Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

Don’t get it. Why should you be crashed?

Because your pistol does not displace 100000t of water with its side shockwave. Nether Iowa guns do. The article author is a liar or incompetent. If Iowa guns would, the turret and the ship and the barrels, would not survive the stress.

Correct. But if you will build a supporting structure of Aluminium alloy (like 5456 used in shipping), it will be 2 times thicker, bust still lighter than the one made of steel, and it will be harder, it will be able to support more weight and it will wobble and vibrate less under structural abuse (like waves), but it will be more fragile and prone to cracks (like glass or ceramics).
This is why the hull is made of steel (it is flexible, spring like), but the superstructure is made of Al (lighter up to 50%)

This is not exactly bad, it depends on application. M113 made of AL is 700kg lighter than steel version, and it is hard as a brick which is good. But, this is not suitable for a tank, the AL will shatter due to recoil. But if m113 or Breadly catches fire, than they might totally burn out.

 

One of the legacies of the Falkland Islands war is the debate now under way in Britain over the use of aluminum superstructures in Royal Navy ships. It is an argument of interest to the United States Navy, which also uses aluminum in naval superstructures.

The sinking of the destroyer Sheffield was the starting point for the debate. The first reports of the action inaccurately said that the Sheffield had been destroyed by a fire in her aluminum upper works. The ship, however, was of all-steel construction. So was the destroyer Coventry, which was also lost in the South Atlantic conflict.

Two smaller ships, the frigates Antelope and Ardent, which were sunk after devastating fires, had aluminum superstructures and steel hulls.

Defenders of aluminum construction emphasize that the metal does not burn. But the metal, roughly half the weight of steel plate, melts at 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, as against steel's melting point of 2,800 degrees. U.S. Chooses Steel

Aluminum is also harder to maintain, and the United States Navy has opted for steel deckhouses in the construction of new destroyers. The British, on the other hand, have built eight Type 21 frigates, including the Antelope and the Ardent, each containing about 800 tons of steel and about 130 tons of aluminum.

Capt. James Salt, commanding officer of the Sheffield, said in a BBC interview that aluminum did not catch fire but that ''it melts, or certainly deforms, and becomes soft at a temperature of about 600 degrees centigrade.''

Noting reports that aluminum ''made it more difficult to fight the fires'' aboard his ship after she had been hit by an Exocet missile, Captain Salt said he doubted that this was true.

''I had nothing whatever to do with fitting aluminum there,'' he said, ''but I unhesitatingly would support it because that's the only way you can preserve stability in a small hull.''

The use of aluminum topside on warships is a consequence of the extensive use of missiles and radar installations. Both must be installed high on a ship, and consequently weight becomes an important factor. Glamorgan Holds Up

Evidence of steel's resistance to damage was provided in the attack on the British light cruiser Glamorgan. She was hit by an Exocet missile fired from the vicinity of Stanley. The missile killed 15 of her crew, but the Glamorgan remained in service and continued to bombard shore installations with her 4.5-inch guns.

One side in the debate argues that since aluminum melts quicker than steel, it sets fire to a ship's electric cables and thus imperils damage-control operations. In rebuttal, it is argued that the extreme heat generated by the explosion of a missile or a bomb would do that in any case.

Preliminary investigation by the Royal Navy has established that the ships hit in the Falkland war appear to have suffered from secondary fires and that there was apparently a lack of water pressure to fight the blazes. Some believe that additional pumps and electric power sources might have saved the ships.

Smoke was another problem. Officials said Britain's Ministry of Defense had already begun to reduce the amount of plastic used in cable insulation in some of the ships under construction because plastic was found to be one of the worst smoke-producers.

