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

[Novgrod]

IMHO, the carrier is great at projecting power towards any overseas enemy, but it can only go so far. Carrier battle groups are great great great for your weaker powers, but can they stand up to China? not likely. Can it prevent a chinese invasion of Taiwan? Probably, though most argue the Taiwanese don't need our help.

Still no replacement for good ol' fashioned land power IMHO.

DaveSohmer, don't suppose you have any advice to somebody who'll be joining the navy (OCS) in a couple months, do you? (PM?)

edit: typo

 

[Hammer]

Thats how the cause damage, but I believe they do hit.



<< 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? >>



Edit: Here's a couple of quotes regarding carriers I thought would help explain.

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?'" Remarks by President Bill Clinton on March 12, 1993 during a visit to USS Theodore Roosevelt

"Four and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory anytime - anyplace." Author unknown

 

[CocaCola5]

I think I stopped making sense somewhere. Maybe its my inherent biased towards the carrier.

 

[Bluga]

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

 

[CocaCola5]

How about making a carrier from a submarine, a super large one. It would be nearly invincible even by itself.

 

[Hammer]

It has to detonated in range first. Tactical nukes are usually carried by cruise missiles or dropped from planes. About the only sure fire way is to use an ICBM.



<<

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

>>

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< 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? >>


That about covers it. The ADCAP is not designed to "hit". For surface ships the idea is to move the water out from underneath the ship and let the actual weight of the ship break its own hull. Shock damage would also occur with the popping of shaft seals and unseating of hull valves. The shock damage is also what would sink a sub. There is no intention of punching a hole in the side of the ship.


<< DaveSohmer, don't suppose you have any advice to somebody who'll be joining the navy (OCS) in a couple months, do you? >>


I'll see if I can think of some profound words of wisdom. PM me with what your "big picture" plan is after OCS.

 

[Nemesis77]

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



Finnish navy has missile-boats equipped with stealth-technology. They are built using state of the art composite-materials and they are built in such way that their radard, heat and sound-signature is minimal. The tactic is that in case of war, they hide among the massive archipegalo along the finnish coastline. If/when enemy ships get close, they fire their smart-missiles, and leave the scene as fast as they can. With little luck, the enemy never knows what hit them (literally).

 

[Hammer]

Chief, I still don't get why you don't like the titanium hulls. Wouldn't it be a lot more resistant to this, esp. the typhoon's double hull?



<< That about covers it. The ADCAP is not designed to "hit". For surface ships the idea is to move the water out from underneath the ship and let the actual weight of the ship break its own hull. Shock damage would also occur with the popping of shaft seals and unseating of hull valves. The shock damage is also what would sink a sub. There is no intention of punching a hole in the side of the ship. >>

 

[Nefrodite]

titaniums a bitch to use.. don't think we have that much either.

How about making a carrier from a submarine, a super large one. It would be nearly invincible even by itself.


erm u mean one that could hold planes and have a landing strip on top? i think that landing strip would make it easily detectable.. let alone the size being a massive problem. subs are relatively delicate, esp underwater all that preasure, if an explosve gets near.. bye bye.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Chief, I still don't get why you don't like the titanium hulls. Wouldn't it be a lot more resistant to this, esp. the typhoon's double hull? >>


It's not a matter of not liking the hull more of a matter of not liking the Russian boats. They have not held up like they were supposed to. Double hulled submarines aren't really going to protect you from the type of damage that an ADCAP type of torpedo is going to inflict (shock damage to hull valves and shaft seals). It will probably give you some degree of added protection but not enough to warrant their manufacture. IMO.

 

[Hammer]

What about if it wasn't a Russian boat. Say you theoretically adapted a 726 with a titanium double hull? Also, even though the sub would probably be disabled by the ADCAP, the crew would probably survive with the double hull, right? The cost is the big problem I guess. That's why their not building anymore Seawolfs, and are going with the smaller and more cost efficient Virginia class. On the plus side, they are naming SSN775 Texas.



<< It's not a matter of not liking the hull more of a matter of not liking the Russian boats. They have not held up like they were supposed to. Double hulled submarines aren't really going to protect you from the type of damage that an ADCAP type of torpedo is going to inflict (shock damage to hull valves and shaft seals). It will probably give you some degree of added protection but not enough to warrant their manufacture. IMO. >>

 

[Hammer]

You know what would be cool, but ridiculously expensive, if the used depleted uranium in the hulls. I wonder what that would be liike.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< What about if it wasn't a Russian boat. Say you theoretically adapted a 726 with a titanium double hull? Also, even though the sub would probably be disabled by the ADCAP, the crew would probably survive with the double hull, right? The cost is the big problem I guess. That's why their not building anymore Seawolfs, and are going with the smaller and more cost efficient Virginia class. On the plus side, they are naming SSN775 Texas >>


Funny you should mention the Texas. I'm on hold waiting for the CO of the Texas to pick up the phone. He was my XO on the Louisiana and I have some stuff I need to go over with him about his manning. Anyway I don't think we have a lot of titanium to use for our subs and I don't ever remember seeing any proposals for building double hulled subs. We rely more on our quieting capabilities to keep us out of trouble rather than our ability to sustain damage.

