can Exocet II take on a super carrier?

The Exocet is a developed by France for anti-missile defense it has a 165 kg high explosive shaped charge warhead, and has a speed of mach 0.93. The exact carrier I want to know if it can take on is the Nimitz class super carrier. The Nimitz class carrier has a displacment of 102,000 tons, for missile defence it has four Raytheon/ General Dynamics 6 barrelled Phalanx close in weapon system's. Which fire at a rate of 3,000 rounds per minute, at a range of 1.5 km. Also the newer version of the class is being armed with the Rolling Airframe missile, which provides short range defense against incoming anti-ship missiles, including sea skimming missiles.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by blue cell]

[edit on 25-11-2004 by blue cell]

hi blue cell, could you give more info about the Exocet, and super carriers.
And add a personal comment or question?

Your post is quite small for a start post...

[edit on 11-25-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

The phalanx guns are pretty accurate and pretty fast. I would think that a US carrier could defend it's self. Also it's a matter of could they get close enough to a carrier to launch the missile. An F-14 with an AIM-54 could might be able to shoot down the missile as they have been able to hit cruise missiles. Unfortuantly both are being retired.

BTW why do you want info only for the Nimitz class carriers. The Enterprise class (only one ship in it's class) has the same capabilities as the Nimitz.

[edit on 11/25/2004 by cyberdude78]

Exocet is a potent missile as the British found out during the falklands war.

The US uses very similar anti-missile technology to the UK, so the chances are that yes... defence against the missile is possible but by no means certain.

Exocet is acutally been fired at US naval ships before.

On 17 May 1987, an Iraqi attack aircraft fired two Exocet missiles, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21 others aboard USS Stark (FFG 31). Iraq apologized, claiming "pilot error."

Stark was launched on 30 May 1982 and commissioned 23 October 1982 in Seattle, Washington. Stark is the twenty-fifth of fifty-five OLIVER HAZARD PERRY Class guided missile frigates, the largest class of ships since World War II. Stark was named for the former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold R. Stark.

Since its commissioning in October of 1982, Stark has traveled over 235,000 nautical miles, visiting 69 different ports in 31 separate countries around the world. Her early deployments include Middle East Force (JUN - DEC 1984), Great Lakes (JUN - AUG 1985), Middle East Force (FEB - AUG 1987).

During the 1987 deployment, Stark was struck by two missiles fired by Iraqi aircraft. The fires that resulted claimed 37 lives and wounding 21. Today the only remaining sign of this tragic event is the memorial engraving mounted in the midships' passageway, which lists the names of the lost shipmates.

The frigate was heavily damaged and could only be saved by the effective help of the crew.

After this incident a discussion about the efficiency of the Phalanx CIWS, the SLQ 32 and the Mk 92 Fire Control system started.

The Navy spent $142 million to repair the USS Stark.

[edit on 11/26/04 by jetsetter]

it would probably take a few conventional warheads to sink a super carrier like enterprise.
the whole size thing is a factor alone.

I doubt that the ExcocetII would cause even a mild reaction from the guys at the Pentagon. This because the USN has one of the best anti ship cruise missile defense in the ESSM.[Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile]
It has the capability to attack incoming cruise missiles pulling Mack 5 (In a test flight it exhibited this on a drone at Mach5). Also it has thrust vectoring and an entirely new rocket motor. The guidance system has also been completely revamped from the earlier Sea sparrowsystem.www.sfu.ca...

[edit on 26-11-2004 by IAF101]

Originally posted by devilwasp
it would probably take a few conventional warheads to sink a super carrier like enterprise.
the whole size thing is a factor alone.

At the end of the day a lot of it comes down to luck and where it actually strikes the ship

The Exocet, just because it's French doesn't mean its harmless

However, the changes are likely that Phalanx system and several anti-missile missiles will be replaced by installing a heavy power hungry laser defence and for the short range relatively cheap Metalstorm boxes along the skirts of the ship. (also to be used agains torpedoes)

The fact that the Americans sold the Phalanx system to Pakistan recently tells me that its no longer cutting edge and they have new tricks up their sleeves...




[edit on 26-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

I actualy did a thread on metal storms torpedo defence project, hear it is.

metalstorm thread link

[edit on 26-11-2004 by blue cell]

Originally posted by Countermeasures
The fact that the Americans sold the Phalanx system to Pakistan recently tells me that its no longer cutting edge and they have new tricks up their sleeves..
[edit on 26-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

We sold it because we have the ESSM which beats the hell out of all known missile systems and maybe even the SUNBURN system!
We don't need to worry about the ExocetII as it comes no where near the SUNBURN cruise missile system for which the ESSM was developed.

For those that may not be familiar with the ESSM, it is the 'Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile', and was mentioned in some detail here:
can BRAHMOS take on a super-carrier?





seekerof

about the phalanx yeah its a good weapon but the goal keeper seems to be better and more heavier armed.

Originally posted by devilwasp
about the phalanx yeah its a good weapon but the goal keeper seems to be better and more heavier armed.

They both look like good weapons systems but the slightly larger calibre of Goalkeeper (30mm, Phalanx is 27mm)might just give it the edge.

I suppose the people to ask are the Royal Navy. They have been using both systems for years, almost interchangeably on the carriers..

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]

yeah was speaking to a man who was an ex-weapon tiff (articifer or engineer) said it was good but the goal keeper was a better weapon. better RPM and power.
mind you the phalanx is nice.
i plan on being a weapon tiff hopefully when i am older.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by devilwasp]

According to one of the articles I presented in the BrahMos thread, the Phalanx system is being replaced on the Tico's, etc. My understanding is that some of the newer carriers are being likewise refitted. The newest carrier--Ronald Reagan-- is utilizing different anti-ship defensive systems.



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
According to one of the articles I presented in the BrahMos thread, the Phalanx system is being replaced on the Tico's, etc. My understanding is that some of the newer carriers are being likewise refitted. The newest carrier--Ronald Reagan-- is utilizing different anti-ship defensive systems.



seekerof

yeah metal storm isnt it?
was some pretty impressive equipment esspecially the rapid fire grenade launcher!

I thin kwe need to get our objective clear..are we debating about sinking a auper carrier or maiming it?
Sinking it would be an arduous task indeed!!
Whatever conventional weaponry one uses...

well, keep this in mind. 20 years ago, when the Soviet's were contemplating how to take out their carriers, there plans usually revolved around a large number of long range, high speed (Mach 2+) cruise missiles with heavy warheads.
frankly i dont think exocet has the speed nessecary to get past a CVBG, if a carrier was on it's own then it might do well, asl ong as there was a few of them, but it would never touch a carrier with it's CVBG

actually a CVBG is not the most secure. many a time there have been enemy ships or subs inside the net remember the CVBG is very effective against fleets but in lone ship warfare hte CVGB is very vunerable.