Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Really?? They have to penatrate the air defence shield first. Not an easy task. Bulk carriers and skyscrapers are not Aircraft Carriers.
I reiterate;
and;
We in this forum have discussed this subject at nasuem. My fellow members you may continue to believe what you will on this subject. Those ^^ are my last words on this topic. Thank you.
I do see the point you are making BD and accept that some of my looser language was a bit misleading (time presurre as always these days). If you are saying that to claim a single missile is likely to sink a Carrier is as wild as to claim that one one Aerial Bomb or Naval Artillery Shell could sink a Battleship, then I would agree. I aslo agree that shots and hits should not be confused any more today than were the Artillery Duels of the Dreadnaughts.
I would also clarify "sinking" (not that it should not somehow appear obvious to anybody involved in the event!). HMS Sheffield was "sunk" by a single AShM, but the actuall sinking happened several weeks after the missile strike. Further, even had the ship been salvaged and returned to port, it brings us to an area between Sinking and Mission Kill, that seems so far ignored in this thread; namely the area of being written off or otherwise damged beyond repair, namely when the cost of repair is so great and the time required so long, that it is simply cheaper to scrap the wreck and build a new one.
The real point I was making in my first post, is that I see the potential damage from Ballistically launched Kinetic Kill Vehicles as far more devastating than any that of any Cruise Missiles.
First point, is that to attack such major Capital Ships, the weapon designers can pretty much build weapons tailored to each specific ship.
Of such weapons the most dangerous I could envisage would be not so much a "Rod Of God" but a "Hammer of Thor". The idea of this weapon would not be on penetration, but to transmit impact shock directly to the structure of the ship, attacking not just the structural strength but the MATERIAL strength of the Steel itself. Such a weapon may not sink a Carrier but could reduce its structual and material strength to that of Jelly, making a long salvage journey home perilous and putting the vessel beyond the point of worthwhile repair.
Another weapon could mimick a more conventional high explosive weapon by having a pentration bar so shaped that a defined portion is liquified and fragemented as it penetrates each deck.
The third would be a Back Breaker and act like a Dum Dum Bullet, passing through the decks untill it hit the keel, where the degree of spread blows away a huge area of Bottom.
I can see no reason why weapon designers woudl not either/both equip the BM's with multiple and different systems or integrate different kill characteristics into single weapons.
I also hear what you say about the test sinking, but again a stripped hulk is not a perfect comparison against a fully equipped and complimented ship at combat readyness.
Ultimately the Super Carrier has now ruled the waves for nearly Seventy Years, which is far longer than the reign of the Dreadnaughts. It can hardly come as areal surprise if that reign is now being brought to an effective end.
