Not yet, but it will.Lighthawk wrote:Maybe, but has the F-22 actually changed the way anyone else is doing things?
Far from it. The others are just bombers. The F22 is a fighter, and as such will revolutionise air combat. Never before has a single aircraft had the ability to defeat entire enemy air forces in the way the F22 can.Or is it just one more stealth aircraft that anyone who picks a fight with the US will have to acknowledge they can't really do anything about?
Plus, of course, we've seen what happens when someone tries to shoehorn a nuclear reactor into a carrier that's nowhere near big enough.Deepcrush wrote:As to carriers, I understan the Brits not being able to support the cost of a proper nuclear navy...
On the contrary - I don't see nuclear power as anything but a refinement and improvement (albeit an important one), rather than the step-change the Forrestal represented. They and the Kitty Hawks required more support than the nukes, but they could and did do the same job. Midway (and the old Ark) couldn't. Ergo, Forrestal is the one that changed the world, not Enterprise. Nuclear power simply isn't that important in a surface vessel.The Forrestal while being important, just doesnt carry that kind of weight.
No, it isn't. It's certainly a great advantage, but it's only a refinement and improvement on the basic supercarrier concept - it was Forrestal's synergy of angled flight deck, steam catapult and step-change in size over her predecessors that made the modern supercarrier possible. The Nimitz class ships would still be able to perform their current role even without nuclear power, albeit they'd need greater support. They would not be able to do so without the combination of advances brought in with Forrestal.Deepcrush wrote:The ability to have a carrier with unlimited range, increased internal space for aircraft and munitions, without the needs of being slowed by supply ships is vitally important for a modern carrier group.
This is, I suspect, a misunderstanding on your part due to me not phrasing that point very well. I wasn't saying that nuclear power was unimportant, but that it was nowhere near as important as the basic Forrestal concept-model.As to nuclear power not being important... That's just uneducated nonsense.
Not even close - the change from sail to steam was the greatest step-change in the history of naval warfare. The advantage the ability to move at will to any point of the compass, at whatever speed the commander desired, granted an incalculable advantage over an opponent without that ability. Not even the development of the aircraft carrier can match it.The ability of a nuclear fleet over that of an oil based fleet is the same as that of wood & sail vs stream & iron.
Yes it does, because it didn't just bring them to the fore - it integrated them, stuck them into a significantly larger hull than any previous ship (25% larger than Midway, which was already a very big ship by the standards of the time), and created the supercarrier. Everything since then, even nuclear power, has been relatively minor improvements to the basic concept. We're talking about "weapons that changed the world" not "individual weapons or ships that have had a significant effect on specific campaigns".Mikey wrote:It doesn't matter, though, whether the Forrestal-class brought many of those concepts to the fore
I think I'll reserve judgement for when it does thenCaptain Seafort wrote:Not yet, but it will.
I don't know, America hasn't had much of a problem gaining air superiority even without the stealth factor, at least not since we shook out some misconceptions during Vietnam (no longer needing guns on a plane, ha!).Far from it. The others are just bombers. The F22 is a fighter, and as such will revolutionise air combat. Never before has a single aircraft had the ability to defeat entire enemy air forces in the way the F22 can.
Its this very reason I'd expect that the Forrestal wasn't even considered when they talked about this list.Mikey wrote:It doesn't matter, though, whether the Forrestal-class brought many of those concepts to the fore - it was the Nimitz-class that took those concepts, and more, and welded them into an instrument of force projection that is unparalleled.
I'll take this as a comment from someone who has no idea about the trouble that comes from supplying a Carrier Group at sea. The space needed on board for the ships fuel is less space for other things. Needing to stop every week for a resupply or adding the risk to the supply fleet itself which now needs protection. Or the carrier group having to stop operations for a day to allow for the resupply.Captain Seafort wrote:No, it isn't. It's certainly a great advantage, but it's only a refinement and improvement on the basic supercarrier concept - it was Forrestal's synergy of angled flight deck, steam catapult and step-change in size over her predecessors that made the modern supercarrier possible. The Nimitz class ships would still be able to perform their current role even without nuclear power, albeit they'd need greater support. They would not be able to do so without the combination of advances brought in with Forrestal.
