Anti-Carrier Trump Card

Originally Posted by Sea Skimmer

But even with that lure, Halsey still could and should have (and indeed some American admirals including Nimitz thought he actually had) dispatched his battleships to cover the San Bernardino straight.

The Iowa class battleships were dispatched and arrived at San Bernadio Strait three hours after Kurita's force had passed back through.

Originally Posted by Sea Skimmer

All four carriers got sunk, and the rout was so complete that a number of Japanese ships got caught and sunk by American cruiser gunfire.

The four main carriers were sunk. My bad, However, the Ise, which was a battleship conversion, survived the battle and was not sunk until July 28, 1945 at her mooring.

Originally Posted by Sea Skimmer

1-megaton warhead...destruction of the carrier more or less assured

Any resort by the PLAN to nuclear weapons would lead to confronting the US in an area where it has an even greater advantage (in nuclear forces) and would prove the destruction of all of China.

As to conventional forces...they would have to expend virttually their entire surface, air, and submarine force to have the potential of sinking a single US CBG. That is, unless they secretly develop an asymetric weapon (say an operational and effective super-cavitator) that the US is not prepared for. I am not doscounting that possibility...and neither, IMHO, is the USN.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

Any resort by the PLAN to nuclear weapons would lead to confronting the US in an area where it has an even greater advantage (in nuclear forces) and would prove the destruction of all of China.

As to conventional forces...they would have to expend virttually their entire surface, air, and submarine force to have the potential of sinking a single US CBG. That is, unless they secretly develop an asymetric weapon (say an operational and effective super-cavitator) that the US is not prepared for. I am not doscounting that possibility...and neither, IMHO, is the USN.

The US would never use nuclear weapons unless its own territory is nuked first. Generally, the US does not want to create human suffering on such a large scale.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

The US would never use nuclear weapons unless its own territory is nuked first.

I believe you are wrong. If the US were attacked at sea or elsewherew with nuclear weapons, it would respond overwhelmingly. Not targeting civilians per sey...but targeting the nuclear launch facilities and platforms, naval basses, air bases, and manufacturing capability which would unavoidably destroy maillions of civilians as well.

its useless talking about nuclear weapons, its not gonna be used.


about the point of targetting a carrier, did anyone of u read an article about China having produced space-based laser radars? (can someone please confirm?)

why do i say a carrier is a sitting duck-

firstly, if a missile were to "miss" the centre of the carrier, it would have 100m of room for error on both sides.

secondly, if a carrier attempts a getaway, it could try to move 10m before the missile hits.

thirdly, THE ARMOUR AND MISSILE DEFENCE IS JUST USELESS. (did anyone see that pic posted some time ago of a single torpedo splitting a ship into 2?)




anti-carrier trump card? SUBS and CRUISE MISSILES *WITH SATELLITE SUPPORT* (as contributed by adeptitus)

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

The Iowa class battleships were dispatched and arrived at San Bernadio Strait three hours after Kurita's force had passed back through.

And they where only dispatched after Taffy 3 came under attack. They should have been sent to guard the straight before the IJN had passed through it in the first place, Hasley considered doing just that, and as a result of some poor communications, everyone else in the USN thought he had ordered it done.

The four main carriers were sunk. My bad, However, the Ise, which was a battleship conversion, survived the battle and was not sunk until July 28, 1945 at her mooring.

Her sister ship was also present and survived, but neither vessel ever embarked an aircraft. There conversions where extremely stupid and pointless, the resources used for the job probably could have built an escort carrier or at least a decent seaplane tender. If they’d remained proper battleships, they could have been sent along with the Surgo Straight force, to die with at least a bit of glory in the last big gun battle in history.

Originally Posted by chopsticks

its useless talking about nuclear weapons, its not gonna be used.

China isn't going to go to war with the US either, yet everyone has made a thread out of it.

about the point of targetting a carrier, did anyone of u read an article about China having produced space-based laser radars? (can someone please confirm?)

