is the US navy unbeatable???

Originally posted by FredT
As impressive as the Sunburn is and as impressive as the Bhramos may be, Warships and carriers in general are pretty robust crafts. The carrier alone is huge. Now a few hits may disable the carrier which for a short engagement may be victory in and of itself. A CVN that cannot launch and recover aircraft is no better than a nuclear powered love boat.

I agree FredT,

But i think the main purpose in getting these carrier "killers" is not to actualy sink it to the bottom but to disable it for any action. A carrier has heaps of watertight comparments and i doubt that a missile, unless nuclear equipped, could destroy one

I'm sorry but the claim is still absurd - a single Sunburn isn't going to take out a 100,000 ton CVN.

As me have established, it is 54K structural tons, not the 100K tons on displacement.

Now, a single Sunburn, hitting the right spot, might be able to score a mission kill - doing enough damage to prevent flight operations. But as far as actually sinking a CVN, that would take a great deal more damage than any single conventionally armed weapon is going to create.

I agree, a Sunburn by it self can not sink a carrier, but as we all know, it doesn't always take an overwhelming force to achieve a desired goal.

What I am suggesting is that by compromising the keel, given the facts at hand it is more then capable to initiate a break up chain reaction, using the weight of the carrier against it rather then trying to pulverize the whole thing in a massive explosion or punch a hole big enough to sink it from flooding.

David vs. Goliath type of scenario, which proves to be an effective one time and time again.

To give you an idea how hard it is to sink a large warship, in 1946, USS Saratoga (laid down in 1927 and displacing only 39,000 tons) was used as part of a target fleet in a pair of nuclear tests. In test Able, an airburst, she took only mild damage. For test Baker, an underwater detonation, she was only about 800 yards from a 20kt explosion, and still took over eight hours to sink, with no damage control efforts whatsoever.

Airburst will give a good rocking, wipe some externals, that's it. Underwater detonation generates a long wave, also giving it a good rocking, and depending on the position relative to the wave, will break it's back or compromise it's infrastructure and initiate the break up I have described earlier.

Australian tests of underwater "gas bubble" detonation under the keel of a ship proved it to be a "sure shot" ship killer, by raising the hull out of the water just enough to cause the keel to break up under the whole weight of the ship.

Sunburn shares a similar principle, much as a concept of a shaped charge verses a huge cannon verses the armor of the tank.

When Germans first used Panzerfaust against Russian tanks, Russian generals refused to believe that a mighty tank can be literally blown up by some kid with a hand held rocket, yet it is a fact.

As far as the kinetic energy of a Sunburn, it packs quite a punch. But consider this - a WW2 16" gun delivered a 2,000lb armor-piercing explosive-packed projectile traveling at about 1500mph. And a single hit was still insufficient to sink far smaller vessels than a CVN.

Unlike cannon shells, bombs and other conventional weapons, guided munitions are designed to attack the weakest part of their targets.

2,000lb shell does not even come close to stryking a ships keel, and it would be a lucky shot if it actually hit it, therefore it can not be compared to Sunburn.

Sunburns kinetics allow it to get to the weakest part, the keel, and even if the damage caused will not sink the vessel immediately, a ship with a broken keel is a goner. Can't tow it, can repair it, it's a salvage at best.

I have asked for help with calculations in order to leave speculation and opinions behind, yet it seems no one wants to go that particular route, so lets change the parameters a bit.

Let's again try to use the information we do have instead of speculating, and use the Tomahawk Titanium case Block III warhead as reference, since it is the closest to Sunburns warhead.

Conditions to establish;

Various angles of attack (in degrees) on the keel.

Top attack, 45 degree attack, below water line attack, etc.

Instead of busting through all the decks, what would the deceleration values be if it attacked the keel by going through the water for example, will it reach the keel given the attack angle, what would the affected area be, etc.

Let's get actual instead of going in circles again and again.

Just saying that "it'll never happen cause it's so big and stuff", and "it'll not sink because it has do many water compartments" is not very constructive. They used to think the same about Titanic btw.

If the blast causes sufficient damage to start a chain reaction, bulkheads will naturally rupture first from the structural collapse, and then from the water pressure, regardless of how many of them there are.

