How to sink an AirCraft Carrier

[emotionless_teenage]

i bet people are thinking about nimitz class whenever the word aircraft carrier is mentioned

i with whoever said that a multiple platfrom with serious firepower is needed to sink an aircraft carrier.

however aircraft carrier doesn't usually sails alone.what i'm thinking is using diversion and attacking aircraft carrier where it is most vulnurable at the moment the attack started

 

[Laughing Buddha]

Bhaisaab

I simple... everything is fair in love and war... One man guerrilla can sink or disable an Aircraft carrier...Learn from the Al Qaeda (bombing of USS Cole).. If you have a good diver equipment and small undersea cycle vehicle... you can carry 30kg of TNT... stick them in the front shaft (Where the sonar is placed) it will also be killing point for reactor or boiler or the fuel storage chamber and then blow it.... it will definitely disable the ship or ship may sink also ... Simple you can sink 5 billion stuff with few thousand...and off-course its a suicide mission...

And story goes like this....

one dark and stormy night...one kayak with explosives...one man with a lot of will to do it. and oh yes, a lot of explosives. He gets into the path of the carrier..waits till the last second...magnetically attaches his craft to the bow..places his explosives and blows the bow wide open. The momentom of the ship tears itself apart as it pushes the damaged bow through the water.

By the way...that scenario was written about 25 years ago in a fiction story so its nothing new...we were required to read the story for NJROTC.

Could equal one dead aircraft carrier.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I am big fan of torpedoes , that US has MK 48 3-5 of these sukkers his a slow moving carrier , its titanic time or the carrier -

Before I used to think a carrier can be target for planes but then I saw footage of planes going vs Destroyer, and it was very hard for the planes to target the carrier , only 4-5 second of exposure

The , planes could damage the deck of the carrier but I think only the naval ships and fleet could damage a carrier in real life battle..

Pakistani Excocet missiles , 12 fighetrs with Excocets loaded if they launch together on carrier could land lethal blows , specially if its followed by conventional bombardmet.

Harpoons by Submarine could also cause some major damage

Also the indian carrier is quite what the world... more like a fuel tanker with 1 plane on it ... would be not too difficult to send it to bottom of shore as a sea reef

The only problem is that carriers sail with 4-6 other boats and destroyers/frigates so thats alot of defences.... for someone to sneak thru for 5-6 clean shots

May be a stealth plane - UAV could land a sneaky blow -

 

[Super Falcon]

I have been contributing to this forum for almost two months now. During this i time i have fought with the sheer arrogance of the moderators and admins of this forum.

The final straw was when they closed my welcome thread, as some of my friends were posting there.

I asked them for a reason and the reply was and i quote " i shall consider myself lucky that it was allowed for that long..."

No I don't consider myself lucky at all, they shall consider themselves lucky that people, like myself, waste their time by posting on this web page.

As far as i am concern if my welcome thread is not good enough to be here then they don't deserve to have my other contributions to this forum either.

Hence i am withdrawing all my posts from this forum.

yes sir i agree with you that some of moderator's are using their power in wrong way the top of the list nake is tamilkhan he just closes the threads without any reason given i hope top adminstration looks into this miss use of power i think in future this forum will loose most of senior members and some moderatr's dont have any kind of real info and they been made moderator's i hope who ever is running this forum will look into this misssuse of power yes everybody has mistakes but its not like this you will use your influence better made stealth or imran khan moderator's of forum who contibute more than tamil khan for sure


best option to take out Ac carrier i think is cruise Missiel 's and Stealthy Submarine's but it will be hard for sub becoz now days Ac has entire battle group ships and subs with it to save it and cruise missile's attack will bring Ac down but just not one Cruise missile u have to fire 4 or 5 from different angles so one can hit its target AC is fitted with CIWS which can shoot down cruise missle before it hits the AC but state of the art cruise missile have the capability to take it down

 

[Super Falcon]

one more thing if missile hits the Ac where it stores its oil for planes it will make big damage to AC

 

[Super Falcon]

The US Navy's programme CVN 21 for the future generation aircraft carrier programme was previously known as the CVN(X) programme. In January 2007, The US Navy announced that the new class would be called the Gerald R Ford Class. The first two ships, Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) and CVN 79, will be commissioned in 2015 and 2019 and further ships of the class will enter service at intervals of five years. A total of ten Ford class carriers are planned with construction continuing to 2058.

CVN 78 will replace USS Enterprise (CVN 65) which entered service in 1961 and will approach the end of operational life by 2015. The total acquisition cost of the CVN 21 is expected to be $11.7bn.