That sounds like more PLA wanking to me, an awful lot of it infests the internet. LADAR is a relatively new technology, and so far it doesn't have very long effective ranges nor can it search large areas quickly, its also totally blocked by fog or clouds. Since LADAR would be less overall less effective and more expensive then a radar sat, so there is no reason at all why China would use it for this role, even assuming it could build such a thing. They might well have satellites with surface search radars, the Soviets built and launched scores of the things, some even powered by nuclear reactoirs (real reactors, not RTG’s which work off heat from natural decay of radioactive element)

anti-carrier trump card? SUBS and CRUISE MISSILES *WITH SATELLITE SUPPORT* (as contributed by adeptitus)

[/quote]

That combo works fairly well against surface warships… which is why the USN has spent so much money on AEGIS, SM-2, ESSM, RAM, Phalanx, decoys, jammers and signature reduction to protect its warships. These all provide for a quite effective defense.

Originally Posted by chopsticks

its useless talking about nuclear weapons, its not gonna be used.


about the point of targetting a carrier, did anyone of u read an article about China having produced space-based laser radars? (can someone please confirm?)

why do i say a carrier is a sitting duck-

firstly, if a missile were to "miss" the centre of the carrier, it would have 100m of room for error on both sides.

secondly, if a carrier attempts a getaway, it could try to move 10m before the missile hits.

thirdly, THE ARMOUR AND MISSILE DEFENCE IS JUST USELESS. (did anyone see that pic posted some time ago of a single torpedo splitting a ship into 2?)


anti-carrier trump card? SUBS and CRUISE MISSILES *WITH SATELLITE SUPPORT* (as contributed by adeptitus)

1.) Chinese Space based laser radar are as real as Photon and Quantum torpedos abord the starship enterprise.

2.) A cruise missile would get shot down well before it even gets a chance to attempt to acquire the carrier on its onboard radar.

3.) Believe it or not, manuevering at sea is used to evade the enemy. Picture this sceneario, a PLAN reconnaisance plane detected a carrier 300 miles east of its location, lets say at point A. It radio's the carrier's location to its base
before being shot down. The base fuels and arms its strike aircraft. It takes about 3 hours to arrive at point A. A USN carrier has a top speed of more than 30 knots, for the sake of argument it can travel a max speed of 40 knots. IN this scenario, the carrier is 120 nautical miles from point A. The horizon is roughly 25 nautical miles. Furthermore, the carrier could have move from either points of the compass.

4.) Armor is not useless so is missile defence. Aegis can more than handle anything the PLA can put up.

China advancing laser weapons program
Technology equals or surpasses U.S. capability

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jon E. Dougherty
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

Not only is the Chinese military advancing rapidly in the field of anti-satellite, anti-missile laser weapon technology, but its technology equals or surpasses U.S. laser weapons capabilities currently under development, informed sources have told WorldNetDaily.

According to Mark Stokes, a military author specializing in Chinese weapons development, Beijing's efforts to harness laser weapons technology began in the 1960s, under a program called Project 640-3, sanctioned by Chairman Mao Tse-tung. The Chinese, he said, renamed the project the "863 Program" in 1979, after a Chinese researcher named Sun Wanlin convinced the Central Military Commission "to maintain the pace and even raise the priority of laser development" in 1979.

Today, Beijing's effort to develop laser technology encompasses over "10,000 personnel -- including 3,000 engineers in 300 scientific research organizations -- with nearly 40 percent of China's laser research and development (R & D) devoted to military applications," Stokes wrote in an analytical paper provided to WorldNetDaily.

China's "DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) research (is) part of a larger class of weapons known to the Chinese as 'new concept weapons' (xin gainian wuqi), which include high power lasers, high power microwaves, railguns, coil guns, (and) particle beam weapons," Stokes said. "The two most important organizations involved in R&D of DEW are the China Academy of Sciences and the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND)."

To underscore Beijing's fixation with laser weaponry, the Hong Kong Standard reported Nov. 15 that the Chinese have developed a laser-based anti-missile, anti-satellite system.

