China, Iran and Russia can easily attack US aircraft carriers with new technology

[C130]

100,000 per soldier is on average. Most people don't look at what they are shooting at in war, you spray when you hear something, see something. I got a SAW gunner empty half of his belt (that some 100 rounds 556) on a cow in a few second. Most of those bullet ended up in the wall, or door or simply no where.

If we all operate on Call Of Duty level accuracy, then I guess war will be quite cheap, to a point it does not quite making an impact...

Everything if they were to work "According to Plan" would be devastating. But can anything in war, actually work the way they are supposed to?

There are more than 1 way to kill DF-21D, as we have actually discussed it to death. Really no point keep on talking about DF-21D. I have seen way too many "golden nugget" turns out to be McNugget in war to know nothing works according to their description on the operation menu...

a think a cheap solution could be a kamikaze drone

.you take fire then you send up a small drone with a warhead with the power of a 40mm grenade or larger. and it finds the target and dives into them.

DF-21D is just overhyped along with the Wu-14

i am more concerned with China's cyber weapons

 

[Providence]

China just needs one bitch slap to calm down.. And that one is coming soon

 

[jhungary]

a think a cheap solution could be a kamikaze drone

.you take fire then you send up a small drone with a warhead with the power of a 40mm grenade or larger. and it finds the target and dives into them.

DF-21D is just overhyped along with the Wu-14

i am more concerned with China's cyber weapons

Which China cyber weapon concern you?

 

[Bheemsen]

China just needs one bitch slap to calm down.. And that one is coming soon

Most of Chinese weapons are fake propaganda.

 

[nizamuddin]

good news

 

[SOHEIL]

China just needs one bitch slap to calm down.. And that one is coming soon

Beware strap on !

Most of Chinese weapons are fake propaganda.

Examples?

 

[Bheemsen]

Beware strap on !

Examples?

Ahem ahem , but none beats Iran in faking things , example your stealth plane.

 

[surya kiran]

Anybody can attack an aircraft carrier, even NK can. What stops them can be explained in a simple quote, "If you pull the tail of the tiger, be ready to meet its teeth".

In the same way, US can drop a bomb on a Gorshkov frigate. What follows, of course, will be a reciprocal arrangement which the US will not want.

 

[SOHEIL]

Ahem ahem , but none beats Iran in faking things , example your stealth plane.

It was a conceptual mock up !

 

[phancong]

China just needs one bitch slap to calm down.. And that one is coming soon

Who will bitch slap China? I don't think China that reckless to confront the US without creditable military deterrent against the US in SCS.

 

[Bheemsen]

It was a conceptual mock up !

It was a toy plane.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Last time I was in a firing range, I shot 250 rounds M4 M855A1 munition, I score a hit of 204 and 180 of those are kill shot.

Last time I was in war, I fired over 10,000 to 12,000 round, (About that much, maybe more, did not count them out exactly) with my 23 months deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I go on to the figure I trained with, I should have killed between 7000-8000 Iraqi insurgent and Taliban, however, I only ever killed 6 confirmed (7 if you count the one I did not bother to check.)

If only war fought by the stuff you train with. To us, the actual people who were fighting in war, there is a gap between what you trained for and what's happening in reality. To most other people, for them reality does not exist. You look at some data, some test, some exercise, and instantly you have become an expert in that field.

I am not going to discuss how "useful" DF-21D was, it's mechanism and kill chain have been discussed to death here, not hard to find a discussion on DF-21D. Just one thing tho. If you are talking about killing a Carrier with a missile. Well, I will say, if the carrier have to get within your missile range, then it deserved to be dead. They are AIRCRAFT carrier, emphasis on the aircraft part. You can literally launch them anywhere you want, you can launch them on mission to Asia in pearl harbor if you want and using mid-air refuelling to extend your flight group range.

@gambit @Hamartia Antidote @C130 @Desertfalcon

Well the first thing people have to realize is the carrier is always going to try and stay out of range of Air Force aircraft (ie like bombers) vs Naval aircraft. In WW2 this was shown in the Doolittle raid where they had to launch over 400 miles away due to being discovered ( the last thing you want is a horizon full of heavy bombers coming straight at you) So in 2016 there is a zero chance of an aircraft carrier coming in anywhere remotely close to that.

 

[SOHEIL]

It was a toy plane.

Ok

 

[jhungary]

Well the first thing people have to realize is the carrier is always going to try and stay out of range of Air Force aircraft (ie like bombers) vs Naval aircraft. In WW2 this was shown in the Doolittle raid where they had to launch over 400 miles away due to being discovered ( the last thing you want is a horizon full of heavy bombers coming straight at you) So in 2016 there is a zero chance of an aircraft carrier coming in anywhere remotely close to that.

That is exactly what I said about the people here.

For most exercise, you expect to achieve 100% on your own side. Meaning you will limit your "Opponent" operational parameter to basically see how far you can go.

Problem is, unlike in exercise, shooting range and stuff, your target is not moving, not going to shoot back, then of course you are going to perform 100%. What if your target drone started to fight back? What if your target drone started evasive action?

There is a reason why we still do not have pilotless plane, or pilotless ship, and that's human unpredictability. THis alone will render any test or exercise result useless, let alone the prime thesis for this missile to work is to have the aircraft carrier get in range....Well.

 

[Arminkh]

There is no comparison between the aircraft carriers of WW II and the carriers of today.

