• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

what is the best smart way to destory a aircraft carrier???

Jah_rastafar_I

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
he's either a clown or becoming too delusional to think he knows a lot. i was cracking up when i read that. still have aches from laughs.

That's the problem with some of these ppl. They don't have any evidence to back up their claims. The least they can do is some research or at least attempt some half fuck explaination. In this day and age of the internet it's not difficult to come up with even a 3/4 fuck of an explaination but nope they base their logic like this. US = superior, china = inferior unaware that nothing stays permanent forever. It's just like some apple fan boys that are so dead set on insisting iphones are just superior but don't have the means to back it up.
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
the last line of defense is the phalanx ciws. perimeter ships such as the destroyer screen are equipped with the system to shoot down any incoming missile at close range.

Only sure way to do this is when the carrier group is in a narrow straits where there is limited room for manuourve. Then you throw everything including the kitchen sink at it. However no carrier group is going to dumb enough to get into that situation. Go read up more Tom Clancy novels for more info.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
That's the problem with some of these ppl. They don't have any evidence to back up their claims. The least they can do is some research or at least attempt some half fuck explaination.

too much bs from hipshooters who don't do research. first of all, the nimitz class cvn construction cost is at least usd4.5b in 2006 dollar value, not 1b. that's just construction. after adding weapon systems, comms, aircraft, munitions and complement, total cost easily doubles.

in ww2, almost all of japan's fleet carriers were sunk or destroyed. over half a dozen u.s. fleet carriers were sunk. the most notable was uss hornet cv-8. she was attacked by a combo of dive bombers and torpedo planes. jap dive bombers dived unto her flight deck in early instances of kamikaze. in those days, destroyer and cruiser screens were helpless in preventing dive bomber attacks. all of japan's carriers in midway were struck by american dive bombers. at one time in the war, the u.s. had only 1 carrier in operation - the enterprise. lexington was sunk in coral sea, yorktown was sunk after midway, hornet at the battle of santa cruz islands.

today's carrier battle groups are organized around 10 nimitz class nuclear carriers. the uss enterprise, which is the 1st nuclear carrier, is still in service but no longer in an active battle group as she is undergoing decommissioning next year. it takes 50 years for her nuclear reactors to reach a stage where they can be safely decommissioned. same with the nimitz class and the next generation gerald ford class. in 2015, the u.s. will have a dozen active cvn's and maintain the same number of carrier battle groups perhaps into the future. none of the cvn's except the enterprise will be retired soon. they'll be hanging around for the next 50 years. all diesel powered supercarriers from the kitty hawk class have been retired.

saturation missile attacks aided by satellites are the supercarriers' worst nightmare scenario.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Only sure way to do this is when the carrier group is in a narrow straits where there is limited room for manuourve. Then you throw everything including the kitchen sink at it. However no carrier group is going to dumb enough to get into that situation. Go read up more Tom Clancy novels for more info.

the phalanx is no guarantee. it's just last resort. all it takes is one missile in a saturation attack to get thru'.
 

longbow

Alfrescian
Loyal
Agree totally. The moment a carrier group can be spotted, it is a sitting duck. This is especially if it comes within coastal defences where the opposition can fire an almost inexhaustible volley of missiles and aircraft.

And the moment the flight deck is damaged, all those jets would have no place to land. The war will take place in space. The rush is in making smaller, easy to launch, redundant satellites. US strategy is to destroy or blind the enemy's eye in the sky.



the phalanx is no guarantee. it's just last resort. all it takes is one missile in a saturation attack to get thru'.
 

longbow

Alfrescian
Loyal
One nuclear warhead should do the trick!

No need for nuclear. Flight deck would be filled with aircrafts fully fuel and loaded with munitions. 1 well placed ordinance and the whole deck would blow apart in a chain reaction. It truly is a sitting duck. Like they say, in battle, point is to maim not kill. 1 man injured = 4 man needed to carry him.

Once flight deck damaged, the fighters above would be open to attack from enemy aircraft and they would not fight back (intense dog flights burns fuel) as they would be desparately trying to conserve fuel to try and make it to friendly territory.

Carriers are still great power projection platforms. Like current incident over the islands with Japan. If China had a carrier, it could project power to that area. Pretty sure PLA is ramping up that capability. Carriers also come in useful for emergency evacuations of their citizens.
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
My point is that with a nuclear missile no need to be so precise or accurate. Just put one within 20km of the group and its game over.
 

wikiphile

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
No need for nuclear. Flight deck would be filled with aircrafts fully fuel and loaded with munitions. 1 well placed ordinance and the whole deck would blow apart in a chain reaction. It truly is a sitting duck. Like they say, in battle, point is to maim not kill. 1 man injured = 4 man needed to carry him.

Once flight deck damaged, the fighters above would be open to attack from enemy aircraft and they would not fight back (intense dog flights burns fuel) as they would be desparately trying to conserve fuel to try and make it to friendly territory.

Carriers are still great power projection platforms. Like current incident over the islands with Japan. If China had a carrier, it could project power to that area. Pretty sure PLA is ramping up that capability. Carriers also come in useful for emergency evacuations of their citizens.