"China's system shoots a laser beam that destroys the [guidance systems] and causes the projectile to fall harmlessly to the ground," the paper said.

The report also noted that Beijing had "conducted tests of its new technology since August 1999," and said the system was "similar to the laser defense system technology being developed by the U.S. Air Force."

Rick Fischer, a congressional Chinese military hardware expert, told WorldNetDaily that recent photographs of Chinese main battle tanks taken during military parades held in celebration of China's 50th anniversary of Communism in October showed "what was described as a photoelectric device that may have been a ground-based laser equivalent" of the same ASAT system.

Fischer said the U.S. is currently developing a similar weapon, whereby "a ground-based laser would be capable of producing a 'dazzle'" strong enough to knock an incoming missile off course."

However, he cautioned, "the Chinese may have beat us to the punch," though he said attempts to classify the new battle tank equipment as "definitely laser technology" were inconclusive.

As early as 1997, the Army reported successfully test-firing a ground-based laser called MIRCL at an orbiting Air Force MSTI-3 research satellite as it passed over the Army's White Sands, New Mexico, test facility. According to one published report, "Two bursts from the chemical laser struck a sensor array on the MSTI-3 craft." The U.S. firms Boeing and TRW are also developing an airborne laser defense system, fitted to a cargo model of the 747 airliner, that would be capable of targeting incoming ICBMs and other medium-range missiles, either destroying them or rendering them incapacitated.

U.S. officials downplayed the results of the Army's laser tests, saying only that they were "a research experiment, not a step towards a space weapon."

But since the Hong Kong newspaper account, officials and experts in the United States have begun to re-examine the issue of Chinese military laser technology, which now may be even more advanced than developments first revealed by the Cox Committee.

According to the Cox report, Beijing had already managed to obtain sensitive laser technology enabling them to test miniature nuclear weapons and to assist the Chinese navy in locating hard-to-find U.S. nuclear submarines.

Unclassified documents provided to WorldNetDaily also provide detailed technical information on new Chinese beam director designs for high-powered laser weapons -- specifically those designed for eventual "anti-satellite missions," anti-missile applications and for blinding combatants in the field. Stokes said the Chinese were especially interested in the development of "free electron laser" weapons, "because they have a number of advantages, including their adjustable wavelength and bandwidth and their potential range of 5,000 kilometers."

According to documents, Li Hui, Director of the Beijing Institute of Remote Sensing Equipment, a developer of optical precision and photoelectronic guidance systems for surface-to-air missiles, "has cited laser technology as the only effective means to counter cruise missiles."

Hui has "encouraged the acceleration of laser weapons development," the documents said, while stressing that an "anti-cruise missile laser weapon" already developed by China "utilizes...the most mature high-energy laser technology, the deuterium-fluoride (DF) chemical laser."

"Li Hui's statement advocating ground-based laser weapons for use against missiles is not the first by a Chinese weapons developer," the documents said. "The 1028th Research Institute (RI) of the Ministry of Information Industry, a major Chinese developer of integrated air defense systems, has analyzed the use of lasers in future warfare. Such uses include active jamming of electro-optics, blinding combatants and damaging sensors, causing laser-guided weapons to deviate from their true targets, and target destruction."

The 1028th's analysis, the papers said, "concluded with the statement, 'The appearance of laser weapons will have a significant impact on modern warfare. On today's electronic battlefield, it is natural for defensive systems to use low-energy laser weapons to damage enemy electronic equipment. When high-energy lasers that can directly destroy tanks, planes and ships develop and mature, they will be formidable offensive weapons.'"

Stokes' research supports the Cox Committee's conclusions about Chinese intentions to build a variety of high-tech laser weapons. Though he said "there is no proof or strong indication that development" of such weapons "is in a more advanced stage in China than in the U.S.," he notes that China's People's Liberation Army "is placing greater emphasis on lasers and their potential military applications."

