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 New US Carrier Killer

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
This is an interesting solution to getting past the USA's carrier defences. Not sure how effective it would be.

A supposed missile that comes in from above vertical and then explodes over the deck. This is meant to help
avoid traditional defence measures. Seems similar in principle to how they attack tanks nowadays.

Wonder if they will give Iran some.

Defense System




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
umm well i was reading a thread on here the other day about missles that explode and are heat seeking? and how they will destroy iran.. It kinda reminds me of the so called "Jericho" missles in the movie Iron Man lol... but yeah ummm iran will still get mollywopped by the US navy anyways haha



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by D8ncer
 


I seriously doubt that they will have success at getting past the carriers escorts; lets not forget what an Aegis class cruiser is capable of.

Satellite shootdown



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Why do people think that carriers put themselves right into the middle of battle. Carriers will stand off a good distance, a carrier is not designed to go head to head with another ship. They are one of the fastest ships out there and it would not make sense to have an aircraft carrier right in the middle of the action. The carriers defense is the fact that it can attack from several hundred miles away by launching aircraft. I am not saying a carrier would not be right in the middle of a battle, but the carrier will try to stay as far a way as possible. Not to mention the subs and the frigates that are around to keep other craft from approaching the carrier.
edit on 4-1-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

China is building a new class of ballistic missiles designed to arc through the stratosphere and explode onto the deck of a U.S. carrier, killing sailors and crippling its flight deck.



The stratosphere is situated between about 10 km (6 mi) and 50 km (30 mi) altitude above the surface at moderate latitudes, while at the poles it starts at about 8 km (5 mi) altitude.

stratosphere

Just some perspective here.


My thoughts here is that by the time the article ran in WSJ, the military was already aware of this Chinese missile and have made the correct defensive changes. This missile reminds me the Javelin system that the US military already employs, and probably have brought the technology to our own ballistic missiles already, with the appropriate defensive measures.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
That is a good idea...if it hadn't already been thought of and billions of dollars spent to address that weakness. I'm not sure the Carrier itself can do much of anything about a pure ballistic threat coming right down on it's flight deck from above.....but the Aegis cruisers that sail in every Carrier Battle Group won't be DIRECTLY under such a missile, and they are specifically designed at insane expense to counter precisely that threat.....among many others..and do it while handling dozens of other active, incoming weapons at the same moment in time.

The only weakness I see for a United States Aircraft carrier operating in open water with room to properly deploy it's screen of defensive escorts is from directly BELOW. If they anchored one of their super-cavitating torpedoes, for instance....and simply let it sit down there like so much junk on the bottom until a Carrier sails directly OVER it...then the time from launch to impact MIGHT give the crew time to mutter some expletives about how life really sucks......but I doubt they'd even have that much time.

edit on 4-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
and simply let it sit down there like so much junk on the bottom until a Carrier sails directly OVER it...then the time from launch to impact MIGHT give the crew time to mutter some expletives about how life really sucks......but I doubt they'd even have that much time.

edit on 4-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Not going to say you are wrong, but we could get our ship(CVN-73) into general quarters in a matter of minutes. Meaning all water tight doors are sealed shut throughout the entire ship.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I don't understand that either, most threads I've seen about this assume the carriers will put themselves straight in harms way with no defence, also find it funny how they think the navy etc are so stupid enough to walk into a zone which is clearly an ambush for example the thread about the straight of hormuz, now really, if we know about it I'm sure the US navy know about it too...



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by David291
 


Yup, plus if ships are going to engage in battle it is automatic that general quarters to be in effect. Just in case the ship is hit, having all hatches and doors sealed is the first step to not sinking.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
How in the world do they expect to get through the Aegis Standard Missile defense system? It can shoot down anything from any angle up to low orbit and more than two ships equipped with these missiles at any time are close enough to defend the carrier. Let alone the F-18s can intercept incoming missiles.

I see this as another Chicom wet dream.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 

Oh very true..which is why I said what I did about a U.S. Carrier being all but impossible to successfully attack. As you note there, it's no accident... The best minds in American industry have spent untold sums insuring beyond doubt that it would be that way.


The VA-111 Shkval torpedo favored by the Russians and rather disliked by Submariners after the Kursk is capable of speeds in excess of 370 Kilometers an hour or 229 MPH. The estimates are much higher, but that is presented as a baseline for perfomance. Of course, these have a MAJOR weakness...they don't turn or or change course very well at that speed..so people have generally not given them much attention.

Tell me though...what would travel time be from the Sonar man hearing the blast of launch to reaching the keel of a ship directly above, traveling upward at over 200 miles an hour? I'm guessing even the deepest oceans would have that hitting the hull before the sound of GQ over the ships speakers even fully registered for it's meaning.

Iran tested one of these in open waters awhile back. Their boat didn't go the way of Kursk. They have them...they're comfortable using them..and while they aren't the bleeding edge technology the Russians surely have.....I wonder what countermeasures even exist to fight such a singularly nasty threat? Of course..whatever does exist won't be anything they could tell us about anyway...for good reason in this case.



edit on 4-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 



U.S. defense analysts say the missile is designed to come in at an angle too high for U.S. defenses against sea-skimming cruise missiles and too low for defenses against other ballistic missiles.


Could it be that you did not read the linked article?

One has to assume the U.S. defence analysts know a little bit about it.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


With the ranges of modern missile systems and aircraft, I would imagine that in a large modern naval engagement the carriers would often find themselves in the (very, very large) battlespace. Of course these long ranges can only help missile defense systems with interception.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Has China said anything about how they intend to target this miracle weapon? Anything Chinese that is nearby is going to get blown out of the water or sky when a launch is detected. I don't think that a satellite would be accurate enough for targeting.

As far as the Shikvaal torpedo is concerned, think about this. As soon as the first torpedo is launched, that sub is history. Those things are like bullets in the water, they have no guidance systems and rely on proximity sensors for detonation.

Launching one straight up is comical. Hasn't anybody heard of "minimum arming distance"? Read previous statement about proximity detonation.

It has been mentioned that a carrier is fast, I don't know how fast the new nukes are, but, I was on the Forrestal for sea trials one time when she did a speed run into the wind. I was sitting in a helicopter on the flight deck, right on the center line, there was a steady 15 knot wind that day and when the FID got up to speed the airspeed indicator read about 67 knots. Figure a plus or minus of 5 knots so that works out to 47 to 52 knots. 50 knots is about 58 mph. Then she hung a turn to port where the flight deck tilted about 10 degrees and did a complete circle in the water with in a mile and a half. Remember the Forrestal was about 30 years old at the time, there is no telling what the new carriers can do. I was pretty damned impressed with what the Forrestal did.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 


In order for a carrier to do its job which is launching aircraft a couple of factors have to be taken into account. In case people are not aware, a carrier cannot typically just launch an aircraft on a whim. The ship has to turn into the wind, regardless of the direction it is blowing or the direction the captain would like to be going. Then it must increase speed enough so that the aircraft can get enough lift to get off the deck. So, when the ship has enough wind coming over the deck and then combined with the speed and power of the catapult it will get the airplane to the speed required to stay in the air.

Now considering that, there is no way a carrier up to its ass in direct combat could effectively launch aircraft when they are having to maneuver the battle field. They cannot make a sharp turn and launch an aircraft at the same time. This is why a carrier will not directly engage in a battle, in fact I would run from direct conflict.

However, it is one of the best rides I have ever taken, a little painful but 160 mph in 2 seconds is just too cool.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Having been stationed on a carrier, even I do not know how fast the thing can actually go. My personal opinion is that it will do at least 60 knots and I am probably guessing low. On the other hand, a friend during that time was on CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln and he told me that they clocked their ship at 30 knots in reverse. As far as a turning radius, on our man over board drills(I wish they would let someone really jump overboard), it would be around a mile for the ship to come back around full circle.
edit on 4-1-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
On the other hand, a friend during that time was on CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln and he told me that they clocked their ship at 30 knots in reverse


That would really screw-up somebody's targeting solution. I'm not sure how fast the Forrestal went in reverse, the helo was pointed in the wrong direction for me to find out.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


The Forrestal was a conventional carrier(CV) so I would assume it is probably a little slower than the nuclear(CVN). CV-59 if I remember correctly. That was some time ago as this is an old ship, I hope you were not on it during the fire in 1967.
edit on 4-1-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


No. I was on it from 1985 to 1987. At that time she was the oldest of the carriers. The Ranger and Coral Sea were being retired. The Forrestal had just came from SLEP in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One of the more interesting things I have done was to ride her out of Philly and into the Atlantic.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Isn't it just fascinating how when we speak of Chinese..or Russian..or any other nation's military or weapons systems, it's almost a given in the discussion that they are pathetically inferior and are really just out there supplying targets that kinda shoot back.

When we talk about weapons being fired against U.S. Forces, it's assumed they'll miss...be intercepted..or otherwise find little to none of their intended effect. Yet, if it's an American weapons system, it's naturally assumed we'll just obliterate the enemy and IF we don't..it's solely because we chose not to...not due to any skill on their part.

Am I the only one starting to get a little tired of the America is GODLIKE in war..and EVERY enemy on Earth is Homer Simpson on a dumb day?




new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join