2020, UK battle fleet Vs 1 US carrier fleet.

So who do you think would win in the year 2020, 1 US carrier fleet or the whole UK battle fleet.

The UK having 27 ships and the US having 21 including the carriers, and all the carriers would have the most aircraft possible on them.

 

Then it is hands down, no question, the US.

Your average Carrier Strike Group at any time has normally around 10 combat ships. So to make these numbers even, you are talking about 2 Carrier Strike Groups.

Each of these carriers normally has around 50 F/A-18 fighters, that makes 100 fighters. Plus 2 Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers, 8 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, 4 Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates, and 4 Los Angeles/Seawolf/Virginia class submarines.

No, not much of a contest there. Even if you replaced one of the Carriers with another vessel to make a single super-strike group, it will still not be much of a contest. The 50 Fighters alone would provide something the Royal Navy is totally unable to do at this time, provide a stand-off strike capability.

In short, the UK would be fighting with WWI tactics, and the US would be fighting with WWII tactics. No question there.

 

I am talking about the battle in 8 years, not now. When the US has the ships it is currently building, and so will the UK.

Even then I agree with you, 1 US carrier has as many aircraft as both the UK carriers could have, that's why I said 1 US carrier vs 2 UK carriers. Plus each side could have 1 helicopter carrier, so the USS America for the US and HMS Ocean for the UK. Also the US would have F35's, aswell as the UK, and the US would have it's now class of destroyer, the Zumwalt class. The only place the UK may have the advantage is in under water having 6 Astute class submarines.

 

Once again, you show your ignorance.

The USS America is not a "Helicopter Carrier", it is an Amphibious Assault Ship. While many people confuse the two because they look so much alike, they really are quite different.

And unless you are planning on am Amphibious Assault, there would be no reason for these ships to be in the area. And even if so, only one side would have them (assuming the other force is part of an embargo fleet).

As far as subs, that is probably a wash. But by 2020, the UK will only have 5 Astute class subs, not 6 (2022).

OK, then there are the F-35s. OK, fine, remove the F/A-18's. You are still talking about the UK having Half F-35B and half F-35C. But the US useing strictly the more capable F-35C. Advantage still US.

And for the destroyers, there will only be 3 Zumwalt class destroyers built. So most of them will still be Arleigh Burke class destroyers. And in this kind of mission, I would honestly leave them all at home, and take strictly Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

THis is because each of these destroyers has a very different mission. The Arleigh Burke is a Guided Missile Destroyer, with heavy emphasis on air and missile defense.

The Zumwalt is primarily a ground attack destroyer, and would not be anywhere near as usefull in a sea battle against other ships.

Once again your lack of knowledge shows. You throw out the names of the newest classes of ships, without even understanding what the role of these ships really is. You would not take an Amphibious Assault Ship (what you call a "Helicopter Carrier") into a naval battle unless you were definately planning on landing Marines somewhere when it was done. If you are intending to engage aircraft carriers, you would not take a Ground Attack Destroyer and leave behind Guided Missile Destroyers.

This is not some kind of game where you line up ships and think they just cancel each other out. We are not playing Battleship here.

 

Little Britain doesn't have any aircraft carriers now. And in 2020 it won't have any operational carriers because it won't have received delivery of any F-35s. Little Britain doesn't need a military. It needs a miracle.

 

Oh dear god. TEAM AMERICA... F*** YEAH!!

 

1 US Carrier group vs RN Carrier group in 2020.

Numerically a US carrier group would have more planes and ships.

Both fleets would have cutting edge military technology.

Who would win?..............well it would mainly depend on how the 2 combat groups engaged each other.
The depending factor would be the range of the aircraft and missiles on either side.

Due to numerical superiority, i would expect the US carrier group to come out on top........but if the RN got in a decent first attack, that could change things.

It really is an impossible thing to come to any sort of realistic conclusion, and is possibly the most unlikely naval event that would ever occur.

Now if we were to discuss a combat scenario between a US Carrier group and a potential Chinese carrier group in 2020......now this is a considerably more likely scenario!

Even now the Chinese are working hard in their shipyards to producing the 052C 'Aegis' type Destroyers, as escorts for its future carrier battle groups?

 

Well it is just a game if we are talking aboutit on a forum, and if that's what you would have in the US fleet then fine, it would proberly win. So just calm down and get over yourself. Long Live The British Empire.

 

It would be both the UK carriers, the whole UK battle fleet, so all the Subs, all the destroyers, all the frigates, HMS Ocean and 2 supply ships. And Mushroon thinks the US and UK would go to war if the Falklands attacked Argentina, so it could happen, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The Brits lose.

