China has "Kill Weapon" to destroy US Carriers

reply to post by COOL HAND


Its easy, have an altitude or proximity timer to release the clusters at low altitude above the carrier. A ballistic missile can be maneuvered at high speeds with gas dynamic maneuvering if it is above the atmosphere where the air is thin, or using control surfaces where the air is denser at low altitudes. These are called MARVs maneuverable RVs..The warhead can be anything, but were talking about clustering for maximum effect.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


MARVs are designed to go after fixed targets, not moving ones.

How do you plan on updating the warhead as to the location of the ship? How will the warhead react when the ship start violently manuevering as it is coming up on its release point?

reply to post by COOL HAND


How does a carrier violently move to dodge a cluster attack? The warhead is traveling a few miles a second. Any last minute attempt by the carrier to change course will be futile.

The MARV warhead, yes it is designed to engage stationary targets but knowing a carriers current position, speed, direction it is reasonable to estimate final location. And using clustering helps any questions as well. The warhead makes atmospheric reentry very fast and a carrier really cannot make evasive maneuvers fast enough. Couple it with a few sea skimming supersonic missiles. you will saturate the Aegis and keep it busy and the carrier is good as dead.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
How does a carrier violently move to dodge a cluster attack? The warhead is traveling a few miles a second. Any last minute attempt by the carrier to change course will be futile.

Depends on what altitude you release the bomblets at. A small manuever early enough can get them out of danger.

The MARV warhead, yes it is designed to engage stationary targets but knowing a carriers current position, speed, direction it is reasonable to estimate final location.

You presuppose that the carrier is going to remain on the same course and speed as when you launch. That also supposes that you can find the carrier out in the middle of the ocean in the first place.

And using clustering helps any questions as well. The warhead makes atmospheric reentry very fast and a carrier really cannot make evasive maneuvers fast enough. Couple it with a few sea skimming supersonic missiles. you will saturate the Aegis and keep it busy and the carrier is good as dead.

Since you seem to know so much about AEGIS, how many missiles will saturate the system? How many targets can the system engange at a time?

Well the ANSpy-1 radar can TRACK approximately 100 targets. Here is the armament of the USS lake Champlain:

2 × 61 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems
122 × RIM-156 SM-2ER Bock IV, RIM-162 ESSM, BGM-109 Tomahawk, or RUM-139 VL-Asroc
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon missiles
2 × Mark 45 5 in / 54 cal lightweight gun
2 × 25 mm
2–4 × .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun
2 × Phalanx CIWS
2 × Mk 32 12.75 in (324 mm) triple torpedo tubes

The harpoon is an anti-ship missile, so it cannot be used to engage missiles.
The Mark 45 is naval artillery, useless against missiles.
The RUM is an anti-submarine missile.
The Mark 32 is a surface ship torpedo, useless
The .50 caliber machine guns are hand operated
Tomahawk is a cruise missle, cannot engage a missle.

The RIM-162 and RIM 156 are the only two missiles capable of engaging.
The CIWS is useful, but only two on the ship and limited to 85 degrees

The RIM-162 has a range of 27 nautical miles, and speed of mach 4, but the RIM 156 is better, it has a range of 100 nm, and speed is also mach 4.

So you only have 122 missiles on the carrier to exhaust. We dont even know the accuracy of these missiles. But if they fire two of them at one attacking missile, 25 missiles can be fired at the carrier and a few are bound to get through. How many more attacks can the Aegis take? Not many at all. If one hits the radar then the system is useless, and I guarantee you that the Attacking missiles will be homing on to the radar source.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Depends on what altitude you release the bomblets at. A small manuever early enough can get them out of danger.

Aren't we releasing at low altitude as we've already decided.

Dont worry about China,or any Naval power,Canada has the most fearsome naval delivery system and weapon ever deployed in modern times,THE KRAKEN.Kinetic resonence altered kinetic energy nexus.

Nothing that isnt Canadian and diesel powered survives the first and only strike.Ocean wide.Nothing,of any national Navy of any country,survives.

Except Canadian tugboats.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by COOL HAND

 

Its easy, have an altitude or proximity timer to release the clusters at low altitude above the carrier. A ballistic missile can be maneuvered at high speeds with gas dynamic maneuvering if it is above the atmosphere where the air is thin, or using control surfaces where the air is denser at low altitudes. These are called MARVs maneuverable RVs..The warhead can be anything, but were talking about clustering for maximum effect.

What????!!!??? Do clusters disperse correctly from a craft doing some 3000 plus miles per hour..or faster?? Are they designed to do this??? Wonder how many of them are going to hit a carrier moving at aircraft launch speeds??
Am I just imagining this is going to work....do I need to go back to dancing with the stars??? American Idol??

Are cluster type munitions designed to disperse from a craft moving that fast???

