How vulnerable is an air craft carrier? ***OFFICIAL*** & ***CONFIRMED***

[StageLeft]

OK a couple questions:

1) How can a ship counter a sub? I know they have depth charges but that requires them being above the sub. How can they counter incoming torpedos? Also do destroyers and the like have their own torpedoes?

2) What would a air craft carrier do against an ICBM. If I recall correctly these go many times the speed of sound such that missiles can't even chase them down. Couldn't one of these easily hit the air craft carrier? I guess ICBMs are meant for land targets but why not an air craft carrier?

 

[TerryMathews]

The other thing that is cool about modern CBGs is that the AEGIS cruisers can not only commit and fire all of their SA missiles, it can also target and launch-commit missiles from other ships in the BG.

To answer the original question, how vulnerable is a modern aircraft carrier? Think WTC on its side with a big bulls-eye painted on it in Glo-In-The-Dark-And-Light-Up-Infrared-Too paint. How vulnerable is the modern CBG (Carrier battle group)? Think Fort Knox with Steven Segal inside.

Air targets
F-14s: Can engage up to 8 targets at ranges > 100 miles. (Real miles, not nautical miles)
F/A-18s: Can engage up to 4? tagets at ranges > 50 miles.
AEGIS cruisers: In the neighborhood of 25 targets in a 2 minute time-span at ranges of ~25 miles. That is only counting the AEGIS's missiles. If you figure all the missiles on the carrier as well as the destroyers, etc. this is more likely 50-75.
CIWS guns: one-two mile range, one target per gun. CIWS gun fires a stream of 25mm? bullets so rapidly that for all intents and purposes it creates a solid line of cutting power.

I don't know about sea and land targetting capabilities well enough to fully comment on them. There are several aircraft on-deck capable of hitting land and sea targets (F-14, F/A-18), and at least one plane capable of targetting/attacking submarines (P-3).

For parties interested in what would happen to an aircraft carrier if it were hit by a nuke, do some research on the USS Saratoga and the Bikini Atoll. AFAIK, the Saratoga was a WWII vintage large aircraft carrier that weighed in at about half the size of the USS Enterprise. Although, after you read about the damage it took, it wouldn't matter if a ship were 12x bigger...

Note that the Saratoga experiment was not an attack. It was a test run by the DOD. No one was onboard the Saratoga.

 

[pyonir]

<<

<< most aircraft carriers are escorted by nuclear subs as well. >>


They are. Gee, I didn't know that. Are you sure? >>


listen, i wasn't saying that you didn't know that, but i am sure many here didn't. i was adding to your post.

EDIT: words deleted, can't believe i resorted to name calling. my apologies.

 

[StageLeft]

<< AEGIS cruisers: In the neighborhood of 25 targets in a 2 minute time-span at ranges of ~25 miles. That is only counting the AEGIS's missiles. If you figure all the missiles on the carrier as well as the destroyers, etc. this is more likely 50-75. >>

Damn!

 

[pyonir]

nevermind

 

[StageLeft]

<< nevermind >>

I read both interations of this post. LOL

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< listen asswipe, i wasn't saying that you didn't know that, but i am sure many here didn't. i was adding to your post. >>


Sorry I was being a d!ck.


<< 1) How can a ship counter a sub? I know they have depth charges but that requires them being above the sub. How can they counter incoming torpedos? Also do destroyers and the like have their own torpedoes? >>


The best defense against a sub is another sub. Depth charges are obsolete. Yes surface ships carry torpedoes as do the helos they carry onboard.


<< 2) What would a air craft carrier do against an ICBM. If I recall correctly these go many times the speed of sound such that missiles can't even chase them down. Couldn't one of these easily hit the air craft carrier? I guess ICBMs are meant for land targets but why not an air craft carrier? >>


Don't get overwhelmed by the speed factor. The ABM is not in a tail chase. It simply has to be at a point at a certain time to intercept. That is why warning time is so critical. Cruise missile launched at relatively shorter ranges present a much more complex problem.

 

[Hammer]

<< OK a couple questions:

1) How can a ship counter a sub? I know they have depth charges but that requires them being above the sub. How can they counter incoming torpedos? Also do destroyers and the like have their own torpedoes?
>>


AEGIS cruisers, for example, have both active and passive decoys they can drop to lure torpedoes. They carry helos (SH-60s) that drop both sonabuoys and torpedoes and have their own torpedo tubes to fire Mrk 46s. They also trail a nixie to help counter torpedos. [/i] >>





<<
2) What would a air craft carrier do against an ICBM. If I recall correctly these go many times the speed of sound such that missiles can't even chase them down. Couldn't one of these easily hit the air craft carrier? I guess ICBMs are meant for land targets but why not an air craft carrier? >>



What would it do? Absolutely nothing. There is no known defense other than to detonate a nuke it its path which is almost as bad.




<< AEGIS cruisers: In the neighborhood of 25 targets in a 2 minute time-span at ranges of ~25 miles. That is only counting the AEGIS's missiles. If you figure all the missiles on the carrier as well as the destroyers, etc. this is more likely 50-75. >>



The carry 96 SM-2s and can fire one about every 2 seconds when in full atuomatic mode.

