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

[Spike]

I don't know if it was said all-ready (too many posts to read) but the usual escort for a carrier consists of 8 surface warfare ships. These are a mix of destroyers, cruisers, and frigates, though the frigates might be phased out soon. There are usually several submarines (686 class) assigned to the fleet that operates the carrier task force, but they do not techically escort it. The US has long stood on it's doctorine of teaching the sub crews to fight on their own and not part of a "Wolf Pack" like the germans sometimes did. There are always subs "in the area" of a carrier, but they are not in escort formation.

The aegis system is nice, but getting old. We have the second generation of it in the works and it will be deployed soon. if you though aegis one kicked butt, wait till the next one Some people did not sound like they were sure but carries do in fact carry sea sparrows along with the phalanx mini-guns (called R2-D2's by some of my navy friends)

The military is looking into building smaller, stealth carriers that will carry like 6-10 UCAV's (unmanned combat air vehicle) and have a crew of only about 100. The large carriers are good as a show of force and as a platform for long range bombing, but with these smaller ones we can actually risk them on the front line and not worry about loosing 4,000+ men in one blow. (well, many blows as it would take a fair but of ordanace to sink a carrier)

 

[Spike]

Anything from air would be spotted on the radar 300 miles away.

LOL try about 500 miles in peace time. In a war situation the carrier air group and the task force can create a "bubble" of a little over 1000 miles around the carrier (thats radius, not diameter) and see anything inside it. It requires the fleet to do a little spreading and they have to have multiple E-2C hawkeyes aloft, but it does give them a ton of control

 

[glenn1]

The entire question is somewhat moot... a terrorist organization wouldn't have the resources to take down a carrier, and no nation on earth would be crazy enough to try (unless we were engaged in a full fledged war with them). The sinking of a carrier would be an event of political and diplomatic magnitude equal to, if not greater than the WTC attacks. In a way, the geo-political symbolism of a carrier is its own best protection.

 

[N8Magic]

Since there seems to be an abundance of military information in this thread:

Did the Russians ever come out with those cavitating torpedoes? I remember reading an article on them way back, and this thread just jogged my memory...

 

[Hammer]

Yes, the SHVKAL.

 

[N8Magic]

<< Yes, the SHVKAL. >>



Thanks, I took some info from this page.


<< Propelled forward by a rocket engine, there are no countermeasures or defenses which can stop the Shkval. >>




<< With their longer ranger, the Shkval II and newer variants could potentially be launched at a distance of over 60 miles, and home in on their target, with no countermeasures available. As such, a single nuclear equipped Shkval could take out a carrierbattle group whilst sitting tens of miles away. >>



These sound like some pretty bad ass torpedoes! :Q

 

[Hammer]

I don't know about there being no coutermeasures against the SHVKAL. About all I know is its supposed to have a top speed of about 200 knots and isn't wire guided.

 

[PsychoAndy]

Good thing there's not much of a Russian Navy to fire these things at us :Q

 

[Hammer]

Yeah, the Russian still have a few advantages on their subs we don't have. We need to copy the SHVKAL. And we need to start using titanium double-hulls like they do.

 

[etech]

For those that want to do some more research I recomend this site.

FAS


Dave, they may have obsoleted them by now but we did have nuclear anti-submarine rockets.

RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA)

That is a link to the upgraded version that was carried in the old 8 tube launch systems. I'm a little out of date. Got out over 20 years ago.

 

[m2kewl]

<< I don't know about there being no coutermeasures against the SHVKAL. About all I know is its supposed to have a top speed of about 200 knots and isn't wire guided. >>



I'm shocked we don't have these! :Q

 

[Dually]

They can resist anything except a submarine attack if the subs make it past the carrier battlegroup destroyers and subs.

 

[MadRat]

I forget the speed of sound through water, but surely its more than 200knots.

 

[Novgrod]

Russian sub warfare was, as per my understanding, largely stolen from the US, so I'm inclined to believe anything the US has done is for a good reason.

I know for a fact that their Boomers under the North Pole out of Murmansk usually had an American attack sub "escort" even during the cold war.

Can't speak for their new torpedo, though.

Also, while Russian military equipment is usually grand on paper, they're best sticking with the simple stuff (AK, t-34) because they can build it effectively Complicated military equipment is the bane of such a country.

 

[littlezipp]

Anyone ever read the Tom Clancy book Executive orders?
It basically describes a battle (one of the many) like you are suggesting, where hundreds of missles are inbound at a carrier group, and the hardware takes over and for the most part eliminates the threats.
Tom Clancy is a very realistic writer who only uses real facts (for the most part) so the book has a very good preview of what could happen.

 

[PsychoAndy]

<< Anyone ever read the Tom Clancy book Executive orders?
It basically describes a battle (one of the many) like you are suggesting, where hundreds of missles are inbound at a carrier group, and the hardware takes over and for the most part eliminates the threats.
Tom Clancy is a very realistic writer who only uses real facts (for the most part) so the book has a very good preview of what could happen. >>


I think you're talking abound Red Storm Rising. Could be wrong b/c I havent read executive decision, but in RSR, the US and USSR get in a war, and Naval Aviation has a field day with a US Carrier Battle Group in the North Atlantic.

 

[Random Variable]

Speaking of aircraft carriers, what happened to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan? When will it be ready for service?

 

[littlezipp]

Could be Red Storm Rising, they are all the same and I've read them all.
Damn good though!

 

[Hammer]

about this time, next year.



<< Speaking of aircraft carriers, what happened to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan? When will it be ready for service? >>

 

[StageLeft]

Anyone read The Bear & The Dragon by Tom Clancy? It came out last year I think...anyway he talks of incoming ICBMs and how in the book they modified an aegis ship to take these things out. Since the ICBM travels so fast you have to blow up a missile directly in front of it since shrapnel goes slower (I seem to recall) and the missile itself. So can aegis destroyers do this now?

 

[911paramedic]

I knew I would find Dave in here defending our aircraft carriers. They are defended by the entire battlegroup. The aircraft carrier is like a quarterback, everybody tries to protect him.

<<I think the main thing is that they no longer have a role to fill. Take a look at a modern destroyer like the Arleigh Burke Class. It does everything.>>

I would like to see it lauch squadrons of fighter jets. It is a great base of operations and maintanance for the fighters.


<---former petty officer also

 

[charrison]

skoorb,

The last missle defence test was launched from a ship.

 

[CrazyDe1]

what if a 20 stealth bombers flew overhead and just dropped bombs...

 

[charrison]

USS Ronald Reagan facts

 

[CocaCola5]

The carrier is a pretty inefficient weapon system. There are alot of reasons to argue for this. Its a great platform to train new sailors and build morale though.