That's quite WWII bro, putting the munitions and fuel on deck. I thought modern day carriers are fully armed and fueled in the hangar before being taxied to the deck for safety considerations
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
All the bros here talk cock on defence matters, LOL. Want to know how to destroy a carrier (assuming USN), come and talk to PAPsmearer lah. Firstly, forget about surface attack. There is no navy out there that can send a strong enough fleet of surface vessels that will survive a defence by a US Carrier Battle group. They will be sunk way before they can launch or fire anything.

Forget about aerial attack, and that includes missiles too. With satellites, AWACS, etc., the CBG will detect an air attack or missile attack long before it gets to the fleet. The F-18 Super Hornets will down the enemy planes with AAMRAM long before they can launch any air to surface missiles. Even for land launch missiles like SIlkworm or Tomahawk, its extremely difficult to program the carrier profile into the computer. Likely, the enemy has to launch a SIlkworm in the direction of the fleet and hopes that it hits the carrier and not one of the screening vessels. SAme for the air launched missiles. Even if an air launched missile in the Harpoon or Exorcet class hits the carrier, doubtful the size of the warhead will sink the carrier. The carrier will survive multiple hits from this small warheads. Even if the Harpoons or Exorcets are programmed for top down attack, they will impact the carrier deck or bridge, and if they are lucky detonate a fully fueled and armed aircraft on the deck. Even than, the fire control systems on a US carrier are excellent. Might cripple it and make it inoperable, but not likely to sink or destroy it. And larger missiles like Silkworm which has a large enough warhead will likely be shot down by a combination of F-18s, Sea Sparrows and Phalanx. The only posibility with a large missile is to send salvoes of the missiles, and hope to saturate the defence of the fleet. But Even than, you will destroy some ships, but whether the carrier is one of them or not, is more luck than planning.

Forget about submarines sinking the carrier, as every CBG (CArrier Battle Group) is escorted by Los Angeles class attack sub or newer models. Their job is to hunt the enemy sub and sink it. As well, the fleet is equipped with ASW helos, not only from the carrier, but also from other ships like the Aegis class destroyers. American anti submarine warfare is head and shoulders above the rest of the world. Very hard to send a sub against them. The only hope you have is to keep a sub in the littoral waters (near the coast), in an area with many geographic features on the seabed, and wait for the CBG to come by. Than pop up and fire a salvo of torpedoes at the carrier. Littoral areas make sub detecttion harder, But this is a suicide mission anyway, and I don't know what sub commander would do that. Also, you have to know the timing and route of the CBG.

To my knowledge, there is only 2 ways to destroy a carrier. The Russians figured it out long ago. You have to launch a nuclear strike against the entire CBG. Either you use a missile launched from land or air to target the entire fleet, with a high enough yield that it will destroy not only the carrier, but also the surrounding fleet.

Or, you wait for the carrier to go into a port. All carriers including nuclear, will port sometime. using Changi Naval base as an example, when a USN carrier docks there, an enemy will have the opportunity to send several high speed small boats packed with explosives and get next to the carrier and detonate the boat at the water line. This strategy was used successfully against the destroyer USS Cole in Somalia. The only mistake was they used one small speedboat instead of several, otherwise, the Cole would have been sunk. The carrier will definitely be defended while in port, but you take away its advantage of its air wing and its aircraft, its ability to maneuvre, and its screening vessels. U also have a mostly empty vessel with most of the crew on liberty.
 
Last edited:

cheowyonglee

Alfrescian
Loyal
All the bros here talk cock on defence matters, LOL. Want to know how to destroy a carrier (assuming USN), come and talk to PAPsmearer lah. Firstly, forget about surface attack. There is no navy out there that can send a strong enough fleet of surface vessels that will survive a defence by a US Carrier Battle group. They will be sunk way before they can launch or fire anything.

Forget about aerial attack, and that includes missiles too. With satellites, AWACS, etc., the CBG will detect an air attack or missile attack long before it gets to the fleet. The F-18 Super Hornets will down the enemy planes with AAMRAM long before they can launch any air to surface missiles. Even for land launch missiles like SIlkworm or Tomahawk, its extremely difficult to program the carrier profile into the computer. Likely, the enemy has to launch a SIlkworm in the direction of the fleet and hopes that it hits the carrier and not one of the screening vessels. SAme for the air launched missiles. Even if an air launched missile in the Harpoon or Exorcet class hits the carrier, doubtful the size of the warhead will sink the carrier. The carrier will survive multiple hits from this small warheads. Even if the Harpoons or Exorcets are programmed for top down attack, they will impact the carrier deck or bridge, and if they are lucky detonate a fully fueled and armed aircraft on the deck. Even than, the fire control systems on a US carrier are excellent. Might cripple it and make it inoperable, but not likely to sink or destroy it. And larger missiles like Silkworm which has a large enough warhead will likely be shot down by a combination of F-18s, Sea Sparrows and Phalanx. The only posibility with a large missile is to send salvoes of the missiles, and hope to saturate the defence of the fleet. But Even than, you will destroy some ships, but whether the carrier is one of them or not, is more luck than planning.

