maverick1977
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
what about long range torpedos fired by submarines?
Wing Reinforcement Makes Thunder More Lethal !
- Thread starter Windjammer
- Start date
what about long range torpedos fired by submarines?
White and Green with M/S
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2020
- Messages
- 7,946
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
There are 12 nuke Sub sailing with the carrier battle group
Goenitz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 7,752
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
@Marker @The Raven @MastanKhan
Just my two cents.
Asymmetrical load/moment balancing would be the least issue. Even if it is symmetrical, the vibration limit/amplitude is the main thing.
Carrying, a high load is totally different, the thing matter is how long you can carry, as it is called fatigue.
Integral panel/or so called 'single crystal' engine blades have longer life as they can bear more vibration. The stiffened panels like riveted/bolted/welded wings will lose its strength very fast if it remains under constant vibration. So, wing life will be reduced under high load (even constant G pulls), and faster under asymmetrical loads.
Am I right? @JamD
Just my two cents.
Asymmetrical load/moment balancing would be the least issue. Even if it is symmetrical, the vibration limit/amplitude is the main thing.
Carrying, a high load is totally different, the thing matter is how long you can carry, as it is called fatigue.
Integral panel/or so called 'single crystal' engine blades have longer life as they can bear more vibration. The stiffened panels like riveted/bolted/welded wings will lose its strength very fast if it remains under constant vibration. So, wing life will be reduced under high load (even constant G pulls), and faster under asymmetrical loads.
Am I right? @JamD
Trango Towers
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2016
- Messages
- 21,951
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
That's how the west hunts Muslims
Genghis khan1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2015
- Messages
- 6,213
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
May be in future, AI torpedoes but currently, torpedos aren’t really long range.
This is what I was able to dig up .
How would an aircraft carrier defend itself if 250 cruise missiles were incoming all at the same time?
Sailing alone (but they don’t do that), it might shoot down the first few, but it would be quickly overwhelmed.
US Carriers travel in “Task Forces” and are basically in the center of a group of ships with Anti-Air (AAW) and Anti-Submarine (ASW) capabilities. The Task Force, also had at least one submarine attached for defense. Of course, most of the surface ships have the ability to project power via guns (short range) or missiles (such as the Tomahawk or Harpoon and the soon to be available LRASM) at longer ranges, but that’s not your question.
ANY attack where 250 cruise missiles arrive simultaneously, will devastate the entire Task Force. No combination of conventional responses available to the Carrier and its TF will be able to deal with that type of simultaneous time on target threat.
Let’s assume that our Task Force and Carrier is facing 250 Russian 3M-54 Kalibr missiles. We are seeing the emergence of hypersonic missiles (poorly defined at this time) which we will ignore as they aren’t operational as of yet. There is some speculation that the Kalibr has the ability to “network” with other missiles while in flight, adjusting flight profiles, speed and vectors, but let’s table that for another time. Swarming networked cruise missile attacks are a near future thing, but not just yet, maybe. Take a look at the US’s LRASM missile if you are interested.
So, now we have 250 missiles fired from various ship, submarine and aircraft platforms that should be coming in from all points on the compass. Not exactly simultaneously, but with a specific attack methodology. While there is an argument for a small bearing attack that overwhelms one piece of the pie, let’s stay with the 360 degree attack.
Detection and time until the attack comes in to range is a huge factor as it could allow for quick re-positioning of the ships closest to the carrier to place a missile and point defense barricade between the greatest threat aspect that might improve the Carrier survivability.
So, we have missiles coming in from multiple points on the compass, in reality, a well planned attack would come in at vectors that avoided any direct flight vector over or near a competent Anti-Air-Warfare (AAW) capable ship (can you say AEGIS?).
The Kalibr will go supersonic on its terminal phase. This will make any fire control solution orders of magnitude more complicated. It is likely that the missiles will specifically target the AEGIS platforms with some significant portion of its numbers.
Here’s where we hit our first problem. AEGIS is extremely capable, but not infallible. It takes time to establish a track on an incoming hostile and fire on it and then track both the defending and attacking missile. Battlespace sensors, compute and human factors can become saturated.