Again, the main question is, will Sunburn deliver the damage necessary to initiate the break up of the keel/hull, not where ever it will make it to its target or blast a hole big enough to sink it from flooding.

edit:splng

[edit on 13-4-2006 by iskander]

Well in WW2 although used very good fighting techniques were beaten for a simple thing...intelligence, the US, if you'll remember infiltrated the japanese comms systems, and where able to decipher most of the important and non-important messages, so no matter how good the japs were, the US had the edge over them, even though the japs had more combat hardened crews and larger battleships, great planes and huge torpedoes, the US keeped up and beat the cr$p out of them at midway, and all the way to Iwo Jima (same story for germans)...so my thought is, if the US comms, could be deciphered this same way, and the enemy had the weapons and guts to take advantage of it (like in the cold war, when the soviets infiltrated navy comms) it would be plausible for the US navy to be defeated wouldn't it? other than that, the US has no reallistical opponent...china is in diapers navy-wise, and russia is not nearly at full combat capability, so no it's certainly not unbeatable, only all it's enemies are either weakened from past grandeur (russia), or just weak (china), and those are it's major opponents, no other country might be a threat for the navy for now, but if we were talking about this happening in the cold war...well it might be a very different story, would it not?

Originally posted by iskander
What I am suggesting is that by compromising the keel, given the facts at hand it is more then capable to initiate a break up chain reaction, using the weight of the carrier against it rather then trying to pulverize the whole thing in a massive explosion or punch a hole big enough to sink it from flooding.

With shrapnel? Come on what shrapnel are we going to use? 12 foot shards?

Sunburn shares a similar principle, much as a concept of a shaped charge verses a huge cannon verses the armor of the tank.

No it doesnt lol, it detonates after the warhead passes through the warhead no way does a penetrator need this when the missile itself penetrates the target for the charge lol.
[quiote]
When Germans first used Panzerfaust against Russian tanks, Russian generals refused to believe that a mighty tank can be literally blown up by some kid with a hand held rocket, yet it is a fact.

Bit of a diffrenece between a small charge vs cheap russian tanks than a sunburn missile sinking a carrier with purely shrapnel...unless there are two charges?

With shrapnel? Come on what shrapnel are we going to use? 12 foot shards?

I'm sorry what? Shards?

No it doesnt lol, it detonates after the warhead passes through the warhead no way does a penetrator need this when the missile itself penetrates the target for the charge lol.

warhead passes through the warhead? How does that work and why is it funny? I'm beginning to worry here.

"no way does a penetrator need this when the missile itself penetrates the target for the charge lol."

I do not understand what you are saying. The missile has to pay the target money to penetrate it? What is this? Are you feeling ok there chap?

I do not understand what you are saying. The missile has to pay the target money to penetrate it? What is this? Are you feeling ok there chap?

Iskander that was funny! I think I know what DW is trying to say but the way he chose to word it makes for a rather puzzling read.

Apparently in recent exercises Aussie subs were able to remain undetected underneath a US frigate and carrier for extended periods of time. As a result the USN applied a 100 meter exclusion zone around their ships at all times except wartime. Fwiw.

Iskander that was funny! I think I know what DW is trying to say but the way he chose to word it makes for a rather puzzling read.

I'm just trying to figure out where he's coming from, you know, 'cause the post makes no sense what so ever, but yea it is rather comical

Hell I get like that when I on no sleep for over 48 hours, but I still keep it on the bubble, you know.

Actually, right now the US Navy is decommissioning all of its F-14's. They will all be out of service by summer.. considering the operational range of the F-14, its higher speed and payload than the F/A-18, I think the US Navy has gone down a notch. They knew it was better in many aspects, but the upkeep costs are too inefficient.

Originally posted by SteveR
Actually, right now the US Navy is decommissioning all of its F-14's. They will all be out of service by summer.. considering the operational range of the F-14, its higher speed and payload than the F/A-18, I think the US Navy has gone down a notch. They knew it was better in many aspects, but the upkeep costs are too inefficient.

Uhm, the F/A-18E/F block II is the best Naval fighter ever built by a large margin, and one of the best fighters in the world. Even the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter is only considered a mild upgrade to the F/A-18E/Fs, trading less payload for more stealth. The F/A-18E/F beats the F-14 any model in every catagory, including payload and range.

You must be talking about the F/A-18C/D models, which can't be replaced fast enough as far as I am concerned, even though it is superior to the vast majority of fighter-bomberss of the late 80s.

Superbug Fan? Well, doesn't matter what plane you like, numbers can't be argued with.

Here's some specs for the F-18E, shown with F-14D.

