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.

 

Forget Sunburn - enter the new carrier killer

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Aegis, Sams 3000 rounds a minute close in guns, all obsolete, the real carrier killers are without a Doubt:


VA-111 Shkval
The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал - squall ) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Russian Navy. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).

Wiki on it

There is currently NO DEFENSIVE SYSTEM against this, none.

So it truly is the only real Carrier Killer and very frightening, as I have said before 4 of these or probably 8-10 would if hitting their targets pretty simualtaniously totally destroy American Projectionable Military Power.

I don't like weapons, or war games, or get much into this, I only like the technology and knowing the world I live in, But these are still in my limited knowledge the only real Carrier Killers as explained, there is nothing to stop them when they are shot.

Kind Regards,

Elf


To my knowledge super cavitating torpedos are not able to steer due to their speed, thus the sub has to be in relatively close range to the carrier to fire it. A sub would not get in close range to a carrier group as it is common knowledge that super carrier groups have multiple subs underneath them as part of the group patrolling for enemy subs, so that makes this torpedo pretty useless.




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
And don't you guys think that the U.S. is well aware of these weapons systems and will make absolute sure in any potential conflict that the first thing they bomb are these missile stations? I would expect that within the first few minutes of the war hundreds of American cruise missiles would pound these chinese missile stations into the ground and then it'll be all over.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Aegis, Sams 3000 rounds a minute close in guns, all obsolete, the real carrier killers are without a Doubt:


VA-111 Shkval
The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал - squall ) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Russian Navy. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).

Wiki on it

There is currently NO DEFENSIVE SYSTEM against this, none.

Snip


To my knowledge super cavitating torpedos are not able to steer due to their speed, thus the sub has to be in relatively close range to the carrier to fire it. A sub would not get in close range to a carrier group as it is common knowledge that super carrier groups have multiple subs underneath them as part of the group patrolling for enemy subs, so that makes this torpedo pretty useless.



I just wish that were the case, im afraid hollywood has made a whole generation believe the lies of American Superior Military Technology,


A prototype of the modernised "Shkval", which was exhibited at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, was discarded. An improved model was designed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead and a guided targeting system, which substantially enhances its combat effectiveness. The first tests of the modernised Shkval torpedo were held by the Russian Pacific Fleet in the spring of 1998.


So they have let us know they have had a Guided or homing one for over a decade, Who knows what is been developed secretly?

And even if the ship is "dead" in the water with no wake, and as you say could not get to close as the screen well:


The 'Region' Scientific Production Association has developed developed an export modification of the missile, 'Shkval-E'. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.


Global Security


As said if only things were that defined and clear.

In both Missiles, Torpedoes, and ELF weaponry Russia does seem to be ahead of the world.

Kind Regards,

Elf

[edit on 10-10-2008 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Russian ship defense suite "Kashtan" may be able to stop this Chinese missile. It uses missiles and automatic cannons to destroy incoming missiles.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
EDIT: In fact it seems Oracle summed up my feelings on this issue quite well so no intervention required here.



Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
How are aircraft carriers obsolete?


Well in terms of world war three against a nuclear armed rival they are but certainly not so against the third world powers the US national security state have consistently chosen to fight.


Aircraft carriers provide the US with some of the greatest force multiplication and force projection capabilities.


Again aircraft carriers mostly allow for active intimidation with the actual means not being nearly as significant as how quickly it can be brought to bear on enemies.


If they were obsolete, why are we building updated ones?

Shattered OUT...


I suppose it's because they required the crew of a dozen smaller vessals thus allowing more personal for the admirals to command. The Carrier mafia have certainly been very effective in maintaining their control over the USN been maintained for a lack of serious opposition from those who wanted to make the USN a force that could win actual world war against first world rivals. Either way they were admitted to be rather large shining targets that had very little capability to survive the combined threats of the USSR's submarine and strategic aviation posed and may not have lasted many days into the conflict.

Stellar

[edit on 11-10-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
about CIWS - it does seem the USA and Europe are teh only ones who don`t mount both missiles and guns on 1 platform - the russian and chinese systems have both as do the turkish and greek ones



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Let's be honest about one thing guys, the ONLY MODERN example of naval warfare between 2 SOMEWHAT evenly matched/militarized nations was the Falklands War in 1982 (I think that's the right year).

And what did we learn from this war? The supposed "modern" Royal Navy lost about 6 major destroyers and cruisers by a barely armed Argentinian force flying planes equivalent to Cessnas with bombs attached.

The Argentinians used the french Exocet missiles to utterly ravage the Royal Navy's destroyers, so imagine what new modern Russian equipment would do to U.S. sitting ducks like carrier groups. The only advantage U.S. would have that Britain lacked a bit in the Falklands war was that Britain didn't have major air superiority due to the fact that they were fighting so far from home. However after they bombed the initial Argentinian bases/runways on the islands, Argentinian forces also had to fly from far away and some of their craft crashed from running out of fuel so it was sort of equal. They were able to evade British radars by flying low until the last minute then popping up and firing the Exocets.