Here is why.

Let us assume that the Brits destroy the American fleet, but with 50% losses.

The American Navy can send another Fleet- the American navy can absorb the losses and pound the battered, damaged remaining Brit fleet.

Should we now contemplate who would win "Battleship" if Yamamoto played against Nimitz?

 

Carriers?

There are only two kinds of vessels in the US Navy - attack submarines, and targets.

 

Actually, to those of us who are really in the military or who understand military tactics, capabilities, and equipment is is not "just a game".

To us, is is what we do for a living. And this is probably one reason why you keep getting trounced so often by professionals in here.

 

Already been done, almost.

 

Remember, the scenario is also about 2020, so there is the potential that one of those carriers is a Ford-class with 50 F-35B's and one of the destroyers or cruisers could be a Zumwalt with 2 155mm AGS's.

 

All of the US's amphibious assault ships can be fitted out as Sea Control Ships with their ground combat component removed and a full load of ASW helicopters (probably Seahawks) and VTOLs ( Harriers for the older classes, Lightnings for the Americas).

There is no reason why one couldn't be there like that.

 

I did consider that, and the differences between Ford and Nimitz class carriers is not all that much. Same secondary armaments, same number of aircraft.

And actually, I still would not take the Zumwalts, no matter how many there are. Because I do not believe that the guns will end up firing a single shot.

This is the 21st century. And ships will not be closing in with other ships, to try and cross the T, or fire broadsides at each other. Any future engagements will largely (if not exclusively) be fought by aircraft and missiles. Those 155mm guns would be doing absolutely nothing in a modern naval engagement against anything larger the Somali pirates.

The only reason I would consider taking any Zumwalts or "Helicopter Carriers" into a conflict would be if I intended to conduct an amphibious assault with a force of Marines. Zumwalt is superior when it comes to operations against shore based targets, of that there is little question. But as an Air Defense platform, the old Arleigh Burke class of destroyer beats it hands down.

As far as aircraft carried, it varies, depending on the mission they are configured for. Generally it is 1 wing (around 12 aircraft) of F/A-18F Super Hornets as Strike Aircraft, and 2 wings (around 24 aircraft total) of F/A-18C Hornets as both strike and defensive aircraft. Add in the spare aircraft and you normally have a strength of around 40-45 combat jet fighters capable of conducting strike missions.

Of course, you have other aircraft which are capable of conducting attack missions, but they are generally not considered as such. Like the wing of EA-6B Prowlers, and the wing of Seahawk helicopters.

 

Zumwalts have the added advantage of being stealth ships. They carry anti-ship missiles just like the Burkes but have less of a chance of being detected by the enemy.

 

The problem is, they would not use them that way.

If they needed more aircraft, the US would simply bring in another carrier. Our LHAs and LHDs would not be very efficient in this role. They are only designed to support a limited number of aircraft in the assistance of an amphibious landing. Not in conducting full naval aviation missions.

And for Sea Control, that is why we have the LCC class command ships.

Of course, I am imagining the useage of standard strike force compositions. Now if we want to taylor make a strike force by picking and choosing various ships in the fleet to make a "super strike force" simply for this engagement, I can do that too. But my strike force would have such an unfair advantage that it would not even be funny.

Starting with pulling the USS Iowa out of mothballs and reactivating it. Last time this was done, it was mothballed for 25 years, and reactivated in less then 2 years. With 8 years to play with, I would make this a missile platform to be feared by all. And this class of ship is the only one in the world that is largely immune to anti-ship missiles.

And if you think I am being unfair here, look at the text of the Congressional Directive that released the USS Iowa to be used as a museum ship:

In the conference report (H. Rept. 109-360) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, the committee included instructions regarding the transfer of the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa to the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of California, respectively, and the President's reversion authority pursuant to a national emergency. The committee seeks to clarify that the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa must be regarded as potential mobilization assets and both the recipients and the U.S. Navy are instructed to treat them as such. The committee notes that the following measures should be taken:

(1) the ships must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
(2) the ships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection and dehumidification systems and any other preservation methods as needed;
(3) spare parts and unique equipment such as 16-inch gun barrels and projectiles, be preserved in adequate numbers to support the two ships, if reactivated; and
(4) the Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of the two battleships should they be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.

So if I want to really be mean, I would recall both the USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin.

 

For the cost of bringing the Iowa or Wisconsin back online, we could build an arsenal ship with a similar hull. The Iowa and Wisconsin are in bad shape. The only battleship that could still be considered remotely seaworthy is the North Carolina and that is a museum ship.

 

However, the carrier and other ships would not be stealthy. But who cares if it carries anti-ship missiles?