Lets assume we have at least four AEGIS capable platforms in the Task Force. We’ll use the AN/SPY-1D as a basis as the more capable AN/SPY-6 is not integrated or deployed yet. Each of our AEGIS platforms has four arrays (the large flat 6 sided constructs on the superstructure. Technically, each array is capable of tracking 200 targets, or 800 per ship. We have four ships, so we can technically track up to 3200 targets simultaneously.
Let’s make our Aegis platforms of two flavors. Two will be Ticonderoga cruisers with two 61 cell (122 total) Vertical Launch Systems (VLS).
The other two platforms will be Arleigh Burke DDGs and have a total of 96 cells available for missiles.
Note: The AEGIS DDG is and will continue to be the most numerous combatant in the US Navy for decades to come. There are over fifty ACTIVE ships of this class (in various “flights”) and at least 13 new construction projects funded. The program also has a very good reputation for upgrading existing hulls. I make this point to say that in a time of conflict is likely that a Task Force sailing into harms way would have as many as 8–10 AEGIS capable ships, perhaps more.
So we have a total number of (122 X 2 + 96 X 2) = 436 missile cells. Except, they aren’t all available to us for anti-air missiles. These are multi-role ships and carry a mix of non anti-air loads including Ballistic Missile Defense, Tomahawk cruise missiles and ASROCs. The missile load out varies but lets keep it simple and assume we have 80 anti-air VLS cells available to us per ship. Further assume that per ship;
10 of those are SM6-ERAM (Extended Range) max range of 150–300 NM
10 of those are SM2-ER (Extended Range) max range of 60-100 NM
52 are SM2-MR with a range of 40–90 NM
8 are ESSM (Sea Sparrow) with 4 missiles per cell for 32 per ship, range 27NM
All of Standard Missiles are capable of Mach 3.5 or 2700 miles per hour.
Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) is capable of Mach 4+ or approx 3000 miles per hour.
Let’s give the Kalibr missiles a range of 300KM (approx. 186 miles). Let’s further assume for simplicity that all missiles were launched at that distance. Further assume that it will travel the first 150 miles at subsonic speeds. But they won’t be traveling in a straight line. They will be maneuvering to limit predictability of where and when the missiles will cross into the Task Force’s defensive perimeter. For general reference, these missiles are capable of high angle, high speed changes to their flight path.
At 0.8 Mach or 600 MPH they will cover the 150 miles in 15 minutes, they are traveling at approximately 10 miles per minute.
** Disclaimer ** Simplified to make the points of complexity, effectiveness and time elapsed err on the side of best case results to show what would happen in an artificial, optimal engagement. Assumes all available assets are employed, all sensors are networked and firing solutions accounted for and assigned with no confusion or double targeting. All missiles are assumed to fire simultaneously, but we know that doesn’t happen.
Battleclock 00:00 minutes. (missiles are 186 miles out)
The Task Force will be supported by a variety of long range detection sensors mounted on both land based and carrier based aircraft. Additionally, the TF will be supported by Satellite sensors. Any launching platforms will have been tracked and accounted for at all stages of their approach (except submarines that might have been able to slip away while transiting)
The missiles will be detected within seconds of launch. The initial data will not have an accurate count, but the mass of launches will not be something that can be masked. Accurate accounting and target numbers will be developed as the data is resolved.
It takes precious seconds, which turn into minutes to verify, communicate and respond. The AEGIS system has the ability to run a standing set of orders (reactions programmed into X threat profiles) that are designed to protect the ship and Task Force without human intervention, but this type of mass attack will require significant human collaboration.
Battle clock 00:05 min (hostiles travel approximately 50 miles, 136 NM out)
The Aircraft carrier probably has a CAP flight of a couple of fighters. Let’s vector them in to take on some of the incoming missiles. They go on afterburner and ramp up to 1200 miles per hour. That’s a closing speed of 1800 MPH or 30 miles a minute. They need to close to 90 NM to fire their 8 AMRAAMs. It will take 2 minutes to get into maximum range to launch the AMRAAMs.
