Us Carriers

[nova_satori]

Why does the US keep building more carriers? Russian weapons comming on the black market make the US carrier group a huge sitting duck.

[Hugo]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[nova_satori]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You don't know what you are talking about. Does the Russian P-700 Granit mean anything to you?

[nova_satori]

500 Ktons of nuclear material can be packed into it. It can be jury-rigged to launch from a "non-combatant." You don't even need to hit. Just get within a reasonable distance and dentonate, or airburst it. You can say goodbye to 5,000+ sailors & every ship in that complement. With one missile. Now, why is the US investing in something so easily destroyed? No other country does this.

[Hugo]

In order to get in firing position, the launching sub has to wait ahead of the group. This assumes that you know their course. You can't chase or run alongside, since the group moves so fast that you would give yourself away with acoustic noise. A sub moving faster than 15 knots may as well hang a sign reading "depth-charge me" from its periscope.

First, such a sub has to evade interception by the two nuclear attack subs that scout far ahead of each carrier group. These boats use sprint-and-drift methods and their crews and equipment are very, very good. I wouldn't think there is much chance of an Oscar sub evading them, but if they do:

First come the ASW frigates, with ASW helicopters and maritime aircraft. These aircraft can sweep a few hundred nautical miles in a very small period of time, and cannot be attacked by their victim sub but can easily detect it with dunking sonobuoys. Once the sub is found, all they have to do is drop an aerial-launched torpedo, which they will do right over the sub's position, giving the enemy sub about a minute to react else 600lbs of high explosive hits the sub's hull and cracks it open.

Assuming they evade detection by aircraft, there are of course the ASW frigates and cruisers, with very advanced sonar, depth charges, and ASROC missiles that fly out to the sub's position and then drop a torpedo in the water mere meters from the target, again, about a minute for the enemy to react.

While the missiles have long range, the sensors of the launching subs do not. In order to get a decent firing solution they would have to move in very close, vastly increasing their chances of detection. It can be done from much farther away if you have a spotter aircraft, but what chance does a spotter aircraft have against a full complement of maritime fighters and strike aircraft? That's right - none.

Assuming they got past the escorts, closed to sensor range and actually managed to launch a missile, that missile would need to get past SAM missiles and the phalanx close-in-gun system. Those defences are very advanced, and the only chance you stand is saturation - which means you'd need about 3 Mongos (as the Oscars are nicknamed) to launch at least 36 missiles to stand a slim chance of penetrating the missile defences.

Of course, each Oscar you send is worth several billion dollars, and the chances are certain that none of them will return from the mission. Even if, by some miracle, they manage even get close enough to launch any missiles, that will instantly give away their position and they would be sunk within a minute.

You might think that's a good trade, were it not for the fact that the chances are slim to none that they will accomplish their mission before they are sunk. For all the good it would do, you might as well scuttle the damn subs and save the crews.

You could put it on a non-combatant vessel, of course. Assuming the escorting ships don't warn it off or sink it for failing to vacate the area, it would still have to launch about 30 missiles to stand a chance of one getting through. You can't make a non-combatant vessel launch 30 missiles without it looking like it can launch 30 missiles, which is an open invitation to be sunk by maritime aircraft whilst well outside of missile range.

This is why I say that you don't know what you are talking about. Of course, you are a 17-year-old with absolutely no military knowledge, but to expect that you know more of naval matters than Pentagon planners and naval officers of all ranks is just an invitation to be told:

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[nova_satori]

Typical orthodox military thinking. It always takes a huge loss before they change.

Why do you need a submarine? The modern terrorist does not have access to a high tech submarine capable of evading superior US detection. Nor do they need one. The terrorist does not even need a plane to attack. All a terrorist needs is a single, small, fishing boat to destroy a US carrier fleet.

First, such a sub has to evade interception by the two nuclear attack subs that scout far ahead of each carrier group. These boats use sprint-and-drift methods and their crews and equipment are very, very good. I wouldn't think there is much chance of an Oscar sub evading them, but if they do:

Actually, only one sub scouts in front, usually at a range of 30-60 miles. The second, usually a LA or a new Virginia class fast attack sub (or perhaps a sea wolf, but highly doubtful), lags to the rear. At times (rarely though), the US command will attack an additional sub or two, which fan out to the left and right of the carrier group. The US produces the best attack subs in the world. Oscars, Romeos, Akulus, Golfs, Kilos or even Typhoons aren’t much of a challenge. However, like I said before, the modern terrorists requires none of that sort to pull off complete destruction of a US carrier group.