The US Department of Defense awarded Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia a $107.6m contract in July 2003, $1.39bn contract in May 2004 and $559m to prepare for the carrier construction and to continue the design programme on the ship's propulsion system.

"The CVN 78 carrier will be armed with the Raytheon evolved Sea Sparrow missile."The CVN 78 first steel was cut in August 2005. A $5.1bn contract for the detailed design and construction was awarded to Newport News in September 2008. The keel is scheduled to be laid in late 2009.

Northrop Grumman was awarded a contract for the planning and design of the second carrier, CVN 79, in November 2006. Construction of CVN 79 is expected to begin in 2012.

CVN 21 design

The Gerald R Ford class carriers will be of about the same displacement, about 100,000t, as its predecessor the Nimitz class George HW Bush (CVN 77) but will have about 500 to 900 fewer crew members.

The manpower reduction was an additional key performance parameter added to the original four outlined in 2000 in the operational requirements document for the CVN 21 programme. It is estimated that the new carrier technologies will lead to a 30% reduction in maintenance requirement and further crew workload reduction will be achieved through higher levels of automation.

The other main differences in operational performance compared to the Nimitz Class are increased sortie rates at 160 sorties a day (compared to 140 a day), a weight and stability allowance over the 50-year operational service life of the ship, and increased (by approximately 150%) electrical power generation and distribution to sustain the ship's advanced technology systems. Another key performance requirement is interoperability.

Aircraft carrier hull

All US Navy aircraft carriers since the 1960s have been built at Northrop Grumman Newport News. Northrop has extended its design and shipbuilding facilities with a new heavy plate workshop and burners, a new 5,000t thick plate press, covered assembly facilities and a new 1,050t-capacity crane.

"Northrop is using a suite of computer-aided design tools for the CVN 21 programme."Northrop is using a suite of computer-aided design tools for the CVN 21 programme, including a CATIA software suite for simulation of the production processes and a CAVE virtual environment package.

The hull design is very similar to that of the current Nimitz Class carriers and with the same number of decks. The island is smaller and moved further towards the aft of the ship.

The island has a composite mast with planar array radars, a volume search radar operating at S band and a multi-function radar at X band and also carries the stern-facing joint precision approach and landing system (JPALS), which is based on local area differential global positioning system (GPS), rather than radar.

The aircraft carrier traditionally carries the flag officer and 70 staff of the carrier battle group. The flag bridge which has previously been accommodated in the carrier's island has been relocated to a lower deck in order to minimise the size of the island.

The ship's internal configuration and flight deck designs have been significantly changed. The lower decks incorporate a flexible rapidly reconfigurable layout allowing different layouts and installation of new equipment in command, planning and administration areas.

The requirement to build in weight and stability allowance will accommodate the added weight of new systems that will be installed over the 50-year operational life of the ship. The removal of one aircraft elevator unit and reducing the number of hangar bays from three to two have contributed to a reduction of the weight of the CVN 21.

Weapons

The carrier will be armed with the Raytheon evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles. The close-in weapon system is the rolling airframe missile (RAM) from Raytheon and Ramsys GmbH.

Aircraft

The carrier will be capable of carrying up to about 90 aircraft including the F-35 joint strike fighter, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, EA-18G, MH-60R/S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles and unmanned combat air vehicles.

"CVN 78 will replace USS Enterprise (CVN 65) which entered service in 1961."The requirement for a higher sortie rate at 160 sorties a day with surges to a maximum of 220 sorties a day in times of crisis and intense air warfare activity, has led to design changes in the flight deck.

The flight deck has a relocated and smaller island, and there are three rather than four deck edge elevators. Deck extensions also increase the aircraft parking areas. The aircraft service stations are located near the 18 refuelling and rearming stops.

General Atomics has been awarded the contract to develop the EMALS electromagnetic aircraft launch system which uses a linear electromagnetic accelerator motor. EMALS demonstrators have been tested at the Naval Air Systems Command (NASC) Lakehurst test centre in New Jersey. It is planned that EMALS will replace the current C-13 steam catapults.

If successful, EMALS technology offers the potential benefit of finer aircraft acceleration control, which leads to lower stresses in the aircraft and pilots and provides a slower launch speed for unmanned air vehicles and allows a wider window of wind-over-deck speed required for the launch sequence.

The contract for the development of an advanced turbo-electric arrestor gear has been awarded to General Atomics. The electro-magnetic motor applies control to the synthetic arrestor cable to reduce the maximum tensions in the cable and reduce the peak load on the arrestor hook and on the aircraft fuselage.

