On Aug 14, 10:15*am, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

If that concept were ever true...

There's little to nothing an aircraft carrier can do to stop ICBMs
launched from an inland site thousands of miles away. Most of the Russian
ICBM sites are not reachable by carrier-based planes.

Besides, I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are sitting
ducks for ballistic missiles.

Not to argue, but far less so than you may think. *Carriers don't operate
alone and they are defended with some of the most advanced systems ever
deployed. * *That's not to say they are invulnerable, but it takes a lucky
shot. *Furthermore, it can take quite a hit and survive.

Eisboch

Well, I disagree...but that's okay.

Let me just say that I believe the U.S. goal of being able to project
force, which, after all, is what these capital ships are for, has
meaning only when that "force" is projected against dip**** little
countries that fear such projection. It isn't effective against nations
like China or Russia, or against countries where the rulers don't care
about deaths of their own people, countries like Iran, for example.

--
And what would be a better deterent? Threat of a square dance?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.

Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.

Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.




Your knowledge base it out of date. There are ballistic missiles capable
of "course corrections," and there are very very fast "cruise" missiles
being developed that achieve super high speeds that can be guided.



From Wiki:

The "Bulava" (Russian: «??????», “mace”) is a Submarine-launched
ballistic missile under development in Russia. The Moscow Institute of
Thermal Technology is chiefly responsible for the missile's design.

The Bulava carries the NATO reporting name SS-NX-30 and has been
assigned the GRAU index 3M30. In international treaties, the common
designation RSM-56 is used.

The Bulava design is based on the SS-27 (Topol M), but is both lighter
and more sophisticated. The two missiles are expected to have comparable
ranges, and similar CEP and warhead configurations.

The Russian military developed Bulava to possess advanced defense
capabilities making it nearly impervious to existing missile-defense
systems. *****Among its claimed abilities are evasive maneuvering,
mid-course countermeasures and decoys***** and a warhead fully shielded
against both physical and EMP damage. The Bulava is designed to be
capable of surviving a nuclear blast at a minimum distance of 500
meters. [2] President Putin has stated that Bulava could penetrate any
potential anti-missile defence system.

The current version of the Bulava is able to carry up to six MIRV
warheads, future variants are expected to carry a maximum of ten. A
full-capacity payload requires the forfeiture of all final stage
countermeasures and of some shielding.

The missile completed the first stage launch-tests at the end of 2004.
It was originally scheduled for completion in late 2006, but is now not
expected to enter service until 2008.

The test launches conducted on September 27, 2005, and December 21,
2005, from the Dmitry Donskoi, a Typhoon class ballistic missile
submarine, were successful.[3] The next three flight tests, on September
7, 2006 October 25, 2006, and December 24, 2006, ended in failures of
the missile, the causes of which have not yet been revealed. The most
recent successful test of the Bulava happened on June 28, 2007 on
Russia’s pacific coast.[4]. The missile flew almost the whole length of
the country.[5].

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:37:22 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.

Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.

When I was on my can we joked about a torpedo coming through the hull
into our fireroom. And we were ASW. We all figured we'd be sitting
ducks for missiles and jets if a real war broke out.
One Russian tactical nuke getting just close could sink our carrier
and its escorts. If you got a warning for that incoming the advice
was to squat down on flexed knees with your head between your knees -
and kiss your ass goodbye.
Movie recommendation: Bedford Incident.
Richard Widmark, Sidney Poitier. I think it was filmed on a DDG like
mine. But I like Richard Widmark anyway.

--Vic

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:42:13 -0400, hk wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.

Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.




Your knowledge base it out of date. There are ballistic missiles capable
of "course corrections," and there are very very fast "cruise" missiles
being developed that achieve super high speeds that can be guided.

A cruise missile and a ballistic missile are two entirely different
things. Cruise missiles are defended by traditional radar and
interceprion technologies - not perfect but quite good. The ability
to make precision mid-course corrections by a ballistic missile is
very, very limited.

Claiming expertise in hi-tech weapons after reading a couple of
Wikipedia articles is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:42:13 -0400, hk wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.
Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.