Thanks,
Orangetom

To my limited knowledge..the deadliest weapons platform to a carrier or any surface ship ...is still a submarine. Not missiles per se..but a submarine which can stealthily enter the operations envelope of the fleet and launch its weapons.

The deadliest competition for a submarine is also another submarine.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 16-4-2010 by orangetom1999]

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Do you have a source for this information?

I am curious as to how they determined the tracking number, or was that from you?

Thanks.

I doubt very seriously the Chinese have this type of submarine, but just to add to this that back in 2006 a Swedish submarine, the HMS Gotland was giving the US Navy a fit. Apparently during the 'games', the Gotland sank our most sophisticated nuclear submarines AND the USS Reagan. It seems they were worried about the Iranians getting their hands on one of these subs.

Source

New Class Of Silent Submarines Poses Threat

October 28, 2006 by Homeland Security NTARC News
Filed under Homeland Security News

Leave a Comment


The Pentagon said it believes the greatest undersea threat facing the U.S. Navy since the end of the Cold War has arrived. The threat involves a new a new class of silent submarines, subs that the U.S. Navy is having trouble finding under water.

Subs have always had two weaknesses: they make noise and can’t stay submerged very long. But the Gotland runs on a high-tech system called Air Independent Propulsion, or AIP. With AIP, The new class of sub can stay submerged for weeks.

Since last summer the Navy has spent months playing a game of cat and mouse with one such sub, the HMS Gotland, off San Diego, and time after time the Swedish sub has eluded its pursuers.

The Pentagon leased the Gotland for one year, but now has extended the lease for a second year, as they try to learn why this submarine so difficult to find underwater.

According to Swedish newspapers, in training exercises the Gotland has sunk our most sophisticated nuclear submarines. But perhaps even more disconcerting, it reportedly sunk our largest aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Reagan.

Two months ago in the Persian Gulf, Iran tested a new anti-ship missile fired by one of its subs.

If the Iranians are successful in getting a Gotland-class submarine, it could pose a new silent danger to vital oil tanker traffic in the region.

I do not know what or if any counter measures were ever developed for this, but it would not be surprising if at least the Russians have been working on this for awhile.

One thing I do know for certain is that we have had Chinese citizens go through the US education system. My next door neighbor back in the mid 1980's was a college professor at a local college where I used to live. His wife was a Chinese citizen and he was of Chinese ancestory. He taught nuclear physics, and after a few years of being here, they relocated back to China. So I think it would not be fair to think that the Chinese are as far behind the US in knowledge as we may like to think. It may have a bit more to do with the application of that knowledge.

reply to post by Wayne60


Full article:
www.cbsnews.com...

(AP) A Chinese submarine came close to the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group in the Pacific Ocean last month, a top U.S. naval commander confirmed Tuesday, adding the encounter could have triggered an "unforeseen" incident.

Seems that the Chinese do have a somewhat limited capability in this sort of respects. I mean being undetected in a full wargame scenario, and stopping by to say "Hi" If it was a real war the USS Kitty Hawk would be sunk. There goes one CBG...in an instant. I have repeatedly said that the modern CBG is nearing obsolescence on various threads.

So??

US has MIRV's that can destroy Hong Kong instantly...

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Thanks for posting the link. I had thought from the discussion above the Chinese sub was lying dormant. The article states the CBG was NOT conducting ASW. I do not know how they are doing it nowadays, but when I was on the Indy we were ALWAYS doing ASW, except when we were fresh out of port and doing shakedowns, or picking up the squadrons. Then when I was in, we were still in the Cold War too.

Talk about a weak spot.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
So??

US has MIRV's that can destroy Hong Kong instantly...

This thread is not about nuclear warfare but rather anti-carrier warfare. Yea lots of countries have MIRVs that can nuke any city in the US as well...point?

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.

Source
www.usni.org...

This is from the US naval institute website. Straight from the Horses mouth.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Seems that the Chinese do have a somewhat limited capability in this sort of respects. I mean being undetected in a full wargame scenario, and stopping by to say "Hi" If it was a real war the USS Kitty Hawk would be sunk. There goes one CBG...in an instant. I have repeatedly said that the modern CBG is nearing obsolescence on various threads.

Absolutely not. They are nowhere near obsolescence. They are very useful for natural disaster relief. We have a leadership who cannot make up their mind to send badly requested military help to our troops in Afghanistan...but can overnight reroute a whole Nimitz class aircraft carrier to Haiti. The USS Carl Vinson...on route to its port in San Diego was rerouted to Hait...overnight..but our troops in need of help in Afghanistan..their request was put on hold for about 9 months. Thus clearly emphasising that our carriers are obsolete for anything but high profile/high visibility Public Relations work.

Good PR always wins out over the lives and safety of our troops. Meaning that these ships are not quite obsolete...yet.

Our troops are obsolete but not quite these expensive ships...as long as there is a good useful disaster somewhere in the world.

Thanks,
Orangetom