At the same time, the AEGIS platforms have sorted out the sensor data and identified all of the incoming missiles. They start launching the SM6-ERAMs of which they have 40. Due to the large number of hostiles, all 40 are launched. ERAM has a maximum speed of 2700 MPH, so total closing speed is 3300 MPH or 55 miles per minute. It will take approximately 3 minutes before the first hit or miss data is provided.
Total hostiles remaining: 250
Battleclock 00:07 (hostiles approximately 126 NM distant)
CAP launches 8 AMRAAMs at 3000 MPH, distance 50NM. Assume 2 min travel time.
Hostiles begin to maneuver. Targeting for AMRAAMs in jeopardy. SM-6 ERAMs are 60 seconds out and solutions are in jeopardy. Hostiles can change position up to 10NM in 60 seconds.
Total hostiles remaining: 250
Battleclock 00:08 (hostiles approximately 100 NM distant)
SM-6 ERAMs (40) impact with 75% kill rate, 30 hostiles down.
SM-2ER’s launched, again, due to the number of hostiles, all 40 are launched. These will travel at 2700MPH, closing speed 3300MPH or 55 miles per min.
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 220
Battleclock 00:09 (hostiles approximately 95NM due to maneuvers)
AMRAAMs attacking from head on perspective (worst aspect) 50% kill rate, takes out 4 hostiles.
Hostiles continue to maneuver (random, not all at same time or in same way)
Total hostiles remaining: 216
Battleclock 00:10 (hostiles approx 85NM distant)
Carrier launches but does not prosecute with its ready five aircraft. It’s too dangerous.
SM-2ER (40) impact with 60% kill rate, 24 more hostiles killed.
SM-3 MR missiles continuously launched now from a total pool of 208 missiles.
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 192
Battleclock 00:12 (hostiles approx 65NM distant)
First wave of 80 SM-2 MR missiles arrives. (20 per min fire rate per ship assumed). Kill rate is 75% or 60 missiles.
Second wave of SM-2 MR missiles launched.
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 132
Battleclock 00:14 (hostiles approx 45NM distant)
Second wave of 80 SM-2 MR missiles arrives. (20 per min fire rate per ship assumed). Kill rate is 50% or 40 missiles.
Final wave of SM-2 MR (48) missiles launched.
ESSM missiles launched (48 total)
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 92
Battleclock 00:15 (hostiles approx 35NM distant)
Hostiles continue to maneuver and accelerate to supersonic speed, terminal approach they are now traveling at approximately 2,200MPH and will cover the final 36NM miles in about 55 seconds. This dramatically complicates the targeting.
Final wave of 48 SM-2 MR missiles arrives. Kill rate is 25% or 12 missiles.
ESSM missiles arrive (48 total). Kill rate is 25% or 12 missiles
Second wave of ESSM missiles (48) launched
Total hostiles remaining: 68
Battleclock 00:16 (hostiles approx 0NM )
Remaining hostiles traveling at about 4,087 feet per second.
They will run the gauntlet of the remaining ESSM missile, Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) and Phalanx’s Close In Weapon Systems (CIWS) gatling guns. I’m not including the deck guns, because they are statistically irrelevant for a target moving that fast.
If we assume a 90% kill ratio we’ll still have 7 missiles that get through.
This means that (depending on warhead size which ranges from 1300–2300kg) taking the midsize warhead, we would have 1780kg X 7 = 12,460kg or 27,412lbs of high explosive payload detonating on or inside the carrier.
The carrier might survive 7 hits, its not impossible. But if just one thing goes wrong…we’re back to chaos and bad battle calculus. What’s on the flight deck, in the hangar, is everything properly secured…a million things can and likely would go wrong.
In this scenario, everything worked as expected (with a linear degradation in the hit accuracy due to assumed saturation factors—there’s no real data to work from). This would NOT happen in the real world. I’m not certain that the fleet even trains in simulation for this scale of attack at this distance (would love to hear from you guys on that), however, I’m sure that they don’t fire their systems at this rate, ever, due to the wear and tear and expense. Ships are lucky to get to do a live fire training exercise once in every third blue moon.
