User Panel
|
Quoted:
The USS America supposedly took more punishment that the Navy expected when they did the sinkEx on it about 15 years ago. And that was without any point defenses or DC teams on board. View Quote One of my classmates was on board the america back in the first gulf war. He was kinda sad to see her get sunk. He went through his shellback ceremony on her. Apparently the also used to watch porn for about 15 minutes between shifts before the XO would yell at everyone to get back to work. . |
|
Quoted:
That would be rude of me. Just understand the US Navy has no equal on this planet. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, you're certainly demonstrating that you do, and putting me in my place. That would be rude of me. Just understand the US Navy has no equal on this planet. Truth. |
|
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. View Quote Star Wars Death Star? |
|
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-df-26-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-what-does-the-16260?page=2
carrier group gonna be able to stop a dozen or so of these? hell iran got a missile off 1000 yards from one of our carriers |
|
Awesome.
"Our arrows will blot out the sun" "We fight in the shade" |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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. So the carrier guns it and runs right out of the battlegroup's envelope and into the waiting arms of the enemy's subs? Sounds like a swell tactic. I didn't know modern ASM's were the dumb kind that only look in a "kill box" and don't have sophisticated tracking sensors to help it identify the target and defeat any countermeasures that are used. |
|
Quoted:
Seems to me the only rational way to conduct the attack would be to deliberately overwhelm air defenses with large numbers of missiles. A Burke has what, 92 VLS cells? Then send 93 missiles. If we were to try conducting operations near mainland china the sky would be thick with them. It might pay to think about what would be necessary to counteract such a barrage. IMO we could do worse than to bring back Juneau class AA cruisers. A dozen or so 5" dual purpose guns with networked fire control could put up a wall of frag no missiles could pass. And 5" AA shells are cheaper than missiles. View Quote Probably why the Navy is planning on mounting directed energy self defense weapons in the near future. Last time I heard anything they were no longer just experiments. |
|
Quoted:
So the carrier guns it and runs right out of the battlegroup's envelope and into the waiting arms of the enemy's subs? Sounds like a swell tactic. I didn't know modern ASM's were the dumb kind that only look in a "kill box" and don't have sophisticated tracking sensors to help it identify the target and defeat any countermeasures that are used. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. So the carrier guns it and runs right out of the battlegroup's envelope and into the waiting arms of the enemy's subs? Sounds like a swell tactic. I didn't know modern ASM's were the dumb kind that only look in a "kill box" and don't have sophisticated tracking sensors to help it identify the target and defeat any countermeasures that are used. |
|
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. View Quote I saw that movie. If I remember the event made a gentleman with a cigar sweat. |
|
If it lives, it can die, if it flies, it can be brought to earth, if it floats, it can sink. There are groups and countries crazy enough to not care if they die to accomplish their ends, nor would they care about retribution. Sinking a carrier would not be easy, but nothing is invulnerable.
|
|
|
Don't see what all the focus is on sinking one, when all you have to do is render them unfit for flight ops to reduce their number one job.
Hyper-sonic data linked swarming missiles that explode and rain pop can tabs and cigarette butts all over the flight deck would do that. |
|
Quoted:
Don't see what all the focus is on sinking one, when all you have to do is render them unfit for flight ops to reduce their number one job. Hyper-sonic data linked swarming missiles that explode and rain pop can tabs and cigarette butts all over the flight deck would do that. View Quote |
|
Isn't that the sort of thing that the "Exocet" missile was designed to sink, from a great distance (50-100 miles)? I'm sure that the "Exocet" missile's technology has advanced some since it was first designed and implemented.
|
|
|
If someone said 80 years ago the mightiest warship Nazi Germany could build would be crippled by some lowly biplane's it probably would've sounded crazy.
