It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:56 AM

Originally posted by gem_man
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.

Which British ship are you crediting being sunk by a Silkworm in 1982 during the Falklands conflict?

BTW in 1991 HMS Gloucester did take out one of the Silkworm missiles headed from USS Missouri with one of her Sea Dart missiles

The SeaDart is no comparison to the Royal Navies new Sea Viper or the European PAMMS.

[edit on 16/8/10 by thoughtsfull]

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by thoughtsfull

I think he means an Exocet not a silk worm

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by FredT[/url]

Thank God for that!

I had visions of thousands of silk worms being fired at aircraft carriers.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:18 AM
We might as well all get used to the fact that we need to start learning Mandarin... Its only a matter of time before they will own our country.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Get over yourself.. Nobody cares what you have to say.. Talking about our weapon systems are not going to have "men in black" knocking on your door.

Take off the tin foil hat and try and focus on the topic.

One poster was spot on... This missle will be obsolete by the time it is functional...We will already have a counter measure.

There is not one single Navy we have to worry about.. Its a collection of Naval forces that will be needed to do the job.

Another poster said that they have the ability to shoot down our satelites... He is right.. They proved it by shooting their own satelite down..

But!!!! We also have that ability.. And I am sure we have back up sats to pick up where the wounded sat left off.

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:54 PM
Heres the deal, the USN has had this type of threat on the radar since well-forever. Aegis etc. etc. were all developed and deployed to deal with this long ago and the tech has not sat stagnating.

Hyping up this threat is just the same old same old, "Hey look at this threat! can we have some MORE money please!"

and like many "threats" from the Soviet era you can bet that many of this missles capabilites are more then a bit exaggerated.

The military is already a huge portion of the American budget, its time to cut back and start telling the Brass that they have to be smarter with their money.

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:01 PM
Here are a couple of stories from olde timers which you generally do not find in the books.

The olde man who told us this tale..we were very dubious about the details until many years later ...there it was on the history channel ..just like he told it...many of the details verified through a second source.

Here is the tale.

Olde Charlie was the keeper of a storeroom at work where various spares and smaller parts were stored and stocked. We would often eat lunch there and just rag chew with various tales.

One day at lunch we were speaking of nuclear war when out of the blue olde Charlie speaks up and declares that he was involved in a Navy Experiment after WW2. It seems olde Charlie was on a Navy Tugboat crew. They had spent alot of months towing varous ships..battleships, Heavy and light cruisers and parking them around this island. Like Moma moving furniture, they moved the ships and then removed them as directed by scientist types and engineers.
Charlie told us that they never knew what they were doing until the final day when they were told to pull way way back to a designated area and lie on the deck and not to look up until told to do so.

When the bomb went off and they finally stood up on deck and saw their handiwork..then it all became clear.

He told me that they did two blasts at this an underwater burst and the other an air burst.

Charlie also told me that not all the ships went down..most suffered various levels of damage but surprisingly not all sank. Charlie also told me that many were highly radioactive and needed to be washed down. Some never came clean enough and were towed off to another site and scuttled into Davy Jones Locker.

What greatly startled us about this tale was when Charlie also announced that barges had been brough to this location bearing cages of dogs, goats sheep and cattle and they were tied up on the decks of these ships. Not all of them died as well....not immediately that is.

This told us that they didnt need to use so many soldiers as guinea pigs in the desert experiments which were to come later. They already had a good idea what this stuff would do.

Nonetheless...about ten years later..there it was on the History Channel..pretty much how olde Charlie had narrated his tale to us.
Now Olde Charlie has long since retired and I saw him one day in a resteraunt and told him that I saw his story many years later..pretty much as he had told it to us.

The next tale has to do with equipment already in use but capable of operating in a manner not originally designed to do so but the military is aware of these capabilities or keeps them secret from the general public and does not allow this to be done in experiments or exercises to preserve the secret.

During work one evening I was talking with an olde army fellow who was on the early M60 tank crews. I believe in those days the main gun was some kind of 90 mm gun.
What this olde timer told me was that this main gun set up and with skilled crews the olde M60 tank could crank out some rounds rather rapidly. Much faster than for which she was originally designed. As fast as you could get them out of the racks they could be loaded and fired.
Well one day out at the range doing a demonstration for some foreign military big wigs...this olde timer and his crew shot out three shots in very rapid succession. The demonstration was immediately stopped and an officer came out to the tank to warn them not to do this rapid fire again unless specifically instructed to do so. The Army did not want the infomation out that our tanks and crews could spit out rounds so rapidly.

Now mind you ..this was long before all this super high tech accuracy and ranging gear of today. ...but the principle still holds...there are things about our equipment that our military does not want out to the general public....meaning Americans themselves or anyone else.

Just some juicy tidbits of not published info for some of you to digest when reading all this supposedly doom and gloom about our gear and technology.

Also ...I know how a Nimitz class carrier is the frames and inner bottoms to the flight deck and Island house. It is the very epitome of the word...extra heavy duty. This is not an accident but by design.

They differ in design significantly from older design carriers.

I saw a site where there were photos taken of a Russian Typhoon Submarine which was available as a museum/deactivated piece for the public to go aboard and take photos. I saw various inner compartments as well as areas in the free flood spaces.

I shook my head at what I saw in the photos. Talk about a high maintenance train wreck. Someone used them to scare the hell out of us all. And it works quite well...too..for most of us.

Someone else in a previous post declared that they were using all this foreign wonder weapons to frighten us and many of them were not even in production as of yet. I tend to agree with this assessment. Whoever said this..well said..well said.


posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:56 PM
Yea well they're upto a bunch of things them Chinese..

Got us Indians wary too..

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:34 PM
The DF21 is a threat, but not a carrier killer. It is however a factor that could disrupt carrier operations, or a factor that would have be be taken into account when planning contingencies.

However an Carrier battle group with AEGIS ships, is going to have along a lot of SM3 missiles, and if the DF21 is going to hit a carrier, its going to have to have terminal guidance all the way, the carrier does not just sit there.

and also lets not forget that not all of the assets of a CBG are on the surface, and there could be a boomer somewhere in the vicinity too. A volley of ballistic missiles launched towards a carrier could be construed as a nuclear strike, with a resulting volley of MIRV from a submariine on the way back in short order.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:24 PM
Boomers do not usually attach themselves to a carrier battle group. They are solo travelers. The prefer quietness, stealth, and solitude because of their load out of ICBMs.

A carrier Battle group may have along a couple of hunter killer submarines or what is sometimes called a fast attack boat and many of these boats have tomahawk cruise missles with about a 1000 mile range on them. They can operate in either for the battle group or offensive modes.


posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:03 PM
What does it take to make a CBG ineffective...

Well it depends on what operational envelope the carrier is operating in.

(1) So consider CAS and strike ops over land targets: If there are shore-based air defense and anti ship defenses that can span out a few hundred kilometres; enough land based AshCMs/SAMs, and aircraft with standoff AShCMs can easily saturate the defences of a single CBG. Wouldn't take more than a 100 missiles launched in synch to put a CBG in a fix. Add an umbrella of long range cruise missiles and you get a very tight defensive line. Case in point: The Taiwan Theatre. Only way in (theory), pre-emptive stealth strikes on SAM, AshCM sites and AFBs based on damn good intel, in order to reduce that number of 100 to say 25-30, where AEGIS can defend effectively.

(2) Consider shipping lane blockade/patrol: Now here is becomes really really hard to mess with a CBG. Firstly the opponent needs to have a strong blue water surface presence that can serve as a deterrent in terms of curtailing the movement of the CBG, both aggressive and defensive. Then comes the missile saturation force: subs seem to be the only way IMO. Either fire from the safety of a surface b/w fleet that can protect against airborne and surface ASW. Now I don't think there is a navy in the world that can effectively do this today.
The Russians, Chinese, French and Indians have potential to get there with the ambitious naval doctrines they have for the next decade. The British, well the are kind of cutting themselves up in the naval scheme of things.

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by Daedalus3

Over here in the UK we're on the brink of finalising another novel way of countering such threats to CBGs - run out of money to pay for maintaining, building, manning, fuelling and equipping any, thus removing the issue from our agenda - perhaps the USA will follow our lead someday?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by Daedalus3

Over here in the UK we're on the brink of finalising another novel way of countering such threats to CBGs - run out of money to pay for maintaining, building, manning, fuelling and equipping any, thus removing the issue from our agenda - perhaps the USA will follow our lead someday?

