What's new

What It Would Really Take To Sink a modern Aircraft Carrier

As if SM-3 has proven interception against a dozen missile saturated attack. US are hapless against mass of DF-21D attack. Even 24 DF-21D needed to sunk one USN CVN is dirt cheap in terms of cost ratio. :enjoy:
As if the DF-21D has proven itself in combat. As if the entire PLA has proven itself at all.
 
.
How about kamikaza drone, deployed by 1000 of number, and sank not only AC but also the whole AC group..........:enjoy:
example as Boeing's Echo Voyager, a 15-metre underwater drone, can stay at sea for months...........:pop:
SEF16-00934-001_2.jpg
SEF16-01077-065.jpg

 
.
didn't get your tag for some reason.

There are only one way to sink an aircraft carrier. That is to break into the complex defence system that cover sea, air and information.

An aircraft carrier is protected in 4 tiers defences. The first tier is information.

Information is about threat detection and threat management, it may not be preform by the Carrier Group itself, it can be done by any of the ISTAR platform, ground radar, AWACS, maritime surveillance aircraft, naval surveillance ship, escorts and so on. The first battle is for the attacker to by-pass the detection, and the defender to sniff out attackers, both surface and sub-surface.

The second tier is the defence from the on broad air groups, they can reach out over the reach of the escort ship defences, and they can also detect and attack any threat present in the immediate area, each carrier carry about 50 F-18E/F and in between all those aircraft, they carry 200-400 AAM/ASM as a whole. Couple with AWACS like E-2D and other AWACS/AEWS platform, their job is to seek out the enemy before the enemy can enter the next phase.

The third tier is the defence form escort ship, a CBG would usually travel with 5-6 DDG and 1-2 CG, which mean at any time, the whole 220nm radius will be covered with 700 - 900 cell Mk41 VLS, which can be potential launching a mix of AAM like SM-2 and SM-6, ASM like Harpoon and BMD like SM-3 Travelling with a CBG would also include some Submarine and other assorted ship. Also with 5 inch gun, 3 inch gun and any sort of CWIS, Bushmaster and Machinegun.

When the threat can penetrate all that, then it will the forth tier, which is on broad ship defence. Which will be a mix of sea sparrow, RAM launcher, and CIWS.

That is what it take to sink a Carrier.
So indirectly you are saing it is next to impossible ?
 
. .
:rofl: Thrust vectoring. The point is, even with the guidance system the projectile was unable to maneuver in water at the terminal velocity phase. I know, wikipedia doesn't always provide enough knowledge boy:enjoy:. Thrust vectoring are unconfirmed reports.:coffee: With no citations. No face value to it.
it just an idea by me i already stated that i may be wrong, i admit my mistakes and are you come here for troll and you have all knowledge about super cavity vehicles, respect your senior members, if not me, it is maneuverable anti torpedo weapon as per @Penguin sir, i reporting you for insulting me and your overconfidence:blah::angry::mad:
 
.
As if the DF-21D has proven itself in combat. As if the entire PLA has proven itself at all.
Sir I agree that both systems are unproven in war scenario and I also accept that USA experience and tech is way too superior but to hit a bullet with a bullet is way too tough ... So the job of DF21D is difficult but the job of anti-ballistic missile or SAM system is even more difficult especially against saturation attack ... Furthermore, DF21D has to hit just once whereas SM-3 has to be successful in all the cases therefore even in terms of probability DF21D job is easier ...
 
Last edited:
.
It's one thing to challenge it, it's another thing to be able to kill it.

The weapon system of China and Russia alone cannot compensate for the defence system US Carrier Group offered, if we are talking about open ocean.

The problem is, there are no wonder weapon. If you want to destroy a carrier group, you need to break its defence, and when it come down to the equation, it's always favour the defender, because each weapon system have it kill chain, for the attacker to succeed, they will have to preserve the whole kill chain, but for the defender to succeed, they only need to break a part of that kill chain.

There are chances that one or more platform from Russia and China can penetrate the whole defence of a Carrier Battle Group, but the chance of a successful defence is far greater than the chance of a successful attack. Also, you need to know, 1 strike may not bring down the ship, meaning the multiple strike that needed, which compounding the chance of the failure of attacks.

