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

[MadRat]

<<As I recall, the damage to the USS Stark and her crew (is that the right ship?) might have been avoided, but the Phalanxes were unable to get a bead on the incoming missle due to a maneuvering or positioning error of the ship.>>

More like an error in which alert status they were supposed to be operating... the defenses were not active when the USS Stark was hit.

 

[DJediMaster]

Wow. This thread is really interesting...

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< More like an error in which alert status they were supposed to be operating... the defenses were not active when the USS Stark was hit. >>


True although I think there was some question about what the CO thought they were operating in and what was actually happening. The sensors they did have operating only gave them a ~ 25nm warning. The incident led to a complete upgrade of all fire control and EW sensors for the entire class. We also learned a lot about damage control from this incident. The previous damage control officer, who had recently transferred, was brought back to the ship and awarded a medal (Meritorious Service Medal I think) because it was his DC program that saved the ship. Of course if both missiles had detonated who knows what would have happened but we certainly would have lost more than 37 Sailors.

 

[ttn1]

<< From what I understand, the British did a study and discovered that old style radar could detect stealth aircraft. Something different about the way it operates. This very same study was mention during a press briefing when that f177 was shot down in yugoslavia, but they wouldn't comment. >>



Passive radar is the way people are attempting to detect stealth. Basically you have to have a large array of RF transmitters. Then you collect data from all of them at once and triangulate the position of a stealth aircraft by looking for the "voids" in the signal. This only works currently in areas with a fairly high density of cell-towers and the like.

In Yugoslavia I believe the actually just did visual mapping of the bombing runs. They had lookouts stationed along the bombing runs and since the stealth fighter flew the same flight plans over and over, they just mapped out the routes. Then you have people tell you when the plane takes off and fire a few missiles along it's flight path. It's abit more complicated than this, but you get the point.

 

[Shagger]

From the above article:

Last week a British research firm said it had built a device - absurdly cheap by modern military standards - that used ordinary cellular telephone traffic to pinpoint stealth aircraft.

Thanks, ya friggin' Limeys! :|

And that's a bit of a catch. Cote noted that building a detection system would be comparable in some ways to constructing a cell-phone network - expensive and requiring technological know-how.
"People have known for quite some time about this concept," Cote said. "The question is whether an adversary is ready to deploy something like this."
Experts said they doubted whether countries such as China, North Korea or Iraq are ready to sheath themselves in such a passive radar system.


Oh I bet China is getting this going - didn't they sign a deal last year with Qualcomm for a nationwide cell network?

I think we need to get a "how vulnerable is the B2" thread going...

 

[SyahM]

wow, this thread is fun!
I think the CBG is powerful but 1 cant destroy china .. what if a suicide bomber swim with explosive and try to detonate at the ship's hull??

 

[911paramedic]

<<<Sit in your car for six hours at a time with the motor running. Keep hands on the wheel. But don?t leave your driveway. Log readings of your oil pressure, water temperature, speedometer and odometer every 15 minutes. >>>

Bwahahahaha, how true.


<<<Set your alarm clock for various times at night; adjust the volume to the maximum. When it goes off, jump out of bed, get your clothes on as fast as you can, run outside and grab the garden hose. Then go back to bed and do it all again when the alarm goes off. >>>


General Quarters!! General Quarters!! General Quarters!! All hands man your battlestations, General Quarters!!!!!
Ohhhh, tell me I am dreaming...


<<<Once a month take apart every appliance completely and then put them back together. >>>

PMS anyone???


<<<Use 18 scoops of coffee per pot and allow it to sit for 5 to six hours before drinking it. >>>

Ummm, lifer juice.

 

[Shagger]

Put on the stereo headphones (don?t plug them in), go to the stove and stand in front of it. Say (to no one in particular) "Stove manned and ready" stay there for 3 to 4 hours. Say (once again and to no one in particular) "Stove secured", then role up your headphone cord and put them away.

Or

Every so often, yell "EMERGENCY DEEP!" run into the kitchen and sweep all pots, pans and dishes off of the counters onto the floor, and then yell at your wife for not having the kitchen area "Stowed for Sea!"


I think I'll change my sig to "Hot Deals" manned and ready!

 

[PsychoAndy]

911, you mean that stuff is actually TRUE?? as in they'll wake up up in the middle of the night for the sake of a fire drill?

