User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 4:20:56 AM EST
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 5:12:52 AM EST
[#2]
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. You have no idea what you are talking about. To describe a CVN as lumbering is retarded. Sure the hydroplanes are faster but what's their range? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 5:28:32 AM EST
[#3]
No expert, but I rather agree with those who say that carriers that launch only man-piloted aircraft are becoming increasing obsolete and increasingly difficult to defend against many different threats.
I am not sure what the current aircraft carrier's replacement will be but I think it must be some sort of vessel that is intended to launch many types of unmanned ordnance, and very likely drones as well. If fire-and forget-ordnance, then the design could be smaller and simpler than a vessel that would need to recover drones. In either case, the vessel could conceivably be of a radically different design than current aircraft carriers, possibly even submersible to shallow depths, as opposed to deep-diving submarines. Since aircraft carriers are used both for force projection and fleet protection, our enemies have devoted a great deal of time and effort in discovering their vulnerabilities, and exploiting them. I believe that the march of technology has made the aircraft carrier as we know it today very problematic. An increasing amount of the effort of the carrier's crew and surrounding escort vessels must be devoted to protecting the carrier, as opposed to purely offensive action. Perhaps entirely different vessels, firing a vastly different mix of ordnance would not only be more effective, but more survivable as well. It might be possible to accomplish this goal relatively quickly and cheaply, although not without some compromises from an ideal vessel for such a purpose. For example, there are a number of Los Angeles-class subs slated to be, or already decommissioned, that could be re-fueled, re-fitted, and re-configured to deploy various sorts of missiles (not just cruise missiles; that was done to some of them already) in a submerged mode. Drone-launching/recovering vessels would likely have to be designed from scratch, and so their deployment would necessarily take much longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 5:42:10 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This will be a topic by those with no idea speculating and those who know keeping their lips zipped. LoL. Derp!!! If it's made of metal. It can sink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 6:41:33 AM EST
[#5]
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. You're also forgetting that there is a chain of events that need to be fulfilled before you can even fire that missile, or volley of missiles, and damned near every step in that chain is vulnerable. The only, and I mean, only way what you're describing would possibly happen would be a surprise strike from another global power, and then they wouldn't get to make another. Everything they had at the place the missiles were fired from would be a smoking crater at the hands of the rest of the carrier group who isn't exactly unarmed. Could China or Iran pull it off in the Persian gulf or Taiwan straits? Sure. But then they just kicked off a ruinous war with a military that can kick their asses ten times over with ease. At that point, they might as well had just nuked the U.S. Mainland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 7:03:42 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can get close enough you could try a sticky bomb Sticky bomb? Are you making that up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 7:08:16 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Historically, Congress has been the best at destroying our military might. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 7:40:34 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sticky bomb? Are you making that up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 7:51:22 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it's in the field manual. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sticky bomb? Are you making that up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 8:08:59 AM EST
[#10]
they are made mostly of steel, I guarantee they can sink
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 8:23:50 AM EST
[#11]
The only aircraft carrier that was unsinkable is the HMS Britian.
What a stupid question. There was this the old Greek dude Archi Medes who ran around his house nekkid shouting "You reeker!!" after farting in the tub caused him to figured out a thing floats only if it weighs less than a henweigh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 8:45:48 AM EST
[#12]
There is a post in the comments section from a DaveA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 8:54:34 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This will be a topic by those with no idea speculating and those who know keeping their lips zipped. There is a video where they sink an old AC for a reef. Apparently it was a bitch do sink it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 9:20:29 AM EST
[#14]
It would not surprise me if Iran sunk one traversing the Strait of Hormuz in a sneak attack.
Iran would not survive, but that was not OP's question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 9:39:11 AM EST
[#15]
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. Red Leader, standing by |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 9:58:29 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We seem to be out of field manuals, sir. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sticky bomb? Are you making that up? This is good now we have to surrender our socks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 10:14:58 AM EST
[#17]
In a mock scenario, if we were to take one US carrier battle group and pit it against the other, my bet is that both carriers would be lost. As many have pointed out, we just haven't had to deal with an adversary who has the capability in modern times.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 10:20:03 AM EST
[#18]
Question is how fast is the treadmill going?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 10:31:52 AM EST
[#19]
Are sea mines still a thing?
If I were a wealthy madman determined to sink a carrier I'd probably go about channeling my inner Osama by acquiring a Paki nuke and turning it into a sea mine placed stealthily at a shallow choke point like a remore area of the Suez canal. A gullible team of impressionable minions would be assigned to set it off manually. I'm not 100% convinced it couldn't be done while in it's home port. Those charged with preventing such things have to be right every time. Attackers need only succeed once. Some semi-trained mouth breathers slipped through and took down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon. Our arrogance in assuming that we're too smart, advanced, and vigilant is a sure setup for failure. A little guy with a big bomb can prevail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 10:33:18 AM EST
[#20]
It would do well to remember that the Chinese tossed a lot of egg on the US Navy's face, twice, in recent years. In 06 a sub surfaced just 5 miles from the USS Kitty Hawk, having gone undetected. In '15 it happened to the Reagan. We have de-empasized ASW, there are no more S-3's dashing around, and helo's cannot fill in the gap. The P-8A will help.