So this is a VERY unrealistic outcome. The attacking missiles would malfunction, the defending missiles would fail to guide, the VLS cells firing at this rate would likely have some type casualty, the targeting and guidance systems at extreme range would be significantly less accurate. There would be human mistakes and delays not accounted for. In other words, even when we take an artificial look at this scenario, it doesn’t bode well for the carrier.
Stalin is credited with the phrase “Quantity has a quality all its own”. He may have been on to something.
Any and all mistakes in this answer are completely my own. Thank you for taking the time to read it and, thanks again for any comments, corrections or other helpful comments.
Please look for my military fiction series, “Grey Dragons” in March of 2018 and check out my non-fiction book “Get Out and Thrive” designed to help veterans make their best transition back to civilian life.
How would an aircraft carrier defend itself if 250 cruise missiles were incoming all at the same time?
Olan Prentice's answer: Sailing alone (but they don’t do that), it might shoot down the first few, but it would be quickly overwhelmed. US Carriers travel in “Task Forces” and are basically in the center of a group of ships with Anti-Air (AAW) and Anti-Submarine (ASW) capabilities. The Task Forc...
And..
Will the Aircraft Carrier Survive? - Joint Air Power Competence Centre
Introduction Since the First World War, the importance of sea-based aviation has evolved, including the increasingly diverse mission sets aircraft carriers provide. Expert opinions on the future effectiveness of air power from the sea have also changed dramatically.1 Decades ago, most experts in...
www.japcc.org
Last edited:
maverick1977
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Wow, i wish Pakistan will get to a point of CBGs, atleast two carrier battle group, with JF17 B3 Flying from catapults, will be a sight to see, will play danger zone then with it.
White and Green with M/S
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2020
- Messages
- 7,946
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
There is few corrections I would like to do, first Russian/ Soviet anti ship missiles had/ have a capability to make a team since 1970s SSN-19 SHIPWRECKMay be in future, AI torpedoes but currently, torpedos aren’t really long range.
This is what I was able to dig up .
How would an aircraft carrier defend itself if 250 cruise missiles were incoming all at the same time?
Sailing alone (but they don’t do that), it might shoot down the first few, but it would be quickly overwhelmed.
US Carriers travel in “Task Forces” and are basically in the center of a group of ships with Anti-Air (AAW) and Anti-Submarine (ASW) capabilities. The Task Force, also had at least one submarine attached for defense. Of course, most of the surface ships have the ability to project power via guns (short range) or missiles (such as the Tomahawk or Harpoon and the soon to be available LRASM) at longer ranges, but that’s not your question.
ANY attack where 250 cruise missiles arrive simultaneously, will devastate the entire Task Force. No combination of conventional responses available to the Carrier and its TF will be able to deal with that type of simultaneous time on target threat.
Let’s assume that our Task Force and Carrier is facing 250 Russian 3M-54 Kalibr missiles. We are seeing the emergence of hypersonic missiles (poorly defined at this time) which we will ignore as they aren’t operational as of yet. There is some speculation that the Kalibr has the ability to “network” with other missiles while in flight, adjusting flight profiles, speed and vectors, but let’s table that for another time. Swarming networked cruise missile attacks are a near future thing, but not just yet, maybe. Take a look at the US’s LRASM missile if you are interested.
So, now we have 250 missiles fired from various ship, submarine and aircraft platforms that should be coming in from all points on the compass. Not exactly simultaneously, but with a specific attack methodology. While there is an argument for a small bearing attack that overwhelms one piece of the pie, let’s stay with the 360 degree attack.
Detection and time until the attack comes in to range is a huge factor as it could allow for quick re-positioning of the ships closest to the carrier to place a missile and point defense barricade between the greatest threat aspect that might improve the Carrier survivability.
So, we have missiles coming in from multiple points on the compass, in reality, a well planned attack would come in at vectors that avoided any direct flight vector over or near a competent Anti-Air-Warfare (AAW) capable ship (can you say AEGIS?).
The Kalibr will go supersonic on its terminal phase. This will make any fire control solution orders of magnitude more complicated. It is likely that the missiles will specifically target the AEGIS platforms with some significant portion of its numbers.