I don't doubt for a second that any U.S. action against a major world power like Russia AWAY from the US homeland would result in massive US casualties to their carrier groups and steel sitting duck flotillas.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Arguing that a carrier can survive missile threats is kinda silly they cant.
I know what your thinking the U.S. Navy's has SeaRAM which can defeat those nasty Mach 2.5 anti-ship missiles. The SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System can defeat it. It's our salvation. Well, not so fast. Ya' see, that little theory depends on two things: 1) that the enemy missile threat will be detected in time and SeaRAM will have a 100% kill rate, and 2) the 11-missile RAM launcher won't run out of missiles before the enemy does.

Boy, that's a lot to depend on. In the tactical shooting a.k.a. defensive shooting world, there's an old saying: "Action beats reaction." In other words, the actor always has the time advantage over the reactor. Time is the reactor's enemy, which means it will be our ships' enemy, if any of the now multiple countries who have supersonic anti-ship missiles and high-speed supercavitating torpedoes decide to launch them on us. Make no mistake, the first ships they'll launch against will be our aircraft carriers, and they'll probably launch a large number of these missiles at one time.

Bottom line, if we get into any kind of serious beef with ANY country that has a decent arsenal of these weapons, our aircraft carriers will most likely be destroyed and sunk within minutes. They're just too big, too slow, and too visible to survive, even with all their onboard and offboard networked defenses. The fact is that high-speed, sophisticated precision anti-ship weapons technology is cheaper and can therefore outpace our ability to protect our big, slow carriers. In the end, war is a financial transaction. Aircraft carriers cost A LOT more to produce, field and replace than even the most sophisticated anti-ship weapons.

[edit on 10/12/08 by dragonridr]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Either way they were admitted to be rather large shining targets that had very little capability to survive the combined threats of the USSR's submarine and strategic aviation posed and may not have lasted many days into the conflict.


The threat of the USSR's submarine force and strategic aviation no longer exist in the same fashion. In the future perhaps such a similar scenario could take place again. However the survivability of the carriers depends entirely on how much one is willing to invest in their defense and upon the tactics of it's usage.


Originally posted by StellarX
Well in terms of world war three against a nuclear armed rival they are...


Virtually every major power, both West and East, is currently investing and planning for a carrier fleet. This includes both Russia and China.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
But according to the experts here, carriers are obsolete Westpoint, why would those very nations who supposedly have carrier-killer armaments be making carriers themselves?

(Sarcasm)

For a while I've been trying to put that thought into words, for whatever reason(beyond me) I could not, thanks for clearing that up.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
But according to the experts here, carriers are obsolete Westpoint, why would those very nations who supposedly have carrier-killer armaments be making carriers themselves?

(Sarcasm)

For a while I've been trying to put that thought into words, for whatever reason(beyond me) I could not, thanks for clearing that up.

Shattered OUT...


Because governments change there strategy very slowly in world war 2 it was thought battleships would win the war at sea. At first carriers were considered useless until they proved other wise. Now they think carriers are important but again there wrong now its subs anything on the surface is a sitting duck. Mark my words there will be only 2 ships left in the future stealth ships and subs. In fact id bet you'll see submersible carriers.

[edit on 10/13/08 by dragonridr]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
CWIS has been removed from the USS Carl Vinson and is not on the USS George Bush.

I don't think the system quite lived up to its advertisement. In addition it appears that other systems have taken it's place.

I see alot of younger and younger faces on these carriers...submarines too. Perhapsed it is because I am no longer a spring chicken myself so to speak. Alot of women on these carriers too. I dont think most of them have a clue as to what they will be getting into...male and female in a shooting war. But then again it has probably always been this way... back to the Roman, Greek, and even the Phonecian navys. Pray for them all. They are going to need it in the future.

As to submarines in a war game...we are not privy as to the Rules of Engagement for the purposes of safety and other reasons in these maneuvers. Hence I do not put alot of stock in news reports of these incidents.
In a shooting war these rules go out the window...rapidly.
Crew members are not at liberty... even after discharge from the service ...in exposing the full capabilities of our boats. And it is a good thing too. I agree with one of the posters here...submarines are a larger threat to all surface vessels than most are even aware.

The new carrier designs are still under construction and redesign in certain areas. I suspect that the new carriers will be designed with certain kinds of unmanned vehicles in mind as I know that they have been taken onboard in mock up form to see how they would handle on the deck and in the hanger spaces. The F35 series of aircraft as well. I think this manned series is called the Joint Strike Fighter. Also in this same line..of intrest to me recently...was a report of a unmanned vehicle ...involved in a successful midair refueling. I dont recall where I read of this but it was recent. Some of the readers here may be more familar with this event. I have no doubt that both the Navy and Air Force took note of this.

Been awhile since I have posted on the weapons fourm.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Russian and Russian copies (Chinese) Have proven so inferior on the battlefield
as to put into question if these nations should even be listed as powers or has beens. You hatred of the USA is jealousy nothing else. Chinese commercial junk from Leaded toys to rotten milk is more dangerous to the USA.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by torresm1
Russian and Russian copies (Chinese) Have proven so inferior on the battlefield


AK47?? I guess you don't know much about weapons then ???