 

[Hammer]

That one was my favorite.



<< Every so often, yell "EMERGENCY DEEP!" run into the kitchen and sweep all pots, pans and dishes off of the counters onto the floor, and then yell at your wife for not having the kitchen area "Stowed for Sea!" >>



I don't know how you guys put up with that, I think I would go nuts after a week.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< I don't know how you guys put up with that, I think I would go nuts after a week. >>


It takes a superior man to do it.

 

[Hammer]

its the hot-bunking isn't it?



<< takes a superior man to do it. >>

 

[BeauJangles]

<<

<< 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.... >>



The Navy will replace many of it's ships in the next 15 - 20 years. The new ships will use rail guns and will NOT be monohulled. They will have surfaces that allow radar waves to slide over them, making them very hard to detect. They will have gas/electric motors powering them or nuclear generators, take 1/3 of the crew to run as modern ships and be able to operate in seas that would send most ships packing home.

Pop sci had a big article on it a long time ago.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< The Navy will replace many of it's ships in the next 15 - 20 years. The new ships will use rail guns and will NOT be monohulled. They will have surfaces that allow radar waves to slide over them, making them very hard to detect. They will have gas/electric motors powering them or nuclear generators, take 1/3 of the crew to run as modern ships and be able to operate in seas that would send most ships packing home >>


Almost all of that is oudated speculation.

 

[MadRat]

The most outdated speculation is about the timeframe. The Navy hasn't the support to radically re-equip in that timeframe.

Stealth ships are over-rated. (Who needs to be stealth from radar when you can simply be submerged?) You will likely see ultra-high-speed-but-near-totally-silent submarines and perhaps even ground-effect designs packed with all-purpose super-to-hypersonic missiles dominate in the future. Its much more efficient to run either totally above or totally below the surface of the water than it is across the surface effect of the ocean water. The underwater vehicles are much safer in the wide expanses of the ocean while the ground-effect designs will cross distances much faster. Technically they could design a single vehicle to do both, but I find it unlikely. There are just too many old-fashioned boaters left in the navy to see the classic submarine become defiled with hybrid designs.

When it gets right down to it, the Navy is twenty years behind the Air Force is development. The AF gets all the glory while the Navy really does more work than it gets credit. No deployment could happen without the Navy. I laugh at anyone that claims the C-5 and C-17 fleet can effectively truck an army overseas. It would take a year for the wingnuts to move a decent-sized division across the globe. The Navy had the forethought to pre-position material to field entire divisions within 30 days for like thirty years now. Add into the fact that the Navy has only token money to study radical ship designs compared to the Air Forces black budgets for futuristic aircraft.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Stealth ships are over-rated. (Who needs to be stealth from radar when you can simply be submerged?) You will likely see ultra-high-speed-but-near-totally-silent submarines and perhaps even ground-effect designs packed with all-purpose super-to-hypersonic missiles dominate in the future. Its much more efficient to run either totally above or totally below the surface of the water than it is across the surface effect of the ocean water. The underwater vehicles are much safer in the wide expanses of the ocean while the ground-effect designs will cross distances much faster. Technically they could design a single vehicle to do both, but I find it unlikely. There are just too many old-fashioned boaters left in the navy to see the classic submarine become defiled with hybrid designs. >>


Seawolf (class) is likely to be our last manned high speed submarine. Virginia will have her quieting but not her speed. Of course Virginia's constuction is that of a multi-mission modular sub and not the classic "fast attack" configuration that Seawolf is. Make no mistake about it though, if submarine warfare started tommorow Seawolf is the boat every submarine sailor in the world would want to be on. Speed = noise with our current technology. Overcoming that will take radical redesigns in both hull and "screw" technologies. Rest assured that Electric Boat, Johns Hopkins and others under the watchful eye of NAVSEA are moving in that direction. We have also seen the huge success of aerial unmanned vehicles and if I had to make an intelligent guess as to where the future of submarine warfare lies (and I think I am in a position to do so) I would say that it is unmanned vehicles that will do much of the patrolling of our oceans in the future. There is no substitute for "putting an eyeball" on a target but I would say much of the surveilance and recconaisance missions being done now will be done by unmanned vehicles in the future. The other interesting thing happening in the sub force right now is the conversion of 4 Trident submarines into SSGN's. Each of these boats will have the capability to carry 150-190 Tomahawks and be able to deploy ~100 special forces operators. Very quiet, moderately fast, armed to the teeth, this should be a very very capable platform.