 

[ThePresence]

<< 1) How can a ship counter a sub? I know they have depth charges but that requires them being above the sub. >>



In the carrier's case, as was mentioned above, the are surrounded by a taskforce. Most of the ships around her carry at least one SH-60 Seahawk anti-submarine chopper. These helicopters drop sonobouys which are sonar transponders, they act as additional listening posts and link into the mother ships sonar systems. They can also be monitored by the chopper crew. They are capable of passive and active sonar duties. An anti-sub chopper detection is a sub crews worst nightmare. The helicopters themselves carry Some air launched torpedos, although I'm unsure about the amount of them. They also carry a dipping sonar system, which is basically a sonar cone attached to a cable about 1500 feet long. This is much more sensitive than the bouys. This is besides for the P3 Orion aircraft which the carrier launches, and which constantly search the surrounding area for subs. They are pretty damn well protected.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< This is besides for the P3 Orion aircraft which the carrier launches >>


P3's are not carrier based planes.

 

[PsychoAndy]

additionally, wouldnt the CIWS guns put enough lead in the air to destroy an inbound missile?

 

[CocaCola5]

A single conventional torpedo can take out any marine vessel, including the carrier. Submarines are the king of the sea.

 

[Hammer]

Damn Chief, you beat me to it.



<<

<< This is besides for the P3 Orion aircraft which the carrier launches >>


P3's are not carrier based planes. >>

 

[Bulk Beef]

I think you're thinking of the S-3 Viking.

 

[Ns1]

jesus h christ, how much does all this stuff cost?!?!? lol

96 missles @ 2 seconds/missles = 30 million in 3 minutes?!?! holy shiznit!

guns what? 8 bucks a round? x00 rounds/second? jeez!

 

[m2kewl]

<< A single conventional torpedo can take out any marine vessel, including the carrier. Submarines are the king of the sea. >>



I hear the Russians have nuclear tipped torpedoes too...that's gotta hurt! (I could be wrong)

 

[Hammer]

You're nuts. It would take a minimum of about 4 or 5 Mrk46s to take out a carrier.



<< A single conventional torpedo can take out any marine vessel, including the carrier. Submarines are the king of the sea. >>

 

[shiner]

<< I hear the Russians have nuclear tipped torpedoes too >>


As do we....we also have nuclear depth charges....

One torpedo taking out a carrier? Not likely unless it is one of the nuke ones......

 

[Heisenberg]

<< jesus h christ, how much does all this stuff cost?!?!? lol

96 missles @ 2 seconds/missles = 30 million in 3 minutes?!?! holy shiznit!

guns what? 8 bucks a round? x00 rounds/second? jeez! >>



Relax, we can afford it. We're rich, remember?

Besides, all that hardware is just damn cool.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< As do we....we also have nuclear depth charges.... >>


I don't think so, Tim.

 

[MadRat]

<<One tactical nuke would take out the entire carrier battle group.>>

Not likely an ICBM with 10-14 warheads spread out evenly would catch many of the ships. It takes alot to kill modern ships, even if they aren't armoured like WW2 battleships.

<<The only way to destroy a carrier is to overwhelm it with enough missiles to get throught it defenses. The AEGIS cruisers will start unloading missile to intercept incoming missiles, and each ship will start firing chaff to confuse missiles. If they still get through, the phalanx guns on each ship are the last line of defense.>>

Actually the Navy is more concerned with saboteurs right now than Russian "Shipwreck" missiles that were all the rage a few years back. A saboteur could likely sink a carrier if they set charges in one of the arsenals.

The "Shipwreck" is the hypersonic Soviet-era missile that the Russians claimed could sink a battleship. The United States was able to secure several samples and rest assured the missile could kill a battleship... if it had all the inner doors open and did absolutely nothing to suppress a worst case scenario of attack. Otherwise the missile is poorly suited for anti-ship attack being that it relies on the direct feedback from the launch platform and external commands to be effective. These conditions are not likely in a modern engagement.

<<most aircraft carriers are escorted by nuclear subs as well.>>

Its probably safer to say that Russian and Chinese submarines enjoy American submaine escorts.

((<<most aircraft carriers are escorted by nuclear subs as well.>>
They are. Gee, I didn't know that. Are you sure?))

Thats the asinine DaveSohmer we all know and detest.

((<<listen asswipe, i wasn't saying that you didn't know that, but i am sure many here didn't. i was adding to your post.>>
Sorry I was being a d!ck.))

Wow, he actually apologized. I don't know if I can get used to him being apologetic. He's been a dick for so long its hard to accept this new side of him.

 

[shiner]

<< I don't think so, Tim >>


It's a fact....have a relative that worked on the project in the mid 70's....

 

[m2kewl]

<< Besides, all that hardware is just damn cool. >>



Not cool when you're a target and one's homing in on ya

 

[ThePresence]

<< P3's are not carrier based aircraft >>



Damn, that's right. My bad.



<< I think you're thinking of the S-3 Viking. >>



Correct, thanx. The S3-B.

 

[toph99]

if i were to ever hear of an aircraft carrier being sunk, i'd be very suprised. They are protected by groups of subs, surface ships and just about anything you can imagine. They also have missile defence systems, incase one gets past the aircrafts, consisting of SAMs, and if need be, a battery of gatling guns