China & Russia can kill CBG but it will be huge cost to bear as US will not sit and watch its CBG going down, both have kill chains and capability to overwhelm CBG defense tiers with massive salvos of various type of weapon systems.

Sir I agree that both systems are unproven in war scenario and I also accept that USA experience and tech is way too superior but to hit a bullet with a bullet is way too tough ... So the job of DF21D is difficult but the job of anti-ballistic missile or SAM system is even more different especially against saturation attack ... Furthermore, DF21D has to hit just once whereas SM-3 has to be successful in all the cases therefore even in terms of probability DF21D job is easier ...

If DF-21D is not good enough in taking out large ships then why China built DF-26 AShBM with more range then DF-21D??
 
.
it just an idea by me i already stated that i may be wrong, i admit my mistakes and are you come here for troll and you have all knowledge about super cavity vehicles, respect your senior members, if not me, it is maneuverable anti torpedo weapon as per @Penguin sir, i reporting you for insulting me and your overconfidence:blah::angry::mad:

Anti submarine you mean.
If you don't know about it then you don't need to argue with me in the first place. Don't take it as an ego issue. I just replied to your previous 'kid' comment.
Respect is earned and not given.
 
.
anti torpedo weapon:hitwall::angry::mad: i want no respect, but other senior members knows better me and you about this system:blah:
 
.
Sir I agree that both systems are unproven in war scenario and I also accept that USA experience and tech is way too superior but to hit a bullet with a bullet is way too tough ... So the job of DF21D is difficult but the job of anti-ballistic missile or SAM system is even more difficult especially against saturation attack ... Furthermore, DF21D has to hit just once whereas SM-3 has to be successful in all the cases therefore even in terms of probability DF21D job is easier ...
There are two reasons why you would conduct a saturation attack.

One...Your missile is inaccurate and imprecise.

BcwgcVp.jpg


If this is the case, the odds of hitting the ship is not good.

Two...The defense is good enough to hit your bullet with his bullet.

If this is the case, if the defense fires 10 bullets, he will hit 10 bullets.
 
.
anti torpedo weapon:hitwall::angry::mad: i want no respect, but other senior members knows better me and you about this system:blah:

:mad::mad::mad:I'm not arguing with you anymore. Do check what an Anti Torpedo is. We are talking about shkval. Which is a TORPEDO.:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall: Don't quote me. I'm off this discussion.
You have a great day.
 
.
China & Russia can kill CBG but it will be huge cost to bear as US will not sit and watch its CBG going down, both have kill chains and capability to overwhelm CBG defense tiers with massive salvos of various type of weapon systems.



If DF-21D is not good enough in taking out large ships then why China built DF-26 AShBM with more range then DF-21D??
I agree it is not about killing the carrier based group but about the cost of killing ... how many losses before destruction of the CBG and then
There are two reasons why you would conduct a saturation attack.

One...Your missile is inaccurate and imprecise.

BcwgcVp.jpg


If this is the case, the odds of hitting the ship is not good.

Two...The defense is good enough to hit your bullet with his bullet.

If this is the case, if the defense fires 10 bullets, he will hit 10 bullets.

There is a third purpose as well ... Every system has process limitations ... limitation in target acquisition limit in engaging target ... response time limitation ... furthermore, if there are multiple missiles along with anti-ballistic counter measures then saturation attack can be very lethal ...

However, despite above third reason, I completely agree that defense of US anti-ballistic are state of the art and best in the world, however, still does these have 100% guaranteed kill ratio? and if not then in saturation attack CBG could be in trouble ... Normally lower kill ratio is adjusted by sending more than one missile to intercept however, in case of saturation attack there could be a risk that system reaches it limitations or become overload ... Remember, SAM has to do the job always whereas missile has to hit just once and I don't think that there is a disagreement that even one successful hit by monster DF21D at Mach10 has a potential to sink the carrier ...

egarding accuracy of DF21D, I cannot commit but we have to go by the published specs which we are doing in case of US as well.... So as per published specs it is a reliable missile ...

:mad::mad::mad:I'm not arguing with you anymore. Do check what an Anti Torpedo is. We are talking about shkval. Which is a TORPEDO.:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall: Don't quote me. I'm off this discussion.
You have a great day.
relax man ... We are here to learn ... so just be patient and chill ...
 
