Forget Sunburn - enter the new carrier killer, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 09:55 PM 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.

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.


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 01:55 PM by MischeviousElf
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]



reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 12:41 AM by dragonridr
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]


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 02:10 AM by orangetom1999
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


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:15 AM 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.


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 11:47 PM by dragonridr
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]



reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 03:52 AM by StellarX
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


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 09:13 PM by IntelCane
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.


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 09:22 PM by ShatteredSkies
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...
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags