posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:54 AM
We often hear talk about "this or that" missile will destroy a carrier or ship but i've actually seen pictures and read articles which have shown
pictures of ships that have survived multiple hits from a ASCM missile.
Read _The Sixth Battle_ and you'll get some idea of what an AS-4 or 6 (Duuuh, IIRR) will do to carrier's flight deck. Conventional attack, 13,000lb
weapon, 2,200lb warhead, Mach 3++ high angle dive = 30 foot wide hole in an armored flight deck with almost /nothing/ left of the spaces below.
People often talk about the sunburn missile as a threat, lets say it does hit will it really do anything to an aircraft carrier apart from blow a hole
in the side. i dont think it can sink or destory a carrier becuase a carrier is just so much bigger then some of the ships that have been hit with
these types of missiles.
Holes Blow Out. Water Rushes In. No more flight deck ops with a major list and no knots.
What size payload is needed to destory/sink a modern aircraft carrier considering the following specs :
-medium/large aircraft carrier(american/russian types)
-assuming it gets through to the target.
-has a payload of about 488lbs(harpoon)/~300kg(sunburn/moskit)
They vastly over enumerated the amount of U235 required to make Little Boy work. As I recall it was on the order of 2.5 times critical mass for a
total of about 64kg. Because of the materials involved and some eficiency issues with the gun method, they 'only' achieved about 13-17KTyield
whereas Fat Man (Pu bomb of about 13kg but with a massive implosive lens penalty of about 2,500kg of mixed IHE/TNT. Mind you, the gun assembly
necessary to withstand the gun/target accelerations without breakup was itself no small thing.
But again, using _TSB_ as point, we can now create 'SKINC' or Sub Kiloton Insertable Nuclear Components which have the equivalent blast of .2KT or
about 4-5 Mk.84 bombs in a depth charge sized container similar to the 500lb B57.
I would assume perhaps half this yeild, spread over a wave attack of 10-20 missiles (more for penetration value than anything related to 'aimpoint',
would be more than sufficient. Similarly, a Deep Swimmer Device which could 'creep' underneath a CVSF _at full yield_ (5-10KT for a 500lb B57)
would likely generate a sufficient water column effect to break a CV's spine.
In the Cod War it would have worked because Russia was 'already there' in any Continental fight she cared to play in and naval power is worthless if
it takes longer (or is easier to kill in trying) to bring the fight over the water than in-place or rail transfered assets can resolve it.
China is a mercantile trade nation with limited and somewhat containable sea access so she cannot afford to say things like "You can sink my entire
surface fleet, I'll even give you the coordinates...but don't light the nuclear candle."
China has been massing a huge quantity of missiles and so has iran. now lets say everything goes perfect for them and somehow missiles get through
how many missiles do you think it will take to kock out a aircraft carrier or how much of a single payload would be required.
I wouldn't willingly put a carrier within 500nm of Chinese Shores if I had a choice. Free Willy's parading a CVBG up and down the Formosa straight
was nothing short of pure arrogance ammounting to a death wish, even from 'conventional' threats.
That said, the real problem is period interval between the arrival of the carrier in theater. It's general tagging by OTH radar or overhead assets.
And it's arrival at a point able to generate a _numbered sortie_ useful 'sphere of influence' around the boat.
Vs. Your ability to do realistically precise ASST from whatever asset you choose (a buoy or long line/SOSUS as much as a Badger or Islander). And
from that -moment- create a flyout on a missile of sufficient speed as to make a subsequent area search and refinement unnecessary.
IMO, the only realistic way to achieve this, from a landward position, is with ballistic or aeroballistic devices and 'rod from god' MARV
However; an alternative does exist, both as a direct attack on the CV itself and through graduated reduction/rollback of her companions.
And that is to _go micro_. Specifically by taking a submunition that could be dense packed like TGSM and yet had performance on the order of LOCAAS,
if not MALD.
And packing 8-10 deep in a weapon equivalent to our T-16/20 precursors to the ATACMS.
You see, so long a 'every wolf listens' _only one_ needs howl. While sensors like LIDAR can characterize literal aim 'points' within a larger
signature outline that are subsequently stack attackable as specific vulnerability zones of combat specific systems. Whose loss will reduce any
combatant to the level of a lousy-accomodations unifomed cruise liner.
Any VLS. The navbridge and vultures row from whch air ops are run. The Cat Tracks and CDP mounts. The sensor/comms masts. The bomb garden. And of
course the specific aircraft themselves (since we persist in STUPIDLY using the flight deck as a plane park). It is even theoretically possible to
fly into a hangar and 'sharp left' strike at additional aircraft, filled fuel/HPS lines and elevator mechanisms.
The only real requirement being that you keep the numbers vs. approach window sufficiently high and short respectively as to void conventional (non
DEW) mechanical defenses while allowing for overall range sufficient to short-pop the delivery bus away from (and under) convenient midcourse defense
by SM-3 or 6.
Again, 'in theory' you can even do mixed environment attacks with weapons like dolphin bombs or SCT CAPTORs or 'militarized jetskis' emplaced as
conventional mines using timed surface cable antenna extension and buoyancy tanks sufficient to keep under any April Showers or equivalent volume sea
search. Before popping up to take a targeting handoff as soon as the COEA had been established. This would bring left the operational standup window
by potentally letting you avoid development of the bus system as an intra-combat (penetrating) vehicle altogether. Throw them over the side of a
tramp steamer or PCI.
Concentrating solely on the munition and surveillance/targeting methods to keep things 'simple'.
Would any of the above work?
Couldn't tell you. Like I say, I wouldn't fight China with aircraft carriers. At least not as more than decoy forces. How ironic that they are
'so valuable' that every nation which looks at one automatically assumes they /must/ be useful for 'something' wicked-this-way-comes.