How about testing our torpedoes against the Kennedy carrier?

Originally posted by Cutaway

Don’t think the Kennedy should be used as a target, It should be exported.

Always found it funny that nations would want to sell kit like that! If I was a leader of a country - feeling a little bit intimidated I would love some of US's cast offs. I know they wont sell to some places like oh I don't know Iran. But what’s to stop (me in this case) making a quick buck and flogging some stuff on?

Money makes the world go boom, world go boom!

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by Cutaway

Don’t think the Kennedy should be used as a target, It should be exported.

Always found it funny that nations would want to sell kit like that! If I was a leader of a country - feeling a little bit intimidated I would love some of US's cast offs. I know they wont sell to some places like oh I don't know Iran. But what’s to stop (me in this case) making a quick buck and flogging some stuff on?

Money makes the world go boom, world go boom!

Not a good idea...and not for the reasons most would think.

First off the USS Kennedy is ragged out..I mean ragged..just plain olde worn out. From top to bottom, bow to stern. This is known information in the trades. This ship spends more time ashore and in yards anymore than out at sea.

This means operational costs are rising verses actual use and being on station ready to go.

Then again ..consider that this is a full sized super carrier. How many nations do you think can actually maintain one?? Not many.

Take a look around you at the nations which can even afford an aircraft carrier of any size at all. What do you see..much smaller carriers to fit in thier budgets and operatinal philosophys.

I am saying that if you offered the USS Kennedy most nations would turn it down and wisely so.

Even as a non nuclear aircraft carrier the USS Kennedy is just to expensive for most nations to operate.

Remember too ..we are not just talking about operational costs of the ship alone..but also the air wing too. Very very expensive even for the United States. MOst peoples havent a clue.

The powers that be have no intention of sinking an aircraft carrier like this in a torpedo test. They would not want anyone to know the exact status and ability of our submarines or torpedos, nor the actual vulnurabilitys of these large carriers. THis would be political/economic suicide.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Orangetom, for an aircraft carrier of that size, would one modern torpedo break its "back" when detonated underneath?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Orangetom, for an aircraft carrier of that size, would one modern torpedo break its "back" when detonated underneath?

One modern torpedo correctly placed would put her dead in the water. My opinion is that it would take two to three correctly placed conventional modern torpedos to accomplish what you are asking. With modern guidance equipment this would not be difficult

Remember down in the Falklands Islands war the Brits sunk a Argentenian Navy light cruiser with a submarine. As I recall this was a heavy cruiser sold to them by the USA many years before.
As I recall the story the Brit U Boat launched a spread of torpedos and three scored hits. This tells me that they were not using modern torpedos per se but getting rid of old stocks from thier inventory.

If you understand the history here..it gives you a clue.. an indirect tell tale indicator of what modern torpedos have become ..in thier guidance systems and the potency of thier explosives.

Now a nuclear tipped torpedo would be a different matter as we would be talking here about massive.....massive... vaporization of the water underneath the ship.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Greetings Tom,

I had read that Belgrano was hit with MK8's, an old WW2 steam fish. Don't know if the nomenclature is correct. Also that Belgrano was steaming under min. water-tight integrity which resulted in the ship going down as quick as it did.

By my way of thinking, if we are still building them, they are not as vulnerable as their critics and detractor's claim. US Navy knows what will sink a modern carrier: they just sunk one last year! Still planning to build more and better.

I agree that a stern torp shot would hurt, however Nixie might take care of that. I know it's old and maybe the point of obsolescent, maybe even obsolete. Still not the same as being unprotected.

I've also heard three shots under the hull will do it. The Navy's point is to prevent the sub from getting that into position. If we do it, we win. If they do it, we get hurt.

Remember back in '83? Kitty Hawk collided with a CCCP sub. Maybe that is why the Chinese SONG stayed miles away this time! LOL!!!!!!!!

[edit on 3/20/2007 by JungleMike]

I had read that Belgrano was hit with MK8's, an old WW2 steam fish. Don't know if the nomenclature is correct. Also that Belgrano was steaming under min. water-tight integrity which resulted in the ship going down as quick as it did.

Mike,
I had not heard these details but only surmised by some cross talk listening to a group of submariners on the boat I was working at the time.
I deduced by this talk that they were using older weapons.

Sounds like they made a spread sufficient to do the job at the depth of water they were runnning up the hull.

As to running with minimum watertight hull integrity.....not smart...especially if you have any clue that a U boat is around.