In modern fleet engagements, ever since WWII, it is no longer the job of ships to sink ships. That is the job nowadays of aircraft.

The job of the destroyers would be largely in protecting the carrier, not in attacking the ships of the other side. This is why the emphasis on snti-ship missiles would be greatly lowered, and instead the preference would be on ait-defense missiles.

Yea, the Zumwalt class will have a lot of guns. That is nice, but I would not expect it to get anywhere close to gun range. These ships would be much more important in shooting down the aircraft and intercepting the missiles of the other fleet.

And in this role, the Zumwalt is inferior.

The Zumwalt will have a total of 80 missile cells, with only the Sea Sparrow capable of air defense missions. This is because it is designed as a "multi-mission destroyer, emphasis on land attack". As such, this would be a great ship to send to strike a target which is within missile range of the ocean. This ship has a better chance of sneaking to within missile range, launch it's Tomahawks, then scoot away before it is detected. And it has enough Air Defence capability to defend itself, but that is about it.

The Arleigh Burke has 96 missile cells, including not only the Sea Sparrow, but also the SM-2 Air Defense Missile, the SM-3 Air Defense Missile, and the new RIM-174 ERAM Air Defense Missile just now going into service. The Arleigh Burke class destroyers were built with largely one mission in mind, and that is defending it's main asset (Carrier or Amphibious transport) from attack from submarines, aircraft and missiles.

If you are talking about fleets engaging fleets without aircraft, then yes, the Zumwalt is a superior destroyer, because it has a greater offensive power and stealth. It would have a greater chance of sneaking up on a strictly sea force.

But the minute aircraft are added into the mix, it's benefit is lost. So you leave the ground strike ships behind, and protect your carrier with a ship with a greatly increased anti-air capability.

 

So you expect an engangement against British Type-45 stealth destroyers to not involve lots of anti-ship missiles being flung around?

 

Excuse me, a WNT/LNT class battleship, that was obsolete before the end of the Second World War? That was decomissioned at the end of the war, and has spent the last 50 years sitting in Wilmington. And it is not even seaworthy, and is currently undergoing a major hull refit. Her guns and engine have all been decomissioned and disassembled for decades.

Both the Iowa and Wisconsin are kept in fairly good shape. Regularly worked on as part of the active reserve fleet, they are kept in working condition, with engines, guns and armaments capable of being brought back into use with minimal work.

That was in no way done with the USS North Carolina, but it continues to be done with the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin to this day.

And if you think I am crazy, there has been quite a bit of talk over the years about reactivating the Iowa and Wisconsin as Command and Air Defense vessels.

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

Personally, I would remove the #2 turret of this class, and replace it with the MK-41 VLS.

 

forget the carriers it'll be decided by submarines...

 

Oh, I expect a lot of anti-ship missiles to be used.

I simply expect few ship launched anti-ship missiles. The predominant number of these missiles (at least on the US side) will be launched by Naval Aircraft, long before the ships come within range of firing their own anti-ship missiles.

This is where people who are simply looking at the ships make a total fail. Because they are saying "Well, Ship A can do this, and Ship B can do that". And nobody else seems to be looking at how the ships are actually used.

Let me say this one last time.

The day of ships attacking ships is over.

All large scale naval engagements since the 1950's have been based around 2 things, missiles and aircraft. And for the US, it is predominantly ship based missiles for defense, and aircraft for offense.

And that is exactly how I would play this. I would not even allow the enemy ships to get close enough to launch it's anti-ship missiles. I would be hitting them from hundreds of miles away with all of the air launched anti-ship missiles I could. And useing the capabilities of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class Cruisers from allowing the same thing to be done in return.

The Harpoon has a range of 280 KM. The UK Sea Eagle has a range of 110 KM. Add to that a one way range of around 1,000 KM for an F-35C or F/A-18C, and the enemy ships will be attacked long before they come anywhere close to the range of the US fleet.

And there is one other major difference between these 2 fleets that must be considered. One will be equipped with an AEW system based on the Sea King helicopter. The other will be equiped with an AEW system based on the S-2 ASW airplane. One of these can cruise at 256 knots for 6 hours, has a range of over 1,400 nautical miles, and can be refueled in the air.

The other can cruise at 112 knots for 4 hours, has a range of 664 nautical miles, and has no mid-air refueling capability.

 

The Iowa and Wisconsin are worn out. They've had nearly 60 years of service. The North Carolina had less then a decade of service.

Either way, it would be cheaper to build a reinforced steel hull like a battleship, but dump the superstructure and turrets in favor of an all-missile, all-VLS Arsenal Ship design.