Aircraft weapons

The flow of weapons to the aircraft stops on the flight deck has been upgraded to accommodate the higher sortie rates. The ship carries stores of missiles and cannon rounds for fighter aircraft, bombs and air-to-surface missiles for strike aircraft, and torpedoes and depth charges for anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

Weapons elevators take the weapons systems from the magazines to the weapons handling and weapons assembly areas on the 02-level deck (below the flight deck) and express weapons elevators are installed between the handling and assembly areas and the flight deck. The two companies selected by Northrop Grumman to generate designs for the advanced weapons elevator are the Federal Equipment Company and Oldenburg Lakeshore Inc.

"Sortie rates for the CVN 21 are increase to 160 sorties a day (compared to 140 a day for the Nimitz Class)."The deployment of all-up-rounds, which are larger, rather than traditional weapons requiring assembly will require double-height magazines and store rooms and will also impact on the level of need for weapons assembly facilities.

The US Navy outlined a requirement for a minimum 150% increase in the power-generation capacity for the CVN 21 carrier compared to the Nimitz Class carriers. The increased power capacity is needed for the four electro-magnetic aircraft launchers and for future systems such as directed energy weapons that might be feasible during the carrier's 50-year lifespan.

Sensors

Raytheon was contracted in October 2008 to supply a version of the dual-band radar (DBR) developed for the Zumwalt Class destroyer for installation on the Gerald R Ford. DBR combines X-band and S-band phased arrays.

Propulsion

Northrop Grumman is developing the advanced nuclear propulsion system and a zonal electrical power distribution system for the CVN 21.

 

[Penguin]

one more thing if missile hits the Ac where it stores its oil for planes it will make big damage to AC

Aviation fuel, you mean, not oil.

Charles de Gaulle’s aviation fuel storage is 4,000m3 (7 days of operations at 2 sorties per aircraft per day, about 70 sorties per day including helos). If you scale this up to a USN CVN (2x larger airgroup and some 30% more fuel consumption for the F/A-18E/F or F-35C), then that’s the equivalent of approximately 10,500m3. USN CVNs actually have 13,000m3 'Avgas'.

CdG’s munitions storage is 4,900m3, which according to various sources translates to 600t-2,100t of munitions depending on density. USN CVNs carry 2,900t, but it’s unclear at what density. Overall, it would seem munitions capacity is similar given that CdG has half the airgroup of a CVN.

Aviation fuel storage tanks would typically be located below the waterline, which limits the damage a sea-skimming AShM could do (this will hit horizontally and above the waterline). Most danger would be a missile that performs a pop-up manouvre from sea level and then dives into the carrier from the top. Protection against such attack is offered then by multiple decks above the storage tanks, some of which could actually be armored.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Aviation fuel, you mean, not oil.

Charles de Gaulle’s aviation fuel storage is 4,000m3 (7 days of operations at 2 sorties per aircraft per day, about 70 sorties per day including helos). If you scale this up to a USN CVN (2x larger airgroup and some 30% more fuel consumption for the F/A-18E/F or F-35C), then that’s the equivalent of approximately 10,500m3. USN CVNs actually have 13,000m3 'Avgas'.

CdG’s munitions storage is 4,900m3, which according to various sources translates to 600t-2,100t of munitions depending on density. USN CVNs carry 2,900t, but it’s unclear at what density. Overall, it would seem munitions capacity is similar given that CdG has half the airgroup of a CVN.

Aviation fuel storage tanks would typically be located below the waterline, which limits the damage a sea-skimming AShM could do (this will hit horizontally and above the waterline). Most danger would be a missile that performs a pop-up manouvre from sea level and then dives into the carrier from the top. Protection against such attack is offered then by multiple decks above the storage tanks, some of which could actually be armored.

lol man where do you guys find all these fancy graphics

 

[Super Falcon]

where your thinking ends our thinking from their starts sir gabbar

yes even a torpedo and sea skimming missile will be enough to AC to bring it to its knees

 

[su-47]

Some members have suggested the use of nukes. But we have to understand that using a nuke, even a tactical one, can lead to nuclear retaliation. Currently all carrier operators have nuke capability.

Besides, a lot of nations don't have nukes yet. Take Iran for instance. They have yet to get nukes and there is a possibility they have to face a carrier battlegroup in the future. So what should they do?

The Russians believed the best way to disable a CBG was to use aircraft and subs to launch AShMs at the CBG until it was at the bottom of the ocean.

For this purpose they built the Oscar II class and Akula class submarines, and the dreaded P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) and P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn) missiles.

