User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:44:07 PM EST
[#1]
This will be a topic by those with no idea speculating and those who know keeping their lips zipped.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:45:54 PM EST
[#2]
Any ship made by man that floats is sinkable.
The question is: Can the thing that sinks the carrier survive the attempt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:46:36 PM EST
[#3]
Lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:47:26 PM EST
[#4]
Anything can be sunk if enough ordnance is thrown at it.
Can anything survive long enough to throw enough ordnance at a carrier group to kill it? I guess that's the 64,000 ruble question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:48:19 PM EST
[#5]
Titanic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:48:54 PM EST
[#6]
Its actually pretty easy to sink one. The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station. Only a precise hit will set off a chain reaction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:49:20 PM EST
[#7]
You put the right kind of torpedoes under her, get that steam pocket going, and you will break her with her own weight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:49:25 PM EST
[#8]
Nuclear bomb.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:53:40 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its actually pretty easy to sink one. The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station. Only a precise hit will set off a chain reaction. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:53:46 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anything can be sunk if enough ordnance is thrown at it. Can anything survive long enough to throw enough ordnance at a carrier group to kill it? I guess that's the 64,000 ruble question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:54:07 PM EST
[#11]
What happened to the last ship that claimed to be 'unsinkable'?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:54:31 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its actually pretty easy to sink one. The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station. Only a precise hit will set off a chain reaction. Lmao |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 6:55:25 PM EST
[#13]
Good article
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:00:00 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anything can be sunk if enough ordnance is thrown at it. THIS. I am not a Navy veteran, nor am I an analyst who assesses naval capabilities of various nations, but NO ship is "unsinkable". What a SMART navy does is to provide peripheral protection/detection to the critical elements of their seagoing force. Just look how the British shielded their carrriers during the Falklands. That was a "small scale" exercise (which I doubt a Brit. sailor would call small scale when the shit hit the fan.), but it gives you an idea how it's handled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:00:10 PM EST
[#15]
I'd imagine in war time an enemy wouldn't have to sink the one only deny one the abilty to launch and recover aircraft would be good enough. Actually sinking one mightcome at a high price.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:00:42 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You put the right kind of torpedoes under her, get that steam pocket going, and you will break her with her own weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:01:40 PM EST
[#17]
Not only are they sinkable, but they are not survivable in a war against a competent opponent. Modern anti-ship missiles are too fast, too accurate and have too much range for big, lumbering aircraft carriers to withstand. Aircraft carriers are probably more obsolete today for naval combat than battleships were in 1941. The only reason this is not widely understood is because we haven't had much in the way of naval combat since 1945.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:03:22 PM EST
[#18]
No. But Guam may still be in danger of capsizing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:05:45 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only are they sinkable, but they are not survivable in a war against a competent opponent. Modern anti-ship missiles are too fast, too accurate and have too much range for big, lumbering aircraft carriers to withstand. Aircraft carriers are probably more obsolete today for naval combat than battleships were in 1941. The only reason this is not widely understood is because we haven't had much in the way of naval combat since 1945. A competent opponent might get one, or even two. But then whatever is launching said anti-ship missiles is going to get turned into rubble and goo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:07:45 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any ship made by man that floats is sinkable. The question is: Can the thing that sinks the carrier survive the attempt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:08:17 PM EST
[#21]
Historically, Congress has been the best at destroying our military might.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:08:44 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A competent opponent might get one, or even two. But then whatever is launching said anti-ship missiles is going to get turned into rubble and goo. Land based aircraft and attack submarines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:08:51 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only are they sinkable, but they are not survivable in a war against a competent opponent. Modern anti-ship missiles are too fast, too accurate and have too much range for big, lumbering aircraft carriers to withstand. Aircraft carriers are probably more obsolete today for naval combat than battleships were in 1941. The only reason this is not widely understood is because we haven't had much in the way of naval combat since 1945. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:10:16 PM EST
[#24]
No one with hostile intentions will ever get close enough to one to find out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:10:57 PM EST
[#25]
They are designed to be difficult to sink.....but it can be done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:11:00 PM EST
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:11:05 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only are they sinkable, but they are not survivable in a war against a competent opponent. Modern anti-ship missiles are too fast, too accurate and have too much range for big, lumbering aircraft carriers to withstand. Aircraft carriers are probably more obsolete today for naval combat than battleships were in 1941. The only reason this is not widely understood is because we haven't had much in the way of naval combat since 1945. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:11:53 PM EST
[#28]
I'll say one thing... if there is anything that could theoretically sink one, I'd pay good money to watch that battle. (From a safe distance, of course)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:12:54 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Such as? There may not truly be another competent navy of sufficient size in the world at present, but this won't be the case for much longer. Britain and France have very competent navies which are too small to do much to the US Navy (not that we ever going to fight them anyway). China and Russia have sufficiently large navies that aren't quite up to snuff. Particularly in the case of China, I think it would be foolish to assume this will always be the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:13:48 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Land based aircraft and attack submarines. Those land bases and sub pens are gonna get Tomahawked and/or B-2'd post haste, especially if the US lost a carrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:15:51 PM EST
[#31]
Nearly, as per the OP.