"The Academy of Military Science, the PLA's leading think-tank on future warfare," Stokes said, "believes lasers will be an integral aspect of 21st century war."

/news/archives.asp?ARCHIVE_ID=16Charles Smith, a WorldNetDaily staff writer and founder of Softwar, wrote Jan. 26 that new Chinese laser systems not only are rapidly advancing, but they incorporate microchip technology obtained through export from the U.S.

"The Clinton administration allowed the export of advanced radiation-hardened microchip technology, vital electronic components for military satellites and nuclear weapons, to Russia and China," Smith wrote. The technology allowed China to build air-defense laser systems powerful enough to deliver an "estimated...10,000 watts of output power on a target up to 500 miles away." Smith said the Chinese are preparing to deploy "an even more powerful ground-based laser by the year 2000."

The Pentagon declined to comment on current Chinese laser weapons development, but most experts who spoke with WorldNetDaily believe the Chinese have obtained advanced laser technology from multiple sources. They also believe Beijing is involved in an ongoing plan to "acquire" new laser weapons technologies either by producing them domestically, buying them or through espionage.

William Triplett II, co-author of the Chinese espionage bestseller, "Year of the Rat," and a new book detailing Chinese military prowess called "Red Dragon Rising," said he believed Beijing may have stolen some U.S. ASAT and laser technology, but indicated that in the end that may prove to be a small part of their developmental process.

"Right now the Chinese are in the cat-bird seat," he said. "They have holes in their capabilities, but they have access to cutting-edge military technology from both Russia and the U.S. What they couldn't get from us they have bought from Moscow."

Triplett said that while China's use of laser technology was "advanced," Beijing's ASAT and anti-missile laser weaponry was "not yet equal" to U.S. capabilities.

"The degree to which espionage" was involved with Chinese acquisition of laser technology "is really not clear," said Fischer. "We can assume with a high degree of certainty that Beijing is seeking Russian laser technology, but they themselves have devoted enormous resources" to the research and development of laser weaponry, he said.

Stokes added, "Chinese analysts see directed energy weapons as important for China's air defense and counterspace efforts. DEW efforts also reflect a diversification of China's nuclear weapons industry."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon E. Dougherty is the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."




URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=15233



which brings me to another article



Defense sector warns of Chinese laser-cannon threat

By Brian Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Dec 22, 2003,Page 2
China has successfully developed a laser cannon with a range of over 100km and might have already deployed it in Fujian Province facing Taiwan, defense sources said yesterday.

Intelligence shows that the laser cannon might be able to paralyze the command and control systems of the military which are concentrated in the western parts of the country.

In response, the military has requested a NT$1 billion fund for preparations against potential laser attacks from China in the future.

A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that there were two different stories about the development and deployment of the new Chinese weapon.

"One version goes that the weapon is still under development. Another is that the weapon has already been deployed across the Taiwan Strait and that there are around 20 units in service," the official said.

"We tend to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. We would rather believe that China has already developed such a weapon and that we should start making preparations as soon as possible," he said.

energy weapon

The laser cannon that China is believed to have successfully developed is a kind of high-energy weapon that only a few countries, such as the US and Israel, are developing.

Not much information is available from public channels as to the new Chinese weapon, but there have been quite some reports in the west about the development of laser cannons of similar or different sorts.

The US has plans to develop an airborne laser, carried on a Boeing 747 aircraft, for the purposes of shooting down ballistic missiles.

In 2000, the US and Israel successfully shot down two rockets with a jointly-developed laser cannon in tests held at a site in the US.

Chang Li-teh (±i¥ß¼w), a senior editor with Defense Technology Monthly magazine, said it is possible that China had successfully developed a laser cannon with Taiwan in its range.

"The US' airborne laser was designed to have a range of between 200 and 300km. If the system could strike that far from an aircraft, it should be able to reach much further launched from land," Chang said.

"Such laser weapons depend on power supply for effectiveness. A land-based laser cannon has a much greater power supply than airborne one," he said.