Here’s where we hit our first problem. AEGIS is extremely capable, but not infallible. It takes time to establish a track on an incoming hostile and fire on it and then track both the defending and attacking missile. Battlespace sensors, compute and human factors can become saturated.
Lets assume we have at least four AEGIS capable platforms in the Task Force. We’ll use the AN/SPY-1D as a basis as the more capable AN/SPY-6 is not integrated or deployed yet. Each of our AEGIS platforms has four arrays (the large flat 6 sided constructs on the superstructure. Technically, each array is capable of tracking 200 targets, or 800 per ship. We have four ships, so we can technically track up to 3200 targets simultaneously.
Let’s make our Aegis platforms of two flavors. Two will be Ticonderoga cruisers with two 61 cell (122 total) Vertical Launch Systems (VLS).
The other two platforms will be Arleigh Burke DDGs and have a total of 96 cells available for missiles.
Note: The AEGIS DDG is and will continue to be the most numerous combatant in the US Navy for decades to come. There are over fifty ACTIVE ships of this class (in various “flights”) and at least 13 new construction projects funded. The program also has a very good reputation for upgrading existing hulls. I make this point to say that in a time of conflict is likely that a Task Force sailing into harms way would have as many as 8–10 AEGIS capable ships, perhaps more.
So we have a total number of (122 X 2 + 96 X 2) = 436 missile cells. Except, they aren’t all available to us for anti-air missiles. These are multi-role ships and carry a mix of non anti-air loads including Ballistic Missile Defense, Tomahawk cruise missiles and ASROCs. The missile load out varies but lets keep it simple and assume we have 80 anti-air VLS cells available to us per ship. Further assume that per ship;
10 of those are SM6-ERAM (Extended Range) max range of 150–300 NM
10 of those are SM2-ER (Extended Range) max range of 60-100 NM
52 are SM2-MR with a range of 40–90 NM
8 are ESSM (Sea Sparrow) with 4 missiles per cell for 32 per ship, range 27NM
All of Standard Missiles are capable of Mach 3.5 or 2700 miles per hour.
Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) is capable of Mach 4+ or approx 3000 miles per hour.
Let’s give the Kalibr missiles a range of 300KM (approx. 186 miles). Let’s further assume for simplicity that all missiles were launched at that distance. Further assume that it will travel the first 150 miles at subsonic speeds. But they won’t be traveling in a straight line. They will be maneuvering to limit predictability of where and when the missiles will cross into the Task Force’s defensive perimeter. For general reference, these missiles are capable of high angle, high speed changes to their flight path.
At 0.8 Mach or 600 MPH they will cover the 150 miles in 15 minutes, they are traveling at approximately 10 miles per minute.
** Disclaimer ** Simplified to make the points of complexity, effectiveness and time elapsed err on the side of best case results to show what would happen in an artificial, optimal engagement. Assumes all available assets are employed, all sensors are networked and firing solutions accounted for and assigned with no confusion or double targeting. All missiles are assumed to fire simultaneously, but we know that doesn’t happen.
Battleclock 00:00 minutes. (missiles are 186 miles out)
The Task Force will be supported by a variety of long range detection sensors mounted on both land based and carrier based aircraft. Additionally, the TF will be supported by Satellite sensors. Any launching platforms will have been tracked and accounted for at all stages of their approach (except submarines that might have been able to slip away while transiting)
The missiles will be detected within seconds of launch. The initial data will not have an accurate count, but the mass of launches will not be something that can be masked. Accurate accounting and target numbers will be developed as the data is resolved.
It takes precious seconds, which turn into minutes to verify, communicate and respond. The AEGIS system has the ability to run a standing set of orders (reactions programmed into X threat profiles) that are designed to protect the ship and Task Force without human intervention, but this type of mass attack will require significant human collaboration.
Battle clock 00:05 min (hostiles travel approximately 50 miles, 136 NM out)
The Aircraft carrier probably has a CAP flight of a couple of fighters. Let’s vector them in to take on some of the incoming missiles. They go on afterburner and ramp up to 1200 miles per hour. That’s a closing speed of 1800 MPH or 30 miles a minute. They need to close to 90 NM to fire their 8 AMRAAMs. It will take 2 minutes to get into maximum range to launch the AMRAAMs.