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by torresm1
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Russian and Russian copies (Chinese) Have proven so inferior on the battlefield
as to put into question if these nations should even be listed as powers or has beens. You hatred of the USA is jealousy nothing else. Chinese commercial junk from Leaded toys to rotten milk is more dangerous to the USA.


First i am fron the us no envy in fact a member of the national guard and did 10 years in the army before that. So ive defended this country have you? Now the fact that the carriers should not be depended on in a plan to defend the united states by no means would we loose a war with china or russia. Like i said in my post its economics its cheaper to make a carrier killer than to make a carrier. And reality is they are slow ang huge might as well paint a big bulls eye on the deck.

Are navy would sink just as many of there ships as they sink of ares but carriers will not survive the battle. Truth be told with improvements in planes they will become obsolete all on there own trust me. The navy is allready changing there tune trying to recast the carrier as a mobile base of operations. They want to start equipping carriers with more combat troops and for see them in the future as mobile docs for force repair as well.

The navy constantly has to defend there budget when you have air force brass going oh we dont need a carrier we can do that. We can launch a bomber from nevada and hit targets in china. Carriers cost way too much money and are too big of a target and the pay off is minimal.


Oh forgot one last thing russia and china are not as far behind as you might think. However they do have problems in logistics and quite frankly a much higher failure rate on there equipment not counting ak 47.
And i will tell you we will have the ability to respond much quicker and relay changes to the battlefield much more effectively than either of them could hope for.

[edit on 10/13/08 by dragonridr]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The threat of the USSR's submarine force and strategic aviation no longer exist in the same fashion.


The Russian navy can not longer get involved in a conventional war, yes, but in terms of a prime objective of destroying atlantic traffic/conveys by any means necessary it's still sufficient. As for the strategic aviation it's just about the same story.


In the future perhaps such a similar scenario could take place again. However the survivability of the carriers depends entirely on how much one is willing to invest in their defense and upon the tactics of it's usage.


I freely admit that the US could have followed the example of other navies and made far more robust defenses for their escort ships and thus their carriers. This isn't and never has been a question of a shortage of funds.


Virtually every major power, both West and East, is currently investing and planning for a carrier fleet. This includes both Russia and China.


Your quite right and i should have stated that carriers are great weapons if one wants to intervene conventionally in the affairs of other nations. As always the US could have afforded to lose carriers in either conventional or strategic wars and my point was simply that they were not designed with fighting world war three in mind. Nations dedicated to self defense build submarines, medium/long range bombers or surface combatants along Russian lines while carriers are added when they wish to project sustained power against land based forces.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Wow!! In continuance of my previous post I did some Googling on the subject of UAVs and found that someone has been doing research on both UAV in flight refueling from manned planes and also from other UAVS.

I was totally unaware of the second experiment. I believe they have been successful of recent in the UAV aerial refueling to another UAV. This represents a substantial breakthrough in keeping a UAV on station.

I predict that this field will only improve in the years to come.

Some have stated that the F22 and F35 will be among the last of the manned fighters. I find this interesting.

The question in my mind is how will the carriers be outfitted and the operating philosophy changed to accommodate this new equipment. We shall see.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
The US must know China is no more the China of Mao's time. Yes in a war the PLA will be defeated.but the continental US will be subjected to Chinese attack. There is no way it could be immune from Chinese retaliation. Though the attacks wont be massive compared to US attacks
on China nevertheless it is breakthru in PLA's efforts to remind the the US you cannot go round attacking others without reply.
I expect the PLA to go on modernising until it has reached the stage where it could make a US attaok on China very costly.The PLA wont be the first to shoot but will make sure their armoury will be sufficinet for a retaliatory strike that can make any US president pause before ordering a strike on China.The PLA is not seeking parity with the US miitary. Instead it is focussing on efforts to make US China attack very costly.
Make no mistake if the Chinese can send a man into orbit,what'sthere to stop them from adding more firepower to thier missiles. Add to the current financial crisis, the US will have a problem maintaining its hegemony.
The same thing happened to the roman and Bristish empires. nothing is permanent.The Chinese do not wish to be no 1 in the world. What they want is to be respected as an equal.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
reply to post by gottago
 


How are aircraft carriers obsolete?

Aircraft carriers provide the US with some of the greatest force multiplication and force projection capabilities.

If they were obsolete, why are we building updated ones?

Shattered OUT...


Gottago in:

Well, if you have the USN in congressional testimony admitting at least five years ago that they could not protect carrier task forces from Sunburns, and now you have China creating their own version with a 1500 km range, that pretty much makes carriers obsolete in a war. They have to stay out of range of these missiles and are sitting ducks in potential flashpoints like the Persian Gulf and Taiwan.

Granted they are still viable for projecting force in crisis situations, but in a real war, yes, they are obsolete.



lol....we wouldn't be spending billions per carrier if we or anybody else for that matter had the technology to make them obsolete.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IntelCane
 


Because every Carrier is going to succumb to Chinese sunburns as soon as the war starts, rendering them useless, since their layered defenses won't protect them in any real-war situation.

At least, that's all I got from your post.

Shattered OUT...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join