Your knowledge base it out of date. There are ballistic missiles capable
of "course corrections," and there are very very fast "cruise" missiles
being developed that achieve super high speeds that can be guided.

A cruise missile and a ballistic missile are two entirely different
things. Cruise missiles are defended by traditional radar and
interceprion technologies - not perfect but quite good. The ability
to make precision mid-course corrections by a ballistic missile is
very, very limited.

Claiming expertise in hi-tech weapons after reading a couple of
Wikipedia articles is a bit of a stretch don't you think?



I quoted Wiki because I noted your knowledge base was out of date, and I
didn't want to burden you with too much reality. I could have quoted
some other sources...The Chinese, for example, are developing a
high-speed, long-range, tactical anti-ship missile. The "other" Chinese,
our allies, have already developed a supersonic anti-ship missile, the
Hsiung Feng-III. My point was that missiles that travel at very high
speeds, capable of delivering very large payloads, *and guidable* and
conventional or nuclear, are under development, and that will spell the
end of the usefulness of aircraft carriers when trying to face down a
serious, modern enemy. Oh...and let's not forget the Russian's
Kh-101...a subsonic but stealth anti-ship missile.

As always, the effort I put into posting depends upon the audience.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:11:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

One Russian tactical nuke getting just close could sink our carrier
and its escorts.

Not really, assuming normal deployment. TNs have a kill radius of
less than 1 kilometer and would normally be delivered via a cruise
missile or aircraft for which there are good defenses.

If you got a warning for that incoming the advice
was to squat down on flexed knees with your head between your knees -
and kiss your ass goodbye.

Old joke.

Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed
bases are not available in many parts of the world.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:11:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

One Russian tactical nuke getting just close could sink our carrier
and its escorts.

Not really, assuming normal deployment. TNs have a kill radius of
less than 1 kilometer and would normally be delivered via a cruise
missile or aircraft for which there are good defenses.

If you got a warning for that incoming the advice
was to squat down on flexed knees with your head between your knees -
and kiss your ass goodbye.

Old joke.

Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed
bases are not available in many parts of the world.



Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable.

"hk" wrote in message
.com...


I quoted Wiki because I noted your knowledge base was out of date, and I
didn't want to burden you with too much reality. I could have quoted some
other sources...The Chinese, for example, are developing a high-speed,
long-range, tactical anti-ship missile. The "other" Chinese, our allies,
have already developed a supersonic anti-ship missile, the Hsiung
Feng-III. My point was that missiles that travel at very high speeds,
capable of delivering very large payloads, *and guidable* and conventional
or nuclear, are under development, and that will spell the end of the
usefulness of aircraft carriers when trying to face down a serious, modern
enemy. Oh...and let's not forget the Russian's Kh-101...a subsonic but
stealth anti-ship missile.


Fortunately, there are scores of civilian and military technical experts,
gainfully employed, who study this type of thing who develop and deploy
equally capable defenses. Let's hope this continues.

It is also fortunate that you ain't gonna read about them or the systems on
Wiki.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
.com...

I quoted Wiki because I noted your knowledge base was out of date, and I
didn't want to burden you with too much reality. I could have quoted some
other sources...The Chinese, for example, are developing a high-speed,
long-range, tactical anti-ship missile. The "other" Chinese, our allies,
have already developed a supersonic anti-ship missile, the Hsiung
Feng-III. My point was that missiles that travel at very high speeds,
capable of delivering very large payloads, *and guidable* and conventional
or nuclear, are under development, and that will spell the end of the
usefulness of aircraft carriers when trying to face down a serious, modern
enemy. Oh...and let's not forget the Russian's Kh-101...a subsonic but
stealth anti-ship missile.


Fortunately, there are scores of civilian and military technical experts,
gainfully employed, who study this type of thing who develop and deploy
equally capable defenses. Let's hope this continues.

It is also fortunate that you ain't gonna read about them or the systems on
Wiki.

Eisboch




I subscribe to Jane's. :)

What I suspect will happen is that someday some assholes will launch one
of these new missiles at one of our capital ships, hit it, and sink it,
and *then* we'll have the sort of "missile crisis" that results some
years later in a new ship defense system. Defense systems tend to be
reactive.