Oh I doubt it curioustype,

Over here in America we have little real American leadership remaining. They are spending money just as Minister Daniel Hannon described. They are mostly internationalists after the UK/internmational mold. They prefer to lick boots when told to do so. What our sorry leadership will do is sell us down the drain while having us pick up your slack and countering any threats to UK trade
This way you can spend more time in the pubs without worry or risk.

Did not Neville Chamberlin think the way you do back in the 1930's??


edit on 15-9-2010 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by SaturnFX
They can, but they wont.

China is actually not as insane as we would like to think they are...their economy is doing just fine, and they own half of the US anyhow in matters of debt...they want us (the US) to remains strong and stable so we can pay them back one day...

I agree with you totally,maybe China is the least one that want to see the recession of US.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by fred call

This scenario would never happen. This is just the brass asking for stealth carriers which has been put on hold for now. The abm systems on the Aegis destroyers and cruisers is more then capable of handling there defense. And guess what carrier battle groups have ballistic missile capabilities you do not think they wouldn't launch? China knows this as well the only reason they have this is an end game scenario and the Chinese aren't going to play that card because then were talking full scale nuclear conflict.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Dermo
I thought plenty of countries could sink US carriers.. Mainly EU states though so no need to worry about a war there..

But as someone said above.. China only want to play at their weight and as the second biggest nation economy, they need to upgrade their arms.

And to be perfectly frank.. Someone needs to counter the US in the Pacific.. Sorry US people but in all bloody fairness, your governments as of late aren't exactly trustworthy and known for their respect for life..

Don't forget, the United States and China are controlled by the same globalist elite, to be honest.

The Chinese have the cash reserves to fund the modernization of the PLA into a world class military along the lines of the Western world, like a kid with lots of cash to splurge on toys and candy.

If WWIII breaks out between the two powers, the Western Pacific would be the battleground, and at war's end, most of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and half the PLA Navy would be on the bottom of the ocean.

These carrier killer missiles would spell the end of naval aviation.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by curioustype

and that precisely being the cutting yourself up bit

However, having said that, any comparison to America is not relevant. One doesn't need 11 CSGs/CBGs to defend their shores..
But you need that many to ensure your perceived enemies don't get themselves a bunch of CSGs.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:46 PM

Originally posted by fred call
China Can Sink Our Aircraft Carriers...This kind of gets frightening.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by elevatedone]
The earth has the power to destroy cities and has done so many times in the past.
I am more worried about Mt Vesuvius or Yellowstone then I am about China starting a war

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by orangetom1999

Did not Neville Chamberlin think the way you do back in the 1930's??

I don't think so no. Just because I think it is realistic to say that Britain can no longer afford new CBGs, and perhaps shouldn't prioritise acquisition of those specific type of military assets at this moment in time, especially given the latest info suggesting we can't even afford to complete these projects let alone fully arm, fuel, supply, man and protect them, doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't be investing in defence, or that I don't recognise several important threats out there.

As I guess you know, Britain is currently attempting to build two new carriers - but with no word that I have heard about providing the type of support group vessels and aircraft to fill it, that would say appear standard for a US CBG deployment, plus they plan to fuel them with...oil?

To many of us here, the whole project appears far more political (arising under the previous Labour Government to create jobs in specific key Labour constituencies) than a good match to our strategic needs. In a way, I guess I would prefer to see them shelved, and the money redirected into more clearly practical assets - but how does that mean my head is in the sand re: current threats?

PS - I meant it about the USA running into issues on defence spending: If China manages to maintain it's growth and international trade networks, and growing influence, whilst the USA/Europe continue to struggle or fall into a more severe double-dip recession or currency crashes, and there is no intense war started to resolve/defer these differences, there remains a serious risk that US defence spending could crumble, just as it did for the UK in the wake of the loss of it's empire and wealth post WWII, or maybe similar to the Russian 'superpower' military dismantling/disrepair phase immediately after the 'end' of the cold war? A British military expert would have said that was impossibly unrealistic in 1911 too.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:29 PM

As I guess you know, Britain is currently attempting to build two new carriers - but with no word that I have heard about providing the type of support group vessels and aircraft to fill it, that would say appear standard for a US CBG deployment, plus they plan to fuel them with...oil?

you have not heard of the 6 Type 45 Destroyers just being finished on the Clyde?

the 6 Astute class attack submarines currently under construction in Barrow?

or the 120+ F-35 Lightning 2 fighters to operate off the carriers?

why even bother commenting?

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in