A single Oscar II can carry 24 SS-N-19s, and launch them simultaneously. Check what this missile can do

P-700 Granit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I watched on tv that when a slavo of SS-N-19s are launched, one missile will climb high and act as a guide to the other missiles flying at sea level. If the 'guide' is shot down, one of the sea-level flying missiles will climb and become a guide. since these missiles travel at Mach 4.5, we can see why it'll be pretty hard to intercept them. They also have a quoted range of 550-625 km

A salvo of SS-N-19s fired at around 75 kms will decimate any carrier, and a lot of the other ships in the CBG. The submarine firing the salvo might be found and destroyed, but that loss will be nothing compared to a CBG.

So a country that is unwilling or incapable of using nukes on a CBG should invest in AShMs, preferrably supersonic ones. They should also have suitable platforms for launching the AShMs. Since SS-N-19 has >300 km range, they can't be legally sold by Russia. But a country like Iran can buy the shorter ranged SS-N-22 or BrahMos AShMs to make up for it.

These missiles don't guarantee a defence against a CBG, but they will increase the chance of taking out the carrier.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Some members have suggested the use of nukes. But we have to understand that using a nuke, even a tactical one, can lead to nuclear retaliation. Currently all carrier operators have nuke capability.

Besides, a lot of nations don't have nukes yet. Take Iran for instance. They have yet to get nukes and there is a possibility they have to face a carrier battlegroup in the future. So what should they do?

The Russians believed the best way to disable a CBG was to use aircraft and subs to launch AShMs at the CBG until it was at the bottom of the ocean.

For this purpose they built the Oscar II class and Akula class submarines, and the dreaded P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) and P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn) missiles.

A single Oscar II can carry 24 SS-N-19s, and launch them simultaneously. Check what this missile can do

P-700 Granit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I watched on tv that when a slavo of SS-N-19s are launched, one missile will climb high and act as a guide to the other missiles flying at sea level. If the 'guide' is shot down, one of the sea-level flying missiles will climb and become a guide. since these missiles travel at Mach 4.5, we can see why it'll be pretty hard to intercept them. They also have a quoted range of 550-625 km

A salvo of SS-N-19s fired at around 75 kms will decimate any carrier, and a lot of the other ships in the CBG. The submarine firing the salvo might be found and destroyed, but that loss will be nothing compared to a CBG.

So a country that is unwilling or incapable of using nukes on a CBG should invest in AShMs, preferrably supersonic ones. They should also have suitable platforms for launching the AShMs. Since SS-N-19 has >300 km range, they can't be legally sold by Russia. But a country like Iran can buy the shorter ranged SS-N-22 or BrahMos AShMs to make up for it.

These missiles don't guarantee a defence against a CBG, but they will increase the chance of taking out the carrier.

Very innovative missile will read about it

 

[MastanKhan]

I have been contributing to this forum for almost two months now. During this i time i have fought with the sheer arrogance of the moderators and admins of this forum.

The final straw was when they closed my welcome thread, as some of my friends were posting there.

I asked them for a reason and the reply was and i quote " i shall consider myself lucky that it was allowed for that long..."

No I don't consider myself lucky at all, they shall consider themselves lucky that people, like myself, waste their time by posting on this web page.

As far as i am concern if my welcome thread is not good enough to be here then they don't deserve to have my other contributions to this forum either.

Hence i am withdrawing all my posts from this forum.

Hi,

So---in the middle of the game---you don't like the umpire's call----so you decide to leave the game and take your bat, ball and the stumps----nice showing---grow up young man and show some mettle---.

 

[Penguin]

lol man where do you guys find all these fancy graphics

Why, internet of course
Just googled for a bit till I found an example of what I was looking for.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Why, internet of course
Just googled for a bit till I found an example of what I was looking for.

So you mean to say that all we have to do is search on internet for Air craft carrier and we can start building a damn carrier of our own in Pakistan ?


That picture is quite self explainatory

 

[su-47]

So you mean to say that all we have to do is search on internet for Air craft carrier and we can start building a damn carrier of our own in Pakistan ?


That picture is quite self explainatory

Bro, an aircraft carrier is much more than the sum of its components. In theory, building it is simple: just put an air strip on a large ship!

Anyone can get the designs of the Burj Khalifa or the Palm islands off the internet. Its building one thats the hard part!

Just think of the cost involved in time, human resources and money. Then consider the cost of installing defence systems, radars, electronics etc on the carrier. Then comes the aircraft that has to be stationed on the carrier.

Now the easier part is over. Here comes the hard part. Making the carrier part of a Carrier Battle Group (CBG), providing the supporting logistics and developing tactics in using the carrier. A CBG needs frigates, destroyers, submarines, support ships and (optionally), a couple of guided missile cruisers. The logistics involved would break most navies' back. Then all the crews of these ships have to be trained in the tactics of working together as a group.

It will take years to build a CBG and a few more years to develop tactics necessary to use CBG effectively.