+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 173

Thread: Carrier killers (an article from JED online)

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    No realistic amount of Shipwrecks would actually *sink* the Carrier though.
    RN was probably thinking the same, until "Sheffiled" got hit by an unexploded "Exoset".

  2. #62
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by leolover
    of course, i know that, but what will happen if the attacker overrun or fool the fighters (something like described in "red storm rising") and launches his missiles???

    is aegis combined with SM-2, RAM and ESSM capable of defeating AS-16 and HARM-style missiles???
    You mean should the outer defensive perimeter allow a few of them through, what would happen...I appologize, I misunderstood.

    Well, like what sniper said, everything is in theory until proven in war, especially when it comes to missile defense against supersonic seaskimmers.

    SM-2, ESSM, and RAM combined with a strong ECM suite and decoys should be fairly challenging for the offending missile. All we have to do is to make the missile lose target tracking for a few seconds. At that speed, it could be way off and never even have a chance to reacquire the target.

    Then in Burke's case, I'm not sure how a stealthy hull form affects a missile's ability to track. But they incoming missile might have even less time to home in on the escort.

    As you can see, I really have said nothing, since I don't know anything.

  3. #63
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by lurker
    RN was probably thinking the same, until "Sheffiled" got hit by an unexploded "Exoset".
    Sheffield is built to nowhere near the same level of protection as a Nimitz is, lol. Most people don't know it, but the Nimitz's have quite a lot of armored protection.

  4. #64
    Military Professional Sandman's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Jul 05
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    226
    Country: United States
    The USN was worried about the large diameter (650mm) wake following torpedos the Soviets fielded in the Cold War. One admiral said that the only way to deal with them was to put a Frigate in the wake of the carrier. I would think an ensign with a box of hand grenades on the stern might cause problems for such a weapon, much less dropping full sized WW2 depth charges over the stern as the torpedo closes, and I am sure some sort of aimed "hedge hog", or short range rocket you see in clusters on Russian warships which have an anti-torpedo function, all would be better than sacrificing a Frigate. Then again, if the carrier just ran flat out it probably could out run/range it. (50 knots?)
    And don't worry GUnnut, I know even less.
    Last edited by Sandman; 08 Feb 06, at 13:32.

  5. #65
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by bodybag
    You guys forgot about submarines which constitutes much bigger threat to AC
    than anything else.It is harder to detect incoming modern high velocity torpedos,than to detect rockets fired in the air.
    China ,Iran are investing in submarines for this reason mainly and that is the right thing to do."Dinosaurs of the seas"(Aircraft carrier) days are numbered.
    If sea based armed UAV's progress as rapidly as their airborne companions I wouldn't be too sure. Basiclly in this day in age your not safe in anything unless you have lots and lots of defensive weapons and a good early warning system.

  6. #66
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by lurker
    RN was probably thinking the same, until "Sheffiled" got hit by an unexploded "Exoset".
    Few points on that.

    1. Sheffield was 3,660 tons, Nimitz is about 70,000 tons.
    2. The Sheffield was not simply sunk by the missile hit, apparently the missile hit the control room and knocked out the ships computer. The ignition of the unexploded missiles fuel caused a major fire to break out gutting the ship which a few days later caused it to sink.
    3. At the time I beleive the only defence the British had against a low flying sea skimming missile was the seawolf anti-missile missile.

    I'd imagine if the Sheffield had a much better fire surpression system they might have been able to save the ship but nothing is for certain.

  7. #67
    Actus Reus Senior Contributor sparten's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 04
    Location
    You would like to know would'nt you?
    Posts
    1,497
    Country: Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    Most people don't know it, but the Nimitz's have quite a lot of armored protection.
    Only around the mags, 4 inches I believe.
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

  8. #68
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by sparten
    Only around the mags, 4 inches I believe.
    I think on since CVN-73 and onward they've improved the topside armor and are using a new type of high grade steel.

    I can't find any armor specs for the newer Nimitz carriers but I did find the armor specs for the older Enterprise.

    Armor as built:
    2.5-4 inch belt
    60 lb protective decks
    4 inch bulkheads
    4 inch side and 2 inch top round conning tower
    4 inch side over steering gear
    Last edited by canoe; 08 Feb 06, at 21:56.

  9. #69
    Actus Reus Senior Contributor sparten's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 04
    Location
    You would like to know would'nt you?
    Posts
    1,497
    Country: Pakistan
    Still no Yamato. Armour on a carrier is supposed to be an insurance nothing else.
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

  10. #70
    Senior Contributor lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by canoe
    Few points on that.

    1. Sheffield was 3,660 tons, Nimitz is about 70,000 tons.
    2. The Sheffield was not simply sunk by the missile hit, apparently the missile hit the control room and knocked out the ships computer. The ignition of the unexploded missiles fuel caused a major fire to break out gutting the ship which a few days later caused it to sink.
    3. At the time I beleive the only defence the British had against a low flying sea skimming missile was the seawolf anti-missile missile.

    I'd imagine if the Sheffield had a much better fire surpression system they might have been able to save the ship but nothing is for certain.
    1. It was one tiny Exocet, 170kg warhead. Each Shipwreck carries ~700kg of HE.
    2. The key word is "unexploded". Add "exploded" fuel from a missle that size of a small jet.
    3. Effectiveness of everything else is there to be proven.

  11. #71
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by lurker
    1. It was one tiny Exocet, 170kg warhead. Each Shipwreck carries ~700kg of HE.
    2. The key word is "unexploded". Add "exploded" fuel from a missle that size of a small jet.
    3. Effectiveness of everything else is there to be proven.
    Yes, a tiny exocet. Shipwreck is about 5-6x larger.

    Except that a Nimitz is easily 10x larger than the Sheffield. And unlike the sheffield, armored.

  12. #72
    Actus Reus Senior Contributor sparten's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 04
    Location
    You would like to know would'nt you?
    Posts
    1,497
    Country: Pakistan
    Sniper, I repeat armour on a carrier is just an insurance, it is not designed to stand up to a pounding like the ships of the line of old.
    Add to that the chance of being caught with a packed flight deck. Carriers best defences are its own air group and escorting Ships.
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

  13. #73
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by lurker
    1. It was one tiny Exocet, 170kg warhead. Each Shipwreck carries ~700kg of HE.
    2. The key word is "unexploded". Add "exploded" fuel from a missle that size of a small jet.
    3. Effectiveness of everything else is there to be proven.
    I think my point is if the missile had exploded it probably would have been less of a problem for the ship. The situation was unique in that the first batch of type 42's didn't appear to have a good fire surpression system. Which is why the internal layout of the second batch of type 42's was changed.

    In theory if they'd been able to control the fire the ship would have been fine minus the damage to the control area.

    In terms of the carriers the U.S intentionally sank one of them recently when they retired it and while they didn't release the specifics of how much damage the carrier took they did state it survived a fairly massive amount of damage. This was with hits from missiles, torpedos, mines, IED's, etc. And the ship had no crew or any form of damage control and still took a beating and didn't sink.

  14. #74
    Actus Reus Senior Contributor sparten's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 04
    Location
    You would like to know would'nt you?
    Posts
    1,497
    Country: Pakistan
    And it also did not have bomns, fuel and aircraft on board.
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

  15. #75
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by sparten
    And it also did not have bomns, fuel and aircraft on board.
    I beleive it did have a fair bit of fuel, someone would have to verify that for me though. In terms of aircraft and bombs fair enough but from what I understand the bombs are kept in a pretty well protected area.
    Last edited by canoe; 09 Feb 06, at 13:15.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite Naval Book(s)
    By Ytlas in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 10 May 10,, 20:52
  2. World Naval Rankings
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 22 Jan 09,, 15:12
  3. Carrier Battle Group Essay
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 05 Sep 07,, 18:27
  4. An Interseting article....
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10 May 05,, 12:59

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts