Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[Jeff Head]

Until the PLAN has a substantial protective fleet in place, I'd agree that in a conflict she is not going to move out of heavy air cover.

Agreed.

But I am not sure that the entire PLAN and PLAAF combined could keep the air wings of two US CSGs augmented by the USAF on Guam from getting at her if they wanted her badly enough.

Most likely, if she kept far to the north, and kept quiet in any conflict over the ROC, they probably would not go in after her.

 

[EW3]

All of the above assumes the Chinese even have a carrier. There is nothing to suggest they have a ship capable of launching air planes.
Also, if we have to take arms against China, they will be in a use'em or lose'em position. We will certainly sink every Naval vessel in port or even trying to hide someplace. The best outcome of a conflict like this is to destroy whatever they have for an air force or navy, set them back another 20 years. Odds are this would also tip the balance of power in the country and bring down the CCP.

 

[gf0012-aust]

All of the above assumes the Chinese even have a carrier. There is nothing to suggest they have a ship capable of launching air planes.
Also, if we have to take arms against China, they will be in a use'em or lose'em position. We will certainly sink every Naval vessel in port or even trying to hide someplace. The best outcome of a conflict like this is to destroy whatever they have for an air force or navy, set them back another 20 years. Odds are this would also tip the balance of power in the country and bring down the CCP.

G'day mate. I was wondering if you'd ever pop up in here. Welcome to the forums.

 

[EW3]

Guess I'm just shy GF.
This forum has a lot to offer, and have enjoyed being a lurker, learned a lot along the way. Time I give something back, if that is possible.
We shall see.

 

[Francois]

All of the above assumes the Chinese even have a carrier. There is nothing to suggest they have a ship capable of launching air planes.
Also, if we have to take arms against China, they will be in a use'em or lose'em position. We will certainly sink every Naval vessel in port or even trying to hide someplace. The best outcome of a conflict like this is to destroy whatever they have for an air force or navy, set them back another 20 years. Odds are this would also tip the balance of power in the country and bring down the CCP.

Hi EW3, and welcome.
Sorry to hijack the thread, but if the CCP gets down, we can guess China will explode in uncountable small countries.
I wonder who would have the seat in UN...
Maybe better start a new thread. Sorry for that.
/hj mode - off/

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi EW3, and welcome./hj mode - off/

good to see you back as well, I was beginning to think you'd been arrested.

 

[Francois]

good to see you back as well, I was beginning to think you'd been arrested.

Arrested?? Did I do something forbidden?
I am the honest guy... ok, I stop LOL
No, I told you I was to be busy. BTW, I saw your punching in PR.
Was funny read.

 

[gf0012-aust]

BTW, I saw your punching in PR.
Was funny read.

Next time you can jump in and make a contribution.

 

[Francois]

Next time you can jump in and make a contribution.

You know, I try to intervene only when I have something to add.
Was not in my field. But I learned few interresting things there. :

 

[Jeff Head]

All of the above assumes the Chinese even have a carrier. There is nothing to suggest they have a ship capable of launching air planes.

True...but it seems apparent that they are moving that direction and at some point, whether with the Varyag or some indiegenous platform, that they will arrive at that point.

Also, if we have to take arms against China, they will be in a use'em or lose'em position. We will certainly sink every Naval vessel in port or even trying to hide someplace.

I agree that if agression causes a US response that the US should have such an outcome as the goal...however, depending on who is in the White House, the response could range anywhere from token involvement all the way up to what you have described.

Odds are this would also tip the balance of power in the country and bring down the CCP.

I believe that could well be the result too and that potential outcome and how to handle it will ceretainly be guaged into both the strength of the response and what is done about it afterwards.

Thanks for the very reasoned and thought provoking dialog.

 

[hovercraft]

i have few questions
[

1. how many exocet can destroy an 50,000 tonne carrier and 100,000 tonne carrier(like us nimitz class carrier).
2. how many mk48 torpedos can destroy these.
3. what are the thickness of the external wall or armour of the 100,000
   tonne carrier.
4. what is performance of the neuclear and conventional tomhawk cruise missile agaist carriers

any information please?

 

[gf0012-aust]

i have few questions

You're not going to get any meaningful and reference valid data on this. The US doesn't release SINKEX data (for obvious reasons)

how many exocet can destroy an 50,000 tonne carrier and 100,000 tonne carrier(like us nimitz class carrier).

The Soviet estimates for taking out a large US CVN were estimated at approx 20 concurrent cruise missile strikes. It's why they went to Regiment based AShM attacks. I should add that those estimates were pre-Aegis and were also given a 20% chance of success. If you consider that a 20% strike rate by a regiment of backfires launching 4 x AShM's at once - and it's pre-Aegis, then the figures should give a fair idea.

how many mk48 torpedos can destroy these.

Estimates are that it will take 4-5 Mk 48 ADCAPs to sink a 100,000 tonne vessel. A Mk48 is not as effective as a Mk 48 ADCAP

what are the thickness of the external wall or armour of the 100,000 tonne carrier.

You won't get that data - and the armour type let alone thickness (which in real terms is a meaningless dataset - varies at different parts of the ship) Armour thickness is meaningless against a heavy torpedo of the ADCAP class

what is performance of the neuclear and conventional tomhawk cruise missile agaist carriers

That is SINKEX data - and won't be available for the public domain.

Apart from the fact that empirical data is not available - the datasets need to identfy what part of the vessel have been struck or compromised to have any meaning. and even then - nobody is going to give out that data on a public forum.