This is why I say that you don't know what you are talking about. Of course, you are a 17-year-old with absolutely no military knowledge, but to expect that you know more of naval matters than Pentagon planners and naval officers of all ranks is just an invitation to be told:

Are you so sure about that?

Here is precisely how it would go off. There are several methods to total annihilation.

Every US carrier has a homeport. That is common knowledge. Whether it is Norfolk, Yokosuko, San Diego, Manama, or soon Pearl Harbor. The key is to know when they are coming back. That is easy to figure out as well. Carriers usually have 6 month tours. With this new war on, some tours have extended to 12 months. However, a carrier MUST check into a port for refueling, rearmament, and restocking. However, which port is usually kept secret for obvious reasons. When the time comes for the carrier and her fleet to head back into HQ, the plot goes off. The P-700 Granit, which can probably be acquired on the black market, has a range of roughly 550 KM. It can be packed with a 550 KT warhead. Far more then needed to destroy an enemy carrier fleet. The Russian cold war strategy was simply to send a few subs packing nuclear warhead torpedoes, and fire them at long range. Whether or not they hit was irrelevant, an early detonation could take care of the problem long before the carrier became a threat. Likewise it can be done here. A jury-rig on a small to medium fishing vessel around the port of Yokosuko, with some tactical help from a tech station on mainland Japan, can target the general area where the carrier is going to come in. The carrier fleet will not be scanning thousands of fishing vessels. That is impossible. The vessel launches a missile or two at the carrier, if there are more then 4 or 5 of these jury-rigged ship, a salvo of 10 missiles or more will by flying at the fleet. Japanese authorities will quickly notice, and send out harbor and naval patrols to investigate, however it is too late. Control of the missiles transfers to tech station, where commands to in-flight missiles can be easily done. They can also program a self-detonation sequence on time, should jamming be initiated. Phalanx defense stations on US ships will activate and start spewing lead at the incoming missiles. With a 550 KT warhead, you do not need to hit. A early denotation, or airburst at a range of a ½ mile or two, will release a huge blast, as well as massive waves of energy. The sea will become extremely dangerous, and carriers do not perform well under heavy sea conditions. A 550 KT warhead at ½ a mile will destroy a fleet.

Easily accomplished.

Second scenario. Dale Brown talked about this one well, in “fatal terrain.” Backpack nuke. Easily acquired, since Russia has reported hundreds missing. When a US carrier is in port, preferably in another country, like Japan, or Bahrain, a huge protest involving thousands of tiny ships swarms the carrier. Port security and US security will be overwhelmed. All it takes is one ship to get close enough to slap a backpack nuke, or throw a diver overboard to attach a nuke to the hull. When the carrier moves out of port, reaches a distance away from the port, the pack back can set to detonate, or a signal can be given. There goes your carrier. While the payload will be less, it will be enough to destroy the carrier and heavily damage her escorts.

I ask again, why do you need a submarine?

[nova_satori]

if you think I have NO understanding of anything military, why haven't you completely contridicted the "China vs. Taiwan" thread?

[nova_satori]

oh, the pentagon knows about this. They've known about this for a long time.

The new phalanxes are a quick fix, as well as superior jamming, but there are no permenant at the moment. The inability to quickly obtain nukes is a serious obstacle to this plan, (well 550kt ones), and the Russians are supposively not letting their p700 granits out of their sights.

this isn't new, it's just not touched on alot.

[Hugo]

Actually, only one sub scouts in front, usually at a range of 30-60 miles.

No, both do, at a range of 100-200 miles. So says Houston Jones, former commander of the Los Angeles-class boat USS Miami. They don't need to scout to the sides or rear, since any vessel at the side or rear moving fast enough to keep up would give itself away to every ship in the battle group anyway.

10 missiles would not be enough to saturate a carrier group's air defences. You would need three or four times that number to be assured of a hit - and 30-40 nuclear-tipped missiles are not going to come cheap. What terrorist groups have access to such funds?

