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.

 

Indian Aircraft Carrier enters sea trials

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


IOh yeah and they have the Aegean missile ship in every strike group, whose sole purpose is to keep the flagship carrier alive... "we are quite protected from your pitiful band of rebels, skywalker"


What in heaven's name is an "Aegean misslie ship"? I believe you must be talking about the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which is an upgrade to the Aegis Combat System that has been in place for many years. It's not a "ship," it's a combat system deployed on multiple ships at the same time. A Carrier Strike Group is composed of several support ships that deploy this system. This includes a destroyer squadron, which is normally four Arleigh-Burke class destroyers, plus a Ticonderoga class cruiser, plus an attack submarine or two with a few frigates thrown in for good measure. The destroyers, cruiser, and carrier TOGETHER form the Aegis defense system, which amounts to a protective bubble around the entire strike group.

The upgraded system uses an SM-3 anti-ballistic missile specifically designed to take out missiles such as we are discussing here. They can even take out satellites. here's a description. Perhaps this is why the US Navy does not seem particularly concerned about reports of a Chinese "carrier killer." It's not as if they are incapable of defending themselves.
edit on 6/12/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
It really is amazing that people think 1 carrier equates to a change of sea power, and as to hypersonic cruise missles effective if they can get close enough.

With even the old tomahawk's that can be sea or air launched can take out missile sites with ease, and then soneome will say yeah those hypersonic missles can also be launched from air.

Which again means if they can get close enough threads like they are a bit funny, and also a bit tiresome of "my guy is better than your guy".

Meh.
edit on 12-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by asen_y2k
 


So your targeting platform would have to be with in it's sensor range of the carrier then?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


The Indian bramos, yes, the Chinese DF21 just satellites overhead will do the job.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by asen_y2k
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


The Indian bramos, yes, the Chinese DF21 just satellites overhead will do the job.

Bullsh*t!



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by asen_y2k
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


The Indian bramos, yes, the Chinese DF21 just satellites overhead will do the job.

Bullsh*t!


Really I would not write anything here without knowing it for a fact. You can check out janes or other defence sites.
edit on 12/6/12 by asen_y2k because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Let's back up here a second. This thread was originally about India floating a carrier. It has evolved to discussing how vulnerable a carrier is, especially to ballistic missiles. Now we've got an argument going on that says, essentially, that a carrier is vulnerable, not it isn't, yes, it is. And we appear to be into a war of who is has the most expertise versus who can use profanity more effectively. Let's try to figure out what we collectively really know. Taking a rigid position one side or another seems to me to be beside the point.

1. No carriers, even well-armed American carriers, are invulnerable. All are subject to attack. Even if you have a perfect defense system, you can screw up and let one devastating missile through. If nothing else, throw an ICBM down from above and detonate a few warheads a few thousand feet up. Boom. No carrier. Phage says that's cheating, but, well, all's fair in love and war. In any case, a carrier killer missile is theory unless it has been successfully used against an enemy that is actively defending itself. Just because you can hit a tramp steamer in target practice does not mean you can take out a carrier defending itself. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.

2. American carriers, in particular, are very well armed. They are not frightened of a super fast ballistic missile. The Aegis ABM system is capable of taking this kind of missile out. The US Navy is upgrading its cruisers and destroyers as fast as possible. The Chinese may have killer missiles, but we have missile killers. The carrier has a chance of survival. Because most countries do not have such super ballistic missile capability, American carriers rule the waves most places. Not everywhere, but most. Other countries' carriers, as I understand it, do not have as sophisticated a defense mechanism, but that doesn't mean they are harmless.

3. Even if you have a super fast missile you are convinced is a carrier killer, you must have the political will to use it and take the consequences. China or Russia would think twice before attempting to take out a carrier, just as we would theirs. No excuses of, "Oh, gee. We mis-identified you, so sorry" are going to work on an attack on a Carrier Strike Group. Just because you can doesn't mean you will. If they do, God help us all. I really don't want this to be tested.

4. The key to this whole thing is "ordnance on target." Shore-based batteries defending coastlines were abandoned when we discovered it was cheaper to put bombs on airplanes, fly over to the enemy ship, and sink it that way. (I live in an area with several abandoned forts built to defend the coastline.) That concept eventually ended the era of the battleship, too.

But this could be reversed. Carriers are expensive. If we could develop land or space-based systems that could accurately put Mach "X" missiles on target in a comprehensive fashion, carriers will be "re-evaluated" to see if they are still a cost-effective solution.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


And we are still handing them aid money every year....... Why???????


I guess you never did learn geography, and thinking entire south Asia is India? lol

India its not even on the top 25 recipient for American foreign aid.