]By my way of thinking, if we are still building them, they are not as vulnerable as their critics and detractor's claim. US Navy knows what will sink a modern carrier: they just sunk one last year! Still planning to build more and better.

Ok..if you say so. THere is only one yard in the USA which builds the large nuclear carriers. They are all born here in Virgnia as well as alot of our nuclear submarines. I have the privelege of having worked on both types. Surface and subsurface.

I've also heard three shots under the hull will do it. The Navy's point is to prevent the sub from getting that into position. If we do it, we win. If they do it, we get hurt.

Most of the sailors serving on surface ships have no idea how easily our boats can get in on them if they so want. While sonar and other skills and equipment have gotten better so to has the equipment and techniques on the U Boats. This is also not something the US Navy is wont to let the public know. YOu dont want to be on one of those frigates escorting the carriers when the shooting really starts. THey are sacraficial lambs. So too is the carrier after it launchs its planes in certain wartime scenerios. Someone makes these decisions in a shooting war. It has to be the toughest decision of someones career...and they will make it.


Thanks,
Orangetom

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fixed 'all italics'





[edit on 25/3/07 by masqua]

Thank you Orangetom once agian you show the truth and reality of the dark hidden world, the fish in the sea are the hardest to see...the surface is not the place to be. Same can be said about NBC...the truth about them and winning are nil...once they are used nothing is won once the fighting is over. You once said that the u-force is more sci fi than the world wants to know, seeing what I saw in my time and that they had a sub patroling the area most of the time with sats upabove aka eye in the sky makes what you say ring true. Mostly you worked on that boat that would pull the patrol in the Pacific, without going too many details what do you think about the changes between the old design and the new design of acs? What do you think they will do with the Kennedy? scrape her? Whatever happens to the design idea of converting a supertanker design to a missile boat? What about the agian boomer will they replace them or go in another direction? bet they are planing their replacement already....

What is the average life span of ACs project vs real and for subs? The LA and Ohios are getting up there in age by now...

Orange you can Pm if you like too.

Originally posted by Char2c35t
Mostly you worked on that boat that would pull the patrol in the Pacific, without going too many details what do you think about the changes between the old design and the new design of acs?

I am not exactly sure what you mean by ACS here. I am surmising that you are inquiring about the state of the art detection ...electronics.

I can tell you that it is pretty advanced...but also that the state of the art on the boats is also advancing...as stated ..into the SI FI arena to most of us not that well versed in the trade. THey are moving into what for some of us would be Flash Gordon technology. Some of it pretty marvelous. YOu know.....sort of like in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." When you realize some of it...you are left speachless with your mouth hanging open in astonishment. Spielburg seems to like those kinds of scenes in his work.
IF you are awake you can see hints of it and its portent in every day products and advertisements...but in small tell tales.

What do you think they will do with the Kennedy? scrape her?

Yes, I think they will scrap her. They dont need another carrier monument to maintain. To many already not paying thier way.

As to supertankers being modified. I think this is unecessary. There are four OHio class submarines being modified to carry more than 150 tomahawk cruise missles. I believe two of them are finished as of now..the other two in the process. This is a sound investment in the taxpayers moneys to get more life out of these boats as they have a pretty good reactor core life.
Also many of the fast frigates the navy has are already capable of launching the tomahawk missles from deck mounted flush hatchs. I dont recall how many can be carried but it is alot. YOu can look this up on the web. These frigates are fast and maneuverable. Like the submarines this puts them in the offensive mode.

To my knowlege the aging boomers...there are no plans to replace them as of yet. I am not saying that there is not work being done in this arena.

The main limitation here is reactor core life. The reactor cores are being designed and operated today in a manner to make the core life much longer than in days past. The new boats and ships are designed with some 50 year core lives. This is a huge quantum leap in performance over the early days of reactors.
Replacing a reactor core is a huge expensive and complicated process. Not that other non nuclear work on a ship is not expensive too....but this nuclear work is way more so and can be done only in yards specially configured for this kind of work. Hence care in planning/scheduling must be excercised and thought out. It is not economical/rational to replace the core on a boat or ship which is obselete as a front line tool or weapons platform. This is one of the main reasons most the early class of 688 submarines have been retired. The state of the art has been replaced and updated by later developments in the 688 series..namely the 688I class boats. This has continued into the Sea Wolf and now the Virginia class boats....big time.

Hope this helps,
Orangetom

[edit on 25-3-2007 by orangetom1999]

```````````````
fixed quote

[edit on 25/3/07 by masqua]