Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Max Q wrote:
It doesn’t seem plausible for a CVN to pass through the Taiwan straits in a hostile environment anymore?
bikerthai wrote:Max Q wrote:
It doesn’t seem plausible for a CVN to pass through the Taiwan straits in a hostile environment anymore?
Why would you sail thru the straight when the shooting start?
Max Q wrote:China, Russia and perhaps others continue to develop long range weapons that pose
serious dangers to today’s carrriers
Max Q wrote:At the same time their respective air groups have less range, the F-18 not being able to go out as far as the older F14’s
P1aneMad wrote:If they are useless China and India wouldn't be rushing to built as many carriers as they can possibly afford.
They are doing so because an air carrier group projects so much power and it actually increases your chances of achieving national strategic objectives without having to get into a nuclear conflict.
Kiwirob wrote:P1aneMad wrote:If they are useless China and India wouldn't be rushing to built as many carriers as they can possibly afford.
They are doing so because an air carrier group projects so much power and it actually increases your chances of achieving national strategic objectives without having to get into a nuclear conflict.
India rushing to build IAC1 has been in build for years and is still years away from completion, IAC2 is a many years alway from first steel being cut. The Chinese in the other hand will probably have launched there second home build carrier but the time IAC1 is commissioned.
Slug71 wrote:They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.China is currently building their third carrier.
tommy1808 wrote:The USSR did the same. Including shittons of bombers to take them to the Carriers, Bears and radar satellites. I don´t think there is any fundamental difference between a Regiment+ sized Tu-22M saturation attack and what Russia or China can do today. Ballistic and hypersonic ASM may be harder targets than a mere Mach 3 missile, but CIWS have gotten a lot better too. I don´t think there is a Commander that would trade RAM away for a dozen of Phalanx.
Lasers develop in leaps. If anyone wants to sink capital ships of an advanced navy, they better do it quick. The window may be closed in 10 to 20 years and projectile weapons against high value point targets, without much in the way of limits in terms of energy consumption and weight like ships, essentially be useless.
I also think it will be a really long time until the PRC could accomplish anything beyond converting its Army Navy into nice diving locations rather quickly. Sink a US carrier battle group and a lot of speech writers will try to find ways to say "When this war is over, the Chinese language will only be spoken in hell" without actually saying that.....
best regards
Thomas
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Look at the Forrestal fire off VN. It takes a lot of damage to sink a CVN.
Conventional aerial bombing wouldn’t stand a chance,
cruise missiles wouldn’t either with four CIWS shooting
and don’t possess enough punch, save nuclear ones.
tommy1808 wrote:
There are reasons that many navies didn't adapt Phalanx, but something bigger for the CIWS role. Chiefly that it could only handle one mach 3 missile per well timed attack and that intercept distances may very well be too short to prevent a lot of shrapnel hits. ...
RAM and ESSM today are different animals.... but ESSM isn't really a CI weapon, or on carriers, and most carriers still just have Phalanx iirc.
tommy1808 wrote:Western ASM may be short of sink the boat payloads, a kitchen or kingfish may just have enough muscle. A ton of warhead in two tons of mach 3 metall coming in would certainly take it out of the fight.
tommy1808 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Look at the Forrestal fire off VN. It takes a lot of damage to sink a CVN.
Really bad example. That was a mission kill with half the air wing destroyed or damaged by a dinky 50 pound warhead. Didn't sink it of course, but that usually wouldn't sink most river ferries.
Ozair wrote:tommy1808 wrote:
There are reasons that many navies didn't adapt Phalanx, but something bigger for the CIWS role. Chiefly that it could only handle one mach 3 missile per well timed attack and that intercept distances may very well be too short to prevent a lot of shrapnel hits. ...
RAM and ESSM today are different animals.... but ESSM isn't really a CI weapon, or on carriers, and most carriers still just have Phalanx iirc.
All the Nimitz class have ESSM and RAM and on some the Phalanx has been moved to the lower sponsons but for example the Bush, the last Nimitz, doesn't have any Phalanx.
You can see the RAM and Phalanx on this image, while the ESSM is in the Mk29 launcher on the forward starboard and rear port side.
ESSM from a carrier.tommy1808 wrote:Western ASM may be short of sink the boat payloads, a kitchen or kingfish may just have enough muscle. A ton of warhead in two tons of mach 3 metall coming in would certainly take it out of the fight.
I don't think that is the intent though. We have seen enough evidence from Exocet hits in the Falklands War as well as against the USS Stark that the missile strikes are enough to mission kill smaller vessels. The key to sinking the vessel is to hit at or below the waterline. What remains the most effective though is torpedoes which especially when detonated under the ship can very easily break its back.