Max Speed at High Altitude
F-18E: 1,190mph
F-14D: 1,544mph.

I really don't need to go on but..

Range

F-18E: 173 miles combat, (air superiority).
F-14D: 576 miles combat.

The Hornet has significantly more range on an interdiction mission, but the above comparison stands.

Steve

The Sunburn isn't even one of the best anti-anti ship missile of the Navies that use it, and people are treating it like the best anti-ship missile in the world.

That is what bothers me about Mark Gaffney's piece on the Sunburn, it made wild claims that were simply inaccurate, but people bought into it completely because it sounded reasonable.

The only thing impressive about the Sunburn is its speed. Other than that, in every other catagory of missile technology, the Sunburn ranks among the bottom in capability.

If you look at historically effective cruise missile attacks, none of the attacks were effective because of the warhead, they were effective because of the resulting fires the missiles caused.

Regardless of what you have heard on the 'internet' by experts on messageboards, the military experts worldwide unanimously claim the best anti-ship missiles in the world today are sub-sonic missiles, not super-sonic missiles. All this hype about the Sunburn is just that, hype, it is why both the Russians and the Chinese who use the Sunburn are developing replacement missiles with improved capabilities.

Nothing personal iskander, you are well spoken and do appear to research more than most, but your lack of knowledge regarding Naval technology is obvious and your expertise in cruise missile attacks against warships is questionable based on your comments. Don't confuse that as a personal attack, it is simply a public identification of you as an amature applying speculation without science to Naval technology, and when you act offended when being questioned by others, it comes off as being done on the basis or claim of expertise that you have yet to demonstrate.

Some examples of key points not covered in your analysis.

A 300kg - 350kg warhead on the Sunburn isn't going to do as much damage as you are implying. That is basically the equal of 2 Exocet missiles, which did minimal warhead damage to a USS Stark frigate in the Persian Gulf, a 4000 ton warship. In fact, upon review by the US Navy, it was determined most of the damage to the Stark was caused by the resulting fire by the fuel of the Exocets, not the warheads themselves.

With a Sunburn missile you have to remember, most of the fuel of the ram-jet style system gets burned to achieve high missile speed, so there isn't much fuel upon final impact. Without the fuel, you have to rely on the ship to provide the fuel for the fire. Without the fire, an anti-ship missile is not going to be effective against a large warship like a carrier with a hit above the water line.

And finally, the analysis of how super sonic speed missiles is going to break the back of a warship, particularly a carrier, is based on fiction not physics. In April of 1988, the USS Sampson and USS Wainwright used 4 SM-1 missiles at less than 3km to sink the Iranian corvette Joshen. The SM-1s were travelling at over mach 2.5 when they hit the Joshen.

Under the theory regarding Sunburn physics that will 'break the back' of a ship, the 275 ton Joshen should have shattered into paper pieces upon impact of just 1 SM-1, much less 4. It didn't happen though, because your theory is forgetting what Navy people know, missiles don't cause significant damage warships, the resulting fire does. The Joshen, for example, was overcome by enormous fires quickly, and sank as a solid flame similar to an oil well on fire with no survivors.

The Sunburn is a low fuel missile with short range which means it will be fired at maximum range. That leaves no missile fuel for fire, which means significantly less damage.

Your theory about 'bunker busting' effect doesn't make sense to me. It is basically the theory that a single depleted uranium bullet from an A-10 would be able to explode an APC. Well, it can't. I just don't understand the physics of how a 4.5 ton missile (launch weight btw, impact weight would be at least half, at least) is going to 'break the back' of a 97,000 ton warship. Even at max weight, that is litterally the difference between a 1 lb bullet and an 11 ton truck.

From what I can gather there's few defences against modern diesel submarines and their torpedo systems in deep water, apart from strength in numbers in the hope that fewer ships will be hit. This applies to all navies across the board. In shallow waters most subs are vulnerable and can even be picked off relatively easily from the air. The Iranians have lethal Kilo class subs but apparently their training is shocking, negating the lethality and effectiveness of their subs.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by JamesinOz]

Of course, it is the responsibility of the United States navy to worry about what a sub like that could do, not what it could currently be expected to do. There's a rather extensive thread in the aviation forum about an excercise between US and Indian Air Forces, from which I gather a certain degree of underestimating the Indian Air Force was involved. Between the concepts of luck, and knowing what a small handful of truely competant officers can do with a ship in a relatively small period of time, it makes no sence to regard any platform as less capable based on traditional views of crew performance.