Don't forget, too, that these have to be launched in salvoes. Warships fire missiles individually. Of course, once the first missile is fired, the launching ship instantly distinguishes herself from other shipping traffic and will not get to fire a second missile.

If you have 5 ships, don't count on getting more than 5 missiles loose - not enough to overcome the air defences and you still have achieved nothing.

Your second scenario is more plausible, except that most protestors don't want to die for their cause. Greenpeace has never been able to round up 50 boats so I don't suppose terrorists would have any better luck. Even if they did, escorting vessels would just form a cordon sanitaire and any boat violating that would get shelled, quite simply. I doubt you would get any diver close enough.

[nova_satori]

They don't need to scout to the sides or rear, since any vessel at the side or rear moving fast enough to keep up would give itself away to every ship in the battle group anyway.

Why do you need to keep up with them if you're only gonig to fire a torp then run?

10 missiles would not be enough to saturate a carrier group's air defences. You would need three or four times that number to be assured of a hit - and 30-40 nuclear-tipped missiles are not going to come cheap. What terrorist groups have access to such funds?

The US idea of air-defense is to stop missiles from hitting. The senario doesn't require getting closer then 1/2 a mile at most. Actually, all you need is a singe missile with the warhead. The rest are simply decoys. They don't need to hit, just airburst.

Don't forget, too, that these have to be launched in salvoes. Warships fire missiles individually. Of course, once the first missile is fired, the launching ship instantly distinguishes herself from other shipping traffic and will not get to fire a second missile.

Well, come to think of it, all they need is a single launch from a few ships. The key to working this is to have a extremely common ship. Launch the missiles, dump the jury-rigg and blend into the crowd.

If you have 5 ships, don't count on getting more than 5 missiles loose - not enough to overcome the air defences and you still have achieved nothing.

Remember, they don't have to hit. Even a dentonation at 2 miles - 5 miles would seriously damage the fleet. You keep thinking that the missiles have to hit. That simply isn't so.

Your second scenario is more plausible, except that most protestors don't want to die for their cause. Greenpeace has never been able to round up 50 boats so I don't suppose terrorists would have any better luck. Even if they did, escorting vessels would just form a cordon sanitaire and any boat violating that would get shelled, quite simply. I doubt you would get any diver close enough.

Not necessarily. Should the US do something rather "questionable," the populations around bases might stage protests large enough for the miliatants to get in. Harbor patrol and escorts aren't what people call manuerable in tight situations such as a harbor. Enough small ships and it could be done. The outrage the Japanese people would have over shelling of protesters is something the US is not willing to do.

[Derek]

Remember, they don't have to hit. Even a dentonation at 2 miles - 5 miles would seriously damage the fleet. You keep thinking that the missiles have to hit. That simply isn't so.

This is highly unlikely scenario. Missiles on air craft carriers, destroyers, crusiers and other such ships have Ranges exceding 5 miles. Plus planes coming in and out of the carrier group would pick up a missile in a matter of seconds and send it down in a matter of seconds. Plus terrorists aquiring this type of missile is highly unlikey, plus where are they getting the nukes, where are they getting the systems required to detonate the nukes? I believe in a new Russia where they don't try to skimp on such things as security of nuclear missiles. This isn't the ol' USSR where we throw in 2 dogs and 5 guys gaurding many silos. This scenario is complete total bullshit, our intelligence, if this happened would pick up on it, and defintely pummel this plan before it got off the ground.

Also, about the protestor bit, divers, not an option, boats, like what happened to the USS cole, Wouldnt happen in million years, the gatlin guns would blow it out of the water before it got within 100 yards, what you speak of can't happen, the pentagon, navy, and air force are smarter than you will ever be. They have gone through many scenarios like this time and time again. Americans think shit through, unlike other countries.

[nova_satori]

Plus planes coming in and out of the carrier group would pick up a missile in a matter of seconds and send it down in a matter of seconds.

Not the new missiles in development or the sea skippers that countries currently employ. Many of the sea skimmers skim mere inches above the surface, where your radar doesn't work as well as normal.

terrorists aquiring this type of missile is highly unlikey, plus where are they getting the nukes, where are they getting the systems required to detonate the nukes?

While it supposively isn't easy to obtain Granits, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to bribe a freezing, underpaid, overworked Russian general. Many former Soviet nuclear scientists are out there. Many willing to work for a "reasonable" pay level.

I believe in a new Russia where they don't try to skimp on such things as security of nuclear missiles.

Then you're mistaken. Security around siberian ICBM silos is seriously lacking. Many of the nukes are in plain sight. The US is trying to get funds to dismantle the nukes, or at least put pressure on the Soviets to put them back into the silos. The Soviets are also reporetd missing suitcase tact nukes. How many, i'm not sure.

This isn't the ol' USSR where we throw in 2 dogs and 5 guys gaurding many silos.

It's now a puppy and two drunk guards. The Russian economy is in serious ruin. There isn't much money for the military.

This scenario is complete total bullshit, our intelligence, if this happened would pick up on it, and defintely pummel this plan before it got off the ground.

Us intelligance? That's a laugh. We can't even get spies into the southern part of Afganistan, much less into the inner spheres of black market trading.

Also, about the protestor bit, divers, not an option, boats, like what happened to the USS cole, Wouldnt happen in million years, the gatlin guns would blow it out of the water before it got within 100 yards, what you speak of can't happen, the pentagon, navy, and air force are smarter than you will ever be. They have gone through many scenarios like this time and time again. Americans think shit through, unlike other countries.

You haven't even read most of my post. Or the protests aganist US ships and actions in Japan. Do you REALLY think the US navy will turn galting guns, more like saliors with M4s and M16s, on UNARMED protesters?

Americans think things through? Do you actually believe that?

The pentagon knows this. They've known it for years. The secret to stoping it, is good PR. Backpack nukes are their nightmare. Why do the think the US is actively helping the Russians track them down?

[Whistler]

Why does the US keep building more carriers? Russian weapons comming on the black market make the US carrier group a huge sitting duck.

Possibly because 99.9825% of the world will never possess those ‘futuristic’ sucking errrr vacuum weapons any time soon.

[Hugo]

Why do you need to keep up with them if you're only gonig to fire a torp then run?

If you are planning to lie in wait and then attack from the side or rear, that means you must first lie in wait ahead! When attacking surface ships, a sub can either give chase from the rear, approach from the side or lie in wait ahead. Since WWI, subs have always used the last tactic.

The US idea of air-defense is to stop missiles from hitting.

Point-defence missiles will hit a target many miles out. Perhaps you've heard of the HOE project - a missile developed back in the 70s to shoot down nuclear warheads in re-entry? This was distinguishable by the large umbrella of vanes around it's nose, designed to increase chances of a hit, which actually proved unnecessary due to its very high accuracy. It is perfectly possible to shoot down a missile with another missile.

Not necessarily. Should the US do something rather "questionable," the populations around bases might stage protests large enough for the miliatants to get in.

If there was any real danger of what you are proposing, the admiral in charge of the carrier group would most likely anchor miles offshore and have oilers and supply ships come out to him from port. In the event of such a threat, those ships would be well guarded to prevent sabotage or unwanted backpack devices, and checked over by divers before departure. That's procedure anyway. In the Royal Navy, no ship or sub can leave port unless it's been thoroughly inspected by a diving team.

Many of the sea skimmers skim mere inches above the surface, where your radar doesn't work as well as normal.

No, they don't. You can't skim mere inches above the surface in a 12-foot sea unless your missile can swim! They fly at around 30-50 feet altitude which makes them not undetectable but certainly more difficult to detect due to backscatter, but they also have to 'pop-up' to 300-500 feet or so at regular intervals to re-acquire their target because the backscatter that interferes with enemy radar also interferes with their own sensors. At that point it's possible to get a fix and you can fire a point-defence missile or direct an escorting interceptor to the contact and have it acquire the incoming missile visually and shoot it down.

Of course, this is assuming that the target is just sitting there like a dummy - Russian guidance systems are atrocious and would be easily spoofed or jammed by US systems. Visual/IR range is not that much at sea, so any missile has to home in by radar, and a target ship could spoof a decoy many miles away.

Basically, the carrier group is really impervious to all but a highly co-ordinated and very determined missile attack from a large force of opposing ships and/or subs. It's not a simple fire-and-forget thing to attack a carrier group, what you are talking about is starting a naval battle and as Nelson said, battle plans never survive contact with the enemy.