An example of an Mk48 on an Australian River (Leander) class, far far more effective than any sub or supersonic missile hit.
DigitalSea wrote:If a DEW could be deployed on a carrier as a defensive countermeasure against incoming missiles and aircraft, would that trigger a new type of arms race?
par13del wrote:My take is that the key issue is how close the defensive missiles are to a 1 to 1 kill ratio. The Ticonderoga Cruisers are not being replaced, so the defensive missile count is lower with the Burks, what is on the carriers will be good for how many salvos?
par13del wrote:ASM missiles launched at carriers will be in a swarm, the question is now many attacks will take place before the defensive missiles are gone.
par13del wrote:The further out to sea the carriers are their combat power takes a hit, buddy refueling is done by F-18's and would be needed for launch and recovery so essentially those are out of the fight.
estorilm wrote:Ouch - haven't seen that before. Torpedoes have certainly come a long way... that's scary. Did the Leander class have any sort of torpedo belt or protection system? Doesn't look like it would have mattered much, I'm guessing the blast displacement and shockwave just snapped it structurally.
Ozair wrote:I think we can say when and will instead of if and would. As far as I am concerned DEW is a certainty for naval deployment and a nuclear powered aircraft carrier becomes a viable platform given the ability to generate significant and essentially unlimited energy to power the systems. I could see a return to nuclear powered cruisers and maybe even destroyers to allow for energy generation and power of DEW and probably Rail guns etc.
With the development of DEW and rail guns coming from western powers and China you could probably argue we are already in an arms race again.
October 26, 2006, a Chinese Song class submarine surfaced within 5 nm of the carrier USS Kitty Hawk while she was operating in the East China Sea between Japan and Taiwan. It was spotted by an F/A-18C and confirmed by the crew of an EA-6B.
DigitalSea wrote:
Really makes you think about how it could change the world if the US deployed a reliable network of ground based, nuclear powered, DEW around the US.
bikerthai wrote:With regard to the hypersonic missiles. Can anyone educate us on what kind of terminal guidance could be used on these type of missiles? Would a standard EM radar work at such velocities (and heat at the nose?). Without terminal guidance, it would be difficult to hit any moving vehicle (even a carrier).
An as Noshow pointed out. Have there been a successful attempt at maneuvering a hypersonic missile?
bt
bikerthai wrote:With regard to the hypersonic missiles. Can anyone educate us on what kind of terminal guidance could be used on these type of missiles? Would a standard EM radar work at such velocities (and heat at the nose?). Without terminal guidance, it would be difficult to hit any moving vehicle (even a carrier).
The DF-21D is anticipated to cover a range of 2,000 kilometers and operate at a speed of Mach 10. The threat is also capable of maneuvering both during the midcourse and terminal flight phases for the purposes of guidance, target acquisition, and countermeasures. A 2006 unclassified assessment by ONI stated that “China is equipping theater ballistic missiles with maneuvering reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with radar or IR [infrared] seekers to provide the accuracy necessary to attack a ship at sea.”
bikerthai wrote:An as Noshow pointed out. Have there been a successful attempt at maneuvering a hypersonic missile?
With a highly publicized test firing and pledge by President Vladimir Putin that it will soon be deployed to frontline units, Russia’s Avangard hypersonic weapon has officially gone from a secretive development program to an inevitability. The first weapon of its type to enter into active service, it’s capable of delivering a payload to any spot on the planet at speeds up to Mach 27 while remaining effectively unstoppable by conventional missile defense systems because of its incredible speed and enhanced maneuverability compared to traditional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
In a statement made after the successful test of Avangard, which saw it hit a target approximately 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) from the launch site, President Putin made it clear that the evasive nature of the weapon was not to be underestimated: “The Avangard is invulnerable to intercept by any existing and prospective missile defense means of the potential adversary.” The former Soviet KGB agent turned head of state has never been one to shy away from boastful claims, but in this case it’s not just an exaggeration. While the United States and China have been working on their own hypersonic weapons which should be able to meet the capabilities of Avangard when they eventually come online, there’s still no clear deterrent for this type of weapon.
mxaxai wrote:
There's also the question what "hypersonic" means in this context.