Stop making American stereotype even worse lol

Edit: US FOREIGN AID

____


On the topic... i guess they need to buff up their sea defenses... since China is also a rising in power.
edit on 6/12/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/12/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)


I'm not American, I'm British and last year we handed India £280 million in aid money.

I know perfectly well where India is. My geography is fine thank you.
edit on 12/6/2012 by Grifter81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I personally am not sure if carriers are worth the money anymore... If we truly are moving towards a battlefield dominated by drones and automated warriors I think the idea of spending $4.5 billion each on a carrier is silly.

At the beginning of WWII everybody still thought Destroyers were the pinnacle of technology, with the Germans building the Bismark, etc. Not until we were facing Japan in the Pacific did we really grasp the importance of carriers at the time.

I hope our current crop of carriers won't turn out to be the folly destroyers were for us in WWII in any coming conflicts with china and the likes...
edit on 12-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)


a small drone could easily disable a ship long enough to attack and sink it. imagine a small exploding drone that could lock in on their comm or radar ... or a sneak attack on a carriers fuel system of planes on deck?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I personally am not sure if carriers are worth the money anymore... If we truly are moving towards a battlefield dominated by drones and automated warriors I think the idea of spending $4.5 billion each on a carrier is silly.



I think you are onto the next wave. Imagine what kind of Drone Carrier/ Cruise Missile launcher force you could put up for 4.5 Billion a pop. I would imagine that you could easily double if not quadruple the amount of aircraft by using drones. Imagine a Carrier Group with over 300 craft and a lot more Cruise Missiles......pretty damn scary.

Anyhow kudos to the Indian Navy......bout time they started to really beef up their forces. Their Carrier is a start to projecting force in the Indian Ocean.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


Between the E-2, if they're close enough E-3, and Aegis radars, it's extremely difficult to sneak even something small through. The rumor is that the Aegis has so much power in the radar that if they focus it into a narrow beam, the radar will bring down a plane. It's not impossible, but it would be extremely difficult to do.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
that is true and i do agree that is the way it should be, but then this is the Gov we are talking about. Why have three when one could do the same job, bigger faster and yet more costly we have yet to see CVN 79 and 80, if they are ever set to sea, the CVN that i see is around CVN88 or 2035 if not later



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





Countries with one active duty carrier: UK, France, Russia, Brazil, India, Thailand, China
Countries with two active duty carriers: Spain, Italy


Ark Royal has been decommissioned so the UK sadly has no carrier strike force until the first of the two new Queen Elisabeth class carriers is ready in 2020.
edit on 13/6/2012 by Grifter81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


And we are still handing them aid money every year....... Why???????


I agree, a country who can build it's own nuclear weapons, refit aircraft carriers, buy and develop new jet fighters, can feed their own poor, I'm not being heartless, India is a fantastic place, I went last year, but surely if their Government can afford to do all those things, they can sort out the poverty in their country.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by schuyler
 





Countries with one active duty carrier: UK, France, Russia, Brazil, India, Thailand, China
Countries with two active duty carriers: Spain, Italy


Ark Royal has been decommissioned so the UK sadly has no carrier strike force until the first of the two new invincible class carriers is ready in 2020.


Technically the UK has two Aircraft Carriers still in use, HMS Ocean, which is a helicopter assault ship and one of the Invicibles is being refited to fill the same role.:-)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee
 


I didn't know that an invincible was being refit. Its good to know we have something left for the next few years.
edit on 13/6/2012 by Grifter81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


If I wanted to use profanity there are several other words that i could have chosen. My statement was an expression of disbelief in his statements about the capabilities of the Chinese missile.

He's stating that China has developed a Mach 5+ cruise missile using satellite targeting, with a kinetic kill capability. I don't believe it.

A missile moving at Mach 5+ has a turning radius that has to be measured in tens of miles, if it is low level the heat generated by air friction would prevent it from recieving targeting data. I'm not even going to go into the high speed stability issues.

As far as Janes is concerned, they stopped being a creditable source years ago. Now their primary customers are defence contractors who pay for their systems to be included.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

And we are still handing them aid money every year....... Why???????

Just the same way you are taking care sorta as a welfare of the 'queen' via a percentage of every pound earned

What has she done for the country lately?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by asen_y2k
I bet theres something more sinister about these so called 'foreign aid'. Its not what it seems to be..to us atleast.

Money laundering
Do you think UK will provide foreign aid while the country themselves have several budget issues?

Money Laundering



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by schuyler
 

Ark Royal has been decommissioned so the UK sadly has no carrier strike force until the first of the two new Queen Elisabeth class carriers is ready in 2020.
edit on 13/6/2012 by Grifter81 because: (no reason given)

Get rid of the dead Monarchy and stop paying for her luxuries and UK shall have more carriers before 2020

edit on 13-6-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join