Forget about submarines sinking the carrier, as every CBG (CArrier Battle Group) is escorted by Los Angeles class attack sub or newer models. Their job is to hunt the enemy sub and sink it. As well, the fleet is equipped with ASW helos, not only from the carrier, but also from other ships like the Aegis class destroyers. American anti submarine warfare is head and shoulders above the rest of the world. Very hard to send a sub against them. The only hope you have is to keep a sub in the littoral waters (near the coast), in an area with many geographic features on the seabed, and wait for the CBG to come by. Than pop up and fire a salvo of torpedoes at the carrier. Littoral areas make sub detecttion harder, But this is a suicide mission anyway, and I don't know what sub commander would do that. Also, you have to know the timing and route of the CBG.

To my knowledge, there is only 2 ways to destroy a carrier. The Russians figured it out long ago. You have to launch a nuclear strike against the entire CBG. Either you use a missile launched from land or air to target the entire fleet, with a high enough yield that it will destroy not only the carrier, but also the surrounding fleet.

Or, you wait for the carrier to go into a port. All carriers including nuclear, will port sometime. using Changi Naval base as an example, when a USN carrier docks there, an enemy will have the opportunity to send several high speed small boats packed with explosives and get next to the carrier and detonate the boat at the water line. This strategy was used successfully against the destroyer USS Cole in Somalia. The only mistake was they used one small speedboat instead of several, otherwise, the Cole would have been sunk. The carrier will definitely be defended while in port, but you take away its advantage of its air wing and its aircraft, its ability to maneuvre, and its screening vessels. U also have a mostly empty vessel with most of the crew on liberty.

very good information.....! military expert.
 

Conqueror

Alfrescian
Loyal
just fire one surface to surface super sonic missile with a powerful warhead enough to sink a aircraft carrier. this missile gotta fly very near the surface to avoid detecting by radar.

cheaper option is by submarine firing one torpedo, provided the submarine can get pass the escort warship and enemies submarine.


Torpedo warhead must be powerful enough, not those fired from a small diesel powered sub like our RSN's. The other option is a nuke missile fired from a nuke sub. The explosion can wipe out the entire naval group. :cool:

Below pic is a Tomahawk missile used as anti-ship.



000-TLAM-600-015.jpg
 
Last edited:

Reddog

Alfrescian
Loyal
You really took your time to Google all this didnt you? My reply was edited quite some time ago. Look at my edit.

By the way, Nothing points to her being the one and only Global powerhouse, This points to her being "One of the Global power houses"

Basically everyone can be a theorist. Did they factor in what is happening today?

Television, we Chinese understand your feeling. It's OK if you are not Chinese since it is really not your fault. Better luck in your next life.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
My point is that with a nuclear missile no need to be so precise or accurate. Just put one within 20km of the group and its game over.

of course, a tactical nuclear warhead will take out most of the carrier battle group including the carrier. but that's inviting the u.s. for an all-out nuclear retaliatory strike which will put china back in the stone age. the big 3, america, china, russia will not resort to that.
 

cheowyonglee

Alfrescian
Loyal
japanese expert in the naval battle!will they rise up again to the China island dispute???

[video=youtube;_NDRDVavpWs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NDRDVavpWs&feature=g-vrec[/video]
 
Last edited:

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
of course, a tactical nuclear warhead will take out most of the carrier battle group including the carrier. but that's inviting the u.s. for an all-out nuclear retaliatory strike which will put china back in the stone age. the big 3, america, china, russia will not resort to that.

Iran or North Korea may not care. They r already in the stone age!
 

roadrunner

Alfrescian
Loyal
very good information.....! military expert.

i'm not a military asspert but i do know the cheapest way to sink a aircraft carrier, just pull the bath plug, all water flood in :biggrin: donno why all the assperts here never mention this, must be top secret!

i also know the bestest defence for the US carrier, buy up & stockpile all sharks fin, ginseng, TCM herbs & store on carrier, China would not dare sink it :biggrin:
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Debate on the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier had started and not been stopped since the WWII. The image of a slow moving sitting duck, cannot be shaken off despite its large parasol of air, sea and undersea defensive cover.

As a result, the aircraft carrier's relevance to modern warfare has often been questioned. Nevertheless the aircraft carrier's ability as a mothership to bring attacking forces forward into the enemy's area of control, probably the only reliable way able to achieve such an aggressive mission, makes it a component of its military force that a superpower find difficulty to do away with. But the question on vulnerability is a different issue altogether.

The following extract from US Naval Institute, is worth reading, particularly the comment by retired US Navy Commander John Patch:

http://www.nowpublic.com/how-vulnerable-are-aircraft-carriers

Incidentally, the Chinese have ASBMs in the form of the maneuverable warheads DF-21D and the SIZZLERS to which the US Navy still has no reliable defence. It is not difficult for the Chinese to build and launch several of these at the same time, achieving what Commander John Patch called simultaneity.

Of course the US Carrier can stay in the open sea, out of range of most land based ballistic missiles but that will not provide any threat to an enemy operating within its coastal waters.
 
Last edited:
Top