US Navy Detonates 40,000 Pound Bomb To Test Ship War Readiness; Triggers 3.9 Earthquake

a reply to: dragonridr

While you are correct about a carrier being able to take a lot of damage, it doesn't take much to do a "soft kill" on a carrier. A "soft kill" is where damage prevents the target from being able to carry out it's mission. Damage to the flight deck, the catapults or arresting gear won't sink a carrier, but it will prevent it from carrying out it's mission.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: dragonridr

While you are correct about a carrier being able to take a lot of damage, it doesn't take much to do a "soft kill" on a carrier. A "soft kill" is where damage prevents the target from being able to carry out it's mission. Damage to the flight deck, the catapults or arresting gear won't sink a carrier, but it will prevent it from carrying out it's mission.

My point was thats not easy to do

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
All well and good if the enemy is aiming a hundred yards off the starboard side with a 40,000lb shell.

Nowadays they have missiles that don't miss. Maybe they are hoping to get into a second world war launching shells type of conflict.

A pretty show though.

If the missile that "doesn't miss" goes after the chaff/mylar cloud the defense systems shoot out you very well could have detonations near the ship. Same if the missile is hit by RAM or CIWS point defense systems. VERY likely to have these size explosions near the ship.

a reply to: SrWingCommander

This is also only the first test. You don't start a test by setting off a detonation right next to the hull. You start at 100 yards, check the hull and ship, then go closer, repeat, and eventually end up much closer.

The third round of shock trials was completed August 8th. No major failures occurred, but there was some breakage that occurred. That isn't unexpected in these trials. Ford undergoes a 6 month maintenance period which includes an in depth inspection of the ship.

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: SrWingCommander

Missiles may miss more than you think.

We tested a system that had a helicopter flying at a set speed and altitude. We were dropping RBOC chaff at proscribed intervals. To a missile's sensor we looked like a large ship. On board we had a sensor that picked up the missile's radar signal. Right before the missile committed to an attack the radar pulse rate would change. When that happened we would stop the chaff, turn towards the missile and hover. The missile would lose track of us and fly past. We tested this by putting the seeker head from an Exocet on an aircraft and have the aircraft fly the missile's flight profile. The missile would lock on to us every time. This wasn't a manufacturer's test, it was real world. As the only Aircrewman in the squadron, who wasn't an ASW operator, monitoring the sensor was my project. This was in the mid 80's. You have to wonder what they have for decoys now. The idea for this actually came from the book "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy.

In 1990 I had gotten out of the Navy because of injuries I received during a rough landing. I was brought back as a civilian advisor for six weeks to get the helo crews up to speed on the system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll bet there were some sore knees and ankles after that. My knees ached for a week after the Forrestal's shock test in 85.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I'm sure. One of the videos showed a firefighting crew leaning against a bulkhead or something when the detonation goes off. The way the ship shakes, they had to have been pretty sore after.