It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And the Navy has lasers on all their ships and on their planes if we're gonna play that game.
So now Iran has caves along all thousand miles of coast? And a massive air force?
The only real threat are the diesel subs.
The carrier isn't operating alone, and will have both AWACS and land based fighter support in addition to their battle group.
Kamikaze. Dangerous? Of course. War winner? Not even remotely.
originally posted by: JIMC5499
When the Forrestal reached it's top speed the air speed indicator of the helicopter I was in read just under 80 knots. When you subtract the wind we were doing just under 65 knots.
So which is it Iran is using?
A thousand hypersonic cruise missiles that you still haven't proved exist,
"Tehran is quietly fielding increasingly lethal symmetric and asymmetric weapon systems, including more advanced naval mines, small but capable submarines, coastal defence cruise missile batteries, attack craft, and anti-ship ballistic missiles," the report's declassified executive summary said.
Janes
originally posted by: JIMC5499
Hull design info is still classified for Forrestal class and every carrier since.
However, the design speed of the Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and JFK class carriers is public domain. US Navy Source
The JFK was designed for 33.5 knots, the Kitty Hawks 33.6, the Forrestal 32.0 and the other CVs of that class were designed for 33.0. All had powertrain installations designed to provide 280,000 shp except Forrestal which had 260,000 shp. In all cases, the power was delivered via four shafts.
So, the question is, how does the performance of the CVNs compare with that of the CVs? To determine this we have to look at the power train itself. The nuclear powerplant does not drive the ship directly; it generates steam which powers turbines which drive the screws. The power rating of the ship is the output of her turbines, not the steam generating capacity of the reactor. The turbines installed on the CVNs are identical to those on the CVs; they generate 280,000 shp over four shafts. Even if the nuclear reactor component did generate huge amounts of additional steam, there would be nowhere to put it. On these grounds alone, it seems extremely unlikely that a CVN would be any faster than a CV.
Mach 3 isn't hypersonic. Yes it would be harder, but nowhere near as difficult as an actual hypersonic missile.