Although the French-made Exocet missile won prominence in the war, naval sources on both sides of the Atlantic noted that old-fashioned bombs -''iron bombs'' as the United States Air Force calls them - sank three of the four warships lost. Another, the destroyer Broadsword, had a spectacular escape. A bomb hit the sea beside the Broadsword, ricocheted and passed through the ship's flight deck and then fell into the sea, still unexploded. U.S. Learned From Accident

The United States Navy learned a good deal about aluminum as a result of an acccident in the Mediterranean in November 1975 when the guided missile frigate Belknap collided with the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy during a night exercise. The frigate caught fire, and the forward five-inch gun turret fell through the melting deck. -> http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/10/world/falkland-aftermath-a-naval-debate.html

 

Oh holy physics fail.

Firing guns does not alter displacement of a ship.

This is nothing new, the Archimedes Principal has been understood for well over 2,270 years now. In short, the displacement of an object in a fluid is determined by the volume of said object. Greater displacement comes from greater volume, lesser displacement from lesser volume.

This is why a crown from one metal has a greater displacement than a crown of another metal, even though they both may be of the exact same weight.

So please explain to us simple people how the firing of a gun increases the volume of a ship. We are not talking rocket science here after all, Archimedes was able to figure this all out in the era of an abacus, before even algebra was created. So surely you can explain it to us in a more modern era and have your explanation make sense.

 

I thought the Belknap was a guide missile cruiser. And given the nature of the accident, there is no way the Belknap would not have caught fire. The Belknap rupture aviation fuel lines on the under side edge of the flight deck. The fuel caught fire and sprayed like a giant flame thrower along nearly the entire length of the Belknaps superstructure.

 

The USS Belknap in 1975 was not a cruiser but was a frigate later reclassified as a destroyer. She was decommissioned and rebuilt and recommissioned in 1980 as a guided missile cruiser.

During combat since WW ll the U.S.Navy's SOP is to drain all aviation fuel lines aboard ship during combat.

 

The Kennedy was not in combat during the Belknap collision was it? It was preparing to recover (which would've mean refueling and rearmng) aircraft. Which would've meant charged aviation fuel lines.

 

Probably.

When are aircraft fueled ?

I never been part of a aircraft carrier ships company.

I've seen videos of aircraft being fueled on the flight deck, but are they also fueled below in the hanger deck ?

Aircraft are also defueled. Is it done on the flight deck or below in the hanger deck ?

When are aircraft defueled ?

Well anytime aircraft are being fueled or defueled there is fuel in the ships aviation fuel lines that run all over the ship from the aviation fuel bunkers.

How long does it take to drain the fuel lines ?

I already posted a video of the USS Forrestal fire off of Vietnam in 1967. The video mentions that when one of the bombs on the flight deck exploded it ruptured the JP fuel lines in the hanger deck and fuel was flowing everywhere then it was ignited.

If there's a fire on the flight deck, wouldn't they immediately start draining the fuel lines ?

 

I think all the refueling and "defueling" (what there is of it) is done on the flight deck. Same with arming.

 

I do not know what to say on the topic.
Aluminum alloys display so many contradicting capabilities that we will never be able to cover them all in a forum discussion. AL alloy is always lighter than steel, but if it is hard enough than it corrodes like hell, if it is flexible than it losses half of bending qualities at a temperature of boiling water which is unsafe for construction even with no fire present, and so on.
So all depends on application. The m113 is a success, yes it will melt or burn down completely, but with extra 700kg of free weight, you can spend them on mobility, on armor or on firefighting system. And lets not forget that a steel vehicle normally does not survive internal fire. The steel, overheated and cooled inproperly losses temperature hardening and only looks repairable, the armor qualities are lost.

If Al alloy will be able to replace steel, it is not going to happen tomorrow. Third generation of AL armor is still incapable to replace steel or ceramics completely, now they make a sandwich of a steel plate and Al plate.
So the competition continues

Dear Mushroom
We are discussing this article:
http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/AMMUNITION/USS-IOWA-BROADSIDE-FIREING.html
Author states that a broadside salvo creates a shock wave that hits the water near the ship and displaces some of it.
This statement is obvious and is undoubtfully true.

The author states that the displacement of water is around 100000t, or two weights of Iowa class battleship.
This statement is untrue. This is what I am trying to prove. The structures of the ship would not survive employment of such enormous energies.

Nether me, or author of the article, newer said or raised a question of ship water displacement, or its submerged volume or total volume.

Answering your question
The ship fires a projectile and Gunpowder, the projectile leaves the ship, the Gunpowder is turned into gas and dissipates into the atmosphere.
The ship losses weight of the projectile and weight of gunpowder.
The ship becomes lighter and its sitting in the water becomes more shallow.
The volume of the ship that is submerged below water level decreases.
The water displacement of the ship decreases.

 

And a ship that weighs more than 45,000 tons empty looses just over a single ton in weight, and that makes this huge difference?

That is absolutely insane to even think this makes any kind of sense. Sorry, it is hard to even try to find any kind of comparison here. The closest is like saying I am on my 15" Mutineer sailboat, and decide to throw a 6 pack of beer to somebody in another boat. And the change in displacement in getting rid of said 6 pack makes a difference in displacement.

Now remember, said shell and powder is just a little over 1 ton, on a ship that weighs over 45,000 tons.

A 6 pack of beer weighs 4 pounds, The weight of a Mutineer is just over 400 pounds. When I sailed them I weighed in at around 150. So as you can see the percent of weight is much closer to 1% of the total displacement weight of that craft, maybe .8% if you add in my weight.

So the scale here is off by thousands, and I can guarantee if you measured the depth of the keep at the waterline you would not be able to measure any difference. But in this case it somehow does?

But whatever. Cause, of magic or something I guess.

 

Yeah, look up the lie about the "Cruiser Gap" in the early 80's. We had "frigates" in the 1970's that were larger than WW2 heavy cruisers and the Navy had the gall to try and claim the Soviet's had more cruisers just because we didn't call cruisers "cruisers".

 

Todays USN destroyers are almost as large as WW light cruisers but still smaller. Todays Ticonderoga cruisers are still lighter and smaller than a WW ll light cruiser.

Lets take the USS Belknap, in the 1960's and early 70's it was classified as a frigate but frigates are larger than a corvette and smaller than a destroyer.

So what was going on back in the 1960's ??? McNamara maybe ? McNamara was fixing things that weren't broken under JFK and LBJ.

Technically the USS Belknap is a cruiser not a frigate or destroyer.
7,890 tns and 547 feet long. Only one 5" pop gun.

Originally the Belknap class cruisers were built as a AA cruiser. Later on it got a ASW helicopter and ASW ASROC launchers.

What use to be destroyer escorts were reclassified as frigates.

WW ll Cleveland class light cruiser
14,131 tns, 610 feet long,12x6" guns, 12X 5" guns

WW ll Des Moines class heavy cruiser
20,934 tns, 716 feet long, 9X8" guns, 12X5' guns

Ticonderoga class cruiser
8,589 tns, 565 feet long, 2X5" guns

Arleigh Burke class destroyer (Flt ll A)
9.238 tns, 509 feet long, 1X5" gun


U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels ( 1886 to 2016) -> https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html

 

Ship class is not determined by size. It is determined by weapons and mission.

This is why we have flat topped ships larger than WWII carriers that are not carriers.

 

The weapons and mission of the Belknap class weren’t significantly changed when the magically transformed from “frigates” to “cruisers”.

 

Actually, it did.

Destroyers of the era did not have offensive weapons, they were primarily defensive ships for air defense and ASW work.

And yes, those ships were significantly changed. They added the Harpoon missile to them, giving them a significant anti-ship capability.

Destroyers would not get the Harpoon for another decade. The same with the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (both gained the harpoon when the launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar air defense missile system was replaced with the RIM-66 Standard missile launcher).

And by that time the Ticonderoga class Cruisers were entering service, most of the Belknap class CGs were being moved from main fleet duty to working with amphibious operations groups or smaller 2-3 ship operations.

So yes, both the ship and mission were indeed changed.

Next?

