Something better than a carrier navy?

[LoBlo]

The article on the front page brings up a curious and interesting point: Is a "supercarrier" navy the most effective use of naval resources? Is there perhaps a better and more cost effective fleet strategy?

Discuss.

[Kapitan]

The soviet navy built submarines to combat the carriers, at the hieght there was over 500 in service, thats about 70 submarines to 1 carrier.

Soviets used SSGN's to great effect and attack submarines how ever they didnt realy depoy then sucsessfully.

[Takeda Shingen]

The Soviet Union relied heavily on their numbers. They had to because, frankly, the vast majority of their ships and weapons were, for lack of a better term, junk. Essentially, Soviet thought ran as follows: 'We have junk. But, we have lots of junk.' Their gamble was that at least some of the ships and weapons would survive long enough to make a sucessful attack. That's not a navy that I would want to serve in.

[Kapitan]

And you call the SS-N-22 and SS-N-19 a pile of junk? considering they can mission kill if not totaly wipe out a carrier single handed, and are classified as the most powerfullest anti-ship missile in the world not to mention are highly feared in the USN. hence why they dont like the oscars getting too close.

[Takeda Shingen]

You are quoting fleet strength from the late 1960's and weapons technology from the early 1980's. A submarine fleet of 500 and the missiles given above never did co-exist. Therefore, yes, the Soviet Navy relied heavily on the doctorine that I stated earlier in the heyday of the fleet.

[Kapitan]

Yes but im generalising the whole era not just 60's or 80's the lot, the heyday was the 1970's realy thats when the most submarines were in active service.

[Takeda Shingen]

Numerically, it is not possible to have the largest numbers of submarines in the 1970's. A fleet in the numbers that we are discussing requires nearly the full class of Whiskeys being in service. You and I both know that they were being decommissioned like crazy at that time.

[Kapitan]

Yes that is 100% true, but i always believed the heyday was the 70's the whiskeys well wouldnt have gone too far in war.

60's most numerical, 80's good weapons and 00's a good mix lol

[Takeda Shingen]

I'll buy that. In defense of the Soviet navy and the Whiskey, it did serve the purpose, at least the short-term purpose, of the time. The USSR had to prepare itself for a global conflict with the US, and had practically no navy at the time. The Whiskey, although little more than a glorified Type XXI and outdated even as the first unit was commissioned, gave the Soviets large numbers, and did so cheaply, enabling them to focus on development for future generations. It was painful and frequently deadly, but they (now Russia) did eventually catch up to the west.

[Kapitan]

id like to add a bit there.

And in 1984 over took the west with the launch of project 971 akula seeing as its quieter than the 688i. *insert smug look here*

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

id like to add a bit there.

And in 1984 over took the west with the launch of project 971 akula seeing as its quieter than the 688i. *insert smug look here*

Aureal made a really awesome 3-dimensional audio algorithm, and then were brutually conquered and subjugated by Creative Labs. It was a totally awesome spatial algorithm, but they're dead now. God intended for Aureal to stand as a warning to any other sound company that would stand against Creative Labs.

Aside from analogies to the 1991 failed USSR coup attempt by 6 generals, 4 of whom committed suicide (or the GRU made it look like a suicide), I can't imagine smaller carriers. We can't use conventionals, so that means nukes. We need mobile airports, and VSTOL aircraft just can't manage the combat takeoff weights that we need.

Smaller planes, sure. We could load up our carriers with *thousands* of drones, all run by 13 year old Nintendo gamers in Montana. Give'em little coverall uniforms to wear, with badges and a ball cap that says "L33t Skillz Team Alpha -- VFA-1337 -- Flying Ownzorz".

[Kapitan]

i have know idea what you are gabbeling on about!

True fact the akula at 6-9 knots is quieter than the 688i is the akula also carries more weapons tubes and weapons than the 688 and 688i (excluding VLS), dont know wether i can say this but the akula has a top speed in excess of 34 knots, and a diving deapth greater than 600 meters.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

id like to add a bit there.

And in 1984 over took the west with the launch of project 971 akula seeing as its quieter than the 688i. *insert smug look here*

Puke puke puke! :p

Even though they had Toshiba's prop milling machines at this time, they still were louder than a 688i, giving the edge to the 688i! They did not have the 688i's prop design either, but made something sort of camparable, but not quite!

[Kapitan]

Well why did you americans openly state now and then that the akula is quieter than the 688i at slow speeds its a well known fact and has been a fact for decades, the akulas are now like the 688is anyway getting old need replacing.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Well why did you americans openly state now and then that the akula is quieter than the 688i at slow speeds its a well known fact and has been a fact for decades, the akulas are now like the 688is anyway getting old need replacing.

I think you are talking about the Flight 2, or 'Improved' Akulas. The Flight 1's are still nosier than the Improved '88's.