It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

can BRAHMOS take on a super-carrier?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I think I posted a picture of Brahmos a few pages back, that thing is huge! [Mobile - Launcher version].
Don't tell me that it can reach only 300 Km thats ridiculous. Wouldn't it be easy for the Indian Scientists to improve range on the Brahmos without Russian help? The Brahmos is pretty advanced I think - using RAMJET and all!
Why hasn't America developed a SRAMJET missile? [ I may be ignorant on this
]

As for Sino-US or Indo-US conflict I think both nations are just way out of their league- The USA was prepared for imminent nuclear attack from the Soviets for nearly 30yrs [I'm taking 1960-1990] where the Soviets had nearly outmanned the US in the size of military operations, the Soviets had research projects that were so revolutionary that some of them are yet to be understood.
With no disrespect to the Chinese or the Indians- how can these nations even imagine that they could take on the US and remain standing [figuratively], I mean these countries don't have even half of the Soviet potential during the 1980's.




posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I believe the entire point of this post was was a hypothetical breakdown of whether or not a brahmos missile all things being equal could take out a supercarrier. From what I am seeing and inferring from the breakdowns, yes a brahmos missile could incapacitate a supercarrier on a few conditions. First I said incapacitate not sink, with it's terminal attack maneuver you could concievably damage a flight deck or get a money shot and hit an aircraft bay, the carrier would still float but would be militarilly useless. Now on the conditional side would have to be a suicide mission with 4-6 simultaneously launched missiles and no hope of survival for the launch platforms, then you would have to get very lucky and avoid aegis and the rest of the bg and the carriers onboard defenses. You could possibly augment your chance by throwing loads of other stuff in the air to swamp the c&c/ defense grid, but it would be a slim chance even with that. Sink a supercarrier, no, in order to sink one you would need a nuke and that would be terminally stupid.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
the brits managed to sink one with a frigate in wargames with the US.

Sailed in... sank the carrier... sailed away again completely unchallenged

[edit on 5-12-2004 by Lucretius]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
the brits managed to sink one with a frigate in wargames with the US.

Sailed in... sank the carrier... sailed away again completely unchallenged

Do you have a link on this? I know about the excersize with the Aussies, but I am drawing a blank on this one...thx



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
while I dig out the link for you Engineer.... here is some other information I think might interest you

"The Author
Roger Thompson is Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.

In 1981, The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.
They were quite impressed."



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:44 AM
link   
^^ My my....A david-goliath type of thing ....



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by poirot

Originally posted by engineer

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hmmm..impressive...how effective would the BRahmos be against PLAN targets...?
Not a problem!


What does "Not a problem" means? Not a problem for PLAN or the Brahmos?



I think he meant not a problem for the Brahmos...



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
You may ask, but you will not get a reply.


Although I welcome any critique of my analysis.


So I guess your a fifteen year old who just discovered the "Internet" and read a few false statements on the internet.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I do not believe India will ever get the chance to launch a few at China. Since both navies are brown water navies and at their current cituation (not the "Can India Liberate Tibet" situation) are not bad and I could only expect more harmony and friendship between the two countries.

I think yes, the Brahmos will be able to hit the aircraft carrier but the problem is if they can get in range. Most carrier version aircrafts have a range of at least 1000 KM. So in order for a ship with Brahmos to hit the aircraft carrier, he must penetrate surveillance of aircraft and survive enemy attacks which no doubt will happen because the ships will get detected. Subs are a whole other story but I do not think the Brahmos have a sub version because its simply to huge to launch off a sub.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
So I guess your a fifteen year old who just discovered the "Internet" and read a few false statements on the internet.

And I'm supposed to care what you think? I'm here to offer my opinion on various topics. You can think what you like, it has no bearing on me.

The Brahmos could be sub-launched, but India doesn't have any subs that could do it. The Brahmos is a detuned Yakhont with Indian guidance. Yakhonts can be launched from 650mm tubes, so the Brahmos could be also.

But all of India's Kilo's have 533mm tubes, so they won't work.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
ummm..the indian navy is NOT a brown water navy...no carrier navy can be called a brown water navy...
also the tube dilemma on the kilos well a little engineering could provide a 100mm of extra girth. Not a problem...Also the AkulaIIs that the Indians are rumored to be procuring will be suitable for Brahmos...

And I once heard that it would be"impossible" for the Brahmos to be launched by the Su 30MKIs that the IAF had, ..I've seen the Su30MKI and the bRahmos model, it would be a extremely tight fit, and severly impair the loadout capability of the Su-30...
Bu the Tu-22Ms that the IAF is acquiring from the Russians would do just fine...


And to comment on the thread topic..IMHO India has no threat perception from any carrier navies in the world so their naval use of the Brahmos would be for...

lets talk about that


[edit on 7-12-2004 by Daedalus3]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
also the tube dilemma on the kilos well a little engineering could provide a 100mm of extra girth. Not a problem...Also the AkulaIIs that the Indians are rumored to be procuring will be suitable for Brahmos...

It wouldn't be practical to retrofit the Kilos for the Brahmos. First, India already has an ASCM for the Kilo in the ZM-54E1. It's not just a matter of putting in a bigger tube. You have to change the storage and handling systems and fire control as well.

But the Akula II may be able to handle the Brahmos, since it has 4 650mm tubes. Normally I would expect it to be carry the SS-N-16 Stallion instead. AFAIK the Severodvinsk-class SSNs were earmarked to carry the Yakhont in a VLS. But that's between India and Russia whether the Akula will carry Brahmos.

As far as their naval use, India developed them as a counter to the Moskits supplied by Russia to China aboard two Sovremenny-class destroyers. So I guess the real winner is Russia, eh?