 

[knightrider4]

I guess in reality the sinking of these large vessels is rather insignificant in the scheme of things. It would be just as good to stop flight operations a carrier that is disabled is as good as a carrier sunk, especially if one considers the economic and time requirements needed to get a damaged nuke carrier operational again.

 

[Totoro]

That is, of course, true. Theoretically a single missile (one that say, destroyes the arresting cable systems) could render a carrier useless for a certain time period. But how easy/hard is that? One can't count on such luck in a war, you're better off launching dozens if not hundreds (if possible) missiles to get the job done.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That is, of course, true. Theoretically a single missile (one that say, destroyes the arresting cable systems) could render a carrier useless for a certain time period. But how easy/hard is that? One can't count on such luck in a war, you're better off launching dozens if not hundreds (if possible) missiles to get the job done.

again we can refer to the Soviet estimates - and bear in mind that this was when they had AShM's that were mach 6 capable and pre-aegis USN assets.

Their optimistic assessment was that by co-ordinating regiments of Backfires and or Blackjacks with their sub fleet, that they could disable 20% of a typical sized CSF.

To look at this in contemporary terms - sure you can initiate and hope for a mobility kill - but you also need to be able to close up and get in launch range and also get volume into the killspace.

Factor in the issue that the USN now operates CTF's at the mega-fleet level, and that technologies such as ForceNET (which make aegis commensurately more lethal) and you have a very difficult task.

The fact that the USN can operate outside landbased air - and has persistence and projection on its terms means that killing or disabling a CVN is a significant and non-trivial task.

Consider the PLAN is nowhere anywhere near the footprint and capability of the Soviet air regiments (volume and approp platform mix) and is definitely nowhere in a position to deal with the 5th Fleet - let alone the 7th. factor in again that they will field CTF's and you have a very very difficult target.

 

[Totoro]

If they have a valid target, enough missiles will mission kill anything. I am not saying china now is capable of doing that, or that china in 2008 will be capable of doing it, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I am just saying that in the specific case of 'fair' attack on a US carrier group (unfair would, for example, be killing it while docked in harbour, also immensely hard task i know) in the open waters you can go about it two ways: A) either develop such high tech to trump the tech used to defend the carrier - takes money and time (years or decades) and is dependant on various other prerequisites governed by politics, economy, etc) or
B) use a low tech approach with massive numbers of attackers. It is also an expensive way to go about it(albeit less expensive one, could be done with mere dozens of billions of dollars of investment, against at least hundreds of billions for option A), also taking time to prepare (doable within a decade, though) but one thing is for sure - human lives would need to be willingly sacrificed to get the job done. And i mean probably thousands of them. Of course, this approach too depends on political situation and the available number of suicide mission volunteers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just to give you an idea of what the Russians could bring to the table.

A Regiment of Backfires = 24-30 aircraft. each Backfire carried 10 anti-shipping missiles.

They envisaged trying to get the CSF within range of a pack of 6-8 subs and co-ordinate an attack.

So 36-60 torpedoes (depending on warload) and approx 240-300 AShM's - depending on loadout.

They assumed 80% losses and no guarantee of overwhelming the CVN.

This was pre-Aegis and pre ForceNET.

 

[Totoro]

Yes, you've got it about right about the russian capabilities back then. I wasn't really talking bout that. Russian capabilites then, or chinese capabilities now or even in 5 or more years. I was merely laying it out how does one (given enough time and money and influence/control) should go about it against a USN type carrier force. You're talking about real forces that existed i am talking about a potential forces/strategy which does not exist but could exist if one wanted to put the required effort into it. Right now, save for the unlikely event an UFO crashlanding in their back yard and them getting some death ray tech overnight, i would suggest option B to any potential enemy of the US, providing they're willing to sacrifice all that i've listed to pull off such a task.

 

[driftder]

Yes, you've got it about right about the russian capabilities back then.

uh correction - gf0012 is spot on abt the Russian missile strike tactics against the USN CVF then.

I wasn't really talking bout that. Russian capabilites then, or chinese capabilities now or even in 5 or more years. I was merely laying it out how does one (given enough time and money and influence/control) should go about it against a USN type carrier force.

IMHO, you really lost me. I can't follow the gist of your argument. what capabilities then are you talking about? as for the bit about going head-to-head with a CVN led task force, please provide more details. is your planned attack purely airstrikes? or from submarines and ships?

You're talking about real forces that existed i am talking about a potential forces/strategy which does not exist but could exist if one wanted to put the required effort into it. Right now, save for the unlikely event an UFO crashlanding in their back yard and them getting some death ray tech overnight, i would suggest option B to any potential enemy of the US, providing they're willing to sacrifice all that i've listed to pull off such a task.

lost me again. IMHO in warfare we deal with real figures, yes? so in a conflict that say for eg could happen tomorrow, we will want to use real current today figures right? but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying 'let's ignore the weapons and forces available today and have a scenario to attack a CVN task force'. so in your option B) use a low tech approach with massive numbers of attackers, which low tech approach will you use w/o factoring in present technology and force levels?

 

[Wild Weasel]

Not to mention the retribution such an attack would bring...
ashes to ashes, we all fall down.

An American carrier's best defense, is a nuclear-armed B-2 over-flying one's capital city.
War is a matter of mastering logistics- not the least of which is dealing with aftermath of nuclear bombs raining down on an aggressor's nation as a matter of retribution for the loss of American lives.

It's ill-advised to carry out such an attack- unless one is willing to live with giant glowing irradiated cockroaches.