At the same time, the AEGIS platforms have sorted out the sensor data and identified all of the incoming missiles. They start launching the SM6-ERAMs of which they have 40. Due to the large number of hostiles, all 40 are launched. ERAM has a maximum speed of 2700 MPH, so total closing speed is 3300 MPH or 55 miles per minute. It will take approximately 3 minutes before the first hit or miss data is provided.
Total hostiles remaining: 250
Battleclock 00:07 (hostiles approximately 126 NM distant)
CAP launches 8 AMRAAMs at 3000 MPH, distance 50NM. Assume 2 min travel time.
Hostiles begin to maneuver. Targeting for AMRAAMs in jeopardy. SM-6 ERAMs are 60 seconds out and solutions are in jeopardy. Hostiles can change position up to 10NM in 60 seconds.
Total hostiles remaining: 250
Battleclock 00:08 (hostiles approximately 100 NM distant)
SM-6 ERAMs (40) impact with 75% kill rate, 30 hostiles down.
SM-2ER’s launched, again, due to the number of hostiles, all 40 are launched. These will travel at 2700MPH, closing speed 3300MPH or 55 miles per min.
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 220
Battleclock 00:09 (hostiles approximately 95NM due to maneuvers)
AMRAAMs attacking from head on perspective (worst aspect) 50% kill rate, takes out 4 hostiles.
Hostiles continue to maneuver (random, not all at same time or in same way)
Total hostiles remaining: 216
Battleclock 00:10 (hostiles approx 85NM distant)
Carrier launches but does not prosecute with its ready five aircraft. It’s too dangerous.
SM-2ER (40) impact with 60% kill rate, 24 more hostiles killed.
SM-3 MR missiles continuously launched now from a total pool of 208 missiles.
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 192
Battleclock 00:12 (hostiles approx 65NM distant)
First wave of 80 SM-2 MR missiles arrives. (20 per min fire rate per ship assumed). Kill rate is 75% or 60 missiles.
Second wave of SM-2 MR missiles launched.
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 132
Battleclock 00:14 (hostiles approx 45NM distant)
Second wave of 80 SM-2 MR missiles arrives. (20 per min fire rate per ship assumed). Kill rate is 50% or 40 missiles.
Final wave of SM-2 MR (48) missiles launched.
ESSM missiles launched (48 total)
Hostiles continue to maneuver.
Total hostiles remaining: 92
Battleclock 00:15 (hostiles approx 35NM distant)
Hostiles continue to maneuver and accelerate to supersonic speed, terminal approach they are now traveling at approximately 2,200MPH and will cover the final 36NM miles in about 55 seconds. This dramatically complicates the targeting.
Final wave of 48 SM-2 MR missiles arrives. Kill rate is 25% or 12 missiles.
ESSM missiles arrive (48 total). Kill rate is 25% or 12 missiles
Second wave of ESSM missiles (48) launched
Total hostiles remaining: 68
Battleclock 00:16 (hostiles approx 0NM )
Remaining hostiles traveling at about 4,087 feet per second.
They will run the gauntlet of the remaining ESSM missile, Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) and Phalanx’s Close In Weapon Systems (CIWS) gatling guns. I’m not including the deck guns, because they are statistically irrelevant for a target moving that fast.
If we assume a 90% kill ratio we’ll still have 7 missiles that get through.
This means that (depending on warhead size which ranges from 1300–2300kg) taking the midsize warhead, we would have 1780kg X 7 = 12,460kg or 27,412lbs of high explosive payload detonating on or inside the carrier.
The carrier might survive 7 hits, its not impossible. But if just one thing goes wrong…we’re back to chaos and bad battle calculus. What’s on the flight deck, in the hangar, is everything properly secured…a million things can and likely would go wrong.