I'm sure you can come up with some remote scenario in which a carrier group is vulnerable - sabotage, or nuking the city it's berthed in, but regardless, the reason they are built is that the extremely slim risk of their loss is well worth their utility. They are not floating dead cans at all, but extremely potent warships with massive firepower, great flexibility and very long range. Does that answer your original question?

[Whistler]

The US Navy is mothballing its anti submarine 'VS' community due to the fact the Soviet submarine force pose not threat.

[nova_satori]

Whistler: True, unless we go to war with the UK, we don't need anti-sub warfare. China is using old Akulus and Romeos. So scared. Even Taiwan isn't that advanced.

It is perfectly possible to shoot down a missile with another missile.

Of course, but this is all hypothetical, it could happen. The defenses on a US ship is much greater then they were when the USS stark was nailed by a exocet, nevertheless, is it a large threat to US assets. I think the US should start building smaller Carriers, like the British Illustrious class or the Italian Garbaldi class. Should this happen, the overall loss of manpower and equipment would be less then a loss of a Nitmiz Supercarrier, and her escorts.

About HOE, did they ever manage a way to take out 25+ MRVs? I'm curious.

No, they don't. You can't skim mere inches above the surface in a 12-foot sea unless your missile can swim! They fly at around 30-50 feet altitude which makes them not undetectable but certainly more difficult to detect due to backscatter

I'll go look for the supposed Russian missile that can fly a 10-20 feet above the ocean. I'll have to find the russian military guy on previous forum I posted a while ago.

Of course, this is assuming that the target is just sitting there like a dummy - Russian guidance systems are atrocious and would be easily spoofed or jammed by US systems. Visual/IR range is not that much at sea, so any missile has to home in by radar, and a target ship could spoof a decoy many miles away.

For the most part. Russia has produced some of the greatest military pieces, and some of the worse. The guidance interference could be circumevented by programming a time explosion. Just get to the general area and blow...not much expertise needed for that. it's not like a carrier can move very quickly to get out of blast range.

Basically, the carrier group is really impervious to all but a highly co-ordinated and very determined missile attack from a large force of opposing ships and/or subs.

That is probably why China isn't bothering to work on the Minsks. Good luck attacking Taiwan. You're gonna need the largest taskforce ever.

I'm sure you can come up with some remote scenario in which a carrier group is vulnerable - sabotage, or nuking the city it's berthed in, but regardless, the reason they are built is that the extremely slim risk of their loss is well worth their utility. They are not floating dead cans at all, but extremely potent warships with massive firepower, great flexibility and very long range. Does that answer your original question?

Well there is another method that already in the works. A medium sized cargo plane, like a Greyhound, could be outfitted with nuclear launch capiablity. In theory, the plane opens the cargo door, slides the nuke out, the nuke opens its paracutes and floats warhead up down to a certain attitude, where it detaches its chuts, and exgnites. Essentially you can launch a small ICBM from the middle of the ocean. If you know the coordiantes, 6-10 MRVs, from above, is signifitely different to defend then missiles from a boat or a plane.

I still believe that they are "putting all your eggs in one basket." should one ever be lost, the magnitude of the loss would be astronomical.

[Hugo]

About HOE, did they ever manage a way to take out 25+ MRVs? I'm curious.

Yeah, put a 50Kt warhead on it.

I think the US should start building smaller Carriers, like the British Illustrious class or the Italian Garbaldi class.

Bigger ships have far longer range, since you can put nuclear powerplants in ships that size, not to mention increased stores, fuel for aircraft, etc. The Royal Navy does have smaller carriers but it isn't really a blue-water navy anymore.

Russia has produced some of the greatest military pieces, and some of the worse.

I don't believe that for a second. The main asset of the Soviet military was fear of the unknown, since no layman really knew for sure what they were capable of. The truth is that most Soviet military hardware is complete crap, the balance being only mildly crap.

This is the 'pride of Soviet industry.' You remove all incentive and make sure you have a huge technological lag, and everything you make will be crap, including military hardware. Add the incredible capacity of Soviet society to produce incompetent and badly motivated personnel at every turn, and you have a winning team! Now you know why the Warsaw Pact felt they had to outnumber NATO 5-to-1 to stand a chance of actually winning.