 

[911paramedic]

<< 911, you mean that stuff is actually TRUE?? as in they'll wake up up in the middle of the night for the sake of a fire drill? >>



Think fires only happen during the day? Or assaults??

 

[EXman]

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



that is about as dumb as a nuclear handgenade! if you were to launch/drop one you'd take out the whole fleet it was meant to protect.

I think somebody has been smokin the wackey weed! if not give us a Link to a nuclear depthcharge hehe

 

[microAmp]

<< We can get rid of them when we develop these airplanes...
Sweet Video
Now THOSE would be nice to really have! >>



Semi nice edited file...

 

[MadRat]

A nuclear depth charge was live fired and it did not harm the ship that launched it. There were operational procedures that limited the likelihood of collateral damage to the weapon platform or nearby friendlies.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< A nuclear depth charge was live fired and it did not harm the ship that launched it. There were operational procedures that limited the likelihood of collateral damage to the weapon platform or nearby friendlies >>


Yeah and SUBROC wouldn't sink the firing ship either.

 

[MadRat]

Nuclear tipped weapons were all the rage at one point in history. They strapped them on just about anything; "Davie Crockett" recoilless rifle shells, tactical rockets (many with sub-50mile ranges), 8-inch "Long Tom" cannon shells, briefcases, and "Genie" air-to-air missiles. Heck, just about every strategic interceptor system (i.e. "Nike" ABMs, etc.) revolved around using nuclear warheads. President Bush just this year was criticized for allowing the current military heads to pioneer new weapons programs of "safe" nukes that could be used without causing a WW3. Nuclear wars are likely to happen within the next couple of decades with so many countries having atomic energy technology, but don't worry they will be far different than the WW3-Nuclear Winter nightmare foreseen in the 1980's. The Soviets always planned for them to last the course of years rather than the western ideal of a single massive exchange that would have disintegrated any sign of civilization.

Dave, do you remember if it was ASROC or SUBROC that also was used in a single live fire test?

 

[etech]

Swordfish

This was the fifth and last U.S. underwater test. It was a DOD sponsored full scale test of the ASROC anti-submarine rocket weapon system. The ASROC used the LASL developed W-44 warhead (similar to that tested in Nougat Chena), which had a nominal yield of 10 kt. This shot had a number of objectives:

It was a weapons effects test to evaluate how it would affect U.S. ships, submarines, and sonar systems in the area (a target array of four destroyers and a surfaced submarine were positioned at distances between 2200 and 4600 yards from surface zero);
It was a safety test to evaluate the radiation hazard to the launching vessel;
It was a proof firing of the ASROC by a regular Navy crew under simulated wartime conditions.
The ASROC was fired from the destroyer USS Agerholm (DD-826) at a target raft 4348 yards away. The rocket missed its sub-surface zero point by 20 yards and exploded 40 seconds later at a depth of 650 feet in water that was 17,140 feet deep.



destroyers.org/Ord-Articles
The nuclear depth charge version of ASROC was tested only once. On 11 May 1962, about 370 miles off San Diego, the USS AGERHOLM (DD-826) fired an ASROC as the "Swordfish" shot of the Operation Dominic I series of nuclear weapons tests. AGERHOLM launched the missile at a target raft some 4,000 yards away. The resulting blast was approximately as powerful as the one that destroyed Hiroshima.

film of the swordfish test

Story of the Swordfish test

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Dave, do you remember if it was ASROC or SUBROC that also was used in a single live fire test? It seems like both systems are now retired, but its likely they'd be activated in a pinch >>


I'm 90% sure it was ASROC. These weapons really don't exist anymore. The warheads have been destroyed. The only one that I know of ( as far as the Naval variants are concerned) that is staged for re-activation is TLAM-N. Personally I hope these weapons never go back on the ships. They are a tremendous pain in the ass as far as security and maintenance. There use, contrary to some opinions around ATOT, would be a nightmare come true. Let Trident II serve it's purpose of detterence and retaliation. Everything else needs to stay in mothballs where it belongs.

Edit- Etech posted while I was typing.