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.

 

China Can Sink Our Aircraft Carriers...This kind of gets frightening.

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by humbleseeker
These communist devils want nothing more than to turn our stars and stripes into a red flag. The terrible thing is that many so called americans want this to happen. Any more I am beginning to think being an American is a matter of the heart, not a matter of birth. Freedom will only remain when we stand up to our enemies such as China and Russia, and most of the middle east.


Lol, thats a very backwards, outdated and small minded view you have there..

Communist devils lol.. China is not communist.. It is State Run Capitalism. Noone wants to take over the US anymore.. Maybe ten years ago but that time has passed.

"Being American is a state of the heart" Hahaha - Where to you people get your perspectives from? Its actually hilarious.

Its not the US being the Worlds police that makes people hate you guys.. Its the amount of people with ridiculously insane opinions like yours that causes the distrust and dislike.. Especially when they get voted into power.

Russia as an Enemy?.. Russia and the EU will soon be joined into a common economic and security policy.. So does that mean that Europeans are also your enemy then?

Or maybe you are the one with the problem.. Not Russia or China or Europe or the Middle East.. Which by the way, stripping resources and invading countries over oil is a sure fire way to make enemies... So look in the mirror before assuming that everyone else is wrong. The fact is that the US empire is the main global aggressor.. and has been for decades at this stage.



Laugh it up -

China is a communist country - PERIOD.

The ownership of capital is still in state control - including but not limited to the right own land (maximum 65 years - then returns to state), industry (retains the right - and exercises it regularly) to nationalise, shut down, restructure or seize any Chinese company it so wishes.

The primary feature of Chinas rise to power is the willingness of the west to purchase its cheap labour resources. That labour is still very, very much under communist control.

Do some reading before you laugh it up at people - you look utterly stupid when you condescend to people and are actually wrong.

The primary definition of communism is state owned means of production - and state directed - this is very much still the case in China. The only variation has been a willingness to profit share (which is by definition at the very heart of communism). The primary difference between China and Stalinist Russia is that China is outward looking - and the west has a willingness to engage with them. (The Russians wanted engagement but were deliberately isolated as an act of economic warfare - the US did not want a peaceful resolution - rather an absolute collapse of communism). What you have with China is a willingness (rather an inability to repeat the cold war economic sanctions) against China for two reasons - they provided huge revenue to Americans through outsourcing of Jobs - profits - and they are in fact far too large and powerful - especially in Asia - if you can think that far. Hence - they are still very, very much communist - but rather a successful communist state.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Another well known strategy is to deploy an ICBM with multiple warheads + multiple decoys.

By the time it comes over the horizon there are so many incoming targets visible on the warning radar, that is simply not possible to deploy against every single one in the time available.


Sifting the real warheads from the decoys isn't nearly as hard as you might think. The decoys are going to have different masses and densities, which will result in different flight characteristics. Figuring out which returns are the actual warheads is a matter of processing power, not capability. There's also the trade-off involved...the more mass you spend on penetration aids, the less mass you're spending on actual warheads.

Not to say that a saturation attack won't work...it most assuredly will, given sufficient volume of fire...but decoys have their limitations and their costs, just like everything else.



And saying a whole fleet can just run away from an incoming missile is laughable. Yeah, a carrier can do five miles per minute, or 300 miles per hour at top speed. Sure it can...........
Even if a whole fleet could run away at 300 Mph, moving only five miles away from ground zero in that minute, you are still dead.


I never said that a carrier could move at five miles / minute. I'm not sure where you got that number, to be honest. I did say that a carrier could move 3-6 miles between the launch of an IRBM and warhead initiation. That's not enough to avoid all damage...but it could be enough to significantly reduce the effect of the initiation.



Likewise with sea skimming missiles or torpedoes. You don't just fire one, but a salvo at a very high value target.


And therein lies one of the problems with attacking a carrier group...assembling a large enough wave of missiles or torpedoes requires assembling a fair-sized formation of launchers (be they aircraft, surface vessels, or submarines), and coordinating their actions. Very possible, particularly in the modern age...but also very noticeable, and any carrier group in a tense situation is going to be looking for exactly that sort of activity.

I'm rather surprised that the obvious method of fighting a carrier group hasn't come up as yet. There's at least one way that doesn't require particularly advanced technology, nuclear weapons, EMP, or keel-breaking torpedoes.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
And therein lies one of the problems with attacking a carrier group...assembling a large enough wave of missiles or torpedoes requires assembling a fair-sized formation of launchers (be they aircraft, surface vessels, or submarines), and coordinating their actions. Very possible, particularly in the modern age...but also very noticeable, and any carrier group in a tense situation is going to be looking for exactly that sort of activity.