Just get to the general area and blow...not much expertise needed for that.

How does it get to the general area and blow, when it's spoofed from the moment of launch, heads in the wrong direction and blows up some salmon 30 miles away?

Essentially you can launch a small ICBM from the middle of the ocean.

Sounds like a poor man's nuclear missile submarine to me. Only far more easy to detect, not nearly as accurate, with a far smaller warhead yield, etc. ICBMs are effectively useless in this day and age anyway - American missile systems are so well drilled from the Cold War that no nuclear power could pull a pre-emptive attack, and the retaliation would annihilate them.

I still believe that they are "putting all your eggs in one basket." should one ever be lost, the magnitude of the loss would be astronomical.

Not really. America lost four fleet-size carriers in WWII, plus one light carrier and six escort carriers. The cost to float a Nimitz-class carrier (biggest in the world) is around $4 billion, but the budget for the Navy in 2002 was around $99 billion. The budget for ship procurement is $9.3 billion, but if a carrier was lost I'm sure you could get Congress to grant the cost of replacement, even if you couldn't take it out of your yearly ship procurement budget.

[Derek]

You haven't even read most of my post. Or the protests aganist US ships and actions in Japan. Do you REALLY think the US navy will turn galting guns, more like saliors with M4s and M16s, on UNARMED protesters?

Im sorry I must not have explained my point that well, yes we need to track down these so-called backpack nukes and other devices missing. Most likely they have been misplaced.

If the ship is in port yes. It would be harder to contain terrorists within protestor groups like you said. But when the ship is in the harbor not docked you have to have clearence to go within so many yards (i believe it is something like 100-200) A navy captain told me this when i was visiting Norfolk Virgina (the ship isn't there anymore they moved it to i think Alameda.) Yes the boat would recieve many many warnings before it was actually fired upon. They first fire rounds in front then if you are coming in at a Fast speed they blow you away. Seriously no joke.

Plus this Nuke theory wouldn't be tried on a carrier most likely a Big city or military base, not a ship.

The US intelligence had a major breakdown pre-Sept. 11 if you are getting stuff from the Major news networks saying our intelligence sucks. that is complete and total bullshit.

I don't know if you guys know this but a plan for a dirty-bomb (back-pack nuke) was concieved buy some terrorist and foiled by the FBI before they could aquire any of the stuff to do it with.

The thing is our intelligence is USUALLY top-notch. Yes we have had mistakes, but all countries who rely on intelligence as much as we do make mistakes also.

Nova Satori...are you Canadian?

[nova_satori]

Yeah, put a 50Kt warhead on it.

Dentonate a nuclear missile to take out 25+ multiple rentry vehicles? Huh?

Bigger ships have far longer range, since you can put nuclear powerplants in ships that size, not to mention increased stores, fuel for aircraft, etc

If they can hit a reactor on a LA class, they can fit in on a illustrious. Fuel and stores can be carried on supply vessels the Us already has.

I don't believe that for a second. The main asset of the Soviet military was fear of the unknown, since no layman really knew for sure what they were capable of. The truth is that most Soviet military hardware is complete crap, the balance being only mildly crap.

Sukhoi-27/35, absoultely wonderful plane. If kept in good shape, and pilot decently trained, it can be a major threat to almost every fighter in today's world. It's not the Fulcrum's big brother, it's his child.

Ak-47. Wonderful. Cheap, doesn't jam like the M-16, mass produced, doesn't require any traing, medium kickback, accurate in bursts, fully auto. What else can you ask for?

Hind. Essentially a A-10, but a helicopter, without the depeleted uranium cannon. But lots of missiles!

Mig (?) Foxbat?. Fastest fighter, meant to shoot down US valkyrie bombers (that never materliazed). Sickingly fast.

BAD: Just about everything else.

Sounds like a poor man's nuclear missile submarine to me. Only far more easy to detect, not nearly as accurate, with a far smaller warhead yield, etc. ICBMs are effectively useless in this day and age anyway - American missile systems are so well drilled from the Cold War that no nuclear power could pull a pre-emptive attack, and the retaliation would annihilate them.

