User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:48:57 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the carriers or that missile? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bit low on that estimate for speed. For the carriers or that missile? Setting aside that only Russia, India, and a few Pacific nations friendly to the US have that missile, in particular, what is the kill chain on it like? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:49:24 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck getting close enough to launch. I had a brother-in-law stationed on a sub hunting frigate. It had a huge sonar dome in the front. They would conduct sub detection exercises off San Diego looking for a friendly sub they knew was in the area. After an entire day going back and forth looking for this thing, they signaled that they were giving up. The sub then promptly surfaced 30 minutes later not far from them. Attack submarines pose a real threat to any ship or navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:49:59 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any ship made by man that floats is sinkable. The question is: Can the thing that sinks the carrier survive the attempt? Probably a solid assessment. If it it floats it can sink |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:50:36 PM EST
[#4]
The Ark and the Titanic, the only two unsinkable ships.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:51:04 PM EST
[#5]
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. Capitol ships are not built like smaller boats. Even nuclear underwater blasts don't break them up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:51:24 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The carriers. lol. Apparently I was off by 5 mph. I withdraw everything I've said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:52:21 PM EST
[#7]
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. lol wut? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:52:39 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol. Apparently I was off by 5 mph. I withdraw everything I've said. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The carriers. lol. Apparently I was off by 5 mph. I withdraw everything I've said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:55:47 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. That's impossible, even for a computer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:56:26 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol wut? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You put the right kind of torpedoes under her, get that steam pocket going, and you will break her with her own weight. lol wut? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:57:48 PM EST
[#11]
After watching the PBS video where they deliberately try and sink one, I think it would be hard to do but not impossible. They have the AGIS(sp) and I feel like that would be hard to defeat. A nuke would be the number one threat if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:58:21 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're going off Wiki, the entry states 30+ kts. "+" is important. Even if it could do 60 mph, would it matter lol? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:58:52 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After watching the PBS video where they deliberately try and sink one, I think it would be hard to do but not impossible. They have the AGIS(sp) and I feel like that would be hard to defeat. A nuke would be the number one threat if you ask me. Link? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 7:59:18 PM EST
[#14]
The key is throwing out enough ordinance to overwhelm defensive capabilities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:00:19 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Attack submarines pose a real threat to any ship or navy. American, British, and maybe French and a few remaining Russian ones do. But even then, there's a hell of a big difference between a frigate and a carrier group. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:01:19 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if it could do 60 mph, would it matter lol? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you're going off Wiki, the entry states 30+ kts. "+" is important. Even if it could do 60 mph, would it matter lol? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:01:45 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, we can fuck people up from the air. No question. That won't save the carriers from subs though. Lol! I'm sorry, not trying to be rude but you clearly have little working knowledge of what you post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:03:36 PM EST
[#18]
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 8:05:58 PM EST
[#19]
Destroyers, attack subs and the aircraft of the carrier would be damn near impossible to get past. The USN knows what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:07:00 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
American, British, and maybe French and a few remaining Russian ones do. But even then, there's a hell of a big difference between a frigate and a carrier group. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Attack submarines pose a real threat to any ship or navy. American, British, and maybe French and a few remaining Russian ones do. But even then, there's a hell of a big difference between a frigate and a carrier group. This frigate was designed to be a significant sub detection ship of a carrier group....it is its' only primary function. To see how easily the sub's evaded detection was alarming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:09:58 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol! I'm sorry, not trying to be rude but you clearly have little working knowledge of what you post. Well, you're certainly demonstrating that you do, and putting me in my place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:16:45 PM EST
[#22]
If the water is shallow enough, it will not sink
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:16:55 PM EST
[#23]
Didn't someones sub surface in the middle of a carrier task force a while back?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:19:58 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds formidable, but how is it's survivability against countermeasures? It's as long as a telephone pole and 2.3 feet wide. It's hard to fly through a wall of 20mm depleted uranium bullets or dodge a Aegis missile. How resistant is it to jamming and spoofing? Everyone talks about the ASM boogyman while ignoring the countermeasures. Even if it is only 10% survivable against the countermeasures, the carrier is still fucked. This thing flies over half a mile per second. That gives that Phalanx system (which is not the primary means of defense anyway) roughly a four second window of firing time (its range is a little over 2 miles). That isn't a lot of time, and it has to be 100% effective. If the missiles make it through 5% of the time, that's a doomsday scenario for the carriers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:22:21 PM EST
[#25]
I was stationed on the aircraft carrier USS Ranger (CV-61).
