Sizzler to sizzle US Carriers?

As to the USS Stark there Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode because they were not in a combat area.

The US navy does not run there ships in condition 1 unless they are in combat waters. the danger of a weapons malfunction is too great.

Condition 1 - General Quarters (battle stations). May be modified for certain conditions, such as Condition 1-AS, in which all antisubmarine watch stations and weapons are manned, but AAW stations may not be. Modified conditions are used to minimize crew fatigue, which can be a significant factor over a prolonged period at battle stations. Other types of modified conditions include 1-SQ (battle stations for missile launch).

Condition 2 – A condition of modified General Quarters, generally used on large ships.

Condition 3 - A material condition of readiness commonly associated with wartime steaming where some, usually half, of the ship's weapons are kept in a manned and ready status at all times.

Condition 4 - A material condition of readiness commonly associated with peacetime steaming. There are no weapons in a ready status.

Condition 5 – A material condition of readiness associated with peacetime inport status. Other material conditions may be set as needed, dictated by the threat.

Most likely the ship was at condition 4 and the weapons radars would have been in standby so the ship would not been showing hostile actions.

With the Phalanx CIWS in auto mode any plane that got to close would have been fired on by the system without anyone on the ship doing anything.

This is a dangerous condition for non hostile aircraft.

The USS Stark was commissioned on 23 October 1982, CDR Terence W. Costello commanding.

I served under the first CO of the Stark CDR Terence W. Costello III on the USS Enhance during operation Endsweep in Haiphong Harbor North Vietnam.

en.wikipedia.org...(FFG-31)
home.earthlink.net...

Even if they did manage to hit a US carrier, then what??

I'll tell you.

Whoever fired the shot will be vaporized.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


thats bollocks - the USA would not start WW3 over a sunk carrier.

reply to post by ANNED


According to the US government the CIWS was not functing properly , was active but failed to work.


according to eye witnesses the CIWS tracked , fired and missed the exocets.

[edit on 26/7/09 by Harlequin]

reply to post by Harlequin



Start? Whoever sinks a US carrier is "starting" it.

Where ever the missile came from, that place will be vaporized. It will become a hole in the ground. Most probably by a US nuclear submarine.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Yea but if We nuke them, they nuke us, game over. Only a modern army...possibly russia or china is capable of attacking a US carrier. You have to fight a conventional war. If they sink our carrier conventionally....fair enough...we hit them back conventionally. If we nuke them, they nuke the entire US.

other than nuking a carrier, one missle hit or even a couple is not going
to send one to the bottom.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I don't remember saying anything about a nuke.

I really love how people jump to conclusions.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by Harlequin

 

Most probably by a US nuclear submarine.

Are you saying nuclear powered with conventional weapons or using a nuke to attack?

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

thats bollocks - the USA would not start WW3 over a sunk carrier.

Three problems with that thought, at least in my opinion.

1) An attack against a US carrier battle group isn't going to happen in isolation. The risk of retaliation (and the magnitude of said retaliation) is too large to accept unless the strategic or tactical rewards are equally massive. Assuming the people in charge on both sides of the situation are at least remotely sane, the only scenarios that involve the sinking of a US carrier by an over-the-horizon missile strike would also include the near-simultaneous neutralization of other US strategic and operational assets...communications and recon satellites at the very least. It won't be done 'just because', it will be done to facilitate some strategic or operational goal, so the odds are that the US retaliation will be payback for a lot more than 'just' a carrier group.

2) Even if it was (for reasons I can't imagine at the moment) 'just' a carrier group, the death toll could *easily* number in the thousands...well beyond the numbers lost at Pearl Harbor or in the 9/11 attacks. Some sort of response would be inevitable, and given that the loss of one deployed carrier would represent ~1/6 of the Navy's ability to project power, a conventional response might be impossible....so a nuclear response of some sort could easily be considered.

3) If the loss of several thousand lives and (at least in the time frame of any likely war) an irreplaceable strategic asset aren't cause for whatever massive retaliation we can bring to bear, what, pray tell, is? Bear in mind that, even if successful, an over-the-horizon missile strike on a carrier group won't be like 9/11. There won't be any doubt who did it, or where it came from...the missile tracks will be on record (even if the intercepts aren't successful, the tracking data will be there), and there will be several hostile assets in the area...at the very least, a launching ship (which will have a radar track) or submarine (the launch transient of the missile will make a definite and distinctive SOUS 'footprint, the targeting / spotting aircraft or helicopter that was used for final targeting date prior to launch....trust me, we'll know exactly who did it, and any reasonable person on Earth would fully expect at an absolute minimum the utter obliteration of the launch platform...and the use of canned sunrise on whatever command-and-control facility coordinated the attack could easily be part of that.

reply to post by magicmushroom


Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers
www.usni.org...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reply to post by xmotex


any sea skimming missile can be disabled easily by firing a weighted net at it.

the net opens and engulfs it.

the net engulfs it and weighs it down crashing it into the sea.

collision with the net can destroy the missile or cash it into the sea.