Thread: Carrier killers (an article from JED online)

And you continue to prove my point:

"Its well known that only arrogant, ignorant, no account people of low character succumb to boredom.

I guess you just wrote your epitaph."


Maybe you should ask Norway, Japan and the UK among others how much they like footing the bill to clean up the Russian mess.

But then of course to you its only a U.S. conspiracy. But thats right weve also spent money helping to clean up the mess. But thats right we stopped because the Russians spent the money elsewhere in particular on revitalising their nuclear deterrent.

Never heard anyone complain about the interest the U.S. pays on its debt. ALL nations clamor(including China) to sell their products in the U.S.. Never heard that about Russia. I wonder why?

What are the aforementioned countries receiving in return for their expenditures?
Nothing. Basically they are held hostage. Its extortion. Its either pay the clean-up cost now or later when the problem is much worse and much harder to clean up..

Maybe you should take your own advice about "growing up".

But that would take "character" which weve already ascertained you sorely lack..

LOL Swearing at me. Yep thatll get my goat.

I know every vile epithet ever devised by mankind in dozens of languages.

Your pitiful attempt is quite humorous.

Post your email and Ill show you what swearing is all about.

But again Ill bet your gutless. Arent you?

Maybe you should ask Norway, Japan and the UK among others how much they like footing the bill to clean up the Russian mess.

They pay 1 billion out of 2.

Your full of crap as usual.

This site has tons of info:

http://www.bellona.no/en/index.html

But even if you were correct. Which you arent.

Why should anyone else pay anything?

Its pure extortion.

Or on the part of those nations participating pure appeasement.

Don't know what you are talking about.

If US would like to dismantle all of it's nuclear carriers, a lot of countires would like to help and donate.

Just because they are such a good friends.

Originally Posted by lurker

Don't know what you are talking about.

If US would like to dismantle all of it's nuclear carriers, a lot of countires would like to help and donate.

Just because they are such a good friends.

I'm guessing that those countries that have been saved by U.S. carriers - either through humanitarian aid or military action - would probably prefer them NOT to be dismantled.

Originally Posted by lurker

Don't know what you are talking about.

If US would like to dismantle all of it's nuclear carriers, a lot of countires would like to help and donate.

Just because they are such a good friends.

Uh huh and what would deter such "good friends" from running amok in the world oceans and skies mind you?

Once again Lurker shows his ignorance.

Surprise. Surprise.

LOL

Originally Posted by lurker

Don't know what you are talking about.

If US would like to dismantle all of it's nuclear carriers, a lot of countires would like to help and donate.

Just because they are such a good friends.

Lurker a question... I am taking for granite you are Russia yes? Can you tell me approximately where in Russia or some kind of landmark? The reason...just wanted to see if there are any Naval port pics you could post. I have a pic I was going to ask you about but apparently I cant find it now. It looked like two cruisers in the background and I was wondering if they were of the Kirov class or Slava class moored together. Ill keep looking for it.

So on the final count, what does the typical carrier battle group have to counter these 'carrier-killers'?

1. Not being found
2. Mission-killing the shooter, in a variety of ways
3. Killing the missile using carrier-borne aircraft... unlikely
4. ECM soft-kill systems
5. SM-2 Block IIIB and ESSM
6. SeaRAM or just RAM
7. Structural design of carriers, though I'd rather not rely on that.

And that's not mentioning other NATO countries' ships carrying things like Aster 15/30 missiles.

Should I be worried?

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

So on the final count, what does the typical carrier battle group have to counter these 'carrier-killers'?

1. Not being found
2. Mission-killing the shooter, in a variety of ways
3. Killing the missile using carrier-borne aircraft... unlikely
4. ECM soft-kill systems
5. SM-2 Block IIIB and ESSM
6. SeaRAM or just RAM
7. Structural design of carriers, though I'd rather not rely on that.

And that's not mentioning other NATO countries' ships carrying things like Aster 15/30 missiles.

Should I be worried?

You forgot to add the Mk15/1B Phalanx CIWS to the list.

Its numbers are being trimmed somewhat and I doubt it can offer serious protection against a 7-tonne missile(s) going Mach 2+. Even if it does react quickly enough, I doubt it can pump enough DU into the things to really stop them, not necessarily from damaging the ships, but damaging sensitive stuff such as radar antennae.

I suppose it can go at No.7 but the conclusion is - another Russian 'superweapon' which turns out to be of uncertain utility. The best solution will always be No.1.

EDIT: Actually the best defence will be the Russians themselves. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3304377.stm :p

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Its numbers are being trimmed somewhat and I doubt it can offer serious protection against a 7-tonne missile(s) going Mach 2+. Even if it does react quickly enough, I doubt it can pump enough DU into the things to really stop them, not necessarily from damaging the ships, but damaging sensitive stuff such as radar antennae.

I suppose it can go at No.7 but the conclusion is - another Russian 'superweapon' which turns out to be of uncertain utility. The best solution will always be No.1.

EDIT: Actually the best defence will be the Russians themselves. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3304377.stm :p

20mm APDS works just fine on 20 ton Mach 2+ fighters. No idea why it wouldn't work on 7 ton missiles.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

20mm APDS works just fine on 20 ton Mach 2+ fighters. No idea why it wouldn't work on 7 ton missiles.

Never heard of that happening, or even being designed for it, but I'll take your word on it. It did have difficulty intercepting that slow Silkworm during the Gulf War.

What I'm thinking of is pieces of a chewed-up Granit still having enough momentum to do damage to the ship.

The standard US fighter gun since the mid 1950's has been the 20mm Vulcan cannon.

The same exact gun employed by the Phalanx CIWS.

Since the 1950s US fighters have scored god only knows how many gun kills with their Vulcans.

I don't know about you, but i would not want to be in an SU-27(over 20 tons full combat load) that got hit with a 1 second burst of 20mm APDSDU cannon fire!(about 80rounds).

A 20mm APDSDU round will penetrate around 2" of steel plate armor, i therefore don't see a problem getting into the guts of a missile.

To me, the main drawback of the Phalanx system was the short range of the 20mm round, not any problem with firepower or destructiveness. The Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS goes a long way toward correcting that problem, and also has the benefit of firing the FAR more powerful 30x173mm cartridge of the A-10 warthog.