If a destroyer fought an aircraft carrier, head on, with no support for either side, who would (most likely) win?
Destroyer
>>29889473
How far away are they from eachother?
>>29889473
Both would lose. Destroyer would sink the carrier, and the carrier's air-power would sink the destroyer.
>>29889473
I don't know a case when aircraft carrier would be with no support
>>29889728
It's not meant to be realistic.
>>29889775
Yeah, I guess so. I feel bad for writing that, because my post gives nothing to OP, and I'm sure that OP knows what I said.
>>29889473
Carrier.
With no support, the destroyer will eventually run out of SAMs, after which it would be a turkey shoot.
>>29889820
I guess the real "question" of this thread is "are carriers only good against land targets or would they also be effective against other ships"? I know that Hornets can carry anti-ship missiles, but how does that compare with the anti-ship missiles that a destroyer would have on-board?
>>29890186
It doesn't matter. Without satellites or any other form of support, the destroyer is going to have extremely limited detection range. Whereas the carrier isn't hit by that restriction. Which means that the destroyer is going to be hounded from extremely long range by aircraft from a carrier that he can't even see.
>>29890271
So then why build ships other than aircraft carriers?
>>29890449
Because you're not always going to 1v1 with no support.
Also, carriers are expensive
>>29890449
To protect the aircraft carrier.
>>29890449
Need to have defense against submarines, which are really the only threat to carriers. Modern aircraft carriers can only be disabled though, sinking one takes a fuckload of hits.
>>29890629
But if the carrier is superior to other ships, then why does it need protection?
>>29890657
So it doesn't get disabled.
>>29890657
Only other subs and other ships can kill a sub so think of it as a food cycle
Carrier eats destroyer
Sub eats carrier
Destroyer eats sub
>>29890639
>which are really the only threat to carriers
That's not exactly true, otherwise we wouldn't see dedicated AAW ships and we'd see DDs and FGs having more extensive hangers for ASW Helios.
>>29890657
Holy shit, no one said carriers are best ships.
They have a purpose they fulfill, and operate with other ships to fulfill thier purpose better.
>>29890657
>>29890685 gets it.
A carrier is a support asset, not an offensive warship in and of it'self. If one gets into a slugging match with another warship it's probably going to sink.
>>29889473
I don't know about a destroyer, but the USS White Plains, a jeep carrier, destroyed the Choukai with it's 5-inch deck gun, and the Choukai was a cruiser. The White Plains brewed up a bunch of oxygen torpedoes that destroyed the engine room and rudder.
>>29890186
I guess you never heard of WW 2 in the pacific like the battle of Midway among many others?
>>29891758
The world has changed quite a bit since ww2 don't cha know.
A guided missile destroyer outranges a carrier, even an f-18 with midair refueling.
So, the destroyer wins.
>>29891758
WW2 is not a good example for modern naval warfare.
>>29891959
If both were aware that the other is searching for them in an attempt to sink them, but didn't know eachother's location, wouldn't the carrier normally be able to spot the destroyer first using AWACS?
>>29892032
Yes. He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>>29891959
Pretty sure modern carriers have some basic defense against anti-ship missiles.
Take USS Nimitz for example:
2 × Sea Sparrow
2 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile
2 × PHALANX CIWS
>>29889473
Is the carrier allowed to have aircraft?
>>29893322
Yes.
>>29891959
>A guided missile destroyer outranges a carrier, even an f-18 with midair refueling.
Ex-fucking-scuse me?
In what universe do P-15 Termits or Harpoons outrange F/A-18s?
>>29893522
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGpdWAZufc
water gods
>>29893563
No you idit. Battleships fitted with gliders carrying light tanks and Stugs can take on both destroyer and carrier. One handed and blindfolded. While suspended upside down in a water tank.
>>29889473
Japan
>>29889728
>I don't know a case when aircraft carrier would be with no support
Damn, now you make me want to come up with one
>September 11, 2001
>USS Enterprise CBG is returning from Gulf deployment
>towers fall
>Enterprise reverses course, goes to flank bell, maintains it for as long as possible
>Enterprise outruns escort ships, in order to get on station off of Pakistan ASAP
>>BEGIN ALTERNATE HISTORY
>Iranians have been sponsoring terrorists
>see a chance to teach the Great Satan a lesson
>Iranians send a single innocuous small boy out to make a torpedo run on unguarded Big E
>>29891959
How would targeting work though? Can DDGs communicate with surveillance satellites?
depending on the era, the carrier would probably not even need planes...
>>29894151
>nothing of value lost
>>29893975
A squadron of armored Zeppelins would absolutely destroy your submersible battleship with gliderStugs.
>>29894667
But what if I have a fleet of VLS PT Boats protecting them?
>>29894640
>>nothing of value lost
Kek'd heartily. God I hated that fucking boat. Gotta admit, it hauled ass, and the shit they pulled on 9/11 was badass, but I hated every fucking moment on that POS. 2 full deployment and work up cycles, 2 shipyard periods, and 1 pierside availability, all in 4 years. POS.
>been here 4 FUCKING times. Not my boat in pic, but still. 2 fucking Ramadans...
>>29889473
Depends on how many anti-ship missiles the destroyer is carrying. To few and it won't pierce the carriers defenses (RAM, ESSM, CWIS). The destroyer will also have to watch out for Growlers and AWACS.
In this retarded scenario I honestly believe a US carrier whould do fine against a lone destroyer.
>>29889473
Destroyer would be sunk before it managed to do critical damage to the carrier. Carriers actually have rather thick decks and the Destroyer's piddly 75-105 mm would hardly be felt.
>>29890657
The same reason Battleships needed destroyers themselves: small, hard to target shit like subs and torpedo boats are the plague to massive vessels who can't hope to have awareness in all directions all the time.
1 on 1, carriers can take on just about any other surface vessel and win.
The scenario depends on how far away from each other they are at the start.
If it is within range of the Destroyers missiles, the Carrier is fucked.
If there is distance and the Carrier can get its airwing flying, the Destroyer is fucked.
>>29890669
Fire Emblem meets Advanced Wars
>>29889473
>If a destroyer fought an aircraft carrier, head on, with no support for either side, who would (most likely) win?
The carrier the destroyer wouldn't be able to get close enough to be effective. Carrier air cover wins.
