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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
You'd think that the RN would make up stuff about sinking a carrier??!

mabye not the RN comand but mabye the Office of naval intelegence.
Really dont hear much or anything about them.



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..

Mabye, who knows but all i can say is that i heard from the mouths of exRN and serving RN people.




posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
How will the name and year of the frigate tell you anything?


Because I can go and look up the exercise. It makes it easier if I can limit the search to a particular year. With the ships name, then I can look for a specific exercise and the results from it.

Till I see proof of that with my own eyes I will never beleive that something as small as one of your frigates can take out one of our carriers.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Because I can go and look up the exercise. It makes it easier if I can limit the search to a particular year. With the ships name, then I can look for a specific exercise and the results from it.

i have searched for it on and off for about 6 months i cant find any thing.
I dont know the name of the ship but it was supposed to be a type 23.

Till I see proof of that with my own eyes I will never beleive that something as small as one of your frigates can take out one of our carriers.
The frigate may be small but they do carry a punch, some cadets i know are seriosly wanting when they join the RN to try and get a place on a type 23



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
i have searched for it on and off for about 6 months i cant find any thing.
I dont know the name of the ship but it was supposed to be a type 23.

So you are going off of heresay? Remember the site motto for ATS?

BTW there are cases where ships are permitted to make a deliberate attack on another ship as a means of practice for the watchteam. Is it even remotely possible that this was the case here?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

So you are going off of heresay? Remember the site motto for ATS?

Can you tell me what heresay is supposed to be ?
yes deny ignorance, i am saying that hey mabye you are right mabye i am wrong. I dont have enough facts to back up my story so you could be right.


BTW there are cases where ships are permitted to make a deliberate attack on another ship as a means of practice for the watchteam. Is it even remotely possible that this was the case here?

That could quite possibly be the case,mabye it was to show how effective the fleet would be if the carrier "dissapeared" during combat?





posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Can you tell me what heresay is supposed to be ?

hearsay:Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.




yes deny ignorance, i am saying that hey mabye you are right mabye i am wrong. I dont have enough facts to back up my story so you could be right.

If you cannot back up your facts, then make sure you point that out. Right now you put it out as fact, and that is being ignorant. I grow tired of all the people here that put out heresay and pass it off as fact.



That could quite possibly be the case,mabye it was to show how effective the fleet would be if the carrier "dissapeared" during combat?


No, I have been there for exercises like that. They do not let the carrier get killed for any reason.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
hearsay:Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

right then, personaly myself i think if multiple different people know of the event and know quite intamitly about it, then it quite possibly of happened.




If you cannot back up your facts, then make sure you point that out. Right now you put it out as fact, and that is being ignorant. I grow tired of all the people here that put out heresay and pass it off as fact.
[/qutoe]
I believe it as a fact, if one person believes it as a fact he has no need to say he heard it off diffrent people.


No, I have been there for exercises like that. They do not let the carrier get killed for any reason.

Yeah but it could have been a situation some one thought up, how would the task force cope with the loss of a carrier?

[edit on 12-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
right then, personally myself i think if multipl diffrent people know of the event and know quite intamitly about it, then it quite possibly of happened.


Can anyone help with the translation here?



Yeah but it could have been a situation some one thought up, how would the task force cope with the loss of a carrier?


The whole point of the exercise is to keep the carrier alive while you complete your tasking. No one has bothered to speculate as to what happens after the carrier is taken out. No one is going to go after the carrier without trying to take out some of the escorts. First sign of that the carrier moves out of the area.

Try again.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Can anyone help with the translation here?

look and you will see it is perfectly fine.


The whole point of the exercise is to keep the carrier alive while you complete your tasking.

the point of the exercise is to defeat the enemy, but with the main hope of keeping the carrier. dependance on the carrier can be fatal.


No one has bothered to speculate as to what happens after the carrier is taken out. No one is going to go after the carrier without trying to take out some of the escorts. First sign of that the carrier moves out of the area.

Try again.