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
^^^Are you speculating or is that a sourced piece of info....



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
^^^Are you speculating or is that a sourced piece of info....Also amongst China and India, Russia(Soviet union) initially sided completely with India..but ever since Gorbachev introduced the "china first" policy russian interests have been shifting towards the chinese..Although the two are still wary of each other..at the sasme time Indo-US ties after improvingmuch to the dislike of Russia..Simultaneously..the designation of Pakistan as a major Non-NATO ally of th US has the Indians all sour..ITS A CRAZY WORLD OUT THERE!!!



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Bramos is only got a frontal cross section of 0.26m, even with the fines is still about 1.3m. That assumes basic metal construction with no attempts at stealth in the design.

That means the AEW planes will under ideal conditions detect the Bramos at ~150nm and these planes don't patrol much more than 50nm from the carrier. Thats a warning of maybe 200nm or 340km. That gives you 7-8 minutes to react to the inbounds. If the missile is stealthy the detection range will be less , maybe 200km and reaction time down to about 4 minutes.

That means to have any chance to intercept these inbounds, CAP has to be within ~100km or less [including range of AAM]. How many CAP would be flying within that radius at one time? Each carrier has only 24 fighters of which at most 1/2 would be airborn at anygiven time. So thats 12 fighters each carring a pair of long range AAMs. Maybe 48 AAMs under ideal circumstance of two carriers in the battlegroup.


Once any missiles penetrate the fighter cap they have to overcome ship based area airdefence with rapid multi hit capability [IE Aegis]. Each carrier should have 4 Ageis destroyers with upto 60 Standard 2 or 3 SAMs, capable of launching and tracking upto 8 SAMs in each wave...IE 32 SAMs for the escorts of each carrier. Since SAM speed is equal to anti ship missile speed first intercept could occur at maybe 90km under ideal circumstances. with second wave intercepts occuring at ~ 35km and final wave at ~ 6km. Short range SAM may have a volley at that distance as well but that will be it, since CIWS are useless against such a high velocity missile....even if they hit , the debrie field will shred the target knocking it out of the war anyway.

So we have upto 48 x AAM in the outer layer and 64 x SAMs in each of the 1st , 2nd , 3rd Standard waves and one final close in wave.So against that back drop on Antishipping missile has zero chance of getting through to hit the CVN or any ship in the taskforce.

But these are under ideal circumstances, which we all know never happen in real war time. First off everything hinges on the ability of the AWACS plane to operate and detect. Just the act of attacking the AEW first may cancel it out. WHy because the plane will have to undergo evasive maneuver while the CAP move to intercept the attacking fighters. If coordinated right ,that moves them away from a planed ASM attack area and uses up some or all of the CAP missiles/sorties ,since if nothing else the fighters would have to break of to refuel [air to air]. So at most 1/2 the CAP jets would be dispatched to intercept the inbounds reducing the AAMs by two. DO this again with a second inbound fight and the number of CAP AAMs down to 1/4 etc etc.

This also presupposes the initial wave of attacking jets don't carry the latest russian designed anti AEW missiles, which could very well shut the AWACS down all together resulting in the same loss of detection, without wasting jets on diversionary attacks.

But that supposes you have unlimited jets to throw away in such diversionary attacks. So don't wast your efforts and send decoys instead. Given enough decoys you would overwhelm the airdefence and prevent the AEW from doing anything other than alerting the battle group they are under attack. Cessnas will reflectors will do the trick or any one of a number of 'civilian' planes.

With the CAP out of the way, the 1st wave SAM volleys are out too since they rely on over the horizon handoff targets from the AEW and LOS limits SAM to a LOS of about 35km against a low flying missile. That means 1st wave is at 10-15km and there is only time for another wave of close in SAMs.

But even this may be optimistic cause battlegroup area defence can be defeated by other means....numerous cheap fast patrol boats disguised as fisheries trawlers etc,break cover and dash in on the battle group forcing to split the defence between surface and air threats. Throw in a maurading SSK or two and that defence is split three ways. Such SSKs are deadly in exercises, We've all read about the Norwegian SSK sinking the RN carrier battle group in a simulated battle off the coast of Norway ,and then there is the Austrailan collins SSK that sunk the US CVN in an exercise resently.

Against that back drop a wave of a couple of dozen Brahmos could very well overwhelm a carrier group and putting it out of a war.

Think its impossible, I gather thats roughly what General Ripper did in that Millinum challenge exercise back in 2002...which is why they said he cheated



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer

Do you have a link on this? I know about the excersize with the Aussies, but I am drawing a blank on this one...thx

I know of this exercise, cant remember it but the frigate was a type 23, sailed in and sunk it.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by engineer

Do you have a link on this? I know about the excersize with the Aussies, but I am drawing a blank on this one...thx

I know of this exercise, cant remember it but the frigate was a type 23, sailed in and sunk it.


Some of us here are still waiting for your proof of that. Tell you what, just give me the year and the name of the frigate and I will be able to verify that story once and for all. I will post any results that are not classified.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Some of us here are still waiting for your proof of that. Tell you what, just give me the year and the name of the frigate and I will be able to verify that story once and for all. I will post any results that are not classified.

I have heard it through word of mouth not reading it.
I mean hey it could be that the RN made up the whole thing and has told several people in and out of the service...or mabye its true, believe what you want.
How will the name and year of the frigate tell you anything?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
You'd think that the RN would make up stuff about sinking a carrier??!

Doubt it..Maybe it was leaked out by some proud RN chappies and then the authorities tried to put a lid on the whole thing to preserve the USN carrier integrity image..




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join