I don't see how a submerged multi-sub attack from cruise missiles 1/2/300 miles away would be something that would be extremely noticeable to CBGs unless intel on enemy docks, vessel positions etc is impeccable.

Add in a flavour of decoys from airborne threats, to draw away any ASW destroyer assets and it makes for a potent punch.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Anyhow, Hitler and his Admirals thought that the mighty battle ships Bismark and Turpitz were totally invincible and unsinkable.
And on paper they theoretically were.

A bit like America's "belief" that carrier battle groups are totally invincible.

But the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force proved Hitler wrong.
A combination of tactics, sheer determination, and good luck, sunk both ships.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I don't think that anybody thinks they are invincible. It's just also unrealistic to think that all it takes is one off-hand shot from a single missile to take an aircraft carrier down. Of course, anything's possible, but in reality it would probably take a coordinated, well aimed saturation attack planned out with accurate intelligence from radar and satellite resources in order to take one down.

China could do it. Russia could do it. A few other countries could do it. I don't think they will, though. I doubt if any two nuclear nations would ever open up on each other with anything other than a full scale nuclear holocaust. If that's the case, don't worry about war anymore because the human race has about 3 days until radiation poisoning renders it extinct.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Anyhow, Hitler and his Admirals thought that the mighty battle ships Bismark and Turpitz were totally invincible and unsinkable.
And on paper they theoretically were.


"Bismarck" and "Tirpitz", not "Bismark" and "Turpitz"...

Hitler might have believed either or both to be unsinkable, but then again, Hitler was certifiably nuts in more ways than it's comfortable to count. His admirals most assuredly didn't consider either ship unsinkable. Why do you think Tirpitz spent most of his career hiding in coastal waters?

As for them being unsinkable on paper, what paper would that be? If you compare them to contemporary ships launched by other nations, they don't look particularly impressive in anything other than gross tonnage.



A bit like America's "belief" that carrier battle groups are totally invincible.


I don't know any reasonable people who believe that a carrier battle group is invincible. I do think that both ballistic missiles and, to a lesser extent, nuclear warheads, are vastly over-rated, and viewed by some people as the best possible weapons for all possible situations, against all possible targets. I don't agree with that assessment.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Do you have any idea how thick the hull of a WW2 battle ship was ?
And as for main battle tanks, the steel used was the very best available at the time.

www.kbismarck.com...

They WERE damned near unsinkable in their day, with the shells, torpedoes, and bombs then available. They were purpose built to be exactly that.......
But after two hours of sustained continuous concentrated fire, it did eventually go down.

And an American aircraft carrier is now such a high value concentrated target, that it is only a question of how long one can survive, not of it being totally invulnerable to all attack.
Naval exercises have demonstrated many times that carriers can be sunk by small submarines, and very likely also by the latest generation of anti ship missiles.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Nothing personal, Just chucking in...

Originally posted by mattifikation
I don't think that anybody thinks they are invincible.
Being on the net for 10 over years, I certainly disagree. There are too many who do, as they have faith in their so-called informed "Free Media". Their CV are save thus far, is because US are just bullying third world nations. And because US being the most aggressive, econimally and militarily strong nation. No one dares challenge them went they comes sailing as if they owns the world and the seven seas.

It's just also unrealistic to think that all it takes is one off-hand shot from a single missile to take an aircraft carrier down. Of course, anything's possible, but in reality it would probably take a coordinated, well aimed saturation attack planned out with accurate intelligence from radar and satellite resources in order to take one down.
Not true, A CV is filled with munitions, fuel and all types fuel laden aircrafts and vehicles almost everwhere on deck and below. A hit by any sizable missle is likely to result on a "Mission Kill". Loss of air wing. However, to actually sink a CV takes much more. Burning like a candle under combat scenario, results in heavy damage.

On the opening Op Title "China can sink our carriers.. this is frightening". I would say - get your carriers away from Chinese waters thousand away from home then. The American usage of their carriers are on the offensive against countries who dare defy American interest. The coming yellow sea exercise is only 500km from Beijing. Imagine China doing an exercise 500km off Washington.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
China recently opened [announced] a nice shiny new [anti ship] missile manufacturing facility in Iran did they not?

Go have a look. I don't think the DF 21 D was mentioned, but interesting don't you think? Especially along with Russia's imminent nuclear power plant work in Iran...food for thought?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Do you have any idea how thick the hull of a WW2 battle ship was ?
And as for main battle tanks, the steel used was the very best available at the time.

www.kbismarck.com...


