Weapons that changed the world

[Mikey]

The Forrestals didn't just lay the groundwork - they were supercarriers.

I know - I've already said that twice now.

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.

And this affects the topic of discussion how, exactly? Their capabilities aren't at question. Their effects on the world - both actual AND perceived - are. BTW, they can't do everything the later classes can, if you include stamina and range.

Why on Earth do you keep talking about the Nimitz as though the design is anything but a number of minor tweaks?

I never have. I have, to the contrary, said that the Forrestal-class was indeed the cornerstone of the supercarrier. The point which you are misinterpreting here is that the Nimitz-class belongs on this list ahead of the Forrestal-class; that, however, does not contain either explicitly or implicitly any value judgement about the technological advancements included in either one.

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.

True, I misworded that bit. The change in naval warfare in the PTO was a result of circumstance, and the Essex-class just happened to be there.

[Deepcrush]

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.

Going from needing a resupply every week, being out of action for one or two days everyone week... to being in action and without needing resupply for as long as a year at a time is a MAJOR advancement to naval power. Even if you have a mile long super carrier with a thousand super stealth uber fighters, if its useless for any amount of time while it waits for its next resupply then all the tech on it becomes useless. A carrier can only earn its keep while its aircraft are in operation.

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.

Rotating escorts out for resupply isn't the same as rotating a carrier every week for resupply. They aren't even close to being the same matter. A cruiser or destroyer can resupply in a matter of hours, food can be delivered by helo, fuel by a tanker over lunch, mail transmitted mostly by email now with solid packages being a once a month transfer, all this because you have a crew of a few hundred at most. A carrier is a totally different matter of resupply. You can't air deliver food stores for a carrier, you need a dedicated ship for that, refuel takes an entire day if it goes perfectly and also requires a dedicated ship. Flight operations have to be totally locked down before the resupply starts and can't restart until the resupply is not only completed but packed away. Having a non-nuclear carrier doubles or even triples the cost of a supply line for the simple numbers involved with caring for a carrier and crew. It also means that you have to have a second carrier or you lose your CAP which is the last thing a Carrier Group should ever do. This again increases the supply needs as you're now supplying yet another carrier.

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.

The list is "Weapons that changed the world" not "things that were a start of a good idea but might be improved later so we can pass credit back in time due to the success of a future design."

Also, I have been pointing that in my opinion the Enterprise CVN-65 should have taken the "Carrier" position on the list. However, CVN-65 wasn't a game changer because while as a single device it was impressive... it was to costly to copy. The Nimitz won out because it was everything the CVN65 was but able to be reproduced in large numbers.

At about two knots.

Doesn't matter, the ability to cross the globe isn't the game changer... the ability to cross the globe nonstop while maintaining 24/7 combat effectiveness for as much as a year at a time is.

I'm not disputing that it was an important development - what I'm disputing is your assertion of it's relative importance.

And I understand your dispute of the facts at hand, however they remain facts. The ability for a single carrier to operate for up to a year where before it would require two carriers and a large supply fleet for each of those carriers cannot be countered. The change allows for more of the budget and personnel to be directed towards more Carrier Groups, more combat personnel and longer deployment cycles.

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.

Its your opinion that steam should be more important and I can understand why you'd think such. However, yet again your opinion do not mesh with the facts at hand. Rowing allows the same thing as steam power, a tug allows the same thing as steam power. Nothing on earth can mimic the effects of nuclear power. This is why the Nuclear powered super carrier is listed and not a steam boat.

Hell, if you want to talk about carrier classes that changed the way naval war was fought, the Essex-class would be the one.

I would argue it was the RN's Carrier based attack on Taranto (spelling?), Italy that had the greatest effect in carrier use. It was this attack that proved the effectiveness of Carriers, that led to the IJN's attack on Pearl Harbor, that then led to the USN's relying on Carriers, that then led to the USA becoming the world's naval super power.

[Tyyr]

Something that might be list worth, AWACS. Putting a radar on a plane to extend it's range, remove the nap of the earth advantage, and allow even fighters like the F-15 to turn off their own radars and be somewhat stealthy, has turned air forces into those with AWACS, and those without it and those without it are target practice for those that do. AWACS is the cornerstone of the west's ability to dominate the air.

I think I'll reserve judgement for when it does then

I'm with Seafort on this one. The F-22 isn't invincible like some might claim, but everything points to this bird having kill to death ratios that will be most easily measured in squadrons. It's a step change in airwarfare that is dividing the world's airforces into those that have stealth fighters, and those that don't. Those that don't are desperately trying to get their hands on something that can compete so they don't fall into irrelevancy. While I don't think we bought enough, and their pricetag is at least partially to blame on reducing the order to 1/3 of what it was supposed to be.

[Mikey]

TBF, the resultant reduction of our ordered quantities also drove up the price per unit.

[Tyyr]

That's what I meant. The fixed costs of development got spread out over far fewer airplanes driving up the per unit cost. So they reduce the number ordered... and it drives the cost up even more.

[BigJKU316]

Something that might be list worth, AWACS. Putting a radar on a plane to extend it's range, remove the nap of the earth advantage, and allow even fighters like the F-15 to turn off their own radars and be somewhat stealthy, has turned air forces into those with AWACS, and those without it and those without it are target practice for those that do. AWACS is the cornerstone of the west's ability to dominate the air.

I think I'll reserve judgement for when it does then

I'm with Seafort on this one. The F-22 isn't invincible like some might claim, but everything points to this bird having kill to death ratios that will be most easily measured in squadrons. It's a step change in airwarfare that is dividing the world's airforces into those that have stealth fighters, and those that don't. Those that don't are desperately trying to get their hands on something that can compete so they don't fall into irrelevancy. While I don't think we bought enough, and their pricetag is at least partially to blame on reducing the order to 1/3 of what it was supposed to be.

AWACS is a very good one, though the specific idea goes back quite a ways so I would have to think hard about what plane to credit here. The real key was the two way data-links honestly and I am not 100% sure when those came about.

As for the F-22 buy I always thought it was too few. The USAF would have been better off buying around 500 F-22 and then creating a much cooled down version of the JSF that was more focused on the strike role. I think a lot of the cost and design issues with the F-35 came from it needing to be better at things that the F-22 should be handling. If we did that we could buy less F-35's. With a larger force of F-22 and a more pure strike oriented F-35 (Think replace the F-117, F-111 and F-15E type numbers) we could then get buy with something like an upgraded F-16 for the majority of the force as well as UAV's. Let the high end stuff gut the air defense system, then use something cheap.

[Deepcrush]

@ tyyr, the F22 kill count alone won't make it anythin special. The Hellcat had a 19:1 kill ratio during WWII. Also the F22 doesnt bring anything new to the table, it's just an attempted evolution of an older concept.

[Captain Seafort]

@ tyyr, the F22 kill count alone won't make it anythin special. The Hellcat had a 19:1 kill ratio during WWII.

I think that latter statistic says more about the state of Japanese air power after 1943 than anything else. The F22 can do that and much more against any air force in the world.

Also the F22 doesnt bring anything new to the table, it's just an attempted evolution of an older concept.

You could say that about virtually any piece of technology.

[Captain Seafort]

I have, to the contrary, said that the Forrestal-class was indeed the cornerstone of the supercarrier. The point which you are misinterpreting here is that the Nimitz-class belongs on this list ahead of the Forrestal-class

The list is "Weapons that changed the world" not "things that were a start of a good idea but might be improved later so we can pass credit back in time due to the success of a future design."

This is probably the crux of the argument - when I think of a weapon that changed the world, unless mass production is absolutely central to its impact, I look to the first clearly recognisable example of the breed, regardless of what impact that specific example did or didn't have, not to the fully developed model that fulfilled the original's potential. HMS Dreadnought is the representative for the all-big-gun battleship, HMS Argus is the representative for the aircraft carrier, and USS Forrestal is the representative for the supercarrier, regardless of the fact that it was the QEs, the Essexes, and the Nimitzes that best showed what the respective types were capable of. Given this evident fundamental philosophical difference, shall we agree to disagree?

[Mikey]

I guess that is the crux of it - when I think of a weapon that changed the world, I think of a type of weapon that changed the world rather than a type of weapon that paved the way for another type of weapon that changed the world. The Forrestal-class changed aircraft carriers in a huge way, no doubt, but that's not at issue.

[Tyyr]

I think what you're getting at is the difference between the MP44 and the AK-47. The MP-44 was a good weapon in its time and the concepts that it pioneered led to the modern assault rifle it didn't have the impact that the AK-47 did.

[Captain Seafort]

I guess that is the crux of it - when I think of a weapon that changed the world, I think of a type of weapon that changed the world rather than a type of weapon that paved the way for another type of weapon that changed the world. The Forrestal-class changed aircraft carriers in a huge way, no doubt, but that's not at issue.

In which case I'd say that you're looking for classes that changed the world rather than types.

[Mikey]

I guess that is the crux of it - when I think of a weapon that changed the world, I think of a type of weapon that changed the world rather than a type of weapon that paved the way for another type of weapon that changed the world. The Forrestal-class changed aircraft carriers in a huge way, no doubt, but that's not at issue.

In which case I'd say that you're looking for classes that changed the world rather than types.

I say "potatoes," you say "tatties." It seems upon reading your responses that you're sometimes looking for individual examples, rather than classes or types. If by "type" you mean the broadest categorizations, then first mentioning the Forrestal-class would abrogate that idea, and instead you would have just mentioned "carriers" or "supercarriers." You did, however, mention the Forrestal-class specifically, which invites discussion about the which class merits a spot on that list.

[Captain Seafort]

I say "potatoes," you say "tatties."

No I don't, I say spuds.

As for the class, as I said above, I first identify the type (in this case "supercarrier"), then look to the first clearly recognisable example of that type. In this case it's the Forrestal, regardless of the improvements that have been made in subsequent models.

[Deepcrush]

I think that latter statistic says more about the state of Japanese air power after 1943 than anything else. The F22 can do that and much more against any air force in the world.

Doubtful since if that were the case then other classes of fighters would have had similar records. The Hellcat, like the Nimitz, was the combination of experiences and advances that together produced a weapon system that changed the face of warfare.

You could say that about virtually any piece of technology.

Yes you can, but this list isn't about "attempted", its about success on a global scale.

In which case I'd say that you're looking for classes that changed the world rather than types.

Exactly, it wasn't the first Assault Rifle to show it could be done but the most successful one. It wasn't the first Super Carrier but the first mass produced one that extended the abilities of the Carrier's mission to its maximum.