NEARLY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:17:48 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There may not truly be another competent navy of sufficient size in the world at present, but this won't be the case for much longer. Britain and France have very competent navies which are too small to do much to the US Navy (not that we ever going to fight them anyway). China and Russia have sufficiently large navies that aren't quite up to snuff. Particularly in the case of China, I think it would be foolish to assume this will always be the case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Such as? There may not truly be another competent navy of sufficient size in the world at present, but this won't be the case for much longer. Britain and France have very competent navies which are too small to do much to the US Navy (not that we ever going to fight them anyway). China and Russia have sufficiently large navies that aren't quite up to snuff. Particularly in the case of China, I think it would be foolish to assume this will always be the case. What do they have and how is it employed in a way that would threaten a carrier? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:17:49 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Titanic. Well said |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:20:33 PM EST
[#34]
Any ship can sink however some go down with a significant fight.
Pretty good documentary here that shows the challenges when intentionally sinking one. It takes a far sight more than well placed charges to get the job done. Granted a lot of the prep in this piece is for hazmat, scrap, etc. however they still have a ton of work to do to ensure the boat goes down when the bang goes off.  Failed To Load Title https://youtu.be/4CfHWdIQ8NY |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:22:25 PM EST
[#35]
hu·bris
'(h)yo?obr?s/ noun excessive pride or self-confidence. synonyms:arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, hauteur, pride, self-importance, egotism, pomposity, superciliousness, superiority; More (in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:22:53 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll say one thing... if there is anything that could theoretically sink one, I'd pay good money to watch that battle. (From a safe distance, of course) What about a shore based Silkworm missile in the Persian Gulf? A couple hits from them that set off secondary explosions and I think you will have a real mess on your hands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:24:33 PM EST
[#37]
Why go to the trouble of sinking one when you could just hit the propellers with a few torpedos and render it useless?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:25:20 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only are they sinkable, but they are not survivable in a war against a competent opponent. Modern anti-ship missiles are too fast, too accurate and have too much range for big, lumbering aircraft carriers to withstand. Aircraft carriers are probably more obsolete today for naval combat than battleships were in 1941. The only reason this is not widely understood is because we haven't had much in the way of naval combat since 1945. Maybe not survivable is a bit overstating but you are close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:26:25 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why go to the trouble of sinking one when you could just hit the propellers with a few torpedos and render it useless? Good luck getting close enough to launch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:30:48 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a pretty definitive conclusion given that no one has ever even tried to engage a supercarrier battlegroup with, uh, anything. Unless you count a couple hopeless Libyan fighters, promptly splashed. This missile can be fired from a distance of 75 to 186 miles by surface ships, submarines, aircraft and mobile land based launchers. It flies 10 meters above the water at Mach 2.5. That means if you launch it at 100 miles, it will impact its target in about three and a half minutes. Also bear in mind that the carrier has to successfully evade all or almost all of these missiles, and our opponents needs only to get a few through our defenses. The technical challenges involved in keeping a carrier safe have grown larger, while the difficulty in hitting the carrier has steadily decreased. The US Navy has by far the best technology, but it is bumping up against the technical limits of its platforms. This is hyperbole, but it would be as if we were committed to building all of our ships out of wood. We may have the best carpenters in the world working with the finest oak (or whatever they built ships out of back then lol) but it's still a wooden fucking ship. Our carriers may have the best countermeasures, the best escorts, and better situational awareness than anyone, but they are still 1100 foot long ships that sit sixty feet out of the water and putts along at ~30 mph. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:31:28 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those land bases and sub pens are gonna get Tomahawked and/or B-2'd post haste, especially if the US lost a carrier. Sure, we can fuck people up from the air. No question. That won't save the carriers from subs though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:32:09 PM EST
[#42]
"There's nothing out there that can defeat us" seems like a sound tactical assumption...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:33:43 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Titanic. My first thought.... If it's made by man, it can be sunk... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:37:22 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, we can fuck people up from the air. No question. That won't save the carriers from subs though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Those land bases and sub pens are gonna get Tomahawked and/or B-2'd post haste, especially if the US lost a carrier. Sure, we can fuck people up from the air. No question. That won't save the carriers from subs though. Our SSNs are still orders of magnitude better than anybody else's submarines. And subs don't last long without bases and tenders. Like I said, a really sharp opponent might get one carrier, or maybe even two. But after that they better have a plan B. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:40:17 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
this Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any ship made by man that floats is sinkable. The question is: Can the thing that sinks the carrier survive the attempt? well not being a mil expert i will throw out my 50 cent opinion. if a carrier is sunk it will be by a major power, say china. and in such a case we are most likely in a serious conflict. and what might sink such a vessel might be some sort of ballistic missile or barrage of ballistic missiles which perhaps might be small nuclear armed weapons launched from a long ways off. its been my opinion that aircraft carriers are superb platforms for projecting force as long as its a threatening force to a large mil opponent, or an attack force for a third world country. in a real shooting war with a major power, carriers will most likely be like battleships in wwII. a weapons platform outdated. the only sea born ship i see being able to perform in a real modern shooting war would be the submarine. it is my understanding that major battlegroups put the carrier at the center of a huge defense-in-depth environment and getting through such an environment is best suited to some sort of ballistic weapon and not some a submarine or surface ship that manages to get through such a defense. the carrier based aircraft was the ultimate naval weapon of wwII. a land or sea launched ballistic rocket is probably the most advanced 'naval' weapon of the next war, assuming we have one (world war). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:41:10 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, we can fuck people up from the air. No question. That won't save the carriers from subs though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Those land bases and sub pens are gonna get Tomahawked and/or B-2'd post haste, especially if the US lost a carrier. Sure, we can fuck people up from the air. No question. That won't save the carriers from subs though. My guess is any OPFOR sub in the area of CBG is under close watch by one of our own. USN is pretty good at subsurface sports. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:42:42 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck getting close enough to launch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why go to the trouble of sinking one when you could just hit the propellers with a few torpedos and render it useless? Good luck getting close enough to launch. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:45:00 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This missile can be fired from a distance of 75 to 186 miles by surface ships, submarines, aircraft and mobile land based launchers. It flies 10 meters above the water at Mach 2.5. That means if you launch it at 100 miles, it will impact its target in about three and a half minutes. Also bear in mind that the carrier has to successfully evade all or almost all of these missiles, and our opponents needs only to get a few through our defenses. The technical challenges involved in keeping a carrier safe have grown larger, while the difficulty in hitting the carrier has steadily decreased. The US Navy has by far the best technology, but it is bumping up against the technical limits of its platforms. This is hyperbole, but it would be as if we were committed to building all of our ships out of wood. We may have the best carpenters in the world working with the finest oak (or whatever they built ships out of back then lol) but it's still a wooden fucking ship. Our carriers may have the best countermeasures, the best escorts, and better situational awareness than anyone, but they are still 1100 foot long ships that sit sixty feet out of the water and putts along at ~30 mph. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a pretty definitive conclusion given that no one has ever even tried to engage a supercarrier battlegroup with, uh, anything. Unless you count a couple hopeless Libyan fighters, promptly splashed. This missile can be fired from a distance of 75 to 186 miles by surface ships, submarines, aircraft and mobile land based launchers. It flies 10 meters above the water at Mach 2.5. That means if you launch it at 100 miles, it will impact its target in about three and a half minutes. Also bear in mind that the carrier has to successfully evade all or almost all of these missiles, and our opponents needs only to get a few through our defenses. The technical challenges involved in keeping a carrier safe have grown larger, while the difficulty in hitting the carrier has steadily decreased. The US Navy has by far the best technology, but it is bumping up against the technical limits of its platforms. This is hyperbole, but it would be as if we were committed to building all of our ships out of wood. We may have the best carpenters in the world working with the finest oak (or whatever they built ships out of back then lol) but it's still a wooden fucking ship. Our carriers may have the best countermeasures, the best escorts, and better situational awareness than anyone, but they are still 1100 foot long ships that sit sixty feet out of the water and putts along at ~30 mph. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:46:33 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My guess is any OPFOR sub in the area of CBG is under close watch by one of our own. USN is pretty good at subsurface sports. No question, our navy is the best in the world at submarine detection. That doesn't change the fact that submarine detection is orders of magnitude more difficult than carrier detection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:47:34 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bit low on that estimate for speed. For the carriers or that missile? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File