Yet the Bismark is at the bottom of the North Atlantic. Anything can be sunk. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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. And they'll probably say "Worth it." |
|
Quoted:
Tell me about the kill chain on the missiles. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Mathematics and probability. Each stage of operation has a failure % assigned to it. The odds of all the threats operating at 100% is not high |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. And they'll probably say "Worth it." They may think that right before their country is turned into a gigantic sheet of glass. That wont make it true though. |
|
Quoted:
They may think that right before their country is turned into a gigantic sheet of glass. That wont make it true though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. And they'll probably say "Worth it." They may think that right before their country is turned into a gigantic sheet of glass. That wont make it true though. |
|
Somebody mentioned an entire fleet supporting the carrier...
Easiest option to deal with entire fleet? Probably nuke it. I am sure in some way those options have been considered. Whether air burst from above or below, wipe out the entire fleet at once. |
|
|
Quoted:
Somebody mentioned an entire fleet supporting the carrier... Easiest option to deal with entire fleet? Probably nuke it. I am sure in some way those options have been considered. Whether air burst from above or below, wipe out the entire fleet at once. View Quote Ships are pretty survivable based on the tests done post war, which have been referenced in the thread multiple times. |
|
Quoted:
Somebody mentioned an entire fleet supporting the carrier... Easiest option to deal with entire fleet? Probably nuke it. I am sure in some way those options have been considered. Whether air burst from above or below, wipe out the entire fleet at once. View Quote Not gonna happen. Strike groups don't sail that closely together. |
|
Quoted:
Would it even take a nuke to get that water flowing? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg/1024px-Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It would suck for the Three Gorges to eat a nuke. Would it even take a nuke to get that water flowing? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg/1024px-Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg |
|
Quoted:
Just the localized seismic forces the water has induced around the dam might be enough. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It would suck for the Three Gorges to eat a nuke. Would it even take a nuke to get that water flowing? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg/1024px-Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg Erosion control is no laughing matter |
|
Quoted:
Somewhere, an E-9s head just exploded. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't see what all the focus is on sinking one, when all you have to do is render them unfit for flight ops to reduce their number one job. Hyper-sonic data linked swarming missiles that explode and rain pop can tabs and cigarette butts all over the flight deck would do that. <sniffling> 'And then... those evil bastards... they... <soft sobbing> FOD-bombed us out of the fight!' |
|
Quoted:
<sniffling> 'And then... those evil bastards... they... <soft sobbing> FOD-bombed us out of the fight!' View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't see what all the focus is on sinking one, when all you have to do is render them unfit for flight ops to reduce their number one job. Hyper-sonic data linked swarming missiles that explode and rain pop can tabs and cigarette butts all over the flight deck would do that. <sniffling> 'And then... those evil bastards... they... <soft sobbing> FOD-bombed us out of the fight!' |
|
Quoted:
OLD CV, post Bikini Atoll nuke. Sure, it's a mission kill (probably beyond economical repair) and contaminated as all hell, but it's still floating. A CVN with Zebra set is an incredibly tough beast. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/08/00/3508E66500000578-3630359-image-a-19_1465341156858.jpg View Quote Anything newer than the 60's would be pretty damn tough, plus the decks are stronger to bear higher loads. |
|
The questions that seem to always get missed in these discussions are: How is the enemy detecting and tracking the carrier? That's probably more difficult than actually launching the attack. And what is the enemy's strategic goal? Note that actually sending the carrier to the bottom is not really important to any rational goal.