Hypersonic weapons are those that can travel more than five times the speed of sound, or around one mile (1.6km) per second. They come in two flavours. Hypersonic cruise missiles are powered by rockets or jets throughout their flight. They are simply faster versions of existing cruise missiles, like the Tomahawk. Hypersonic boost-glide weapons are different. They are launched into the upper atmosphere in the normal fashion atop existing ballistic missiles, but then release hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) which fly lower, faster and—to an adversary—much more unpredictably than old-fashioned re-entry vehicles. Though some, like the Avangard, are intended to carry nuclear warheads, others can use their high speed and accuracy to destroy targets with the kinetic energy of impact alone. At ten times the speed of sound, a kilogram of anything has more kinetic energy than you get from exploding a kilogram of TNT. Current ballistic weapons are very fast, but not as manoeuvrable; current cruise missiles are very manoeuvrable, but not as fast. Hypersonic cruise missiles and HGVs are novel because they fuse these qualities of speed and agility.
bikerthai wrote:With regard to the hypersonic missiles. Can anyone educate us on what kind of terminal guidance could be used on these type of missiles? Would a standard EM radar work at such velocities (and heat at the nose?). Without terminal guidance, it would be difficult to hit any moving vehicle (even a carrier).
An as Noshow pointed out. Have there been a successful attempt at maneuvering a hypersonic missile?
bt
bikerthai wrote:If we are talking about ballistic re-entry vehicle, will it be maneuverable enough even with radar guidance to hit a carrier in evasive mode? I mean we are not talking about a nuke war head here and 50 meters accuracy may or may not be enough.
And as with any sensor, whether IR or RADAR, there are always countermeasures . . .
bt
Noshow wrote:If those hypersonic wonder weapons would be some real strategic asset and the invincible weapon of the future they would not make the sort of PR-campaigns they do but keep quiet about it. Last time I checked they all crashed after some very short flight. They are far from becoming operational.
USNFalconCraft wrote:As long as the carriers adapt to the situations (they did a lot in the past, pretty sure they can still now), they're gonna be here for a while. It's the de facto ship of any navy ever.
Now the question is what kind of weaponry is going to challenge their existence. I won't exactly bank on the "hypersonic" missiles yet.
Beijing has announced it has deployed intermediate ballistic missiles to the country's north-west region, saying the weapons have the capacity to destroy US ships entering disputed waters in the South China Sea.
The DF-26 missiles — which have been previously dubbed the 'Guam Killer' or 'Guam Express' by Chinese media and defence experts — are capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads.
They have a range of 4,500 kilometres, making them capable of reaching as far as Guam in the east and Indonesia in the south, providing Beijing with a powerful weapon as tensions continue to rise in the South China Sea.
According to Chinese state media publication The Global Times, the DF-26 missiles are now stationed in north-west China's sparse plateau and desert areas, carried on the backs of trucks able to traverse the harsh terrain.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Beijing-based military expert told the Times that positioning the missiles deep in China's mainland made them more difficult to intercept as it allowed the missile to enter its final stages at a high speed.
Footage on CCTV showed trucks carrying the missiles driving through rough terrain and sand dunes.
The missiles were first paraded in 2015 and China confirmed they were now operational in April last year, but this is the first footage of the missiles outside of a parade.
It is unclear when the missiles were moved to the northwest region, the Times reported.
...
Ozair wrote:Speaking of sinking carriers...
China mobilises DF-26 ballistic missiles capable of sinking US warships in the South China SeaBeijing has announced it has deployed intermediate ballistic missiles to the country's north-west region, saying the weapons have the capacity to destroy US ships entering disputed waters in the South China Sea.
The DF-26 missiles — which have been previously dubbed the 'Guam Killer' or 'Guam Express' by Chinese media and defence experts — are capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads.
They have a range of 4,500 kilometres, making them capable of reaching as far as Guam in the east and Indonesia in the south, providing Beijing with a powerful weapon as tensions continue to rise in the South China Sea.
According to Chinese state media publication The Global Times, the DF-26 missiles are now stationed in north-west China's sparse plateau and desert areas, carried on the backs of trucks able to traverse the harsh terrain.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Beijing-based military expert told the Times that positioning the missiles deep in China's mainland made them more difficult to intercept as it allowed the missile to enter its final stages at a high speed.
Footage on CCTV showed trucks carrying the missiles driving through rough terrain and sand dunes.
The missiles were first paraded in 2015 and China confirmed they were now operational in April last year, but this is the first footage of the missiles outside of a parade.
It is unclear when the missiles were moved to the northwest region, the Times reported.
...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-10/ ... s/10705594
johns624 wrote:Slug71 wrote:They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.China is currently building their third carrier.
strfyr51 wrote:johns624 wrote:Slug71 wrote:They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.China is currently building their third carrier.
strfyr51 wrote:strfyr51 wrote:johns624 wrote:They didn't build the first one IIRC. It was an old Russian one.
the Russian Carrier "'Admiral S,ame Exact carrier Design with the Jump Jet departure. Trouble was? It kind of limited the amount and weight of armaments the plane could take off with. On a US Flattop? they can dial up the Catapult Steam Pressure to take into account the GWT. Ans? During Nam? They loaded everything they could Load on some of those A-6's, A-7's, and A-4's. I doubt a ski jump would have resulted in much more than an accident back then.
P1aneMad wrote:If they are useless China and India wouldn't be rushing to built as many carriers as they can possibly afford.
They are doing so because an air carrier group projects so much power and it actually increases your chances of achieving national strategic objectives without having to get into a nuclear conflict.
salttee wrote:Just to remind everyone.October 26, 2006, a Chinese Song class submarine surfaced within 5 nm of the carrier USS Kitty Hawk while she was operating in the East China Sea between Japan and Taiwan. It was spotted by an F/A-18C and confirmed by the crew of an EA-6B.
Modern diesel subs can make zero noise and so have the ability to lay in wait if they can guess where a carrier is likely to transit.
bikerthai wrote:If you were to reinforce Taiwan, wouldn't it be better to come in from the East side and let the subs control the straight?
VSMUT wrote:
Diesel submarines have a misleading name. When you think of a diesel, you think of a rattly old engine that makes a ton of noise. In reality it's a battery powered submarine that can recharge with a diesel generator when not in combat. Batteries don't make any noise.
ThePointblank wrote:Diesel subs have no hope of catching a USN carrier under way unless said carrier happened to run right over the sub in the first place. They don't have the raw speed or endurance to chase and keep up, while trying to be quiet.
ThePointblank wrote:In these exercises, the surface force has to travel from point A to point B and the submarine is automatically positioned somewhere along the path as part of the exercise. They don't worry about how the submarine would get there in a real war situation.
Diesel subs work best when enemy movements can be restricted and are predictable, thus they can be placed along the expected path based upon likely movements.
VSMUT wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Diesel subs have no hope of catching a USN carrier under way unless said carrier happened to run right over the sub in the first place. They don't have the raw speed or endurance to chase and keep up, while trying to be quiet.
Neither do nuclear submarines, unless they are to make enough noise as to be discovered from several thousand kilometers away. And absolutely not in shallow waters.
VSMUT wrote:ThePointblank wrote:In these exercises, the surface force has to travel from point A to point B and the submarine is automatically positioned somewhere along the path as part of the exercise. They don't worry about how the submarine would get there in a real war situation.
Diesel subs work best when enemy movements can be restricted and are predictable, thus they can be placed along the expected path based upon likely movements.
The South China Sea, and the strait of Taiwan are exactly that. Easy to predict enemy movements in, and easy to block. That's the entire point of the Chinese island-chain strategy. Why did you think they invested so heavily in electric submarines and stealthy FAC? For fun and giggles?
It's also pretty hard to hide your movements if the seas are full of the before-mentioned "civilian" fishing boats that are constantly giving your position away.
ThePointblank wrote:A diesel sub can only run at top speed for at most a few hours to either chase or reposition, quickly, before the batteries are depleted and the diesel engine needs to be ran. And when charging, top speed is limited.
A nuclear sub can run as fast it wants, for as long as it wants. There is no limit on how long a nuke boat can operate at top speed for, and a nuke boat can do it whenever it wants.
Also, today's nuclear submarines (especially the Western subs) are extremely quiet; they are very competitive to a conventional submarine while underway, with the only advantage for the conventional submarine is if the sub is stationary and running silent.
ThePointblank wrote:VSMUT wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Diesel subs have no hope of catching a USN carrier under way unless said carrier happened to run right over the sub in the first place. They don't have the raw speed or endurance to chase and keep up, while trying to be quiet.
Neither do nuclear submarines, unless they are to make enough noise as to be discovered from several thousand kilometers away. And absolutely not in shallow waters.
A diesel sub can only run at top speed for at most a few hours to either chase or reposition, quickly, before the batteries are depleted and the diesel engine needs to be ran. And when charging, top speed is limited.
A nuclear sub can run as fast it wants, for as long as it wants. There is no limit on how long a nuke boat can operate at top speed for, and a nuke boat can do it whenever it wants.
Also, today's nuclear submarines (especially the Western subs) are extremely quiet; they are very competitive to a conventional submarine while underway, with the only advantage for the conventional submarine is if the sub is stationary and running silent.ThePointblank wrote:The USN was able to hide the exact location of a second carrier group from the Soviets in 1982, despite the Soviets being aware that a second carrier was operating off their coast, and throwing everything they had to find the second carrier.