4 ms·
A conventionally tipped ICBM is indistinguishable from a nuclear tipped ICBM in all stages of flight except perhaps the last, and thus the launch thereof at a C
by KaeseEs 15y ago
A conventionally tipped ICBM is indistinguishable from a nuclear tipped ICBM in all stages of flight except perhaps the last, and thus the launch thereof at a CVG could provoke nuclear retaliation. There are many, many better ways to sink a capital ship; swarms of regular antiship missiles, of which the Russians have many fine models, are probably the most popular. This is very difficult to defend against; between the SM-2s/SM-3s fired at the swarm at long range and the rolling airframe missiles fired at medium/short range by the CRUDES screen, you'll likely take out most of the inbound missiles, but not nearly all of them, and the CVN's own CIWS is unlikely to do anything productive if it works at all and is turned on, leaving a bunch of holes in your carrier and about 5000 men drowned along with about a hundred aircraft in the drink.
- Retric 15y agoHitting an aircraft carrier with an non nuclear ICBM would be vary difficult. The primary advantage of an ICBM is speed, but they easy to direct so the aircraft carrier has plenty of time to move around. As to missiles a single impact above the water line on a modern US carrier is unlikely to do all that much damage unless it's a ridiculously over-sized thus making swarms an expensive proposition. Torpedo's are a much better option, but they trade range for utility. PS: For reference: USS SARATOGA (CV-3) - The "Sara" was struck by 2 bombs and 5 Kamikazi's while supporting the Iwo Jima invasion on February 21, 1945. She lost 123 dead with approximately 300 injured. But this attack did not sink her. She survived the war but did not survive the atomic bomb tests off of Bikini Atoll. She went under after undergoing her second nuclear explosion on July 25, 1946. She was a tough old girl. http://ffhiker.tripod.com/index-7.html http://ffhiker.tripod.com/index-7.html Edit: The US is also using much larger aircraft carriers now they they did in WWII. Picture a 100,000 ton boat with 2 × nuclear reactors AND 4 × steam turbines, vs the 36,000 ton Saratoga (CV-3). There are many reasons the US has not lost a carrier since 1945, suggesting they are an easy target is ignoring a lot of navel history.
- quanticle 15y agoThe carriers are bigger, true, but the missiles are more powerful as well. A single cruise missile carries the effective payload of 3 or 4 kamikaze aircraft. There's also the fact that you don't have to kill the carrier to render it ineffective. A single missile hit to something like landing deck or the aircraft hangar can result in damage that takes months or years to repair, effectively removing the carrier from the battlefield.
- phlux 15y agoWhile I agree mostly, your comment also ignores advances in weaponry. So, sure, they are tough - but the yeild of bombs now as well as the threat of small scale nukes against the ships, even if meant to capsize, is quite different than the equivalant of hurling a ford expidition at them. Carriers are amazing amazing ships - I eould love a game solely focused on a war where an ultra vast ocean world made it such that all wars were carrier based and had vast submarine based support fleets. It would be great to have physics sims that allowed us armchair admirals to test carrier strengths against such traps as nuke icbm and cruise missles.
- Jd 15y agoIgnoring navel gazing history, perhaps. We've never had open war with a first world power since WWII, that's why we've never lost a carrier.