So they would leave a fleet with out air support?
Why is there such a dependance on the carrier, if the level of dependance is that high then the enemy would glady trade several destroyers for a carrier.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer83
It seems future anti-missile defense isnt based anymore on missiles more likely its microwave, laser, still something that can react much faster and travel trough air quicker with lower cost rate.


this is true. the navy is drooling over the current point defense systems that use lasers to engage targets, however they are not willing to put them on board vessels because the lasers used in the ABM, THEIL, ect are chemcial lasers - they operate by maixing various nasty chemcials together. when you are aboard a ship in the middle of the ocean and have to do damge control it would be a real bummer to have tonns of halogens or highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide spilling all over the place, so untill the state of the art in alternate laser sources can be advanced the navy doesnt have a source of light to power such a defensive weapon.

LLNL's heat capacity laser has shown alot of progress in this regard, especially by the use of doping the lasant into a liquid so as to provide a nearly limitless magazine depth. there are only engineering efforts and const reduction needed to be done aty this point to bring such weapons into the field. the military has set a 100kw threshold for weapons that engage out to 10 km, with Mw of power needed to engage out to 100's of km. already solid state laser technoilogy exists that could deliver power in the 100kw class. once these point defense weapons start finding their way onto carriers and or support ships, they will be for all intents and purposes literally invincable against airborn threats. manuvering at even 1000 g's and mach 10 doesnt mean squat when someone is firing bullets at you that move 186,000 miles PER SECOND


Originally posted by IAF101

Why hasn't America developed a SRAMJET missile? [ I may be ignorant on this
]


we have
the sr-71 used supersonic ram jet engines



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I hate missiles



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Your avaataar is pretty hateable too!!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
i have searched for it on and off for about 6 months i cant find any thing.
I dont know the name of the ship but it was supposed to be a type 23.


It was referred to in the book "Nimitz Class" by Patrick Robinson.


The frigate may be small but they do carry a punch, some cadets i know are seriosly wanting when they join the RN to try and get a place on a type 23


When the captains aren't bullying their officers...



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
[10.8] P-100 ONIX / YAKHONT / BRAHMOS

www.vectorsite.net...

[Quote]
.....the weapon wasn't introduced to service until the late 1990s. ....

It carries a 300 kilogram (660 pound) SAP warhead, has a coating of radar-absorbent material to help it penetrate adversary defenses, and carries a radar warning system to tell it to initiate evasive action.
[/Quote]

This combination will make it harder to detect which means it will get closer to the battlegroup before detection. Also not sure but with evasive maneuvering this will reduce SAM intercept success.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
The video showing interception of target drones by ESSM was really excellent.It has been added to my collection.But it only shows ESSM taking on utmost 2 vandals.Would Aegis and ESSM be able to tackle 4-5 or possibly even more vandals weaving in both horizontal and vertical planes ?

[edit on 8-6-2006 by harishkumar09]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Brahmos was not designed to take on USN super carriers.

The very fact it soars into the stratosphere to make its Mach 3 dash towards its target makes it vulnerable to be destroyed by ESSM and SM-X missiles.They have a full five minutes to do the interception.But the fact you will have to get within 300 KM of the battle group means it is never going to happen.The surface vehicle or aircraft is likely to be intercepted before that.Of course Brahmos also has a lo-lo trajectory with a range of 120 km.In such cases it travels hugging the terrain throught its flight path.This is more diffiuclt to intercept.If a submarine , and all indian subs will be brahmos - equipped in the near future , comes within 100 KM of a carrier group undetected , then it will be up to the Sea Sparrows and the Sea Rams to take on the Brahmos.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
The Americans clearly have the technology to make the supersonic cruise missiles.If they are not doing it its because they dont consider it necessaaty.They feel that the harpoons and the tomahawaks are more than enough.They consider the soviet electronics and computers are not advanced enough to pick the sea skimming harpoons and tomahawks.Even if they had computing power now easily available in the commercial market they consider that the radars dont have the res to pick up a sea skimmer.