.
:mad::mad::mad:I'm not arguing with you anymore. Do check what an Anti Torpedo is. We are talking about shkval. Which is a TORPEDO.:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall: Don't quote me. I'm off this discussion.
You have a great day.
Look yourself Mr its maneuverable ANTI TORPEDO WEAPON
VA-111 Shkval underwater rocket
In 1995 it was revealed that Russia had developed an exceptionally high-speed unguided underwater missile which has no equivalent in the West. Code-named the Shkval (Squall), the new weapon travels at a velocity that would give a targeted vessel very little chance to perform evasive action. The missile has been characterized as a "revenge" weapon, which would be fired along the bearing of an incoming enemy torpedo. The Shkval may be considered a follow-on to the Russian BGT class of evasion torpedoes, which are fired in the direction of an incoming torpedo to try to force an attacking to evade (and hopefully snap the torpedo's guidance wires). The weapon was deployed in the early 1990s, and had been in service for years when the fact of its existence was disclosed.

Development begain in the 1960s, when the Research Institute NII-24 (Chief Designer Mikhail Merkulov) involved in the artillery ammunition research was instructed to launch the development of underwater high-speed missile to fight nuclear-powered submarines. On 14 May 1969, pursuant to a government resolution, NII-24 and GSKB-47 merged into the Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics (NII PGM), which formed the basis of the present day 'Region' Scientific Production Association. Advances in the development of jet engines and fuel technologies, as well as outstanding results in the research of body motion under cavitation made it possible to design a unique missile with a dived speed much greater than that of conventional torpedoes.

When the suction on the low-pressure side of the propeller blade dips below ambient pressure [atmospheric plus hydrostatic head] the propeller blade cavitates -- a vacuum cavity forms. There is water vapor in the cavity, and the pressure is not a true vacuum, but equal to the vapor pressure of the water. High-speed propellers are often designed to operate in a fully-cavitating (supercavitating) mode.

A high speed supercavitating projectile, while moving in the forward direction, rotates inside the cavity. This rotation leads to a series of impacts between the projectile tail and the cavity wall. The impacts affect the trajectory as well as the stability of motion of the projectile. The present paper discusses the in-flight dynamics of such a projectile. Despite the impacts with the cavity wall, the projectile nearly follows a straight line path. The frequency of the impacts between the projectile tail and cavity boundary increases initially, reaches a maximum, and then decreases gradually. The frequency of impacts decreases with the projectile's moment of inertia.

Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.

There are no evident countermeasures to such a weapon, its employment could put adversary naval forces as a considerable disadvantage. One such scenario is a rapid attack situation wherein a sudden detection of a threat submarine is made, perhaps at relatively short range, requiring an immediate response to achieve weapon on target and to ensure survival. Apparently guidance is a problem, and the initial version of the Shkval was unguided However, the Russians have been advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search.

A prototype of the modernised "Shkval", which was exhibited at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, was discarded. An improved model was designed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead and a guided targeting system, which substantially enhances its combat effectiveness. The first tests of the modernised Shkval torpedo were held by the Russian Pacific Fleet in the spring of 1998.

The 'Region' Scientific Production Association has developed developed an export modification of the missile, 'Shkval-E'. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.

On 05 April 2000 the Russian Federal Security Service [FSB] in Moscow arrested an American businessman, Edmond Pope, and a Russian accomplice, on charges of stealing scientific secrets. A FSB statement said it confiscated "technical drawings of various equipment, recordings of his conversations with Russian citizens relating to their work in the Russian defense industry, and receipts for American dollars received by them." Pope, a retired US Navy captain who spent much of his career working in naval intelligence, was at the time of his arrest the head of a private security firm. On 20 April 2000 the FSB revealed that Pope had been seeking plans the Shkval underwater missile. Pope was detained during an informal contact with a Russian scientist who had participated in the Shkval's creation.

