We7det_el_qetal
New Member
Can medium range ballistic missiles use technology similar to kitolov-2m or BAT guided munitions to target aircraft carriers?
MRBM vs aircraft carriers?
- Thread starter We7det_el_qetal
- Start date
I suggest you give the following thread a read especially from post No. 10 onwards.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1594
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1594
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
thx redarrow that was quite helpful
They cannot,Ballistic Missiles are designed only for attacking stationary targets.
Their Might be a technical Possibility but difficult.
I never heard a Ballistic Missile for Anti-Surface Warship purpose.
By the way which Aircraft Carriers are u talking???
If u are talking about US CVBG's???,Don't even dream of that.
Any country will not even have the Psychological guts to attack US CVBG leave about the actual capability.
The only Country Which can ever Challenge US CVBG's Was Soviet Union but sad it is not there now.
If u look a Soviet Navy,It was a good Anti-Carrier navy.Especially the SSGN,Specifically designed for USN Carriers.Their Cruisers Perfect Air-defense,Destroyers ASW,Aircraft Carriers ASW,AAW,Anti-ship.
Their Might be a technical Possibility but difficult.
I never heard a Ballistic Missile for Anti-Surface Warship purpose.
By the way which Aircraft Carriers are u talking???
If u are talking about US CVBG's???,Don't even dream of that.
Any country will not even have the Psychological guts to attack US CVBG leave about the actual capability.
The only Country Which can ever Challenge US CVBG's Was Soviet Union but sad it is not there now.
If u look a Soviet Navy,It was a good Anti-Carrier navy.Especially the SSGN,Specifically designed for USN Carriers.Their Cruisers Perfect Air-defense,Destroyers ASW,Aircraft Carriers ASW,AAW,Anti-ship.
IMV, a ballistic strike on a Carrier is virtually impossible as they don't have the flexibility to dynamically and significantly alter course. A Carrier on a warfooting would be sailing erratically to minimise the opportunity for cruise missiles, AShM and torpedo strikes.
There's nothing I've been involved with that convinces me that a CV/CVN is under threat from a SRBM/MRBM or ICBM strike.
There's nothing I've been involved with that convinces me that a CV/CVN is under threat from a SRBM/MRBM or ICBM strike.
Have to disagree on the this. The Russian post cold war analysis themselves showed little confidence at crippling US CBG's (as they were known at that time)ajay_ijn said:
Russia had supersonic anti-shipping missiles then and were able to field air regiments - no nation even comes close to the size of the russian air regiments.
The USN was confident then of surviving (which supported the Russian view) as the CBG structure and Aegis system was highly regarded. For all the hoo har thats written about supersonic ASHM's, people forget that the US has been up against supersonics since the 70's. The Brahmos was originally the P-800, so the USN had to deal with Mach 3.5 AShM's even then.
This iteration of Aegis is now even more advanced, the layered defence of a CSF is more advanced, plus there is ForceNET, enhanced combat systems, and a far bigger and more redundant satellite system integrated into fleet assets, plus nobody comes even close to having the maritime strike ability of the old USSR. China for example would be lucky to have 1/50th of the regiment capability.
BM's cannot update and course correct like a cruise missile - thats why cruise missiles are still the preferred option. Even the Russian nuke AShM's were not given a high probability of success as the fleet in a wartime footing would be too wide to be affected. A carrier would require a direct hit. Remember the US is the only nation thats actually dropped nukes on warships as part of its testing processes. They once dropped a nuke on top of 50+ vessels simulating a fleet, these included old carriers, battleships, cruisers and destroyers, refuelers, cargo ships and corvettes so that they could see the effects of a nuke strike on every vessel from the zero point.
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
I think gf is right, Ballistic missiles can't change their course quick enough
Analysis about what,Soviet Naval Capabilities or Russian Navy Capabilities.
I am not talking about the Post Cold war Russian Navy,But About the Soviet Navy.
They had Nearest Possibility of Attack an US CSF with their Massive Strike Capability.
Was Aegis Deployed During Cold War.
I think a massive Air-Strike by Soviet Naval Aircraft carrying Anti-Shipping Missiles can Strike a US Carrier Sucessfully.
But the Most Interesting thing would be a Carrier Vs Carrier Conflict in modern times like the IJN Vs USN During ww2.
May be that also depends on platform isn't it??
I mean a submarine or fighter or bomber.
One doubt
Will CVBG have same composition against China as they have while Iraq war or escorts will increase.
U might have seen the movie "Sum of All Fears".
I always laugh when i see that movie,Russian squardon leader Expecting an US ICBM attack on Moscow gives orders for pilots to attack an US Carrier without Consulting his Seniors.Russian Fighters will have no problem in Hitting the carrier with Anti-ship Missiles.
Yes, and it was the post cold war analysis of soviet documents that showed their confidence was extremely low. All of their high ranking defectors such as Kolygen (Head of Asian Bureau) revealed that they knew that they would not be able to suppress committed Naval forces - even with saturated attacks)ajay_ijn said:
The first precursor was Longbeach - that was a 1960's vessel.ajay_ijn said:
Nope, refer to the first comment - they did not have high levels of confidence. US response systems at both fleet and TAC level meant that the US would get through.ajay_ijn said:
It would only be interesting if it was USN vs RN. The Russians didn't even have the same historical fleet management capability of France - or India for that matter. In real terms, Australia and Brasil had greater and longer term experience at CSF management.ajay_ijn said:
No, at a war time footing they will be larger. Current USN Fleets are peacetime levels - not even Cold War levels. As such their search and interrogation footprint at sea is equivalent to sometimes greater than most countries ground based sensor systems. A CSF at a battle footprint is almost incomprehensible to those who don't have an understanding of how current generation Carrier elements work.ajay_ijn said:
No offence, but I don't know anyone in the USN or USAF who takes Clancy seriously. He makes somne very basic tactical errors, and usually assumes that some respondents are tactical idiots. Anyone who thinks that AShM's are the evil incarnate against a modern CSF (like the USN, RN, French or STANAVFORLANT) has failed to look at the history of events over 40 years when the real threat to the USN were the Soviets. Nobody comes even close to being able to emulate the Soviet saturation or technology footprint in force majeur challenges.ajay_ijn said:
Supersonic anti-shipping missiles have been around since the USN forst launched one in 1953. - So have the counters. It's why I become somewhat bemused at inference that they are the new "threat". Military academics who say that have not done basic research - let alone diligent research.
Last edited:
Raven_Wing278
New Member
GF0012..i thought the US dropped atoms bombs and not nukes then tested them below the surface and the 50+ ships were hit by an atom bomb detonated below the surface
Last edited:
The US have done a few. They were air burst tests to simulate a direct centrifugal attack and an anti-shipping simulation.Raven_Wing278 said: