What does an Aircraft Carrier do?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:17 am

I mean, I know it carries aircraft of some sort, that's a given. But in terms of defending the Homeland, what's it's function? Has it a role to play in preventing invasion, for example? How does it achieve that any better than a land-based strategy?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:09 am

The key is in why an Aircraft Carrier carries aircraft. I think I understand what you're driving at. Originally I think they were a response to helping defend other countries victimized by invaders, but now, yes, lately we've used them for our own invasions. Is the first reason still valid? Perhaps not, but they're now probably muscle for hire, and, of course, the making of lewd, embarrassing videos.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:27 am

"they were a response to helping defend other countries"?

Perhaps you could give an example?

You think aircraft carriers were a rational way to defend Hawaii perhaps? Rather than building airfields on the islands?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:20 am

According to Wikipedia the first instance given is WW1 when The UK and Japan bombed some stuff in Germany with planes from early carrier type ships. Aircraft Carriers seem to have been a natural progression in military development.

"The first carrier air raid in history, an attack on the Cuxhaven Zeppelin base near Wilhelmshaven by seven British seaplanes from three improvised 'carriers' in the Heligoland Bight, took place on Christmas Day 1914."[1] In the World War I Battle of Tsingtao in 1914, the Imperial Japanese Navy seaplane carrier Wakamiya conducted the world's first successful naval-launched air raids[2] from Kiaochow Bay.[3] It launched four Maurice Farman seaplanes, which bombarded German communication centers and command centers and damaged a German minelayer.[4]

Aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:45 am

So - let me check I got that bit right - an aircraft carrier is a way of projecting an offensive capability further than the natural range of the aircraft concerned, whether it be as a bomber or a fighter capability, into territory where the projector has no airfields at its disposal. Is that a reasonable summary of what you've told me?

You wouldn't like to expand on any potential defensive use perhaps? Because strain as I might I'm buggered if I can come up with one.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:02 am

I guess you can say that America (and other countries) use it's Navy to extend its land type borders in the seas. That could be interpreted as defensive.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:52 am

Ahso!;1351533 wrote: I guess you can say that America (and other countries) use it's Navy to extend its land type borders in the seas. That could be interpreted as defensive.

Umm.

How, exactly?

How can it possibly be defensive to move your own striking capacity away from your own borders? I'm trying hard but I can think of no conceivable circumstance where that's in the interests of defence.

They can't under any circumstance be used to attack the Homeland of any country armed with nuclear ballistic missiles because they have no protection from nuclear ballistic missiles, they'd be sunk before they could retrieve their planes.

They have no advantage whatsover in their own home waters - land-based aircraft have every advantage there over planes carried by ship.

The only place they can be used with positive effect is where no local airfields will let your own planes land and re-arm and refuel. Otherwise known as deployment next to the border of a foreign land equipped with more primitive technology. The traditional word for that is offense, not defence.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:32 am

As American interest (mainly corporate) extend throughout the globe, the muscle goes with it. We do that under the guise of defense, and the nations we sell to gladly accept the security that comes with the contracts. America's national security concerns is not for it's people, it's for ensuring it's financial structure.

From what I can see, you have two avenues to take in order to fix this problem; 1) stop the supply or, 2) stop the demand. A third option would be to do what the majority of Western civilization has chosen to do and that's do nothing and roll with it.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:46 am

"We do that under the guise of defense" is an Orwellian rejection of language in this instance. If you can describe any possible use of an aircraft carrier that's defensive rather than offensive then go ahead and I'll allow the use of the word but so far all I've seen is that they're offensive but we don't use that word about our own military. Why don't we? Is it what used to be called Propaganda, back when a spade was a spade? We allegedly don't do Propaganda either.

I have no objection whatever to the military being "the muscle" or being armed to the eyeballs, so long as their arms are deployed within the Homeland for the defence of the Homeland. Defending the Homeland does not include deploying a carrier group off Taiwan or in the Indian Ocean. Defending the Homeland doesn't include owning a carrier group in the first place.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:55 am

spot;1351550 wrote: "We do that under the guise of defense" is an Orwellian rejection of language in this instance. If you can describe any possible use of an aircraft carrier that's defensive rather than offensive then go ahead and I'll allow the use of the word but so far all I've seen is that they're offensive but we don't use that word about our own military. Why don't we? Is it what used to be called Propaganda, back when a spade was a spade? We allegedly don't do Propaganda either.