As to the Super Bug Vs. Tomcat debate let me just say this, the F-14 was a great fighter when it came out but today it can be replaced with the Super Hornet.

The majority of the F-14’s in service were the A version with 557 being built, there were only 55 D versions. As such its basically 70’s technology with a few upgrades. The F-14 may have a powerful radar but its RCS is huge and the capability of the AIM-54 is not great against small maneuverable fighters, it would not be launched at 100 miles out, it would have to be launched closer to increase the PK. The Aim-54 was designed to be launched at stand off distances at soviet bombers flying over the ocean.

Now the F/A-18EF Block II has an AN/APG-79 AESA radar witch has triple the detection range of the old AN/APG-73, and it has an all new electronics suite. It has a smaller RCS than the F-14 and its more maneuverable. The Super Hornet carry's the AIM-120C-7 which has a greater range than the old AIM-120A and in the near future it will carry the AIM-120D. The SH can carry 17,750 LB of payload the F-14 only 13,000LB. Another crucial area that does not get much attention where the SH is superior to the F-14 is the maintenance department. The F-14 requires 40-60 maintenance man hours per flight hours, the SH only 5-10 hours. What good is a fighter if its stuck on the ground?

Conclusion, the F-14 was a great fighter and it s was great for its role, however the airframe, technology are old and its maintenance requirements are a problem. The SH offers may improvements over the F-14 and in the future will only get better. Also, for all of you who fear those few remaining Russian bombers that can fly, don't worry, if WWIII ever breaks out the F-14 will be back up flying CAP missions in no time.

Sources
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6

[edit on 15-4-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Also most countries that can actually build a tactical nuke small enough to fit onto a cruise missile(here only Russia and maybe China) will also have the ability to maky your country(US) glow in the dark.

Yeah but I wonder which country will be a parking lot and which country will just have one or two cities glowing?

I missed this and so I'm going to respond.
You honestly think that the best the Russians can still do TODAY, even in a COUNTER N-strike is just make two or three US cities glow? Maybe China's a little less capable than Russia but still they can do more damage than just 2 or 3 cities in a counter strike. It runs into 10s and 20s at least. And that's only ballistic delivery. Its all there for you to look up. Numbers, warheads yields, detonations patterns,delivery methods etc. etc.

And then you warheads delivered by non-ballistic means. If you're talking total annhilation then by all means if I have 50/100 missiles and some 600(China)/6000+(Russia) warheads I'm going to make sure that I detonate half of those in the CONUS.I'd kee at least 1/4 of the warheads fro future deterrance and use the remaing on miiltary assets worldwide. This might not be relevant to the topic at hand but it is definitely relevant to the this 'unbeatable' aura that needs to be re-examined.

Back to topic. I think this brought up earlier: If it was then I'm bumping it back up again.

Su-27, Su-24 buzz USS Kitty Hawk thrice: (Fall 2000)

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.freerepublic.com...

If one were to just examine the armament these a/c can carry, then the possibility of dispatching 'irrepairable damage' to a carrier is evident.

How in blazes did this even happen??!
And this was at a time when the USN wasn't 'stretched'. Also the USS Cole incident had happened around the same time which should have put the carrier on what you guys call 'Alert 5' or something. To top it off this carrier was in a area of strategic flux (Sea of Japan) and hence should have been more aware.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Also most countries that can actually build a tactical nuke small enough to fit onto a cruise missile(here only Russia and maybe China) will also have the ability to maky your country(US) glow in the dark.

Yeah but I wonder which country will be a parking lot and which country will just have one or two cities glowing?

I missed this and so I'm going to respond.
You honestly think that the best the Russians can still do TODAY, even in a COUNTER N-strike is just make two or three US cities glow? Maybe China's a little less capable than Russia but still they can do more damage than just 2 or 3 cities in a counter strike. It runs into 10s and 20s at least. And that's only ballistic delivery. Its all there for you to look up. Numbers, warheads yields, detonations patterns,delivery methods etc. etc.

And then you warheads delivered by non-ballistic means. If you're talking total annhilation then by all means if I have 50/100 missiles and some 600(China)/6000+(Russia) warheads I'm going to make sure that I detonate half of those in the CONUS.I'd kee at least 1/4 of the warheads fro future deterrance and use the remaing on miiltary assets worldwide. This might not be relevant to the topic at hand but it is definitely relevant to the this 'unbeatable' aura that needs to be re-examined.

Back to topic. I think this brought up earlier: If it was then I'm bumping it back up again.

Su-27, Su-24 buzz USS Kitty Hawk thrice: (Fall 2000)

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.freerepublic.com...

If one were to just examine the armament these a/c can carry, then the possibility of dispatching 'irrepairable damage' to a carrier is evident.

How in blazes did this even happen??!

And this was at a time when the USN wasn't 'stretched'. Also the USS Cole incident had happened around the same time which should have put the carrier on what you guys call 'Alert 5' or something. To top it off this carrier was in a area of strategic flux (Sea of Japan) and hence should have been more aware.

shooting them down would be considered an act of war. The last thing we need is a war with russia which could wreak nuclear havoc as well cause WW you dont want to take any risks shooting it down. Better lose a carrier than a state. Anyways why would russia want to sink it they know it would cause a war.

Originally posted by darksided
The Sunburn isn't even one of the best anti-anti ship missile of the Navies that use it, and people are treating it like the best anti-ship missile in the world.

Says you and who else?

The supersonic Sunburn missile, which can be mounted on a naval or mobile land platform, was designed specifically to destroy American aircraft carriers and other warships equipped with advanced Aegis radar and combat management systems. The US Navy considers the missile to be extremely difficult to defend against, adds the resolution.

It continues that the Sunburn missile has an over-the-horizon range of 65 miles and can deliver a 200-kiloton warhead in under two minutes. One conventional Sunburn missile can sink a warship or disable an aircraft carrier, causing the deaths of hundreds of American military personnel.

It points out that land, sea, or air-launched Sunburn missiles raise the potential for American casualties and could affect the outcome in any future conflict in the Taiwan Straits or South China Sea. Moreover, the transfer of the missile by Beijing to Iran or other belligerent nations in the Persian Gulf region would increase the potential for conflict and for American casualties.

www.fas.org...

In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Sunburn. Fisher reported that the Sunburn is capable of a dive speed of nearly 3000 miles an hour, helping it evade U.S. naval defenses.

"The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.

"The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Sunburn, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution - not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750 lb. warhead." The Clinton-Gore administration could have bought the entire active inventory of deadly Sunburn missiles in 1995, ending forever a deadly threat to our allies and U.S. Navy warships. Today, the Navy is still interested in buying Sunburn missiles from Russia. In August 2000, the U.S. Navy quietly issued a defense contract proposal on its Internet site to "evaluate the feasibility of obtaining" Sunburn missiles from Russia. According to the new proposal, the Navy is now willing to pay $2 million a Sunburn, more than twice the price of the 1995 Russian offer.

www.newsmax.com...

Who is this "Fisher" guy?

www.uscc.gov...

Santoli is not the only defense analyst who is concerned about the new Sunburn missile. According to two top China experts, the Sunburn missiles and the new Russian destroyers are a significant threat to the U.S. Navy.
"Recently, the PLA Navy took delivery of its initial Russian Sovremenny-class destroyer. A second one will arrive in the fall, and there are ongoing negotiations for perhaps four more," said Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett, in an article published April 13 in the Washington Times.

Triplett, a former China analyst at the CIA, and Edward Timperlake, a former Republican foreign policy aide in Congress, teamed up to write two books, "Year of the Rat" and "Red Dragon Rising."
"These ships were designed to be aircraft carrier 'killers,' as the PLA's principal newspaper noted on March 22. More ominously, the PLA's paper quietly confirmed that the SS-N-22 missiles carried aboard the Sovremenny can be 'nuclear capable,'" noted Timperlake and Triplett.

There is evidence supporting Fisher's allegations that the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn. The only U.S. missile capable of duplicating the Sunburn's blistering low-level performance is the Allied Signal Vandal. Vandal target drones reportedly penetrated U.S. Navy Aegis air defenses during trials. The Vandal program has been canceled by the Clinton administration.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

The NATO designation SS-N-22 ‘Sunburn’ is believed to be designated P270 Moskit, the air-breathing variant of the naval missile 3M80 (the designation 3M80 apparently referring to the Mach 3 speed of 1980 weapons). It may have been designed originally to enhance the effectiveness of Missile Cutter Brigades (that is, units of missile-equipped FACs) and Destroyer Brigades hitherto dependent upon the Malachit or SS-N-9 ‘Siren’. It is used on "Sovremennyy" destroyers (eight missiles on each) and on "Tarantul [Tarantula] III patrol ships (four missiles on each). A high supersonic speed was specified to reduce the target’s time to deploy self-defense weapons, indeed the weapon was designed specifically to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon control system and the SM-2 surface-to-air missile.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

www.globalsecurity.org...

