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

[UltraQuiet]

<< 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 >>


You can have them both. The SHVKAL is nothing but a bullet. You hit, it's great. If not, your fscked. The most effective weapon for ASW or ASuW is the ADCAP (Advanced Capability) MK 48 torpedo. The only double hulled sub I know the Russians built was Typhoon. They are all sitting and rotting somewhere. The Russians also found that titanium, along with being extremely expensive, tends not to do as well as expected when subjected to the rigors a submarine has to withstand. I'll take an Electric Boat built sub any day of the week ( quite frankly I would give my eye teeth to get underway on Oscar II or third flight Akula).


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


Concur. The ASROC and it's brother the SUBROC were in-fact nuclear. The problem with them (at least ASROC) was that the firing ship was as likely to die as the target. I'm fairly certain that neither one is any longer in existence anywhere.


<< 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. >>


Oh be quiet.

 

[fatbaby]

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



i think we own all the b-2 spirits and F-somethingsomething stealth fighters

But i have 1 naval question: Is that ship in one of hte james bond movies (the one with the asian chick...) real? Its like a stealth ship and it launches missles...

 

[Heisenberg]

<< 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. >>



Uhh..actually the carrier battle group is one of the most effective power projection platforms ever conceived. One CBG has more firepower than most countries.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Uhh..actually the carrier battle group is one of the most effective power projection platforms ever conceived. One CBG has more firepower than most countries >>


Correct.

 

[AndrewR]

16 inch...HC round carries a high-explosive charge of 154 pounds.

Wow, that's pitiful. That's the downfall of a gun, I suppose -- too much armor needed to withstand the propellant charge.

 

[fatbaby]

more specifically, i mean this ship, the seahawk



<< The stealth ship that 007 NEWS first reported looks like the one Lockheed Martin developed for the the US Navy. The ship's angular design allows for it to have a low radar signature making it almost undetectable by enemy radar. >>

 

[freebee]

Stealth ships do exist, though their role in modern warfare remains doubtful.

As far as the carrier battle group goes, it is much more of a moral booster rather than an actual fighting machine in today's combat scenario. There are no more world powers with the navy and airforce that the original carriers were designed to fight. Furthermore, all this talk of technology that is designed to repel a massive fleet does absolutely nothing against a small human diver with a backpack nuke....which can happen in the US or abroad.

The only defense is to keep the ships moving, at 30+ knots most ships can't even catch the fleet in open seas, much less put anything on the hull.

 

[charrison]

<< 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. >>


Do you realize for 2 Billion you can get the USS Ronald Reagon(unequiped) or you can get a single stealth bomber(original price).

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< it is much more of a moral booster rather than an actual fighting machine in today's combat scenario >>


Boost whose moral?


<< Furthermore, all this talk of technology that is designed to repel a massive fleet does absolutely nothing against a small human diver with a backpack nuke....which can happen in the US or abroad >>


There is no reason to defend against something that doesn't exist.

 

[Hammer]

lol, I like how you took that completely out of context. I was talking about why we don't use battleships anymore.



<< 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 >>

 

[PsychoAndy]

does that 2 bil include planes?

its like an unfurnished house.....you pay tons for it and then you spend more furnishing the sucker

 

[charrison]

PsychoAndy,

That is without planes. F-18s probably go for about 30-40M a pop and you need about 80 of them. A billion here..and billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money

 

[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. >>



Uhh..actually the carrier battle group is one of the most effective power projection platforms ever conceived. One CBG has more firepower than most countries. >>






Very true, but my point was that it was inefficient not ineffective. For sure its very capable and could level countries in a day.




<< Do you realize for 2 Billion you can get the USS Ronald Reagon(unequiped) or you can get a single stealth bomber(original price). >>





Again true, but also, the 2 Billion dollar USS Ronald Reagon probably could not serve in a Strategic Nuclear role as well as the Stealth Bomber could.
We pay a price in cost even though its not the most efficient and because it serves superbly for many things.

 

[Hammer]

Yeah, the Mk48 ADCAP is a superb weapon, but there's a huge difference between 55 and 200 knots where something is headed at you as far as reaction time. First thing the other guy is gonna do is fire a snapshot right at your bearing forcing you to cut the wire. Doesn't the SHVKAL have another system besides using a wire?

Yeah, the Typhoons are the only double-lined titanium hull. I'm suprised as a boomer guy yourself, you wouldn't like the added protection. While having a titanium hull does make it difficult to service a sub, the added protection and the ability to surpass the hull crush depths of US subs seems to me like it would be a nice little advantage to have in your pocket. I believe the Akulas can even take a Mk48 hit in most cases, and the Typhoon can defintely eat a Mk48.