The arrest of Daniel Howard Kiely, deputy head of the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University, came almost simultaneously. The laboratory led by Mr. Kiely has for many years been developing torpedoes for US warships and submarines. Professor Kiely had joined Pope in Moscow to offer technical advice and determine the tasks for Pope's further activity. Kiely was interrogated as a witness. His testimony and objects confiscated during the search proved his involvement in Pope's activities. Later the 68-year-old professor was released and allowed to return to the United States.

The objective of the High-Speed Undersea Weaponry project at the US Office of Naval Research is to develop the vehicle guidance, control and maneuvering capabilities for the quick reaction weapons. High-speed weapons could offer an advantage for Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) "close encounter" scenarios. The overall system response of a high-speed weapon for breaking off engagements with enemy submarines would be measured in seconds, rather than minutes. The High-Speed Undersea Weapons project has three tasks; Vehicle Guidance, Vehicle Control, and Test Bed Development. Vehicle Guidance deals with homing sensors, signal processing, waveform design, and autopilot commands that are used to guide (either autonomously or with external interaction) the weapon to its target. Vehicle control deals with control and maneuvering of the high-speed weapon with emphasis on stabilizing the supercavitating bubble cavity, and optimizing the flow for low drag. Technical issues include instability due to vehicle planing and tail slap, interaction between cavity with propulsion exhaust, and propulsion system transients, including startup. Test Bed Development is an ongoing effort that develops a test platform to test and evaluate S&T candidate systems such as homing systems, vehicle control, and propulsion systems.


References



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
Enter Your Email Address






Advertise with Us | About Us | GlobalSecurity.org In the News | Internships | Site Map | Privac
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/shkval.htm
you have no answer for me:lol::rofl:

and more
http://www.economist.com/news/scien...tion-continues-intrigue-torpedo-designers-new
http://www.economist.com/news/scien...tion-continues-intrigue-torpedo-designers-new
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/supercavitating-torpedo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Look yourself Mr its maneuverable ANTI TORPEDO WEAPON
VA-111 Shkval underwater rocket
In 1995 it was revealed that Russia had developed an exceptionally high-speed unguided underwater missile which has no equivalent in the West. Code-named the Shkval (Squall), the new weapon travels at a velocity that would give a targeted vessel very little chance to perform evasive action. The missile has been characterized as a "revenge" weapon, which would be fired along the bearing of an incoming enemy torpedo. The Shkval may be considered a follow-on to the Russian BGT class of evasion torpedoes, which are fired in the direction of an incoming torpedo to try to force an attacking to evade (and hopefully snap the torpedo's guidance wires). The weapon was deployed in the early 1990s, and had been in service for years when the fact of its existence was disclosed.

Development begain in the 1960s, when the Research Institute NII-24 (Chief Designer Mikhail Merkulov) involved in the artillery ammunition research was instructed to launch the development of underwater high-speed missile to fight nuclear-powered submarines. On 14 May 1969, pursuant to a government resolution, NII-24 and GSKB-47 merged into the Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics (NII PGM), which formed the basis of the present day 'Region' Scientific Production Association. Advances in the development of jet engines and fuel technologies, as well as outstanding results in the research of body motion under cavitation made it possible to design a unique missile with a dived speed much greater than that of conventional torpedoes.

When the suction on the low-pressure side of the propeller blade dips below ambient pressure [atmospheric plus hydrostatic head] the propeller blade cavitates -- a vacuum cavity forms. There is water vapor in the cavity, and the pressure is not a true vacuum, but equal to the vapor pressure of the water. High-speed propellers are often designed to operate in a fully-cavitating (supercavitating) mode.

A high speed supercavitating projectile, while moving in the forward direction, rotates inside the cavity. This rotation leads to a series of impacts between the projectile tail and the cavity wall. The impacts affect the trajectory as well as the stability of motion of the projectile. The present paper discusses the in-flight dynamics of such a projectile. Despite the impacts with the cavity wall, the projectile nearly follows a straight line path. The frequency of the impacts between the projectile tail and cavity boundary increases initially, reaches a maximum, and then decreases gradually. The frequency of impacts decreases with the projectile's moment of inertia.

Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.

There are no evident countermeasures to such a weapon, its employment could put adversary naval forces as a considerable disadvantage. One such scenario is a rapid attack situation wherein a sudden detection of a threat submarine is made, perhaps at relatively short range, requiring an immediate response to achieve weapon on target and to ensure survival. Apparently guidance is a problem, and the initial version of the Shkval was unguided However, the Russians have been advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search.

