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

[UltraQuiet]

<< 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 >>


Trust me sadrat the apology wasn't in any way meant for you. I won't even comment on the rest of the ignorance you posted.


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


What is a fact is that 30 years later neither one of them exists anymore.


<< Correct, thanx. The S3-B. >>


Most of which have been converted to do tanker duty.



Dave <--- has 18 years (and counting) in the US submarine force.

 

[ThePresence]

<<

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


>>


Wouldn't that ruin your whole day if dropped a nuclear depth charge? No matter how far down it explodes, it's a frikkin NUKE! If the nuke itself didn't getcha, the shock wave would.

 

[CocaCola5]

<<

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







I heard somewhere the more displacement a ship has(the bigger it is) the more vulnerable it can be to modern torpedo strikes. I know it sounds counter intuitive.

Perhaps it won't break open but it would probably sink within half an hour.

 

[Bignate603]

There is always a way to harm anything, but aircraft carriers are about as impenetrable as you can get. Nobody gets near a carrier without getting past it's ring of defenses, and I mean nobody. While you you can't exactly hide them (it's the largest moving target EVER) you still got to get to it to do some damage. If I remember correctly (big if) those phalanx guns were a big deal when they came out, they can track and take out incoming missiles launched from outside radar. I remember hearing the navy had in the works a boat with a battery of those things (Think somebody mentioned the CIWS or something like that, is that it?) that could take out enough incoming targets to nullify most attacks.

 

[Hammer]

While it would not take it out, a Russian SHVKAL rocket torpedo would make a nice splat.



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

 

[shiner]

<< Wouldn't that ruin your whole day if dropped a nuclear depth charge? >>


That's what I would think but my relative swears we have them and that he worked on the project in the 70's.....my bet is that it would also make some tasty fried whale...

 

[Gunbuster]

Ok so if the AEIGS and phalanx work so great why do we need to put a GPS beacon on the "enemy" for the missile shield thingy?


Is it more of a talk about the AEIGS and phalanx specs and hope we never need to use them?

You would think if the anti missile systems worked so well video would be floating around the net of them blowing things up to techno music

 

[shiner]

<< Ok so if the AEIGS and phalanx work so great why do we need to put a GPS beacon on the "enemy" for the missile shield thingy? >>


Those aren't intended to shoot down ICBM's and are used as fleet defense...totally different application...

 

[Hammer]

Because there is a HUGE difference in speed between a cruise/antiship missle, and an ICBM.



<< Ok so if the AEIGS and phalanx work so great why do we need to put a GPS beacon on the "enemy" for the missile shield thingy?


Is it more of a talk about the AEIGS and phalanx specs and hope we never need to use them?

You would think if the anti missile systems worked so well video would be floating around the net of them blowing things up to techno music >>

 

[Hoober]

Bignate

CIWS - Close in Weapons System

Last line of defense for naval vessels... it is the Phalanx mini-guns.

 

[bizmark]

Do "battleships" still exist, with the massive artillery? I mean, there's NOTHING that can take out a bullet. A bullet-bullet, that is -- not a guided missle or torpedo. A huge explosive mass hurtling forward at great velocity, with superior penetrating power and no heat to seek...

I'd think that if one of those could get in range of an aircraft carrier and not be sunk already by the carrier's planes, that it could do some real damage....

 

[Heisenberg]

<< Do "battleships" still exist, with the massive artillery? I mean, there's NOTHING that can take out a bullet. A bullet-bullet, that is -- not a guided missle or torpedo. A huge explosive mass hurtling forward at great velocity, with superior penetrating power and no heat to seek...

I'd think that if one of those could get in range of an aircraft carrier and not be sunk already by the carrier's planes, that it could do some real damage.... >>



Not really. They decomissioned the US Iowa-class battleships years ago. Besides, the max range of a battleship guns is under 20 miles. No way a ship could get that close.

 

[shiner]

Battleships still exist....we, the U.S., have all ours in mothball status but we can bring them back if need be. These days they are not good at ship to ship combat since most countires have ships that could take out a battleship LONG before it could bring it's 16 inch guns to bear on them. Think of a battleship these days as a massive artillery unit. No way a battleship could ever get a sniff of a U.S. carrier before it got blown out of the water.....

 

[shiner]

Stat's on the U.S. Iowa class main guns...

The 16inch/50 caliber Mark 7 gun fires two basic rounds; a 2,700 pound AP (Armor Piercing) and a 1,900 pound HC (High Capacity) shore bombardment projectile. Nine of these guns, the most powerful ever mounted on a United States Warship, are mounted in well-protected turrets. These gunes, with their combination of a longer barrel and heavier propelling charge, are a vast improvement over the earlier Mark 6 guns on earlier battleships.

Each gun is mounted on a separate slide with its own elevation drive. The assembly includes a firing lock, gas ejector, breech mechanism and yoke. All of the individual slide and gun assemblies, both sight stations and the station for the rangefinder are all located in separate flame-proofed compartments.

In 1969, Captain Edward Snyder of the New Jersey was quoted as saying that the AP shell is capable of penetrating up to 32 feet of reinforced concrete. The HC round carries a high-explosive charge of 154 pounds. The maximum rang eis 41,622 yards when fired with the normal propelling charge of 660 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 2,690 feet per second.

Typical armor penetration of the 2,700 pound Mk 7 AP projectile is 14.5 inches of horizontal armor at a range of 42,300 yards (angle of fall is 53.25 degrees and a striking velocity of 1,686 feet per second.) At "point blank" range, with a striking velocity of 2,500 feet per second, the vertical armor penetration is 32.62 inches.

 

[Hammer]

It wouldn't happen. Those days are over.



<< I'd think that if one of those could get in range of an aircraft carrier and not be sunk already by the carrier's planes, that it could do some real damage.... >>

 

[MadRat]

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

And uranium, too.

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

True in most cases, because modern torpedoes can be guided underneath the keel of the ship before explosion. Look at what happened to that Ticonderoga-class cruiser in the Persian Gulf when it ran over an underwater mine about ten years ago. Don't quote me on that, but the fix-it price was around $30 million if memory serves me right. Makes the cost of defenses look pretty nigh considering the cost of a hit.

((<<As do we....we also have nuclear depth charges....>>
I don't think so, Tim.))

We still have have nuclear-tipped ASW weapons, but officially they are NOT deployed since the early 1990's. At one time they did include atomic depth charges. Alot of older nuclear weapon systems can be recalled in the event of a national emergency. Unfortunately the warheads for SUBROC were on the table in negotiations with the Russians and were already dismantled.

TerryMathews-

The Phalanx CIWS is the last ditch defense but there are others. RIM-116s (hybrid stinger using Sidewinder warhead and motors) will likely augment (if not totally fill) the role of the Phalanx systems on smaller ships in a few more years. Alot of ships (including all of the carriers I do believe) also deploy RIM-7 Sea Sparrows.

All of the detection systems on ships and aircraft are datalinked together coupled with onboard GPS and laser-gyro data to paint the "battlefield" so to speak. F-14s can detect targets for SM-2 Standard missiles for shots further away than it could reach with AIM-54C Pheonix missiles, not to mention the formers higher terminal speed and larger warhead. Like someone said earlier, the detecting ship isn't necessarily the ship that shoots due to vulnerability and efficiency issues. Likewise, there may be a day when even submarines could launch anti-aircraft missiles against airborne targets being that they are the most surviveable platforms.

For ship targets there is alot of ways to skin a cat. You have a wide variety of land and carrier-based aircraft to carry out strikes. You also have Tomahawk, Harpoon, and Penguin sea skimming missiles launched from planes, helicopters, ships, and even from underwater. (Note: Penguin is only launched from helicopters, though.) The ordnance on airplanes (i.e. Mavericks, Pave-family, etc.) are so numerous I wouldn't even be able to start a detailed list. The all-purpose SM-2 can attack surface ships, obviously. The fleet has a variety of smaller ships and submarines for engaging hostile shipping. Don't forget the all-purpose 3" and 5" guns out there that can engage targets on land, sea, and air.

Don't forget that the Navy also uses very powerful NOSS/WASS satellites, ocean-sounding ships, towed SURTASS arrays, prepositioned SOSUS mikes, sonobuoys, etc. to detect enemy threats. The Navy takes early detection very seriously.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< 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. >>



True dat. In the Bikini nuclear test, they used several warships as targets, including the german battlecruisen "Prinz Eugen". If I remember correctly, Prinz Eugen survived the explosion.

 

[Gunbuster]

<<Because there is a HUGE difference in speed between a cruise/antiship missle, and an ICBM>>

So whats the plan once everyone gets Hypersonic, ramjet/scramjet cruise missiles

A quick web search says we should have them by 2006-2010

 

[Heisenberg]

<< <<Because there is a HUGE difference in speed between a cruise/antiship missle, and an ICBM>>

So whats the plan once everyone gets Hypersonic, ramjet/scramjet cruise missiles

A quick web search says we should have them by 2006-2010 >>



Directed energy weapons.

 

[PsychoAndy]

<< Do "battleships" still exist, with the massive artillery? I mean, there's NOTHING that can take out a bullet. A bullet-bullet, that is -- not a guided missle or torpedo. A huge explosive mass hurtling forward at great velocity, with superior penetrating power and no heat to seek...

I'd think that if one of those could get in range of an aircraft carrier and not be sunk already by the carrier's planes, that it could do some real damage.... >>


A 16 inch shell could do damage, but it wouldn't be able to get in close enough, like everyone said before. Besides, we own the only existing battleships, and we equipped them with Harpoon launchers to overcome the 20 mile range .

BTW, Nimitz class aircraft carriers carry Sea Sparrow missiles as a surface to air missile against other missiles. Also, pretty much every crusier, destroyer, and frigate has retained either a 3 or a 5 inch gun, which can be used to engage missiles. So in the event of a large missile attack, I would assume that aircraft could try and shoot missiles down, then Theater Missile defense would kick in ( AEGIS-equipped crusiers and destroyers with Standard-2 missiles), then Sea Sparrow and 5 inch guns and the like, and finally CIWS.

Edit: Damn, madrat said everything I was gonna say, except better :|

 

[shiner]

<< Directed energy weapons. >>


And rail guns....a guy that works here did some work on them when he was in the military and then as a consultant for an engineering firm....says the Navy was experimenting with rail guns in a big, BIG way....

 

[Novgrod]

The problem with rail guns and directed energy weapons is simply that they can't go over the horizon. By the time the carrier can see you, your ship has been sunk a couple times over.

They're a huge PITA to put on a 747 with enough oomph to do any damage; even then you'd have to be at an insanely high altitude. Beyond this, range for directed energy quickly becomes a problem; it can't pass through too much atmosphere. So the response is space-based, but only Russia can even contemplate that (and that's not even likely). Then the laser has to pass through quite a bit of atmosphere. As for the rail gun, you try putting one of those in space; ain't so easy.

IMHO there's nothing I can add to the carrier defense idea, other than to say that they're well-defended. I would like everyone's opinion on the use of a carrier, just out of curiosity. There won't be any major naval battles at any point in the future, and carrier-based aircraft attacking land-based aircraft, well, it isn't pretty for the carrier. This is why nobody thought of using a carrier to invade russia.

Furthermore, take afghanistan: more sorties were conducted by carrier-based aircraft, but more pounds of bombs were dropped by land-based aircraft. They're more protected against land-based defenses (land-based aircraft i mean) and they can just drop more bombs.

 

[Hammer]

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.

-56 TLAMs with a Tercom Aided Navigation System, and anti-ship missiles with inertial guidance. The Standard SM-2MR Block 4 surface-to-air missiles with command/inertial guidance. Both TLAMs and SM2s are fired from two Lockheed Martin Mk 41 VLSs.

- 8 Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles and Lockheed Martin ASROC vertical launch anti-submarine systems, armed with the Mark 50 or Mark 46 torpedo. ASROC is launched from the Mark 41 VLS.

-1 127mm Mk 45 gun and 2 20mm six-barrelled Phalanx Mk 15 close-in weapon systems (CIWS). Flight IIA vessel USS Winston Churchill is the first ship to be fitted with the US Navy?s most advanced gun, the Mk 45 Mod 4, which can fire extended range guided munitions (ERGM) to a range of nearly 60 miles.

- 6 (two triple) 324mm Mk 32 Mod 14 torpedo tubes, which launch Mk 46 or Mk 50 torpedoes.




<< Battleships still exist....we, the U.S., have all ours in mothball status but we can bring them back if need be. These days they are not good at ship to ship combat since most countires have ships that could take out a battleship LONG before it could bring it's 16 inch guns to bear on them. Think of a battleship these days as a massive artillery unit. No way a battleship could ever get a sniff of a U.S. carrier before it got blown out of the water..... >>

 

[SSP]

How about this biaaaatch.


"In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. A senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington based think-tank, Fisher reported that the SS-N-22 may be capable of a dive speed of Mach 4.5 that would help it evade U.S. naval defenses. The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."

link


specs

 

[Hammer]

As usual, the Ruskies are a little late.

Design: The major change from Flight II to Flight IIA was the addition of dual helo hangars and full aviation support facilities. This required lengthening the hull by 5' at the stern, significant internal changes to accommodate RAST, and raising the aft VLS by one deck, with hangars placed on either side of it. Additional berthing has been added to accommodate the helicopter crews. A much larger torpedo/missile/rocket magazine is provided to store helicopter-launched weapons, and maintenance shops have been added. The aft SPY-1D panels are raised by one deck level, and the reload cranes have been eliminated from the VLS, resulting in 6 additional VLS cells. New-design propeller blades are fitted, and the transom is modified to improve fuel efficiency. The entire electrical system has been completely redesigned for greater survivability. Phalanx CIWS has been deleted from DDG 85+, in anticipation of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) being available as a self-defense weapon. SQR-19 TACTAS and Harpoon SSMs have been deleted, but could be re-installed if necessary, given sufficient advance notice. These ships also have a number of enhanced automation, survivability, and crew-reduction measures.

The SM-2 can spank it now, the ESSM will b1tch slap it.



<< "In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. A senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington based think-tank, Fisher reported that the SS-N-22 may be capable of a dive speed of Mach 4.5 that would help it evade U.S. naval defenses. The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."
>>