as we are being hounded by this blackguard remanent of the Merrimac. Do not worry about the new module, but make haste to Newport News ASAP with what you have. Yours. Lt. J.B. Smith EO Congress |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-03-21 15:52 |
| #15 I wuz a hall Monitor oncet. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2013-03-21 15:15 |
| #14 I'm thinking my Monitor should be able to be able to do more than just cover a river entrance. To this end I have decided to delete the turret in favor of a ship with turret capabilities. Gawd willing the turret module should be ready in Spring 1866. While this is being developed the basic "Monitor" hull form should be replicated to maximize the number of Monitors there are. The sleek no frills Monitor offers an array of possibilities. Troop transport, I remain yours sirs /Ben Butler esq. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-03-21 14:47 |
| #13 I see smaller carriers. The type the marines and UK have. Load it up with a couple of helicopters and a lot of drones and you can deal with all but the biggest problem. You could probably buy two or three for the cost of a Ford Class while buying only one so you could show the same number of counters on the big map and pretend we hadn't degraded our defense. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-03-21 14:43 |
| #12 Makes sense Deacon, if it's on top of the turret it would allow for the use of a towed passive array. Lord knows we like passive stuff. Of course it would require turning off the steam plant while the array was in use.... humm.... perhaps a small mast with a stay sail right in front of the turret. That might require more berthing, so really hot bunking might be on order for a few enlisted. An armoured tent on the after deck might be able to handle the overflow in good weather. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-03-21 14:09 |
| #11 Another cool option would be a large container ship with the outside containers having drone choppers ....drop the rusty doors and let loose a swarm of bees. |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2013-03-21 12:52 |
| #10 Not if it's on top of the turret, Ship. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2013-03-21 12:24 |
| #9 I'm thinking an updated Monitor with 21st Century Just in time Armor, Efficiently Crewed and able to hit the 6 sigma first time thru. Iron is cheap, sailors are not, so maximize our strong points and send potential adversaries a strong message. That message being.... WE ARE INSANE. BTW, do you think a helicopter pad would mess up the lines of a Monitor? If not, why not, answer quiescently and provide insights and links to nowhere. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-03-21 10:08 |
| #8 Working on the Ford-Class. My over-active imagination goes into overtime visualizing Carter, Clinton and Carriers present a great visual, but they are expensive and increasingly vulnerable. IMhO, the future will bring us strategically-placed hypersonic delivery systems w/o on-board pilots.... |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2013-03-21 08:39 |
| #7 Like the idea of small cats on super tankers. fixed wings launching / recovering to blimps was tried between the 2WWs and shelved. Japanese had sub-based aircraft, not practical. Do not like the small crew concept ala Zumwalt DDG: damage control run by a computer is a neat idea until an incoming round takes out the network: then HAL is blind. And reduced manning removes backups; think Forrestal fire when most of initial fire fighting crew got wiped out by exploding ordnance. When you are underway, there ain't no 9-1-1 to call. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2013-03-21 08:37 |
| #6 Thank you Joe, for bringing everything into perspective. I mean that very sincerely and affectionately. It took a while, but once I began to understand your language I really began to appreciate all that you have to offer. And you offer a lot. :-) And W. Modem -- I love you too! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2013-03-21 03:41 |
| #5 The GWCC-affected US Navy-DOD may end up like the UK's Royal Navy in having a potent-n-secure strategic nuclear triad but little or nothing to fight or support a major conventional war, or RDF/RRF operations. And, at a time when ... * TOPIX, DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > THE UN GOES HARDCORE. UN Peacekeeping assets to be used in increasingly "aggressive" + "violent" + "warlike/near-war? international scenarios. EXCLUSIVE OF ANY ISSUES AS PER ALLOWING WOMEN IN FRONTLINE COMBAT. IMO the possibility of a US-China-Japan, etal. conflict in NE Asia will de facto test the US' theory about seeing NO MORE MAJOR INTER/MULTI-STATE WARS THRU YEAR 2050 IFF NOT THE REST OF THE 21ST CENTURY. THE "GREAT GAME OF GEOPOLITICS" = "SUBSTITUTION OF NATIONS + WEALTH" DOES NOT END JUST BECAUSE THE COLD WAR IS OVER OR AS PER "GLOBAL WARMING" [GWCC]. -------------- As for Carrier alternatives, the Artic fails to mention skyborne Dirigibles used as "motherships" for squadrons or wings of Armed UAVS. Lest we fergit, INDIA = is supposedly working on concepts whereby Stealth Combat Surface Ships can submerge + fight like UW Submarines, wid minimal loss in speed or maneuver. VICE VERSA??? * GWCC = YOUR SHIPS WANT ANTI-SOLAR LUBES + SEALANTS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-03-21 01:40 |
| #4 for how we contain regional thugocracies such as Iran. Guess you could say that if Clinton had done his job, not now. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2013-03-21 00:31 |
| #3 Even better if a small sub can rise somewhere underneath it for minor tendering and minimal crew changes... |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2013-03-21 00:29 |
| #2 including the tiny "carriers" we had well over 100 at the end of WW-II. One could put a minimal deck and a cat for X-47s on some of the previous generation of big supertankers for a song. Not lots of people - storage cabinets/elevators with drones and a rusting looking hulk that nobody gives a real notice too until you launch something. Think of stuff parked off Indonesia or one of those anchorages for surplus ships... Also, think of the rusty and dented junker car that nobody notices, plates covered with mud sitting on the side of a road in a low rent area. Even the gangbangers don't bother with it. But, it has a great conditioned engine covered with dirt and grease under the hood and the broken shocks are really deflated airshocks. |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2013-03-21 00:27 |
| #1 They've been playing this tune since the 80s. Right up there with the tank is obsolete. It doesn't discount the issue of survivability but the alternatives aren't anymore survivable if hit. Even less so given a smaller crew for damage control. Dispersed for defense means your point defense is also dispersed/less per unit. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-03-21 00:20 |