A prototype of the modernised "Shkval", which was exhibited at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, was discarded. An improved model was designed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead and a guided targeting system, which substantially enhances its combat effectiveness. The first tests of the modernised Shkval torpedo were held by the Russian Pacific Fleet in the spring of 1998.

The 'Region' Scientific Production Association has developed developed an export modification of the missile, 'Shkval-E'. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.

On 05 April 2000 the Russian Federal Security Service [FSB] in Moscow arrested an American businessman, Edmond Pope, and a Russian accomplice, on charges of stealing scientific secrets. A FSB statement said it confiscated "technical drawings of various equipment, recordings of his conversations with Russian citizens relating to their work in the Russian defense industry, and receipts for American dollars received by them." Pope, a retired US Navy captain who spent much of his career working in naval intelligence, was at the time of his arrest the head of a private security firm. On 20 April 2000 the FSB revealed that Pope had been seeking plans the Shkval underwater missile. Pope was detained during an informal contact with a Russian scientist who had participated in the Shkval's creation.

The arrest of Daniel Howard Kiely, deputy head of the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University, came almost simultaneously. The laboratory led by Mr. Kiely has for many years been developing torpedoes for US warships and submarines. Professor Kiely had joined Pope in Moscow to offer technical advice and determine the tasks for Pope's further activity. Kiely was interrogated as a witness. His testimony and objects confiscated during the search proved his involvement in Pope's activities. Later the 68-year-old professor was released and allowed to return to the United States.

The objective of the High-Speed Undersea Weaponry project at the US Office of Naval Research is to develop the vehicle guidance, control and maneuvering capabilities for the quick reaction weapons. High-speed weapons could offer an advantage for Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) "close encounter" scenarios. The overall system response of a high-speed weapon for breaking off engagements with enemy submarines would be measured in seconds, rather than minutes. The High-Speed Undersea Weapons project has three tasks; Vehicle Guidance, Vehicle Control, and Test Bed Development. Vehicle Guidance deals with homing sensors, signal processing, waveform design, and autopilot commands that are used to guide (either autonomously or with external interaction) the weapon to its target. Vehicle control deals with control and maneuvering of the high-speed weapon with emphasis on stabilizing the supercavitating bubble cavity, and optimizing the flow for low drag. Technical issues include instability due to vehicle planing and tail slap, interaction between cavity with propulsion exhaust, and propulsion system transients, including startup. Test Bed Development is an ongoing effort that develops a test platform to test and evaluate S&T candidate systems such as homing systems, vehicle control, and propulsion systems.


References



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
Enter Your Email Address






Advertise with Us | About Us | GlobalSecurity.org In the News | Internships | Site Map | Privac
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/shkval.htm
you have no answer for me:lol::rofl:
Sir ji, you failed to mention where it is written an anti-torpedo:cheers:.
Anti Torpedo is also known as in some cases a flare which is used when a torpedo is fired at a Ship or a Submarine.
I have no answer for you because, you are not getting what I am saying. So, it's more like no use answering to you.

relax man ... We are here to learn ... so just be patient and chill ...
Yeah, but what should I do when he is not listening to anything and keep quoting me with same factually wrong comment.
 
.
China & Russia can kill CBG but it will be huge cost to bear as US will not sit and watch its CBG going down, both have kill chains and capability to overwhelm CBG defense tiers with massive salvos of various type of weapon systems.



If DF-21D is not good enough in taking out large ships then why China built DF-26 AShBM with more range then DF-21D??

If you drop a bomb at the right place at the right moment, anyone can kill an US carrier, it can be Vietnam, Argentina or even Somalia.

The question is, it's always easier to defend than attack, for an attack to work, you need to follow up with all the step within the kill chain, but for defender to work, you only need to break one.

There are no wonder weapon in this world that can guarantee a kill of a Carrier, not Tomahawk, not DF-21, nor DF-26. You need to understand everything can kill a carrier if you make the right decision at the right moment, heck, you can use a Mk82 dumb bomb to do it too, but wonder weapon does not exist.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom