Thread: Carrier killers (an article from JED online)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Still no Yamato. Armour on a carrier is supposed to be an insurance nothing else.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And it also did not have bomns, fuel and aircraft on board.

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.