The Soviets OTOH know well that Americans have superior electronics and raw computing power.So the emphasis is on getting to the target as fast as possible.So there is not much reaction time available to use chaff , decoys and CM active or passive.Sooner or later you will have to engage the missile.Soviets also reckon that even if the missile is intercepted and destroyed , the kinetic energy of the fragments will do sufficient damage to the ships , esp radar and comm gear and possible CIWS.So the next salvo will have to deal with a dumb ship and it will be sent to davy jones locker.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
ON BOARD USS Kitty Hawk (150 miles west of Port Blair), September 7: As the small green dots approached closer on the radar screen, the Indian officer sitting deep inside USS Nimitz knew it was too late to save the ship. Jaguar maritime fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF), operating from the Car Nicobar air base, had managed to come dangerously within striking range to successfully launch anti-ship missiles on the super carrier. The IAF registered its first “kill” of the day — none less than the mighty nuclear powered Nimitz with its compliment of 85 fighters. But the young officer, on a cross attachment to the US ship, barely had time to feel proud. The battle had begun in earnest and the target now was India’s lone aircraft carrier.

INS Viraat, however, proved easy meat for the joint striking force of US F-18 Super Hornets and IAF Jaguars with the American fighters deliberately flying over the ship to drive home their air-superiority skills.


In the above excercise...IAF Jaguars did register a kill...with anti ship missiles...and the missiles they were using is not the Brahmos...so yeah it is possible to sink an AC like the nimitz...it just comes down to tactics...sure its hard to penetrate its air defence systems...but a sub for instance could wipe out the nimitz...plus the sheer kinetic energy of the missile is about 12 times thats of the tomahawk...flies just 8 to 10 ft above the surface...trust me...one hit...and the ship sinks...the force at which it hits...will blow a hole quiet deep in the belly of the ship...plus the high explosive warhead will ensure...absolute destruction...it will sink within 5 to 10 mins...plus nimitz is nuclear powered...could set off a chain reaction that could wipe out the entire fleets electrical systems due to emp. to think about it...you just have to hit the super carrier and its destruction would render the rest of the battle group use less...i seriously doubt that a small scale nuclear power plant in a AC would survive a direct powerful hit from Brahmos...and if the reactor explodes...the reaction can't be contained or controlled...and the chain reaction would wipe out every thing in a 15 miles radius...air craft, ship, subs...every thing electrical stops functioning...there goes your strategic advantage...plus before you hit the AC you take out all the AEGIS and the GMD's protecting it...using brahmos launched either from the air or subs...and then a single brahmos will send the AC to its final resting place at the bottom of the ocean...anyways if there is a will there is a way....since the AC has layered protection...one must take it down layer by layer...Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) installed on AC's are effective on missles with a top speed of mach 2...brahmos travels at mach 3...even at low altitude it cruises at mach 2.5...just 10 ft above the surface...chances are they wont see it coming...they can detect it... but tracking will be much harder...so yeah...i can say one brahmos against a super carrier...i would give it a hit probability of 95%...



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keizer
In the above excercise...IAF Jaguars did register a kill...with anti ship missiles...and the missiles they were using is not the Brahmos...so yeah it is possible to sink an AC like the nimitz...it just comes down to tactics...


Is it possible to sink a super carrier? Absolutely. However this exercise proves absolutely nothing, in respect to the previous statement, I trust I do not have to tell you why. Joint combat exercise operations cannot be used to definitively state a point, real world scenarios are rarely so choreographed nor so predictable, not to mention the complexity is order of magnitude larger.


Originally posted by Keizer
a sub for instance could wipe out the nimitz...


Modern day attack summaries pose the single greatest (likely) risk to an aircraft carrier; it is the most efficient way to attack a carrier. Still, considering it gets past the defenses, it would take several conventional torpedoes to sink a super carrier.

Now, for the rest of your post, please do not take offense, let me just say that it is pure fantasy on your part and not at all realistic, probable and in some respects possible. You are entitled to your opinion of course but in this case you have to do more research and give the topic greater thought.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   
The USN never really needed hypersonic anti shipping missles due to what they were going to do in case of war: Guarding convoy's and air attacks. Russia just needed to counter that and the best way with that is advaned very high speed anti shipping missles.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join