As mikey pointed out and as spoken in your own words right here. Forrestal was just a concept where the Enterprise Class was the first time those concepts were put together with the ability to deploy those concepts world wide. Followed by the Nimitz which was the first class that molded those two classes together and enhanced with modern technology. Allowing for the current superiority that comes from the USN over any other power on earth. The merger of nuclear power with unlimited range, large airwings, Air+surface+sub surface defenses and lastly the projection of power.Captain Seafort wrote:This is, I suspect, a misunderstanding on your part due to me not phrasing that point very well. I wasn't saying that nuclear power was unimportant, but that it was nowhere near as important as the basic Forrestal concept-model.
Really... lets break this comment down to size. First being the ability move to any point on the compass, they could do that in a row boat. That's not really what makes or breaks the issue. The reason nuclear power is important is that it allows you to reach anywhere in the world and return without stopping or even slowing your travel.Captain Seafort wrote:Not even close - the change from sail to steam was the greatest step-change in the history of naval warfare. The advantage the ability to move at will to any point of the compass, at whatever speed the commander desired, granted an incalculable advantage over an opponent without that ability. Not even the development of the aircraft carrier can match it.
Not quite as game changing as it'd like to be. From a surface warships perspective, a Diesel-Electric sub is the bane of surface sub-hunter's existence. Yes, Nuclear's advantage is of course it's virtually limitless range and relatively high speeds; but it's bloody noisy. Whenever my old man's ship did exercises with the RN's own subs (more often than not, Campbeltown exercised with the Turbulent) it didn't take that long for a decent sonar operator to find her. Then, when they did relatively regular exercises with the Norwegian navy using their rather cute little Ula-class....They were buggered. They only found the little monster twice. In fact, the most hated sub by a lot of the surface sonar operators was the Russian Kilo who were incredibly quiet, even if they couldn't go very far.Captain Seafort wrote: That's because they're bloody expensive, and nuclear power isn't a game-changer for surface vessels as it is for submarines.
I've never disputed that it's a major advantage - my argument is that the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks can and have performed the same missions as Enterprise and Nimitz. The latter two do it better, largely due to being nuclear, but that isn't as big a step-change as the supercarrier concept itself.Deepcrush wrote:I'll take this as a comment from someone who has no idea about the trouble that comes from supplying a Carrier Group at sea. The space needed on board for the ships fuel is less space for other things. Needing to stop every week for a resupply or adding the risk to the supply fleet itself which now needs protection. Or the carrier group having to stop operations for a day to allow for the resupply.
You've still got an oil-based fleet. If the Enterprise, Long Beach, Bainbridge task force had been the shape of things to come rather than a one-off that never came to anything, then you'd have a much stronger case, but as long as the nuclear carriers are reliant on non-nuclear escorts then they'll never have the sort of strategic mobility you ascribe to them.The modern carrier group operates 24/7, six to eight months at a time. Nuclear power gives the ability of non-stop operation, something that an Oil based fleet could simply not mimic.
It's the concept we're looking for, not the current ultimate expression of it, and all the factors that allow the Nimitz-class to perform their role were introduced with Forrestal. Even if you consider nuclear power to be a game-changer rather than simply allowing them do perform the same role better then the key ship would be Enterprise rather than Nimitz.As mikey pointed out and as spoken in your own words right here. Forrestal was just a concept where the Enterprise Class was the first time those concepts were put together with the ability to deploy those concepts world wide. Followed by the Nimitz which was the first class that molded those two classes together and enhanced with modern technology. Allowing for the current superiority that comes from the USN over any other power on earth. The merger of nuclear power with unlimited range, large airwings, Air+surface+sub surface defenses and lastly the projection of power.
At about two knots.Really... lets break this comment down to size. First being the ability move to any point on the compass, they could do that in a row boat.
I'm not disputing that it was an important development - what I'm disputing is your assertion of it's relative importance.That's not really what makes or breaks the issue. The reason nuclear power is important is that it allows you to reach anywhere in the world and return without stopping or even slowing your travel.
Guns had been increasing in range and firepower for a very long time. Aircraft simply introduced a huge step in that progression. I agree that it was easily the most important development of the 20th century, but in terms of all of naval history it still comes second to steam power.As to the "aircraft carrier can't match it"... again that's not true. The aircraft carrier was and is the single greatest advance in navel technology ever created. The ability to strike beyond eyesight range and put non-aircraft baring ships into a permanently secondary position will remain the defining moment of navel design until "Naval" means "Space Navies".
Exactly! Seafort, I don't need a lecture on the Forrestal-class... I even mentioned it as the genesis of the supercarrier, and some reasons why. This list, however, isn't "weapons that laid the groundwork for the future of their classes." The addition of nuclear power is more than an incremental change; the advance in range and duration was a game-changer. The Nimitz-class, with that improvement, just has had (and still has) a greater effect - both perceived and actual - on the world.Deepcrush wrote:Its this very reason I'd expect that the Forrestal wasn't even considered when they talked about this list.
The issue for SSK's is that it is hard for them to get useful places to operate. If you want to defend your coast and choke points you are fine. The most modern nuclear subs are pretty quiet in their own right. With standoff ranges of 1,000 plus miles and an operating range of a few hundred miles for carrier planes the SSK has a long way to go and a lot of sea to search. What is more range is a function of speed for those subs. The faster you go the less far you can get generally. Some AIP subs, the Gottland for example, that overcome the need to surface to charge batteries have drastically reduced speed using that system.Reliant121 wrote:Not quite as game changing as it'd like to be. From a surface warships perspective, a Diesel-Electric sub is the bane of surface sub-hunter's existence. Yes, Nuclear's advantage is of course it's virtually limitless range and relatively high speeds; but it's bloody noisy. Whenever my old man's ship did exercises with the RN's own subs (more often than not, Campbeltown exercised with the Turbulent) it didn't take that long for a decent sonar operator to find her. Then, when they did relatively regular exercises with the Norwegian navy using their rather cute little Ula-class....They were buggered. They only found the little monster twice. In fact, the most hated sub by a lot of the surface sonar operators was the Russian Kilo who were incredibly quiet, even if they couldn't go very far.Captain Seafort wrote: That's because they're bloody expensive, and nuclear power isn't a game-changer for surface vessels as it is for submarines.
Nuclear powered vessels are obviously better all rounders and fit for powering the enormous ballistic missile subs. And they are certainly more practical for a nation that has many long range deployments (Such as the US and the UK). However, Diesel-electric subs still have their place in that they are miles better at what a sub does to stay alive: Run silent.
The Forrestals didn't just lay the groundwork - they were supercarriers. They could and did do everything the later classes did. Take the first Gulf War for example, one of the biggest demonstrations of what supercarriers could do. A third of the force were Forrestals and only a third Nimitz.Mikey wrote:Exactly! Seafort, I don't need a lecture on the Forrestal-class... I even mentioned it as the genesis of the supercarrier, and some reasons why. This list, however, isn't "weapons that laid the groundwork for the future of their classes."
These two statements are not synonyms. I agree with the first, but not the second - nuclear power, for all its importance, is nowhere near as important to surface vessels as it is to submarines, and certainly didn't change the fundamental nature of CVBGs in the way that the Forrestals did.The addition of nuclear power is more than an incremental change; the advance in range and duration was a game-changer.
Why on Earth do you keep talking about the Nimitz as though the design is anything but a number of minor tweaks? Even if you continue to assert that nuclear power is a vital component of the supercarrier concept, Nimitz still doesn't deserve to be considered a paradigm-changing weapon.The Nimitz-class, with that improvement, just has had (and still has) a greater effect - both perceived and actual - on the world.
I wouldn't call any WW2 carrier to be a war-changing weapon, save perhaps HMS Audacity. The changes came about as a result of the circumstances of the Pacific War, not because of any design characteristic of any specific class.Hell, if you want to talk about carrier classes that changed the way naval war was fought, the Essex-class would be the one.