<< can have them both. The SHVKAL is nothing but a bullet. You hit, it's great. If not, your fscked. The most effective weapon for ASW or ASuW is the ADCAP (Advanced Capability) MK 48 torpedo. The only double hulled sub I know the Russians built was Typhoon. They are all sitting and rotting somewhere. The Russians also found that titanium, along with being extremely expensive, tends not to do as well as expected when subjected to the rigors a submarine has to withstand. I'll take an Electric Boat built sub any day of the week ( quite frankly I would give my eye teeth to get underway on Oscar II or third flight Akula). >>

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Yeah, the Mk48 ADCAP is a superb weapon, but there's a huge difference between 55 and 200 knots where something is headed at you as far as reaction time. First thing the other guy is gonna do is fire a snapshot right at your bearing forcing you to cut the wire. Doesn't the SHVKAL have another system besides using a wire? >>




<< Yeah, the Typhoons are the only double-lined titanium hull. I'm suprised as a boomer guy yourself, you wouldn't like the added protection. While having a titanium hull does make it difficult to service a sub, the added protection and the ability to surpass the hull crush depths of US subs seems to me like it would be a nice little advantage to have in your pocket. I believe the Akulas can even take a Mk48 hit in most cases, and the Typhoon can defintely eat a Mk48. >>


Hammer most of your info is outdated. Remember what I do for the Navy. I'm a Chief fire control tech which means not only am I the onboard expert in our weapons and their employment I am also the onboard expert on the enemies weapons and the way he employs them.

 

[StageLeft]

Yeah an air craft carrier seems like a lot of coin until you compare it to a tiny stealth bomber, and then suddenly it looks like you're getting a lot for your buck!

 

[Hammer]

Oh I know. I just like giving you a hard time. Didn't know about the expert on enemy weapons. Very nice, Chief.



<< Hammer most of your info is outdated. Remember what I do for the Navy. I'm a Chief fire control tech which means not only am I the onboard expert in our weapons and their employment I am also the onboard expert on the enemies weapons and the way he employs them. >>

 

[Hammer]

You all are missing the point of the carrier. Nothing in the history of mankind has had the ability to project power the way a modern US carrier does. Draw a 1000 mile circle around a carrier, nothing exists within that circle without that carrier wanting it to.



<< Yeah an air craft carrier seems like a lot of coin until you compare it to a tiny stealth bomber, and then suddenly it looks like you're getting a lot for your buck! >>

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< You all are missing the point of the carrier. Nothing in the history of mankind has had the ability to project power the way a modern US carrier does. Draw a 1000 mile circle around a carrier, nothing exists within that circle without that carrier wanting it to >>


Correct. You want someones foreign policy to change, to erase a "line of death" (Libya), to show support of a foreign power. Nothing does it quite like a carrier battle group. Of course to us bubbleheads, it's just a target rich enviroment.

 

[CocaCola5]

<< You all are missing the point of the carrier. Nothing in the history of mankind has had the ability to project power the way a modern US carrier does. Draw a 1000 mile circle around a carrier, nothing exists within that circle without that carrier wanting it to.
>>





Wouldn't flying a bunch of B-52s in agressive formation project just as much power while at the same time being much cheaper?

 

[StageLeft]

<< Wouldn't flying a bunch of B-52s in agressive formation project just as much power while at the same time being much cheaper? >>

Well bombers need an escort and generally fighters don't have a very good range. i think that is the main reason...?

 

[Hammer]

No, it wouldn't.



<< Wouldn't flying a bunch of B-52s in agressive formation project just as much power while at the same time being much cheaper? >>

 

[charrison]

B-52 are slow and can only be flown after air defences are removed. B-52s have a radar signature the size of the hanger they park them in. B-52s can be flown litterly any distance with in flight refueling, but long distances makes for low sortie counts.

 

[PsychoAndy]

<< Yeah, the Mk48 ADCAP is a superb weapon, but there's a huge difference between 55 and 200 knots where something is headed at you as far as reaction time. First thing the other guy is gonna do is fire a snapshot right at your bearing forcing you to cut the wire. Doesn't the SHVKAL have another system besides using a wire?

Yeah, the Typhoons are the only double-lined titanium hull. I'm suprised as a boomer guy yourself, you wouldn't like the added protection. While having a titanium hull does make it difficult to service a sub, the added protection and the ability to surpass the hull crush depths of US subs seems to me like it would be a nice little advantage to have in your pocket. I believe the Akulas can even take a Mk48 hit in most cases, and the Typhoon can defintely eat a Mk48.



<< can have them both. The SHVKAL is nothing but a bullet. You hit, it's great. If not, your fscked. The most effective weapon for ASW or ASuW is the ADCAP (Advanced Capability) MK 48 torpedo. The only double hulled sub I know the Russians built was Typhoon. They are all sitting and rotting somewhere. The Russians also found that titanium, along with being extremely expensive, tends not to do as well as expected when subjected to the rigors a submarine has to withstand. I'll take an Electric Boat built sub any day of the week ( quite frankly I would give my eye teeth to get underway on Oscar II or third flight Akula). >>

>>



hammer, i wouldnt really call it an MK 48 "hit". IIRC since the MK 48 adcap design creates an explosion in fairly close proximity to the targeted vessel, causing a void and an extreme vaccum that actually causes the damage to the enemy. i think an MK 48 have been known to snap the keels of some ships that way sinking them using that attack method. that right chief?

 

[CocaCola5]

Ok, I knew that might be contraversial but the reason I suggest it actually was based on the way I see projection of power being seperate from "deployment of power". A CBG in a way is like the B-52s because though it can project power, in most real conflicts ie Yugoslavia, Afghan., can't deploy power by themselves. They can't realistically operate a regional conflict without the assistence of ground bases.

In a way, the CBG is not unlike flying B52s, yes they do serve well for very small time conflicts but for larger scale it needs ground bases.