The point is to remove the blame from anyone. You can trace where it came from, but can you trace who launched it? The plane is long gone. Smaller warhead? The capacity of many medium-large cargo planes can fit a good size ICBM. Granted, without a AN-124, you're not gonna fit the largest ICBM, but even still, it would work. Not nearly accurate? Depends who's missile it is. American missile shields are effectively weak. Patriot anti-air batteris were never designed to defend aganist that. The Israeli Arrow i believe incoprates better tracking, but i'm not sure. Starwars missile shield is a sham. Simply put, reagan couldn't do it, bush isn't going to. They haven't even hit a 80% success rate.

Not really. America lost four fleet-size carriers in WWII, plus one light carrier and six escort carriers. The cost to float a Nimitz-class carrier (biggest in the world) is around $4 billion, but the budget for the Navy in 2002 was around $99 billion. The budget for ship procurement is $9.3 billion, but if a carrier was lost I'm sure you could get Congress to grant the cost of replacement, even if you couldn't take it out of your yearly ship procurement budget.

You're ignoring the human cost. A nimtiz carrier has over 5,000 crewmen. The number of escorts may bring that number to 6,000 crewman. The loss of that many well trained toops would be astronomical. The amount of money and time spent to train each person would easily cost another carrier alone. Losing 72-144 trained pilots would be a major blow. Pilots are the most expensive people to train. Losing that many, well qualified pilots, and their potentials to trains others would be horrendous. Also, a loss of a carrier group would strain the US carrier fleets. Also, it would make the brass afraid of sending them out.

They first fire rounds in front then if you are coming in at a Fast speed they blow you away. Seriously no joke.

Highly unlikely that they would do this to a hundred protesting Japanese in Yokosuko. The bad PR would be more then the President could stomach.

The US intelligence had a major breakdown pre-Sept. 11 if you are getting stuff from the Major news networks saying our intelligence sucks. that is complete and total bullshit.

It also have a huge breakdown after 9/11. Our intelligence does suck. The CIA and FBI got huge beatdowns by the government for their failures.

I don't know if you guys know this but a plan for a dirty-bomb (back-pack nuke) was concieved buy some terrorist and foiled by the FBI before they could aquire any of the stuff to do it with.

The Washington Post has a article on US funding Russian military ops to retrieve WGU (weapons grade Uranium) from insecure former Soviet stockpiles. We're still working on it. $400,000. The dirty bomb concept is something we're going to live with (and possibly die from) for the rest of our lives.

The thing is our intelligence is USUALLY top-notch. Yes we have had mistakes, but all countries who rely on intelligence as much as we do make mistakes also.

Nova Satori...are you Canadian?

Mossad is top notch. We have a LONG way before we get to their level. No, i'm an American.

[Derek]

Going for US Carriers would be highly unlikely. More like a city, Preferably Washington DC

Yes it would be much harder to get a Nuke into Washington as it would be to get one next to a carrier.

I still don't understand how Japanese protestors would swarm around a carrier? Im talking about being anchored in a harbor. Not on a dock. Please explain, i don't quite understand what you mean.

[nova_satori]

Read part of this book

New York would be a nice target, LA as well. Boston perhaps.

In a military harbor, it would be difficult, but the ship has too moor doesn't it?

[Nuclear]

Why does the US keep building more carriers? Russian weapons comming on the black market make the US carrier group a huge sitting duck.

Aircraft Carriers are being built because they replaced the Battleship Class. They are currently the center of air/naval warfare. Yes, there are threats to them...but nothing gets within 200 miles of them without them knowing it and sending a welcoming party of a few tomcats. They are also the fastest ships in the Navy and some of the most advanced. If memory serves, we haven't had a Carrier destroyed since....I wanna say WW2 Pacific....could be wrong, but it's very unlikely as they have a fleet accompany them whereever they go. Yeah, they are big, but those sitting ducks and move quite fast.

As far as ships mooring, we learned our lesson after Pearl Harbor and the backstabbing Japanese attacked us. One does not simply walk up to a Naval base. Have you ever been to one before? The Security and defense is unbelieveable. I was thoroughly impressed.

[nova_satori]

They are also the fastest ships in the Navy and some of the most advanced

Uh....right. Like attack boats, La, Virginia and Seawolf subs are Slower right? And Missile cruisers are slower too right? lol. The Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser is more advanced then a standard Nimitz. Seawolfs as well, the sea shadow too.

Yeah, they are big, but those sitting ducks and move quite fast.

