What's new

How to sink an AirCraft Carrier

Sinking of aircraft carrier cannot done on pre-determine planning alone, although you can have a necessary assets deployed for the same. Even Chinese have a heck of firepower in the form of Long range cruise missiles, Long range fighter jet, Nuclear Submarines, Conventional subs in large numbers but still they are looking to master the art of taking out carrier through firing Ballastic Missiles.
 
^Loving reading the story again above, exactly !! :P

AC is just wasting money. Submarine is what we should invest it and develop more Agostas + German submarines + future possible Chinese submarines- Game Over! :tup:
Do you actually think that American CBGs cannot detect a submarine despite being decades ahead in both submarine and anti-Sub technology? Who are you kidding? These are tactics very old and used in politics to extract more money out of the government's pockets for increased defense spending.

If the US admirals had said that the Chinese submarine was caught, the Pentagon and State Department would have become smug and capped the military spending. However, this kind of false alarm is often raised so that the government gets worried and gives more hard cash to spend on military.

Perhaps its not a very well known tactic in Asia--but get used to it. It is common for big spenders in Europe and America to use such tactics if they even have a hint of threat from any country or entity.
 
but russian have made submarine KURSK to destory heavy US air craft battle groups Kursk was loadeded with 24 cruise misssiles even russian were know if anything can destroy AC it has to nuclear capable sub which can launch 24 of its cruise missiles at same time to aircraft carrier and its supporting ships from too far so they dont defend AC but they defend themseleves and some of those cruise missiles can easily hit aircraft carrier and its supporting ships and crusie missile also travel at low alltitude for ships to bring it down is equally impossible
 
but russian have made submarine KURSK to destory heavy US air craft battle groups Kursk was loadeded with 24 cruise misssiles even russian were know if anything can destroy AC it has to nuclear capable sub which can launch 24 of its cruise missiles at same time to aircraft carrier and its supporting ships from too far so they dont defend AC but they defend themseleves and some of those cruise missiles can easily hit aircraft carrier and its supporting ships and crusie missile also travel at low alltitude for ships to bring it down is equally impossible
but russian have made submarine KURSK to destory heavy US air craft battle groups Kursk was loadeded with 24 cruise misssiles even russian were know if anything can destroy AC it has to nuclear capable sub

They made a lot of things thinking of various scenarios, when they had the full financial might of USSR. The Russians are also not as trade dependent on United States as China is and therefore such a scenario will never occur at least in near future.

Now I believe that this thread is in with the view of a potential threat from the Indian aircraft carrier(s). Considering the sensitivity of the the relation between you two, do you think that nuclear is really the option?

It is a well known fact that New Delhi has a no-first-use policy. A common thing about those no-first-use policy nations is that they will never strike first in case of a conflict; however their response to a nuclear aggression would be double the ferocity than of a first use country.

Out of 5 recognized and 4 not recognized nuclear powers, China, India and North Korea have a confirmed no-first-use policy. However, it would be apt to say that single attack of nuclear/chemical/biological nature would result in severe retaliation of the same kind from your enemy and it might not be essentially focused on your navy since the retaliating party reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack as they see fit. Another member has pointed this somewhere in one of the posts.

Russia and United States would have never used nuclear weapons no matter how many times they would rattle their sabers, as both have a Mutual Destruction Policy. Both possess enough nuclear weapons to clean the entire planet which is why they always fought wars using "allies" around the world.

When countries gain equal capabilities to annihilate each other, these kinds of mind games are often used so that one country's image stays clean while preparing for a potential nuclear attack all the time.
 
China 'Kill Weapon' Aimed at US Aircraft Carriers
With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

The ASBM is said to be a modified DF-21.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.
 
Sinking an aircraft carrier.
First is the job of locating the carrier. As a high value asset it's position will be a closely guarded secret and will be changed to confuse.
Add to this the fact that it's air assets and surface escorts will be trying hard to knock out any plane, ship or sub that comes near the carrier.
Secondly after locating the carrier comes sinking it. Nuclear tipped missiles (air launched or surface) - Soviets had this tactic.

Nuclear subs are probably your best bet. Or maybe try the Pak tactic of 1971 (they got their intelligence horribly wrong or the Indians misled them expertly). Mine laying at the entrance of the port where the enemy least expects you to.
 
Who needs a suicide bomber when you have stealth drones /UAV you send in 50 of these small birds
And all these high-valued drones get shot down like flies off a buzzer by Kashtan CIWS, Su-33/MiG-29K fighters and an armed to teeth surface CBG?

Drones are not maneuverable UCAVs as of now and are just suitable for "dumping" bombs on simple targets like a group of terrorists or an APC and cannot outmaneuver fighters or even short range homing missiles.
 
No idea but if you have seen movie pearl harbour,then there you have seen carriers sanks by Aircrafts bombing.so i think Aircrafts are the only way to sink them.

yeah, but now u can see a hostile aircraft 100miles out so it wont work now....
 
yeah, but now u can see a hostile aircraft 100miles out so it wont work now....
That is a problem. Radar detection does not, and have never been able to, tell you an aircraft's intent: hostile or friendly. Radar detection can only tell you if it is an object. You then would have some sort of fancy algorithms to determine its size, speed, altitude and aspect disposition to you. But still no intention. It is up to YOU to decipher or deduce or guess or infer or whatever word towards its intention. An airliner's transponder is the answer to this uncertainty. The airliner transmit a code that says: I am a friendly flying cargo from so-and-so to so-and-so. But if the transponder is turned off, then the airliner is just another flying object detected by radar.
 
How to sink an AirCraft Carrier ?

GLOBAL HAWK...lamest answer would be to use a suicide bomber !

that was the most lamest answer by a lamest poster :)
 

Back
Top Bottom