"I do not doubt China's ability to develop a laser cannon. We can also develop such a weapon. It is up to the government's support," he said.

"It might be too early to say that China's laser cannon is already a real threat to Taiwan. More observation is needed," he said.

China has recently upped its cross-strait rhetoric ahead of next March's presidential election.
This story has been viewed 16760 times.




URL: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiw.../22/2003084494



"wanking" eh?...

bd popeye

I've posted this before and here I go again,...On all modern USN Cv's (59 and up) have armored flight decks, Hangar decks. The Hull is armored from the water line down. On a Nimitz class the nuke reactors compartments are armoured with 16" armour. So are the magazines. The redundacy of the compartmnets and water tigh intregity of a USN CV would have to be seen to be believed.

There are full sprinkler systems on USN CV's along with other redundant fire fighting systems. Among them light water and full fire mains. Every sea going sailor in the USN from an Admiral to a seaman is trained in fire fighting and damage control.

You mentioned the JP-5 fuel used on board. It is a hazzard. But the USN has countered that with numerous safeguards. Among them numerous overboard discharges and safety valves.

All the safety systems on a CV work in unison with each other through monitoring through Damage Control Central.. None of these sort of safety features was available during WW 2.

There have been two major fires aboard USN CV's since WW 2 involving the explosion of bombs on the flight deck. Those ships Forrestal and Enterprise survived to operate again. The Enterprise is still in comission. the Forrestal was decomissioned in 1992. Check out these links for more info.

The USS Enterprise came within a step of dying on 14 January, 1969. Exploding weapons on the flight deck blew the ship apart all the way down to the waterline. Flaming jet fuel from the thirty two aircraft involved cascaded down through those many great wounds firing the interior of the ship.
Firemains were repeatedly blown through in one place after another and it was only through the most desperate, imaginative and heroic measures taken by engineering and damage control personnel that the means for the BIG E to fight back, salt water, was time and time again, restored.

While various ways to defeat a carrier was discuss above like nuking it (too drastic, but a sure way), isolate it from its escorts (possible, unlikely nowadays) or evening develop a laser cannon (too far off).

I was thinking of a simpler and more direct way.

Bd poeye had explained the structure integrity of a modern carrier, but my point was their fuel and internal munitions in fact sank the carriers. Their flight decks were no doubt armored, so was the WWII carriers. Both the USS Forrester and USS Enterprise were overwhelmed by flames cause by JP5 on the deck. In fact, USS Enterprise came close to dying by those accidents.

Having valves and sprinkler system is not effective as all the aircraft aboard have a least a ton of JP5 each. And 2/3 of the aircraft are below deck. Shut the fuel valves would help, but that’s not the main problem. Heat generated by the aircraft fires might eventually ignite the fuel storage too. Water sprinklers help spread the fires of this nature.

While you assume that I mean that the carriers would be attack from the deck, I am not that naïve. Sea skimmers, especially the Sunburns tend to strike the side of the carriers, with so many aircrafts and munitions spread below deck. A single strike from a Skimmer, above or below deck, would ignite a serious fire situation. Both the Enterprise and Forrester had only accidents on the decks, under war conditions the deck is filled up with munitions and fuel.
It may not sink it, but would put it out of commission for months. I can’t imagine if the carriers would to be strike by multiple explosive hits. Which is possible, since PRC , I believe adopted a mass missile attack doctrine.

Originally Posted by H5N1

bd popeye




While various ways to defeat a carrier was discuss above like nuking it (too drastic, but a sure way), isolate it from its escorts (possible, unlikely nowadays) or evening develop a laser cannon (too far off).

I was thinking of a simpler and more direct way.

Bd poeye had explained the structure integrity of a modern carrier, but my point was their fuel and internal munitions in fact sank the carriers. Their flight decks were no doubt armored, so was the WWII carriers. Both the USS Forrester and USS Enterprise were overwhelmed by flames cause by JP5 on the deck. In fact, USS Enterprise came close to dying by those accidents.