I have no objection whatever to the military being "the muscle" or being armed to the eyeballs, so long as their arms are deployed within the Homeland for the defence of the Homeland. Defending the Homeland does not include deploying a carrier group off Taiwan or in the Indian Ocean. Defending the Homeland doesn't include owning a carrier group in the first place.America's homeland extends with its international dealings.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:59 am

Ahso!;1351556 wrote: America's homeland extends with its international dealings.

I've no problem with that so long as you extend citizenship. If you refuse a country its own foreign or financial policy then absorb it, it's then a part of your homeland. All it takes is giving the foreigners US passports, citizenship and the vote. That's what country means - control of its own foreign and financial policy. By all means slap a US label on the map, but at least call it a new State of the Union.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:07 am

Citizen matters less than customer these days. America will throughly protect it's customers and She'll send her citizens (the poor ones who aren't good customers) to war with those who are resistant to becoming customers.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:09 am

Think of them as modern Roman Legions.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:12 am

SnoozeAgain;1351563 wrote: Think of them as modern Roman Legions.There you go.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:13 am

You regard the Iraqis as customers? That's a curious point of view.

Allow Iraq free elections once you've withdrawn your forces and then tell me how many customers you made. I reckon it's going to be an anti-American country for as long as Vietnam was after the expulsion of the US occupation from South East Asia.

As a means of recruiting customers, aircraft carriers seem remarkably ineffective. And, to stick to the point, offensive.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:16 am

spot;1351566 wrote: You regard the Iraqis as customers? That's a curious point of view.

Allow Iraq free elections once you've withdrawn your forces and then tell me how many customers you made. I reckon it's going to be an anti-American country for as long as Vietnam was after that pull-out.

As a means of recruiting customers, aircraft carriers seem remarkably ineffective. And, to stick to the point, offensive.I'm not talking about recruiting customers, I'm talking about keeping and protecting customers.

You think America treats it's own citizens much better than that of other countries? Not really, we have to scratch and claw for everything. If you can't make it, out onto the streets you go. Tough Love!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:42 am

spot;1351525 wrote: I mean, I know it carries aircraft of some sort, that's a given. But in terms of defending the Homeland, what's it's function? Has it a role to play in preventing invasion, for example? How does it achieve that any better than a land-based strategy?It's 100% offensive, as is any projectile weapon. It comes with the saying "the best defense is a good offense." Cold War containment with nukes and military force projection was considered defense.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:46 am

Accountable;1351613 wrote: It's 100% offensive, as is any projectile weapon. It comes with the saying "the best defense is a good offense." Cold War containment with nukes and military force projection was considered defense.

Cold War containment had a believable threat to national survival, something which is notably missing from the current World Order. or perhaps you disagree?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:56 am

spot;1351614 wrote: Cold War containment had a believable threat to national survival, something which is notably missing from the current World Order. or perhaps you disagree?I agree completely. I've called for withdrawing our troops from allied nations for years now.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:06 pm

Strategically carriers are used to project power, they are a sea born sword that can be moved to any part of the world quickly. They're used to intimidate rivals in politics, all to spread the values of democracy of course. They are powerful weapons systems because of their aircraft which extends their reach.

Tactically they very convenient, hard to find and keep track of for most militaries of the world. Russia uses huge radars and other ELINT to keep track of them as far away as the Indian Ocean and the central Pacific. They can sit in the middle of the ocean and send planes to bomb an enemy from 100s of miles away. It's a mobile airbase.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:58 pm

A 72 yr old woman said to me today that she thought the American security would do a lot better if the US just stopped being such jerks. Makes people want to bomb you less. :wah:

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:17 am

Scrat;1351687 wrote: Strategically carriers are used to project power, they are a sea born sword that can be moved to any part of the world quickly. They're used to intimidate rivals in politics, all to spread the values of democracy of course. They are powerful weapons systems because of their aircraft which extends their reach.

Tactically they very convenient, hard to find and keep track of for most militaries of the world. Russia uses huge radars and other ELINT to keep track of them as far away as the Indian Ocean and the central Pacific. They can sit in the middle of the ocean and send planes to bomb an enemy from 100s of miles away. It's a mobile airbase.

^ This is the correct answer.

A defensive position is a losing position. See: Atlantic Wall, Maginot Line, Seifreid Line, Japanese Defense of Pacific Islands, etc.

If you are not willing to quash threats to your security, please don't whine about your resulting demise.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:28 am

BaghdadBob;1351738 wrote: If you are not willing to quash threats to your security, please don't whine about your resulting demise.

It's why I asked whether there is a current believable threat to the national survival of the USA and if so where it's coming from, Bob. Nobody answered that one, you included.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:47 am

spot;1351741 wrote: It's why I asked whether there is a current believable threat to the national survival of the USA and if so where it's coming from, Bob. Nobody answered that one, you included.
The only current threat of that level is from Washington, DC.

Surely you're not suggesting that such a weapons system should be scrapped & then rebuilt if needed, are you?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:17 am

Accountable;1351747 wrote: The only current threat of that level is from Washington, DC.

Surely you're not suggesting that such a weapons system should be scrapped & then rebuilt if needed, are you?

When would you ever need it, acc? You have a nuclear deterrent, there's no possible way the USA is ever going to get invaded by a foreign armed force. That's why you have the deterrent, remember? So what does "if needed" mean in your question?

The only thing you can ever possibly do with a carrier group is extend the range of your fighters and bombers. That is not a defensive capability, that's an offensive capability. It has nothing at all to do with protecting the Homeland. You would still have a Homeland from now until doomsday if your carrier groups were all scrapped now, permanently. Unless you can think of a reason why that might not be true?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:26 am

spot;1351741 wrote: It's why I asked whether there is a current believable threat to the national survival of the USA and if so where it's coming from, Bob. Nobody answered that one, you included.I answered this in post #8.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:39 am

Ahso!;1351758 wrote: I answered this in post #8.

You answered it by saying there was none. When I say I didn't get an answer, I mean I didn't get anyone claiming that there is a current believable threat to the national survival of the USA. Nobody has said yes and given a reason for that opinion.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:43 am

spot;1351756 wrote: When would you ever need it, acc? You have a nuclear deterrent, there's no possible way the USA is ever going to get invaded by a foreign armed force. That's why you have the deterrent, remember? So what does "if needed" mean in your question?

The only thing you can ever possibly do with a carrier group is extend the range of your fighters and bombers. That is not a defensive capability, that's an offensive capability. It has nothing at all to do with protecting the Homeland. You would still have a Homeland from now until doomsday if your carrier groups were all scrapped now, permanently. Unless you can think of a reason why that might not be true?
A nuclear deterrant is like a political promise: sounds really good but completely useless when you really get down to it. No develped nation is going to nuke anybody ever again. It's too indiscriminate. A carrier group poses a much more credible threat. I'm not saying I agree, because we have shown the ability to take off from US soil, deliver a bomb payload on target in Iraq, and return. I'm simply explaining the logic.

Force projection is what enabled the Nazis to attack London. It's what allowed Japan to attack Hawaii by surprise. It's also what moved the fight to Asia and prevented a physical invasion on the beaches of California, such as that of Normandy.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:48 am

spot;1351761 wrote: You answered it by saying there was none. When I say I didn't get an answer, I mean I didn't get anyone claiming that there is a current believable threat to the national survival of the USA. Nobody has said yes and given a reason for that opinion.Admitting there is none is not a suitable answer? Nobody is claiming there is a current believable threat that requires Aircraft Carriers for defensive purposes. What more do you want? Are you pleading for someone to play the devil's advocate? I did that already with the whole customer/citizen thing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:55 am

BaghdadBob;1351738 wrote: ^ This is the correct answer.

A defensive position is a losing position. See: Atlantic Wall, Maginot Line, Seifreid Line, Japanese Defense of Pacific Islands, etc.

If you are not willing to quash threats to your security, please don't whine about your resulting demise.Gee Wiz, thanks for that confirmation, Bags. Don't know what we'd do without your verifying things for us.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:57 am

Ahso!;1351765 wrote: Gee Wiz, thanks for that confirmation, Bags. Don't know what we'd do without your verifying things for us.

You'd end up a dumbass liberal.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:57 pm

Accountable;1351763 wrote: Force projection is what enabled the Nazis to attack London. It's what allowed Japan to attack Hawaii by surprise. It's also what moved the fight to Asia and prevented a physical invasion on the beaches of California, such as that of Normandy.