It's one thing if they catch a carrier in an easily detectable location, i.e. within range of land-based radar, or air-based within range of land-based air power for defense. You would have to think that all of the carriers would rapidly get out of any such locations if a serious threat was suspected, though. What's the plan then? You can't throw any fancy missiles at it if you don't know where it is. Getting a sub-based kill is clearly not impossible, though difficult. But it may be impossible to do in a reliable, coordinated way, which makes it much more difficult to achieve any strategic goal. Speaking of, do we have a goal for our theoretical enemy? It's hard to see anyone capable of doing so doing it for just shits and giggles. Maybe China wants to protect their trade routes. Pretty reasonable goal, but how do they solve the detection problem once they get out of range of mainland China? If they don't have their own carriers to run airborne radar, they're pretty vulnerable to air attack even with escorts. Maybe some good escorts could break up a strike a bit with SAMs, but I don't see how they can hit the carrier, even with long-range missiles, without some way to get a hard location on it. Or maybe they want to be able to chase us out of the south China sea at will, the better to bully around their neighbors. This might be hard for the US to deal with without ever getting into range of land-based defenses. And here, a mission-kill of being unable to do air ops is a good as a sinking, probably better if you save the extra firepower for hitting another carrier instead of wasting it on sending one to the bottom. Seems likely they could do it, if they're willing to throw enough resources at it, or get lucky about a few things, and willing to deal with our retaliation. It may be successful even at getting our Navy to back off, but the obvious counter is to threaten their trade routes that they don't have an answer for. At least until they get their own fleet of effective carriers to either escort convoys or hunt our groups on the open ocean. |
|
In my very limited knowledge on the subject I would say it would take a pretty big tactical fuckup on our part for any standing military to take out a carrier.
|
|
Quoted:
Would it even take a nuke to get that water flowing? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg/1024px-Upkeep_in_Lancaster.jpg View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-us-aircraft-carriers-nearly-unsinkable-19144?page=show Are U.S. Aircraft Carriers Nearly Unsinkable? HA! Read the fucking article at the link! View Quote That's easy. Nothing is "unsinkable". Next question? |
|
Quoted:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-us-aircraft-carriers-nearly-unsinkable-19144?page=show Are U.S. Aircraft Carriers Nearly Unsinkable? HA! Read the fucking article at the link! View Quote YES! They're the Titanic's of the oceans! |
|
Are carriers killable? Sure anything is killable.
You just have to beat the AWACS, air wing, Aegis system, rolling airframe missile, CIWS, other countermeasures that I'm sure are hush hush, chaff, flares, nixie, the fast attack boat sneaking around listening for party crashers, and whatever else they've got up their collective sleeves. Then, assuming you actually get a hit or hits, assuming you get through the physical armor, whatever damage you inflict is on a ship with thousands of separate water/ gas-tight compartments, crewed by thousands of people trained in damage control, some of them DC specialists, plus whoever they can bring over from the support ships. So yeah, it could be done. Just like I'm sure the crew in Ocean's 11 had a realistic probability of knocking off that casino, in the real world. Mission kill or mobility kill is more likely, but a hard kill? Oriskany took 37 minutes to sink, after having been specifically prepped to be scuttled, and (obviously) nobody on damage control. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote My memory's a little fuzzy, but didn't we shoot down a sattelite in LEO with Aegis and SM-3? Satellite in LEO is moving at, what, 10k mph? |
|
In my opinion, it's not what happens if a carrier is sunk, it's what's going to happen after the carrier is sunk.
|
|
A sand worm could probably take one, after they set off the atomics.
|
|
Easy peasy. I sunk one this morning. I thought I sunk a battleship but it took a little more to kill it.
I scored hits on B4, B5, B6, and B7 expecting a kill but nope....I had to drop one on B3 to finish her off. My son wasn't happy but that's the way the cookie crumbles. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote Well what other option do we have to launch and recover aircraft at sea? Maybe they aren't as invincible as before but they are still of enormous strategic value. |
|
Quoted:
My memory's a little fuzzy, but didn't we shoot down a sattelite in LEO with Aegis and SM-3? Satellite in LEO is moving at, what, 10k mph? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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. My memory's a little fuzzy, but didn't we shoot down a sattelite in LEO with Aegis and SM-3? Satellite in LEO is moving at, what, 10k mph? |
|
Quoted:
What makes you think that? Capitol ships are not built like smaller boats. Even nuclear underwater blasts don't break them up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
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. They don't break them up, but sinking them whole is just as good. |
|
Quoted:
OLD CV, post Bikini Atoll nuke. Sure, it's a mission kill (probably beyond economical repair) and contaminated as all hell, but it's still floating. A CVN with Zebra set is an incredibly tough beast. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/08/00/3508E66500000578-3630359-image-a-19_1465341156858.jpg View Quote Crossroads Baker sunk bigger shit than that. |
|
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.