 

The only reason why the Belknap class cruisers/ frigates were classified as frigates was politics. Nine Belknap class ships were built. Larger and heavier than a WW ll era destroyer, smaller and lighter than a WW ll 6" gun light cruiser. Even a Fletcher class or Gearing class destroyer out gunned the Belknap's.

If the Navy were to classify them as cruisers which they finally did during the 70's the Soviets would have gotten their red diapers all soiled complaining that the USN had to many cruisers.

But everyone knows that these Belknap's weren't frigates. Frigates fall between corvettes and destroyers.

During WW ll until the 1970's the USN classified frigates as destroyer escorts.

For political reasons the Japanese classified this ship as a destroyer.

JS Izumo (DDH-183 )

Sure looks like an aircraft carrier doesn't it ?
As long as the Chi-Coms keep believing that it's a destroyer, politically Japan won.

 

Looks are not everything. The Chinese bought an old Guided Missile Cruiser that could carry airplanes and they are now calling it an Aircraft Carrier.

I still laugh at this to this day, because the Soviet/Russian Navy has never gone for "aircraft carriers".

And while called a destroyer, the Izumo class are really amphibious warfare ships. But to a lot of people, anything with a flat deck is an aircraft carrier.

 

Because of the Montreux Treaty.

 

They still remained anti-aircraft escorts.

 

Good point, but they still have an artic sea and eastern commitment.

IMO, these countries do not operate that much carriers because they don't need to project power beyond their own airspaces that much.

 

I was around in the early 1980s. It was when I first started becoming interested in politics and military affairs.

I remember nothing being mentioned about a "cruiser gap". I remember concerns about the Kirov class nuclear powered battlecruisers of the Soviet Navy but that was mainly used as a reason for reactivating the four Iowa class battleships which I wholeheartedly supported then and now by the way.

 

You got that right...that Chi-Com aircraft carrier is actually a cruiser.

 

You have to actually provide a link that the Reagan administration played the "Cruiser Gap"

I was in my early 30's during the Reagan administration.

Have all ready been there and done that.

During the 1970's all of the Navy's WW ll era gun cruisers were decommissioned and quickly scrapped.

The USMC lost it's naval shore support.

At the same time the USN would see 1/2 of their 24 aircraft carriers decommissioned.

When Reagan became President and to repair the damage caused by the "New Left" Democrat's, Reagan reactivated four Iowa class battleships.

When Reagan re-commissioned the four Iowa class battleships the soviet Union crapped in their red diapers. There was no weapon that could sink an Iowa class battleship.

Be it WW ll, Korea, Viet Nan or Desert Storm the Iowa class BB was able to put more tons of ln tyaergewt

 

Uhhh, what?

OK, the "Cruiser Gap" was in 1975. At that time the President was Ford (you know, the guy after Nixon and before Carter), and Ronald Reagan had just stepped down after his second term as Governor of California.

Research. Please do research.

What a 1936 treaty about the Bosporous Straights has to do with the composition of the Russian Navy is, I have no idea.

Please let me know why this somehow kept Russia from building carriers.

Well Duh! That is like literally such a no-brainer comment, I wish I could just ask you to retract it.

Every surface ship in the entire US Navy basically always has had, and always will have one function. To support the Capitol Ships. That was true in the age of wind and sail, it is true in the era of atomic steam engines.

In WWI, the Cruisers and Destroyers escorted Dreadnoughts and Battleships. In WWII they escorted Battleships and Carriers. And today we have no more Battleships, so they escort the carriers.

And well gee wiz Wally, Carriers have damned little when it comes to anti-aircraft defense. They are a giant floating runway with a bomb target pointed on their deck. So of course there are going to be a ton of ships giving them "anti-aircraft escort".

This is like Naval Tactics Pre-101 stuff here.

And if they are not escorting Carriers, they are escorting Amphibious Warfare ships (exact same reasons), or resupply shops (sub tenders, fuelers, etc), or anything else that is needed to keep all the other ships working. That are doing their primary job, which is to protect the carrier.

Not unlike in a game of chess, it is the job of every piece to protect the King.