Having valves and sprinkler system is not effective as all the aircraft aboard have a least a ton of JP5 each. And 2/3 of the aircraft are below deck. Shut the fuel valves would help, but that’s not the main problem. Heat generated by the aircraft fires might eventually ignite the fuel storage too. Water sprinklers help spread the fires of this nature.

While you assume that I mean that the carriers would be attack from the deck, I am not that naïve. Sea skimmers, especially the Sunburns tend to strike the side of the carriers, with so many aircrafts and munitions spread below deck. A single strike from a Skimmer, above or below deck, would ignite a serious fire situation. Both the Enterprise and Forrester had only accidents on the decks, under war conditions the deck is filled up with munitions and fuel.
It may not sink it, but would put it out of commission for months. I can’t imagine if the carriers would to be strike by multiple explosive hits. Which is possible, since PRC , I believe adopted a mass missile attack doctrine.

BRAVO! excellent analysis on one of the vulnerabilities of carriers which Americans too often overlook due to patriotism (i'm not saying patriotism is bad)

in fact, i once read an article in my daily newspaper in 2000, which said that several Us top brass were considering decommisioning most of their carriers because they were too expensive and OBSOLETE. however, 9/11 came shortly, and no one was complaining about the carriers since then. (i admit carriers ARE useful against smaller and weaker countries, but not against a cruise/ballistics missile spammer like China lol )

actually about the laser part, i was referring to a sat based laser radar (to guide cruise/ballistics missiles to the carrier) which China developed and which some of our friends here didn't believe me.

can china eventually use emp weapons on a carrier? that will shut down aegis, than use the missles.

i dont kow how legit a tactical nuke is. you can think of it as a very powerful missles. as long its not used on a civilian population, i dont see why it can be used on enemy warships. they dont produce a huge amount of radiation either.

Originally Posted by H5N1

bd popeye




While various ways to defeat a carrier was discuss above like nuking it (too drastic, but a sure way), isolate it from its escorts (possible, unlikely nowadays) or evening develop a laser cannon (too far off).

I was thinking of a simpler and more direct way.

Bd poeye had explained the structure integrity of a modern carrier, but my point was their fuel and internal munitions in fact sank the carriers. Their flight decks were no doubt armored, so was the WWII carriers. Both the USS Forrester and USS Enterprise were overwhelmed by flames cause by JP5 on the deck. In fact, USS Enterprise came close to dying by those accidents.

Having valves and sprinkler system is not effective as all the aircraft aboard have a least a ton of JP5 each. And 2/3 of the aircraft are below deck. Shut the fuel valves would help, but that’s not the main problem. Heat generated by the aircraft fires might eventually ignite the fuel storage too. Water sprinklers help spread the fires of this nature.

While you assume that I mean that the carriers would be attack from the deck, I am not that naïve. Sea skimmers, especially the Sunburns tend to strike the side of the carriers, with so many aircrafts and munitions spread below deck. A single strike from a Skimmer, above or below deck, would ignite a serious fire situation. Both the Enterprise and Forrester had only accidents on the decks, under war conditions the deck is filled up with munitions and fuel.
It may not sink it, but would put it out of commission for months. I can’t imagine if the carriers would to be strike by multiple explosive hits. Which is possible, since PRC , I believe adopted a mass missile attack doctrine.

The Forrestal and Enterprise fires on the Vietnam war was primarily the result of ordinance and jet fuel from aircraft that was already park on the deck. They were being prepared to be lauched. IN now way were both vessels under threat of sinking

When a carrier is about to be under attack, USN standard procedure is
1.) Lauched all the aircraft
2.) Flood the JP5 fuel lines with CO2

This is carrier ops 101, learned the hardway in World War II.

What you are proposing is an ambushed on an unprepared carrier at sea. This is a highly unlikely scenario. During war time scenario, carriers always have an AEW bird in the air.

IF such a scenario were to happen, US dmaage control team are very good. Check USS Franklin. US were able to save the ship.

Bd poeye had explained the structure integrity of a modern carrier, but my point was their fuel and internal munitions in fact sank the carriers. Their flight decks were no doubt armored, so was the WWII carriers. Both the USS Forrester and USS Enterprise were overwhelmed by flames cause by JP5 on the deck. In fact, USS Enterprise came close to dying by those accidents.

The flight decks of WW 2 USN CV's were not armoured. I served on the USS Hancock in '74-'75. The Hancock was comissioned in 1944. The flight deck was made of teak wood laid over about 1" thick steel plating. Not amour. The wood on the flight deck was covered by an epoxy coating called no-skid.

The explosions on Enterprise and Forrestal were caused by exploding bombs and rockets that inighted the JP-5. Actually the explosions on the Forrestal were so severe damage after steering was affected. After steering is on the sixth deck. Three decks below the hangar deck. Dispite all this both ships were saved by super human efforts of the crew.

There was no other flooding or damage below decks and both ships returned to port for repairs.

While you assume that I mean that the carriers would be attack from the deck, I am not that naïve. Sea skimmers, especially the Sunburns tend to strike the side of the carriers, with so many aircrafts and munitions spread below deck. A single strike from a Skimmer, above or below deck, would ignite a serious fire situation. Both the Enterprise and Forrester had only accidents on the decks, under war conditions the deck is filled up with munitions and fuel.
It may not sink it, but would put it out of commission for months. I can’t imagine if the carriers would to be strike by multiple explosive hits. Which is possible, since PRC , I believe adopted a mass missile attack doctrine.

A mass missle attack would severly damage a carrier. Please do not assume what I think. I am aware of sea skimmimg missiles. Firstly the sea skimmimg missiles would have to penetate the hangar deck door which would be closed in battle. The hangar deck itself rest on 3" thick armour. The hangar doors are armored with two slabs of 3" armour. The overall doors are abot 18"s thick. They are hollow inside to allow for operating mechnisims. If a missile were to penatrate the outer defences of a CV and strike a carrier as you said it would in the hangar deck the light water & sprinkler systems would go on. And start to extinguish the firealong with firefighting crews.. Multipule missiles hits? I doubt if that would be possibe unless the PRC planned to use a large number of it's missiles to try to sink a single CV.

in fact, i once read an article in my daily newspaper in 2000, which said that several Us top brass were considering decommisioning most of their carriers because they were too expensive and OBSOLETE. however, 9/11 came shortly, and no one was complaining about the carriers since then. (i admit carriers ARE useful against smaller and weaker countries, but not against a cruise/ballistics missile spammer like China lol

You would never hear a US Navy admiral say that. USAF types hate Naval Air. Because they are not as mobile as Naval air. And they can't do what Naval air does on such short notice. And Naval air has superior pilots . Plus I don't know of any USAF or Army generals tha ever served on a CV.

Obsolete?? The USN has already cut the steel for their next class of CVN.

http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/index.html

My post come from my 20 years experience serving in the US Navy and my son that has spent the last 7.5 years on active duty in the USN. As most in this forum know.

I served on five CV's. Kennedy, Nimitz, America,Midway and Hancock and other shore commands.

Thanks. You guys have great well thought out post! Keep it up!

Originally Posted by MIGleader

can china eventually use emp weapons on a carrier? that will shut down aegis, than use the missles.

i dont kow how legit a tactical nuke is. you can think of it as a very powerful missles. as long its not used on a civilian population, i dont see why it can be used on enemy warships. they dont produce a huge amount of radiation either.

yes that is one alternative. fact remains that the carrier is a sitting duck with a big bullseye on its forehead, its like Usa putting all her eggs in one basket. CHina's doctrine is different in the sense she believes in spreading out her forces, so even in EMP attack, she won't lose everything. ie 25 smaller ships wont get wiped out as easily as 1 big ship. (of course China still needs some medium/large sized destroyers for ballistics support)