 

[Pastfinder]

If you build it, THEY will come.

 

[Hammer]

Your former XO is one lucky guy. Wow, I have to admit I'm surpised that commands are given out so far in advance. Is there a lot of crossover between boomers and fast attack guys?



<< Funny you should mention the Texas. I'm on hold waiting for the CO of the Texas to pick up the phone. He was my XO on the Louisiana and I have some stuff I need to go over with him about his manning. >>

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Your former XO is one lucky guy. Wow, I have to admit I'm surpised that commands are given out so far in advance. Is there a lot of crossover between boomers and fast attack guys? >>


Submarine new construction crews are manned up very early in the ship's life. Both of them I have done, the ship has still been in pieces when we manned up. Surface ships aren't crewed up until they are very nearly complete. It is very interesting watching EB build a sub. There is a lot crossover. All the officers will cross over. Most of the enlisted. Obviously there is no need for a missile tech on board a fast attack. A lot of it has to do with there being money to cross train guys.

 

[ttn1]

<< How about making a carrier from a submarine, a super large one. It would be nearly invincible even by itself. >>



I believe I have seen this proposed, but the cost is usually prohibitive. The proposals for the future generation carriers
are pretty wild. Alot of the future designs include quite a bit of stealth technology. The one about the floating islands
was especially interesting. Basically, the equivalent of a land base at sea. I think it involved linking several carrier sized
ships together. I wish I had links to this stuff, but I haven't read about it for quite some time.

 

[Heisenberg]

<<

<< How about making a carrier from a submarine, a super large one. It would be nearly invincible even by itself. >>



I believe I have seen this proposed, but the cost is usually prohibitive. The proposals for the future generation carriers
are pretty wild. Alot of the future designs include quite a bit of stealth technology. The one about the floating islands
was especially interesting. Basically, the equivalent of a land base at sea. I think it involved linking several carrier sized
ships together. I wish I had links to this stuff, but I haven't read about it for quite some time. >>



I wonder if there's really any point to that. No matter how hard you try, you can't really hide a chunk of metal that big. Besides, one of the things that makes a carrier effective is people (either allies or enemies) knowing there's a big-@ss ship with a sh!tload of firepower parked at their doorstep.

 

[Hammer]

Almost all the new surface ships that are being designed use some sort of low observable technology. The sketches of destroyers I've seen looks sort of like the ironclad Monitor. I guess we've come full circle.

EDIT: an example is the proposed DD21 Zumwalt class.

DD21 Pic 1
DD21 Pic 2
DD21 Pic 3
DD21 Pic 4
DD21 Pic 5
DD21 Pic 6

 

[StudsTerkel]

<< Besides, one of the things that makes a carrier effective is people (either allies or enemies) knowing there's a big-@ss ship with a sh!tload of firepower parked at their doorstep. >>



Haha true that.

On the carrier v. sub debate, I have to go with the carrier. Not just because my dad was a F-14 aviator, but because of the inherit homoerotic nature of the sub (j/k!!!!)

 

[shiner]

<< but can they stand up to China? not likely >>


Yes....one U.S. CBG could take out the entire Chinese Air Force & Navy....

 

[Hammer]

Probably. It would be one hell of a fight, and they would come back with zero ammo.



<<

<< but can they stand up to China? not likely >>


Yes....one U.S. CBG could take out the entire Chinese Air Force & Navy.... >>

 

[shiner]

<< Probably. It would be one hell of a fight, and they would come back with zero ammo. >>


That's why every time China starts saber rattling over Taiwan we just park a CBG on the other side of Taiwan....

 

[Hammer]

It's not there Navy we have to worry about, it sucks. We would spank them easily. They're Air Force though is pretty large, we might get overwhelmed, its hard to stay just how many inbound threats a CBG can deal with.

Here's an interesting fact on China:

Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 366,306,353 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 200,886,946 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 10,089,458 (2001 est.)
:Q

Edit:

The bulk of China's air force fleet is obsolete. All but a handful of its 4,000 fighters, 400 ground-attack aircraft, and 120 bombers are based on 1950s and 1960s technology. The vast majority of these aircraft are well over a decade old, and many will reach the end of their service lives during the next 10 years and are slated to be retired with only limited numbers of replacement aircraft likely to enter the air force inventory.

They are quickly modernizing though, buy tons of stuff from Russian as well as developing their own new stuff.



<< That's why every time China starts saber rattling over Taiwan we just park a CBG on the other side of Taiwan.... >>