That is what bothers me about Mark Gaffney's piece on the Sunburn, it made wild claims that were simply inaccurate, but people bought into it completely because it sounded reasonable.

Some of us actually researched the issue a bit more than just looking at his take on the issue.

The only thing impressive about the Sunburn is its speed. Other than that, in every other catagory of missile technology, the Sunburn ranks among the bottom in capability.

The sources don't agree with that assessment but feel free to find some that do.

If you look at historically effective cruise missile attacks, none of the attacks were effective because of the warhead, they were effective because of the resulting fires the missiles caused.

The USS start lost 37 killed which means that it's harder to fight the fire or getting there. You should read about the fires caused on Second world aircraft carriers to get a better idea of what fire damage can be suffered in the case we are talking about.

Regardless of what you have heard on the 'internet' by experts on messageboards, the military experts worldwide unanimously claim the best anti-ship missiles in the world today are sub-sonic missiles, not super-sonic missiles.

Links, evidence? It's just not what my reading indicates beside showing that even sub sonic missiles can be relatively lethal.

All this hype about the Sunburn is just that, hype, it is why both the Russians and the Chinese who use the Sunburn are developing replacement missiles with improved capabilities.

No one ever stops improving their weapons however good they are. This is a illogical argument in my opinion.

Nothing personal iskander, you are well spoken and do appear to research more than most, but your lack of knowledge regarding Naval technology is obvious and your expertise in cruise missile attacks against warships is questionable based on your comments.

His imo rather better informed than you are so i don't think the pointing of fingers is going to serve you here.

Don't confuse that as a personal attack, it is simply a public identification of you as an amature applying speculation without science to Naval technology, and when you act offended when being questioned by others, it comes off as being done on the basis or claim of expertise that you have yet to demonstrate.

And you have qualifications making your speculation somehow more valid and above suspicion?

Some examples of key points not covered in your analysis.

A 300kg - 350kg warhead on the Sunburn isn't going to do as much damage as you are implying. That is basically the equal of 2 Exocet missiles, which did minimal warhead damage to a USS Stark frigate in the Persian Gulf, a 4000 ton warship. In fact, upon review by the US Navy, it was determined most of the damage to the Stark was caused by the resulting fire by the fuel of the Exocets, not the warheads themselves.

One of the missiles did not explode but it still killed 37 and wounded 21 out of the crew of 206. Now with some basic math that leads me to the assumption that we can work on the number of probably 28% of the crew not being around for quick damage control. The type of lucky hit that got this missile into the crew quarters wont stop a Sunburn from getting the same kind of luck getting to even more critical areas of the ship.

With a Sunburn missile you have to remember, most of the fuel of the ram-jet style system gets burned to achieve high missile speed, so there isn't much fuel upon final impact. Without the fuel, you have to rely on the ship to provide the fuel for the fire.

And carriers are not huge floating fire hazards?

Without the fire, an anti-ship missile is not going to be effective against a large warship like a carrier with a hit above the water line.

Well it seems at least a few prominent people disagree with that assessment and i have not seen the source material that convinced you otherwise. If you provide it i will read it.

And finally, the analysis of how super sonic speed missiles is going to break the back of a warship, particularly a carrier, is based on fiction not physics. In April of 1988, the USS Sampson and USS Wainwright used 4 SM-1 missiles at less than 3km to sink the Iranian corvette Joshen. The SM-1s were travelling at over mach 2.5 when they hit the Joshen.

It's a very small ship that are simply not prone to the same kind of structural issues that must be resolved on 330 meter vessel's.

Under the theory regarding Sunburn physics that will 'break the back' of a ship, the 275 ton Joshen should have shattered into paper pieces upon impact of just 1 SM-1, much less 4.

The accounts i have read suggested harpoons were also fired at the ship beside the Standard missiles you said. I would not mind a look at your sources.

If it turns out it was in fact hit only with standard missiles that's still 4 long range ( 80 - 170 odd km) anti aircraft missiles with 60 odd kg HE warheads. Now at 3 km range that is ALL the fuel going up and it's no surprise that that ship went up in flames and no surprise that it suffered relatively little structural damage considering the Proximity fuse/high-explosive warheads used. Some accounts suggested they still had to sink the ship with gunfire thought so any information you can contribute would be appreciated.

