In Korean waters: How many minutes would an aircraft carrier stay afloat?

a reply to: Pilgrum

MOAB isn't an FAE. It uses H6, which replaced Torpex for the Navy. It's a mix of RDX, TNT, and powdered aluminum.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Pilgrum

MOAB isn't an FAE. It uses H6, which replaced Torpex for the Navy. It's a mix of RDX, TNT, and powdered aluminum.

They need to update the Wiki. I thought all thermobaric weapons were FAE?

a reply to: yuppa

No. They're two completely different things. They're both are volumetric weapons, but a fuel-air explosive spreads a could of fuel that it then detonates. A thermobaric weapon uses a more energetic explosive that detonates after a slight delay.

An FAE can be considered a thermobaric weapon, but a thermobaric weapon isn't an FAE.

originally posted by: [post=22157683]Zaphod58

MOAB isn't an FAE. It uses H6, which replaced Torpex for the Navy. It's a mix of RDX, TNT, and powdered aluminum.

Then it's just a large enhanced HE bomb that doesn't rely on the atmosphere for full effect?
It's just that I always took thermobaric weapons to need atmospheric oxygen (FAE) or at least a gaseous medium in which to disperse the payload prior to detonation which would make them impractical for use as a depth charge.

Would an above surface detonation over water transfer enough of a shockwave to be threat to a submerged vessel is what I'm wondering now.

a reply to: Pilgrum

They originally developed H6 for underwater uses, such as mines or torpedoes, and was later used for land based weapons. One pound of H6 is the equivalent of about 1.3 pounds of TNT.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Thanks for the info

I wouldn't want to be on receiving end of any of the variants.

I heard a tale of nuclear depth charges being in the possession of the Brits during the Faulklands war, no claims of them being used but they were quite worried about the stealthy Argentinian subs down there at the time. So it's not unreasonable to expect the USN to have such devices for the worst situations? not that they'd ever publicly admit to them though.

a reply to: Pilgrum

The nuclear depth charges weren't eliminated until the early 90s. Supposedly in 1963 the US actually deployed the Mark 45 nuclear torpedo.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe the phrase was "neither confirmed nor denied"...

If some submariners of my acquaintance are to be believed? They did.

a reply to: seagull

Yeah, I've heard the same, but never anything solid enough to go with it being confirmed.

To all who posted, Thank You.

After reading your comments it seems that the idea of 70 submarines coming after an aircraft carrier all at once and then launching torpedoes would never happen. That all 70 would be sunk by US air and subs before they were in torpedo distance of the carrier.

And the same must go for them launching a missile attack from farther away?

The first sub to be sunk would begin the war, meaning the US could not wait for Korea to launch the first torpedo. So what most of you are saying is that just the subs getting close to the carrier in international waters would be an act of war?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

All 70 subs couldn't get anywhere near the carrier. Over 50 of them can't even get out of coastal waters, and fewer than 20 of the others could launch missiles.

If they're in international waters, as long as it didn't affect safety of operations, they could get as close to the carrier as they want, if they had any subs that could get there. They'd be harassed by ASW and chased off though.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I have read a lot of your post and I get the feeling you know what you are talking about because all of this is of high interest to you.

So you are saying that 50 of them cannot handle the depths of the open ocean, that they would sink?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Probably more than that. The vast majority of their subs are either mini subs or designed for coastal operations putting people ashore in the south. They have a couple of classes that theoretically have the range to get out to sea, but their test depth is shallow, at less than 500 feet.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spiritualarchitect


If they're in international waters, as long as it didn't affect safety of operations, they could get as close to the carrier as they want, if they had any subs that could get there. They'd be harassed by ASW and chased off though.

That is the jest of it.

If war has not been declared, and they have even 20 subs that have leisurely sailed up to the carrier force, they would not go anywhere if they were there to start a war. it only takes seconds for them to launch torpedo's. In this position, would the US be forced to start the war right then?

And what are the chances the carrier survives?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

They'd be picked up and harassed before they got too close to the carrier, by aircraft and the Destroyers in the screen.

If thru did though, and got a shot off, the odds of the carrier surviving are quite good. During the Crossroads atomic testing, the Independence survived an airborne atomic blast, at half a jl mile from ground zero, and a second underwater, slightly farther away. It was finally scuttled five years later.

When the America was sunk, they put a 2,000 pound bomb almost in contact with the hull and it survived until the scuttling charges went off.

Carriers are a lot tougher than people realize. You can get a mission kill on one, but killing it outright is much much harder.

a reply to: Zaphod58
So it sounds like it would take more torpedo's than No Ko would have available to sink one. Like they would have to hit it with one of their super mighty missiles.

Thanks for the info.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Why was the USS Independence scuttled? Radioactive? Damages from being close to blasts? And was it scuttled and sunk into the sea?

a reply to: wickd_waze

They were done studying the results of the tests. They took her to Pearl Harbor, and then San Francisco for testing. When they were done, they took her out to the Farallon Islands area, and sank her. She was too radioactive for scrapping.