Carriers can't even top 40 knots. That is NOT going to out run a nuke ladden missile.

A ship doesn't just APPEAR in a dock does it? It must enter a canal. That canal leads to the ocean.....i'm sure you can figure out the rest.

es, there are threats to them...but nothing gets within 200 miles of them without them knowing it and sending a welcoming party of a few tomcats

200 miles is a bit overexergated. And they might not be sending F-14s in the next 2-6 years. They'll be sending Superhornets. Tomcats are scheduled to be decommishened. The JSF should be entering production, if it already hasn't. Now if only the comanche would enter production, we can get rid of these Cobras.

[Hugo]

Dentonate a nuclear missile to take out 25+ multiple rentry vehicles? Huh?

A lot of SDI projects actually use nuclear devices themselves. After all, if your enemy has just launched his ICBMs at you it becomes a zero-sum game anyway, and if a few nukes go off in your stratosphere that's better than a few hundred nukes going off in your cities.

Anyway, to do that, you bring a small nuclear bomb within range of the MRVs and then detonate it. Those that aren't caught in the blast will have their guidance systems scrambled by the EMP.

If they can hit a reactor on a LA class, they can fit in on a illustrious. Fuel and stores can be carried on supply vessels the Us already has.

In that case, you are replacing one super-carrier with four small carriers and four supply ships. That's far more expensive than building one super-carrier, especially if you want them all nuclear-powered!

Sukhoi-27/35, absoultely wonderful plane. If kept in good shape, and pilot decently trained, it can be a major threat to almost every fighter in today's world.

No, it isn't. As I mentioned previously, I have a friend who flies an F-16 for a living, and Soviet warplanes are built to a WWII design philosophy and are unsuited to modern warfare. The SU-27 is a great plane from a WWII perspective, but compared to an F-15, F-16 or F-18 it's dead meat.

Ak-47. Wonderful... What else can you ask for?

It's inaccurate and has very high kickback due to the large 7.62mm round, which still doesn't do as much damage as the M16 does with a 5.56mm NATO round. Let's not even bother comparing it to the H&K G11, which is around 200% more accurate, carries almost 4 times the magazine capacity while weighing over a kilo less and has to be stripped and cleaned far less often.

Hind. Essentially a A-10, but a helicopter, without the depeleted uranium cannon.

Essentially a blind bat. The electronics on the thing are unbelievably primitive and the thing is just damned unreliable. It does have heavy armour, which just basically means that an Apache will have to use a different weapon to kill it. I should think that the disastrous performance of the Hind in Afghanistan and Chechnya would clue you in about it's true worth. Then look at the Apache in both Gulf wars... which is the better helicopter, now?

Mig (?) Foxbat?. Fastest fighter, meant to shoot down US valkyrie bombers (that never materliazed). Sickingly fast.

Still uses valves in its electronics, flies really fast and has a turn radius of about 10 miles. It still can't outrun a missile, and since it can't outturn one either, it's just another sitting duck.

You're ignoring the human cost. A nimtiz carrier has over 5,000 crewmen. The number of escorts may bring that number to 6,000 crewman. The loss of that many well trained toops would be astronomical.

Not really. After all, many of those crew could be expected to survive a sinking (unless it was actually vaporised), and the Navy could put together another crew without too much trouble. Like I said, it would cost a few billion, but it could be taken out of the existing budget, even. Higher costs have been borne in war.

[Boydfish]

OK, let's assume for a minute that your scenario and "facts" are correct: An entire CVNBG can be wiped out with a nuke. As such, building them is a waste of time for the US. Oh great guru of things painted grey, please tell us what composition of fleet vessels isn't going to be slammed hard by a nuke? By you logic, then the USN should be disbanded, as nothing can survive a nuke.

As for the US building smaller carriers, like the RN's "I" class, perhaps you've noted the USN's Wasp/Tarawa class vessels? They operate their own Harriers and CAS helos, along with the lift assets for the embarked Marines.

The Royal Navy does have smaller carriers but it isn't really a blue-water navy anymore.

Utter crap. The RN is a fully functional blue water navy. They hit their low point in the 70's and have been ramping up since the Falklands War. In fact, the drop off from the RN down(With only the USN having a size advantage over them)is a pretty steep fall.