I've got a very good idea of how thick the armor was on just about every battleship built between HMS Dreadnought and the USS Montana. For the pre-Dreadnoughts, I've got a fair idea, but it would take me a bit longer to find the right books in my collection. Interested in a particular ship, or was that just a hypothetical question?

I find it interesting that the site you linked makes a big deal about the Bismarck's armor protection. Comparing it to some of the ships that very site lists as contemporaries will show that Bismarck's armor wasn't particularly heavy in comparison. His armor belt maxed out at 320mm. That may sound like a lot, but the King George V class maxed out at 373mm, on a hull that was around 5,000 tons lighter. It's true that Bismarck devoted a lot of tonnage to armor, but he carried it in a very inefficient way.

Not sure where the 'tanks' came in here...



They WERE damned near unsinkable in their day, with the shells, torpedoes, and bombs then available. They were purpose built to be exactly that.......
But after two hours of sustained continuous concentrated fire, it did eventually go down.


Which is why a 14" shell hit nearly had Bismarck's bow awash after her run-in with Hood and Prince of Wales, I suppose? The fact that a ship that still hadn't finished working up, using 14" guns (half of which were out of action due to mechanical failures) nearly put the Bismarck out of action doesn't receive nearly as much attention from Bismarck fans as his other exploits.

Bismarck's only real claims to fame are sheer size (he was the largest-displacement battleship completed by a European power) and sinking a ship that was old, and well past due for a major refit (no disrespect to the Hood, it's simple truth). His armor belt armor was average in thickness, his turret armor was sub-par, his main battery was nothing uncommon (8 x 15" guns was standard for the last generation of battleships from World War I). Dangerous ship? Certainly. Ultimate / Unsinkable battleship? Not even close. I'm going to suggest that if we want to discuss / debate battleships, though, we start a different thread for that purpose.



And an American aircraft carrier is now such a high value concentrated target, that it is only a question of how long one can survive, not of it being totally invulnerable to all attack.
Naval exercises have demonstrated many times that carriers can be sunk by small submarines, and very likely also by the latest generation of anti ship missiles.


And, for the Nth time (where N is becoming a much larger number than I'd have expected), I'm not saying that a carrier battle group is invulnerable. I am saying (and will continue to say, barring evidence to the contrary) that they aren't nearly as easy to sink or disable by direct attack as some people seem to think.

I'll even go so far as to say that it's not worth the strategic escalation involved to actually sink the carrier. Go back to essentials. You don't fight naval battles simply to sink ships....you fight naval battles to secure control of the ocean. Sinking the enemy's ships is one way of doing that...and certainly the most decisive. On the other hand, to pull an example from World War II, at Philippine Sea, the primary Japanese disaster wasn't the loss of three carriers (though that was pretty *deleted* bad), it was the utter devastation of the Japanese air groups that made the battle a crushing loss. After "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", the Japanese navy couldn't effectively project air power. Game over.

Why bring that battle up? Apply the same idea to the American carrier group that the Chinese want to neutralize (in whatever scenario). Sinking the carrier outright isn't a requirement...in fact, it borders on an automatic 'you lose' button by raising the stakes close to (if not beyond) the nuclear response threshold. All that's required is rendering the carrier unable to project power. Engage and cripple / destroy her air group, and the carrier become nothing more than a target...and not a very appetizing one, at that. While the loss of 30-40 aircraft would be a definite act of war, from a political standpoint, it wouldn't be nearly the provocation that losing a carrier (with thousands of crew aboard) would be...particularly if nukes were used on the carrier, versus conventional weapons against the aircraft.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Yes you are quite right about the projection of air power.
And that is exactly what makes an aircraft carrier such a prime target.

What I see happening is a situation similar to the Bismark, where a determined enemy will relentlessly project every available asset against one single target. Many attempts will fail, but eventually that target will be taken out.

The era of the large battleship ended, mainly because radar and air power made them too easy to locate and destroy.

Submarine and missile technology has now advanced to the point where the large carriers will become prime targets. When the very large US carriers start being sunk, there will never be any more built.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
For the love of all that is Holy, folks....

The German (not so) super-battleship was named BISMARCK, not "Bismark".

He was named for this fellow.

I'm not sure how that whole "Bismark" thing continues. Even if you do a Google search using "Bismark", every link that points to the battleship shows the correct spelling. Is it a conspiracy to remove the pinnacle of Nazi warship construction from the Cs of the world once and for all?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Yes you are quite right about the projection of air power.
And that is exactly what makes an aircraft carrier such a prime target.

What I see happening is a situation similar to the Bismark, where a determined enemy will relentlessly project every available asset against one single target. Many attempts will fail, but eventually that target will be taken out.