Carriers always travel within battle-groups of combat ships that establish an overlapping umbrella of constant radar surveillance. There are always several attack subs covering the battle group from underneath. Getting a ballistic missile into that umbrella would be extremely diffficult. My biggest fear was always hostile diesel-electric submarines. They're not fast and don't have much range...but that doesn't matter. The damned things are incredibly quiet and difficult to detect. It would be a suicide mission to attack a carrier, but a good boat and a great crew with good tactics could definitely get the job done. I personally watched a Japanese diesel boat totally fuck us up in mock battle during joint naval exercises once, so I KNOW it can be done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:22:50 PM EST
[#26]
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? That's dirty and underhanded mister Japanese destroyer skipper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:23:11 PM EST
[#27]
China may want to try but they are essentially landlocked because it's easy to blockade the South China Sea. The Germans tried their best at Jutland but still lost. It would be a repeat at best
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:23:19 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell me about the kill chain on the missiles. I think I have a fairly decent intuitive understanding of the concept, but I'm sure my verbiage would be comical. Basically, the launch platform has to get to within firing range without being destroy, then it has to acquire its target, then the missile has to fire properly, then it has to make it to the target without being fooled or destroyed by the countermeasures, and finally, it has to explode on impact (or after penetration of the hull). A certain percentage of the time, it will fail at each of those tasks. My contention is that the likelihood of the missile failing has been drastically reduced at each of those stages by new technologies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:24:53 PM EST
[#29]
Any mention of China's carrier killer?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:25:39 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't someones sub surface in the middle of a carrier task force a while back? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:28:07 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any mention of China's carrier killer? This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 My hunch is that China would be unwilling to launch these with conventional warheads because of the risk that any ballistic missile launch would be interpreted as a nuclear attack, and met with a nuclear response. Still, if this thing is accurate, good luck defending the carrier against it lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:28:51 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. How'd they fare against the USS Mason? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:28:53 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happened to the last ship that claimed to be 'unsinkable'? I saw video of that one and oddly enough it was at the bottom of the ocean. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:28:59 PM EST
[#34]
Quote History...and there you go. A diesel-electric boat with a good crew. Precisely what I was referring to in my previous post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:29:47 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any ship made by man that floats is sinkable. The question is: Can the thing that sinks the carrier survive the attempt? Not a Boston Whaler !!!!!!!!!! 
boston whaler military |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:34:28 PM EST
[#36]
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-sink-us-navy-carrier-china-turns-france-ideas-14605
We wont know til something happens. But sounds like its not impossable to get close enough. https://m.warhistoryonline.com/history/chinese-submarine-appeared-in-the-middle-of-a-carrier-battle-group.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:35:10 PM EST
[#37]
Of course they can be sunk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:38:33 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's impossible, even for a computer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. That's impossible, even for a computer. It's not impossible. I used to bullseye rowboats in my T16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:38:56 PM EST
[#39]
Yes, they can be sunk, but only a handful of countries would have the potential to do that....and if they're trying to sink our carriers, then we have much bigger problems than just about our carriers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:40:33 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think I have a fairly decent intuitive understanding of the concept, but I'm sure my verbiage would be comical. Basically, the launch platform has to get to within firing range without being destroy, then it has to acquire its target, then the missile has to fire properly, then it has to make it to the target without being fooled or destroyed by the countermeasures, and finally, it has to explode on impact (or after penetration of the hull). A certain percentage of the time, it will fail at each of those tasks. My contention is that the likelihood of the missile failing has been drastically reduced at each of those stages by new technologies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tell me about the kill chain on the missiles. I think I have a fairly decent intuitive understanding of the concept, but I'm sure my verbiage would be comical. Basically, the launch platform has to get