In this scenario, everything worked as expected (with a linear degradation in the hit accuracy due to assumed saturation factors—there’s no real data to work from). This would NOT happen in the real world. I’m not certain that the fleet even trains in simulation for this scale of attack at this distance (would love to hear from you guys on that), however, I’m sure that they don’t fire their systems at this rate, ever, due to the wear and tear and expense. Ships are lucky to get to do a live fire training exercise once in every third blue moon.
So this is a VERY unrealistic outcome. The attacking missiles would malfunction, the defending missiles would fail to guide, the VLS cells firing at this rate would likely have some type casualty, the targeting and guidance systems at extreme range would be significantly less accurate. There would be human mistakes and delays not accounted for. In other words, even when we take an artificial look at this scenario, it doesn’t bode well for the carrier.
Stalin is credited with the phrase “Quantity has a quality all its own”. He may have been on to something.
Any and all mistakes in this answer are completely my own. Thank you for taking the time to read it and, thanks again for any comments, corrections or other helpful comments.
Please look for my military fiction series, “Grey Dragons” in March of 2018 and check out my non-fiction book “Get Out and Thrive” designed to help veterans make their best transition back to civilian life.
How would an aircraft carrier defend itself if 250 cruise missiles were incoming all at the same time?
Olan Prentice's answer: Sailing alone (but they don’t do that), it might shoot down the first few, but it would be quickly overwhelmed. US Carriers travel in “Task Forces” and are basically in the center of a group of ships with Anti-Air (AAW) and Anti-Submarine (ASW) capabilities. The Task Forc...qr.ae
And..
Will the Aircraft Carrier Survive? - Joint Air Power Competence Centre
Introduction Since the First World War, the importance of sea-based aviation has evolved, including the increasingly diverse mission sets aircraft carriers provide. Expert opinions on the future effectiveness of air power from the sea have also changed dramatically.1 Decades ago, most experts in...
ÀND USN BATTLE GROUPS HAVE A AWACS INTO THEIR ARSANALS TO DENYING THE ENEMY TO LAUNCH THEIR ANTI SHIP MISSILES AT LONG RANGES OR STANDOFF RANGE AS WELL AS THEIR OWN IS AT LEAST ON SQUADRON OF ANTI SUBMARINE AIRCRAFT ON THEIR CARRIER TO DENY ENEMY SUBS TO LAUNCH ANTI SHIP MISSILES AT STANDOFF RANGES
Why we need carriers?? We don't have any global or regional ambitions, aircraft carrier is for power projection ànd our enemy is in our next door so please do tell us why we need carriers??
Ànd last we need strong economy to support these ( your propose) two battle groups and also we don't have enough ships to support your propose 2 battle groups unfortunately
Last edited:
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
JamD
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,238
- Reaction score
- 94
- Country
- Location
Right. And one of the areas where digital engineering will be useful is in predictive maintenance where computers keep track of every carried load and every maneuver flown to predict airframe state of health. As opposed to just using flight hours as a metric of fatigue.
Genghis khan1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2015
- Messages
- 6,213
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Ya, I copy/pasted the possible 250 missile scenario in the next post.
Check this (link) out, I made a Separate thread for it. Interesting assessment:
Will the Aircraft Carrier Survive?
Will the Aircraft Carrier Survive? Future Air Threats to the Carrier (and How to Defend It) By Commander Daniel Cochran, USA N, JAPCC Introduction Since the First World War, the importance of sea-based aviation has evolved, including the increasingly diverse mission sets aircraft carriers...
defence.pk
if dumb bomb why not to import kit from Turkey to make it long range and lethal
Akh1112
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,138
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Scorpiooo
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2020
- Messages
- 1,243
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Bro if you are having a day dream of having 2 aircarf carrier group for Pakistan, then also add some heavier and 5th gen naval jets on them instead of JFTs in your dream...
Itachi
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 3,787
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Pakistan already makes Range Extension Kits. But they cost more money so sometimes, it's more feasible to use dumb bombs.
Even dumb bombs have some type of guidance (inertial for the most part).
Marker
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2019
- Messages
- 940
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Dumb bombs are without any guidance system. These are free fall, and the trajectory depends on speed of aircraft and the direction these are tossed. Tail fins are installed to provide aerodynamic stability during free fall.
Similar threads