Are you seriously telling me that you can conceive any circumstance whatever in which a 1940s physical invasion on the beaches of California, such as that of Normandy, could have occurred? Honestly? It baffles me that there are intelligent people on this planet who are so capable of allowing pretense to stand in for reality just so they can continue to retain an unsupportable position in their head. Had the Japanese complete run of the Pacific, and had they owned every island beyond the Californian horizon, there's no logistic way on earth that they'd have established a beachhead on the Californian coast. How can you say moving the fight to Asia had any effect on that?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 1:07 pm

spot;1351816 wrote: Are you seriously telling me that you can concieve any circumstance whatever in which a 1940s physical invasion on the beaches of California, such as that of Normandy, could have occurred? Honestly? It baffles me that there are intelligent people on this planet who are so capable of allowing pretense to stand in for reality just so they can continue to retain an unsupportable position in their head. Had the Japanese complete run of the Pacific, and had they owned every island beyond the Californian horizon, there's no logistic way on earth that they'd have established a beachhead on the Californian coast. How can you say moving the fight to Asia had any effect on that?Look, putz, you're the one asking the questions. I've said at least once or twice that I don't personally support having an empirical military spread across the globe. If you started the thread for an argument, you should have addressed it so.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 1:32 pm

Accountable;1351820 wrote: If you started the thread for an argument, you should have addressed it so.Hey, this is me you're talking to. Why else would I start a thread.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:00 pm

spot;1351525 wrote: I mean, I know it carries aircraft of some sort, that's a given. But in terms of defending the Homeland, what's it's function? Has it a role to play in preventing invasion, for example? How does it achieve that any better than a land-based strategy?

Early reasons were all due to the short range of the available aircraft and the lack of radar - the use was defence of the convoys and reconnaissance in mid ocean.

Not convinced that either reason still holds and agree that their use is no longer defensive.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:24 pm

Bryn Mawr;1351848 wrote: Not convinced that either reason still holds and agree that their use is no longer defensive.Not that you own one, mind.

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:23 pm

Aircraft carriers have been used as floating hospitals bringing much needed supplies and support for countries that have had major natural disasters. Does England have any? I've never seen one if they do.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:27 pm

About 34 knots.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:49 pm

librtyhead;1351856 wrote: Aircraft carriers have been used as floating hospitals bringing much needed supplies and support for countries that have had major natural disasters. Does England have any? I've never seen one if they do.

No, England doesn't have any.

That's an exciting notion though, using one as an aircraft-equipped floating hospital. Not one I'd come across. You mean they allow civilians on board and operate on them surgically and things like that, hospital-like? I'd love a for instance where I could read about it happening, I do find it a surprising bit of information.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:43 am

Nomad;1351867 wrote: About 34 knots.

snigger.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:44 am

Seriously though, I thought they were just floating airbases.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:03 pm

spot;1351850 wrote: Not that you own one, mind.

I used to - built it myself (mind you, airfix supplied most of the parts).

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:21 pm

spot;1351876 wrote: No, England doesn't have any.

That's an exciting notion though, using one as an aircraft-equipped floating hospital. Not one I'd come across. You mean they allow civilians on board and operate on them surgically and things like that, hospital-like? I'd love a for instance where I could read about it happening, I do find it a surprising bit of information.

Try :-

In Haiti, floating hospital provides succour for few

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:31 pm

Bryn Mawr;1351939 wrote: Try :-

In Haiti, floating hospital provides succour for few
Umm. "Since its arrival Friday, the USS Carl Vinson has treated 10 patients — three Americans and seven Haitians" - that, perhaps, indicates why a carrier group makes a ****-poor civilian hospital for humanitarian operations. One could, possibly, argue that a military hospital ship might have been useful in its place though to be honest I don't think that's true either. Military and humanitarian assistance go together like anthrax and primary schools.

If someone would be so kind as to take the USS Carl Vinson and her sisters and transform them into something useful like a large underwater reef, perhaps, I'd be very grateful.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:36 pm

Consider it done, Spot.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:08 am

Ahso!;1351953 wrote: Consider it done, Spot.

Mending the world, one problem at a time. And we don't even charge.