to within firing range without being destroy, then it has to acquire its target, then the missile has to fire properly, then it has to make it to the target without being fooled or destroyed by the countermeasures, and finally, it has to explode on impact (or after penetration of the hull). A certain percentage of the time, it will fail at each of those tasks. My contention is that the likelihood of the missile failing has been drastically reduced at each of those stages by new technologies. It's missing some steps, but I was asking specific to the P-800. How does it go from initial targeting to terminal phase intercept? The longer that chain is and the more systems it relies on, no matter how cool the system is, it's vulnerable. The DF-21 is a great example, as it relies on a HUGE number of things going right for it to strike its target. And something that can do 50 mph, well, it can unass the kill box that missile looks into. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:43:17 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 My hunch is that China would be unwilling to launch these with conventional warheads because of the risk that any ballistic missile launch would be interpreted as a nuclear attack, and met with a nuclear response. Still, if this thing is accurate, good luck defending the carrier against it lol. The idea is to nullify the carrier group advantage. We wouldn't want to park one close to their shore. So, they get to keep doing what they want in their sphere until someone blinks. And I agree, any blinking like that with China inevitably ends with lots of nukes on both sides. Hopefully we have awesome counters to the versions they're working on, but I think it just illustrates that countries aren't even thinking of trying to fight a carrier. They're going around them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:45:13 PM EST
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:45:39 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 My hunch is that China would be unwilling to launch these with conventional warheads because of the risk that any ballistic missile launch would be interpreted as a nuclear attack, and met with a nuclear response. Still, if this thing is accurate, good luck defending the carrier against it lol. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any mention of China's carrier killer? This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 My hunch is that China would be unwilling to launch these with conventional warheads because of the risk that any ballistic missile launch would be interpreted as a nuclear attack, and met with a nuclear response. Still, if this thing is accurate, good luck defending the carrier against it lol. Because a successful attack on a Carrier Battle Group wouldn't AND that's a long way to go if your target doesn't want to be where you are lobbing missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:50:51 PM EST
[#44]
I will concede that this may give carriers a new lease on life.
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:51:52 PM EST
[#45]
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. It's not that hard. I used to blast small vessels with my F16. There're way smaller than that exhaust port. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:52:11 PM EST
[#46]
It's as long as a telephone pole and 2.3 feet wide. It's hard to fly through a wall of 20mm depleted uranium bullets or dodge a Aegis missile. How resistant is it to jamming and spoofing? Everyone talks about the ASM boogyman while ignoring the countermeasures. Depends on how many they are willing to launch, and from how many different platforms. If they are absolutely determined to sink a carrier, I believe it can be done....question is, would they be willing to launch enough to overwhelm defenses? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:55:01 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on how many they are willing to launch, and from how many different platforms. If they are absolutely determined to sink a carrier, I believe it can be done....question is, would they be willing to launch enough to overwhelm defenses? Missiles are cheap compared to $5 billion ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:56:04 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMO, China poses the only significant naval threat currently. What do they have and how is it employed in a way that would threaten a carrier? Use enough Bic lighters and you can start a forest fire. A Chinese type 39A AIP costs $250,000,000, so if you throw twelve of them at the GHW Bush, you have 72 torpedoes for half the cost of the carrier. We wouldn't do it, but China? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 8:57:05 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The idea is to nullify the carrier group advantage. We wouldn't want to park one close to their shore. So, they get to keep doing what they want in their sphere until someone blinks. And I agree, any blinking like that with China inevitably ends with lots of nukes on both sides. Hopefully we have awesome counters to the versions they're working on, but I think it just illustrates that countries aren't even thinking of trying to fight a carrier. They're going around them. The only way to beat the DF-21 is to keep the carrier out of its range, find the -21, and kill it. To do that with a carrier requires something with longer legs than an F-18 and stealth - which means an F-35 - and a way to carry a fuck ton more fuel, stealthily. That means the Stingray tanker the Navy is working on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 9:00:29 PM EST
[#50]
Anything can sink
|
|
|
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.