The era of the large battleship ended, mainly because radar and air power made them too easy to locate and destroy.

Submarine and missile technology has now advanced to the point where the large carriers will become prime targets. When the very large US carriers start being sunk, there will never be any more built.


I'd lay better odds on a scenario where the carrier group has to retreat, than on a scenario where the carrier is sunk outright. It's simply orders of magnitude simpler to grind the air wing down to the point where the group can't accomplish its mission, than it is to sink the carrier itself.

I'm not convinced that the carrier as a type is dead, though I do think it's going to have to evolve...the most likely direction would (in my strictly-civilian opinion) be toward a 'mixed mode' carrier with an air wing primarily composed of UAVs (for strike, recon, and early-warning sensor platform roles) and manned aircraft (for fleet defense, ASW, and a few other specialized roles.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
china should not think that the U.S. does not have weapon systems that they do not know about. believe me, there are secrets that the U.S. does not divulge. black budgets are exactly that...black for a reason.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
china should not think that the U.S. does not have weapon systems that they do not know about. believe me, there are secrets that the U.S. does not divulge. black budgets are exactly that...black for a reason.


Or consider airborne carriers. They could stay up in the air for a long time with constant refueling procedures and good defensive formations.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Aristophrenia
 


I belive you have confused communism witih socialism out there.

Now on topic. China has capabilities to sink aircraft carrier even without the mentioned missile. It isn't an easy job and view would pay it dearly, but view are able to do it. But in case of war between US and China sinking ne an American carrier would mean nothing, because it would end up in an all out nuclear confrontation.

A number of other countries are also able to engage and cripple carrier battlegroup, especially Russia. Once again, a hard and costly task, but far from impossible.

The days of US being worlds sole superpower have gone quite some time ago. And wheter one likes it or not, trends are showing that China is contesting Americas No 1 position, and will surpas it within years. It's not that I like it, but things are going this way.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Silver Shadow
 


Indeed, large carriers are looking increasingly vulnerable - possibly imminently obsolete?

Can anybody explain to me why, in this context, it makes sense for the UK to be building two new large aircraft carriers powered by OIL [????] at massive expense, which the UK can no longer afford, for aircraft they also can no longer afford (JS F22?) and for which the massive defence/support fleet as used by the US for their carrier groups would also appear to be lacking/too expensive also?

Why? Presumably it was a political project to create jobs...but why continue now a new government is in?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by curioustype]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Most larger warships now have some helicopter capability, and high performance vertical takeoff aircraft open up even more possibilities.

I believe naval aviation certainly has a future, but the enormous lumbering super carrier has become too tempting a single target, and much too difficult to defend.
Put another way, too many eggs in one highly visible basket.

Smaller ships with aircraft capability spread the risk, and can be deployed in multiple locations. They also cost a lot less.

It depends on what you want your navy to do.
America wishes to threaten the entire world militarily, whereas most other nations are only interested in some local regional security..

Border security and quarantine, anti piracy, search and rescue capability, and disaster relief in coastal waters are what the navies of most small peaceful nations see as their main task.

If America concentrated on securing America, instead of actively threatening every other nation on the planet, you would not need these huge carriers.

American land based aircraft are more than sufficient for a DEFENSIVE role.

Sadly, America now with zero allies, is still determined to start World War Three.
And that can only end one way.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Personaly I factor in the direction the integration of fleets is taking in the West. The recent PAMMS devlopement, and success of Sea Viper married in to the US naval systems creates a competent defence umbrella against swamping and supersonic ship killers.

And as much as it sounds very NWO, the approach raises many sovereignty questions, but that is the direction fleet defence is taking, with a central ship comanding/controlling the radar/missile/decoys of all surrounding ships which would give the fleet command from horizon to horizon.

IMHO that would be the tactic these missile devlopers need to be able to combat or the lifespan of this new missile would be very short, just as those developing defence systems need to counter whatever new threat emerges.

As much as we can theorise if these new ship killers will indeed take out a carrier, we also need to factor in the defensive measures being taken to counter those threats which IMHO changes the primary target from a carrier to the command & control ship.

While you might be able to take out one of the carriers amongst a fleet, you would not be able to stop the fleets ability to respond as the command/control would still be in place and I'm sure a few cruise missiles would be heading your way in response.

Both sides have their game changers, and both need to be factored in... and all the while I hope this will all remain simply a theory for us to discuss



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Not just China. Iran also has this capability. Remember years ago when Britian lost a ship to a silkworm missle during the Falklands war? This technology has been around for a while. China has just taken it a step furthur.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join