It didn't happen though, because your theory is forgetting what Navy people know, missiles don't cause significant damage warships, the resulting fire does. The Joshen, for example, was overcome by enormous fires quickly, and sank as a solid flame similar to an oil well on fire with no survivors.

As i said above the sources do not seem to agree to wont mind a look at which your working from. The navy seems to be afraid enough of high speed missiles despite what your claiming here.

The Sunburn is a low fuel missile with short range which means it will be fired at maximum range. That leaves no missile fuel for fire, which means significantly less damage.

Carriers have planes and plenty of other things that are pretty explosive.

Your theory about 'bunker busting' effect doesn't make sense to me. It is basically the theory that a single depleted uranium bullet from an A-10 would be able to explode an APC.

Depends entirely on what it hits just like in the case of a carrier.

Well, it can't. I just don't understand the physics of how a 4.5 ton missile (launch weight btw, impact weight would be at least half, at least) is going to 'break the back' of a 97,000 ton warship. Even at max weight, that is litterally the difference between a 1 lb bullet and an 11 ton truck.

Well if you hit the driver of the 11 ton truck ( with that 1 lb bullet) the weight becomes pretty irrelevant and that is what he is trying to point out. Weight( spread over such a massive area) is no defense against superior employment of explosives effectiveness and shear inertia. What would happen if there is a serious breach or weakening of any of the three main structural supports?

The hull of the ship is made up of extremely strong steel plates, measuring several inches thick. This heavy body is highly effective protection against fire and battle damage. The ship's structural support largely comes from three horizontal structures extending across the entire hull: the keel (the iron backbone on the bottom of the ship), the flight deck and the hangar deck.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Stellar

Originally posted by urmomma158
shooting them down would be considered an act of war.

Not when their flying over a carrier at low level which they did not manage for 30 years untill the recent spate of events.

The last thing we need is a war with russia which could wreak nuclear havoc as well cause WW you dont want to take any risks shooting it down.

Well that is obvious yes but the question remains why they were not intercepted and escorted as is standard practice.

Better lose a carrier than a state. Anyways why would russia want to sink it they know it would cause a war.

Only they could have a similar situation occuring with all American carriers at sea with aircraft/submarines or surface ships holding them at gunpoint as was the Soviet practice.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

should give you an idea of what i think happened and why the Soviet Union/Russia loved making such really big and deadly first strike weapons.

Stellar

Originally posted by urmomma158
shooting them down would be considered an act of war. The last thing we need is a war with russia which could wreak nuclear havoc as well cause WW you dont want to take any risks shooting it down. Better lose a carrier than a state. Anyways why would russia want to sink it they know it would cause a war.

Yeah..
And so you let hostile a/c fly around and over your carriers?
Carriers 101:

If you(Carrier fleet) detect unidentified a/c (like the CO had claimed in this case) you:

1. Ascertain Identity and try to establish radio contact

2. If a/c(s) do not respond and continue on intercept/provocative heading you go to Alert 5 and launch fighters to intercept a/c. Obviously you do not 'engage' in peace time but you intercept nonetheless.

3. On interception you gain try to establish RC and ward the a/c(s) off.

4. Depending on approaching a/c's tactics you take corresponding action:

a). You try and buzz it and show-off in the process as long as it does not behave in a hostile manner, i.e. engage radar weaps or try and get on your six.

b). Lastly if it continues on present heading towards the carrier you assess what weapons it is carrying and based on that you realy back to carrier command amd take corresponding action, i.e. get on the a/c's six and engage
weaps lock. Mantain weaps lock for as long as reqd. and escort a/c out of carrier's reach.

Now none of the above procedures constitute an act of war. Infact the very last point 4(b) will DEFINITELY invoke a response from the approaching a/c as nobody likes to have a radar lock on. Even if it doesn't the fighter knows that he's history as soons as he 'loosens' a weapon.

In the above mentioned case the Kitty Hawk was stuck a point 2 !!
And when it responded, it responded witha EA-6 Prowler !!

There are only 2 plausible explanations :

1) The Kitty Hawk never saw the Su's coming.
2) The Kitty Hawk didn't do anything even though it saw the Su's coming.

Now if (1) happened that's bad and there lies my point. You can definitely improve here, and maybe the USN already has.
But if (2) happened then that's not just bad, its terrible!