Yeah, I know, twice in 9 years, but has our ASW improved in that time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 10:38:19 AM EST
[#21]
Unsinkable, eh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 10:52:33 AM EST
[#22]
I recall reading that the sobering lesson of the Forrestal was that a simple unguided rocket led to the near sinking f a carrier.
Of course that was an older model, and the deck was loaded with ordinance at the time, but that was all it took. In "wartime" wouldn't the ASW ships protecting it be using active sonar? I was under the impression that if you were not trying to hide yourself, that made it a lot easier to find subs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 11:22:45 AM EST
[#23]
Every ship is sinkable. Question is, who has the motivation and equipment to do so? It won't be easy, and you'd really be ready and willing to accept terrible consequences.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 11:23:04 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 11:29:55 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed, and that's an old (style) boat even for the times. Anything newer than the 60's would be pretty damn tough, plus the decks are stronger to bear higher loads. Those were only 20 kiloton nukes. Currently deployed warheads tend to be between 300 and 500 kilotons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 11:31:31 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Yeah, but one successful test does not equal "We can do this every time." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 11:32:14 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hyper-sonic data linked swarming missiles that explode and rain pop can tabs and cigarette butts all over the flight deck would do that. This is the most effective anti-carrier tactic I've ever heard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 1:34:47 PM EST
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 1:58:35 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. None lol. If I'm correct, there is no easy fix to this solution. The US would have to rely on land based aircraft and aerial refueling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 1:59:46 PM EST
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:00:16 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have no idea what you are talking about. To describe a CVN as lumbering is retarded. Sure the hydroplanes are faster but what's their range? Every large ship is lumbering as fuck compared to supersonic missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:09:54 PM EST
[#32]
My thesis paper involved several hundred cigarette boats armed with several more hundred surface to air/surface to surface/ anti ship missiles.
A few are going to get through |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:13:21 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://i.imgur.com/QGcdH8l.gif |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:28:48 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dammit, I've been looking for that one. Which missile is it? P-270 Moskit ETA: Mach 3 and full weight of 4.5 tons, 320Kg HE warhead or 120Kt nuclear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:34:39 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but one successful test does not equal "We can do this every time." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:37:45 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
P-270 Moskit ETA: Mach 3 and full weight of 4.5 tons, 320Kg HE warhead or 120Kt nuclear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dammit, I've been looking for that one. Which missile is it? P-270 Moskit ETA: Mach 3 and full weight of 4.5 tons, 320Kg HE warhead or 120Kt nuclear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:39:32 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like it even needs a warhead. Yup, the current crop of Russian anti-ship missiles even have a small charge in the fuel tank. It turns whatever fuel is left into a FAE which adds to the terminal effectiveness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:41:08 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like it even needs a warhead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dammit, I've been looking for that one. Which missile is it? P-270 Moskit ETA: Mach 3 and full weight of 4.5 tons, 320Kg HE warhead or 120Kt nuclear. The problem with a weapon that fast is that even if you hit it, there's are good chance that you're going to get showered with a lot of deadly pieces. Still preferable to the alternative though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:44:36 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like it even needs a warhead. a lot of that weight is going to be fuel which may be mostly used up depending on the range it has to fly |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:49:11 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. They don't need to last long, just long enough |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:49:47 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
a lot of that weight is going to be fuel which may be mostly used up depending on the range it has to fly Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Like it even needs a warhead. a lot of that weight is going to be fuel which may be mostly used up depending on the range it has to fly |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 2:57:56 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will concede that this may give carriers a new lease on life.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StC9nRB_AVY Embed >> Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 3:00:17 PM EST
[#43]
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 3:10:24 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. THIS The film of the exercise is still classified except for the released footage of the actual sinking 3 days later. A carrier fighting for its life would be a very tough target to take down as long as it can maintain power for pumps and other damage control activities. And the technology for laser and electromagnetic rail guns keeps developing to the point that those will soon become major factors in point defense of carriers at sea. So there may be a window of vulnerability at the moment, but as those systems come online our carriers are tough nuts to crack today and will become harder targets in the near future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 3:15:32 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Embed >> Link Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will concede that this may give carriers a new lease on life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StC9nRB_AVY Embed >> Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 3:52:04 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My thesis paper involved several hundred cigarette boats armed with several more hundred surface to air/surface to surface/ anti ship missiles. A few are going to get through |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 3:56:02 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They don't need to last long, just long enough Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. They don't need to last long, just long enough Do you think that if we lose a CVN we're just gonna give up, take our shit and head back home? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 3:57:30 PM EST
[#48]
Anything that floats can sink.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 4:07:47 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The USS Ponce, which was one of the ships the Yemeni Houthis fired missiles at back in October, is equipped with a laser weapon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will concede that this may give carriers a new lease on life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StC9nRB_AVY Embed >> Link And we all read how many missiles LaWS downed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2017 4:13:20 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happened to the last ship that claimed to be 'unsinkable'? Let's see. That one sunk in its maiden voyage. All the carrier's we have, have made many voyages. And unlike the Russian carrier, ours don't need a couple of tugs to be a part of its fleet. |
|
|
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.