Back in WW II and earlier, aircraft carriers were converted hulls from oilers, tankers, and cruiser class warships. WW II was then it was the first time fleets can fight each other without seeing each other. Before the aircraft carrier, naval forces can only deliver destruction to a few kms from shore, with naval air power, the enemy can be engaged to deep inside his area of control. That made the aircraft carrier the premier ship of desire for any navy. Too bad not every country can afford it.

Because of the above, the modern aircraft carrier came with unique design features and engineering that make the modern carrier highly resistant to sinking. Assuming a sub can launch a salvo of torpedoes to actually sink an aircraft carrier, that sub will also be dead. Many would feel that is an acceptable trade.

For what you said, the USS Enterprise suffered a disaster similar...

Enterprise Remembers 1969 Fire

But here is what most people do not realize, that if it was war time, the Enterprise would have been able to continue to fight. A lot of WW II carrier veterans believe that air operations would have been limited, but feasible. No one have more experience at aircraft carrier operations than US, in peace and war times. What we learned in WW II have been dissected to all ends. New technologies means new potential disasters that our war time veterans could not have imagined, but precisely because we have a large working fleet of these modern ships, we have a store of possible responses to hypothetical situations that many do not realize. Our WW II veterans led the way for us to be creative on how to deal with disasters.

I will put it to you this way...When I was on the F-111, for a time I taught Aircraft Battle Damage Repair (ABDR)...

Robins instructors provide aircraft battle damage repair training to allies > U.S. Air Force > Article Display

If necessary, I can use a broomstick and aluminum from soda cans to repair a part of the jet's flight control system to make it flyable again, even all the way to Moscow and back. People who tout the DF-21D this and DF-21D that have no idea on what we can do.

I don't disagree. The beauty of war (if we can call it beautiful), is the measures and countermeasures deployed to defeat the other side. However, we haven't seen a war where the ASBM have been fully deployed yet.

During Iran Iraq war, Iraq unintentionally (I don't believe that) fired only one Exocet at USS Stark. It hit and crippled the ship.

We have seen a makeshift Falkland war where antiship cruise missiles were used in very small numbers. Almost all of them found their targets and did a hell of a damage at subsonic speed. Hadn't Britain and its network of allies prevented Argentina from getting its hands on more Exocet missiles, the war might have turned out differently. And even then, Argentina was limited by the range of Exocet missiles and had to lunch them using its jet fighters which were no match for Royal Airforce.

Now we are talking about a missile that can be lunched from anywhere inside the mother land and 1500 km away from the target. So the trick British Navy used in Falkland war, i.e. keeping the Argentinian Airforce outside the exocet range, to keep its fleet safe is useless.

What happened on Enterprise was an explosion on the deck outside its armored shell, no projectile kinetic energy was involved to pierce into the carrier. An ASBM will penetrate deep into the hull before it explodes. What you see in the picture I posted shows, the whole deck in the area of explosion has popped up. By the time the smoke settles, 1/3 of the flight deck is gone. Just read what Exocet did to HMS Sheffield by shear kinetic energy. Some even think it never exploded:

Exocet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And we are not talking about one single hit. There will be salvos of ASBMs fired and each carrier should count on getting more than one hit.

I think what the carriers are facing today is similar to what Battleships were facing in WWII. Before then they were the kings of the sea. The bigger they were the more indestructible they became. That's what fooled Japan. They had the biggest Battleships in the world and thought nobody could defeat them. But we know what happened to their Yamato class Battleships. Both were sank using flimsy carrier based aircrafts that cost a fraction of the battleships. While the lunching carrier was sitting safe outside the range of their 1 ton shells.

The way it is going, same will happen to the Carriers. They will be in range of enemy weapons and hit before their fighters are in range to do anything about it. I personally think carriers are things of the past. Future naval wars will be fought by missile launching destroyers and submarine in bigger numbers. The smaller and nimbler they are, the more chance they will have to survive the war.

Last time I was in a firing range, I shot 250 rounds M4 M855A1 munition, I score a hit of 204 and 180 of those are kill shot.

Last time I was in war, I fired over 10,000 to 12,000 round, (About that much, maybe more, did not count them out exactly) with my 23 months deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I go on to the figure I trained with, I should have killed between 7000-8000 Iraqi insurgent and Taliban, however, I only ever killed 6 confirmed (7 if you count the one I did not bother to check.)

If only war fought by the stuff you train with. To us, the actual people who were fighting in war, there is a gap between what you trained for and what's happening in reality. To most other people, for them reality does not exist. You look at some data, some test, some exercise, and instantly you have become an expert in that field.

I am not going to discuss how "useful" DF-21D was, it's mechanism and kill chain have been discussed to death here, not hard to find a discussion on DF-21D. Just one thing tho. If you are talking about killing a Carrier with a missile. Well, I will say, if the carrier have to get within your missile range, then it deserved to be dead. They are AIRCRAFT carrier, emphasis on the aircraft part. You can literally launch them anywhere you want, you can launch them on mission to Asia in pearl harbor if you want and using mid-air refuelling to extend your flight group range.

@gambit @Hamartia Antidote @C130 @Desertfalcon

Well comparing unguided bullets with guided missiles is like comparing AA missiles with manual AAA. The missiles are designed to hit the target using various sensors. They have a probability of hitting above 85% unless something destroys them before they hit while the bullets fired from a gun are as good as the person who shot them. I'm sure the statistics from a sniper kill rate is much better than what you mentioned above.