IMO I agree. Damage control is what will save their tails and fast damage control at that. The newer class carriers compartments are subdivided 10 fold over the earlier carriers. Yes they can absorb more damage then the older carriers but what keeps them afloat are the damage control teams and them having their ops (flooding/firefighting) and defensive team skills down to the "t".Originally Posted by sparten
A carriers protection are its missles, phaylynx, of coarse its air wings and its escorts as well as knowing what is coming at it (radars)(forward bow radar/eletronic warfare suite) and the carriers speed . But if all else fails damage control will be the only thing to keep her afloat and this is only "if possible". As we have seen in numerous pics here on WAB carriers can take on a serious list (20^ and sometimes even more) with major damage and still manage to limp away atleast for enough time to get its crew off if not back to port or repair facility.
However you must get to the Carrier first and the chances of that on a war footing with her air wing and escorts arent very good chances at all if any in modern day warfare.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 09 Feb 06, at 17:15.
That's good, because nothing around can pound a ship like the old ships of the line could.
The Nimitz have armored hulls, heavily armored magazines/weapon stores/propulsion, massive compartmentalization, and truly mindnumbing firefighting capability.
Comparing a Nimitz to a Sheffield is just stupid.
Last edited by Bill; 09 Feb 06, at 19:35.
USN bombs are also insensitive munitions.
Actually the Nimitz is 102,000 tons.
Nimitz's don't have any armor last time I checked.
Check again.
Haven't throroughly read through the thread, but has anyone touched upon guiding an over-the-horizon missile to target, much less finding the target in the first place? In the past, the Soviets had to rely upon aerial or submersible assets to provide targetting adjustments and guidance to their missiles. This is why Harpoon missiles became so important, to whack those submarines providing guidance while they were at or near the surface. I see no reason for this problematic situation to have changed.
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.
I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.
Depends on a missile.
p.s. Harpoon?? Whacking a submarine? Providing guidance??? ... nice.
Yes, that was the original - somewhat quaint in hindsight, given what a huge success it turned out to be - intent of the Harpoon program:
To destroy surfaced Soviet submarines, such as those providing midterminal guidance to Soviet antiship missiles...not unlike a whaler blasting a harpoon into the side of a whale.
That's where the name came from
I was just generally going by the posted stats on it. Global security showed it at around 97,000 tons full load and I thought I read somewhere it was ~70k tons empty.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-68-specs.htm
For some 30 years Soviet/Russian sub's SSMs does not use midcourse guidance.Yes, that was the original - somewhat quaint in hindsight, given what a huge success it turned out to be - intent of the Harpoon program:
To destroy surfaced Soviet submarines, such as those providing midterminal guidance to Soviet antiship missiles...not unlike a whaler blasting a harpoon into the side of a whale.
That's where the name came from
In other weird news I recall just reading a few days ago the U.S is testing some type of underwater canister launched version of the AIM-9X which would allow U.S subs to engage aircraft while submerged. Apparently U.S subs already have sensor systems that allow them to detect aircraft from underwater. If anyone interested in that sorta thing I can try and find the article.Yes, that was the original - somewhat quaint in hindsight, given what a huge success it turned out to be - intent of the Harpoon program:
To destroy surfaced Soviet submarines, such as those providing midterminal guidance to Soviet antiship missiles...not unlike a whaler blasting a harpoon into the side of a whale.
That's where the name came from
**Update***
The previously mentioned link.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20060210.aspx
My apologies, I should have been more specific. I was referring to air-launched ASMs
Last missiles that had semi-active guidance were AS-3's which were decomissioned like in 70's.
Everything else after that is mostly uses innertial guidance with terminal active radar guidance (Sometimes it's active/passive, sometimes + IR; - but all of them are authonomous).
Correct!
And when was the Harpoon project first initiated? 1965!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: