Posted on 07/24/2012 9:30:33 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
Previously have read these dongs require a very high arc to get a carrier, which in view of our recent missle shootdown capacity, make it a big hi-altitude firecracker.
Besides, even the chinks know if they zap a carrier, its the same as nuking a US city and significant retaliation would be impossible for them to make our carrier worth the real cost they would pay. 3 Gorges Leak being just one of many very expensive Chinese targets.
Nothing of consequence will ever happen between us and china (assuming we get rid of our worst POTUS in history).
Our carriers are much more likely targets for the likes of Al Queda, who have very little to loose or total idiots like Iran who are looking for Allah through “sucide by cop” mentality. That type of threat has been very well addressed.
Thanks for the mention.
No it can’t. Trident can do course correction to make minor adjustments but it can’t change its target mid-flight.
Ballistic missiles simply are not weapons you use to deal with even predictable moving targets and a carrier group is a very fast moving target following a non-predictable course. It’s likely that the missile which simply land harmlessly 100nm away where the group USED to be if they are lucky.
Besides, none of this matters. Regardless of whether the missile hits or not the response would be nuclear and it would be completely overwhelming.
For a fact Jack!
You think their junk is junk here, try what they sell in Latin America.
Not yet.
The implication in the original article was that the missile contained a non-nuclear warhead. So you really haven’t added anything new here. The quoted sentence admits that a nuclear warhead could do this. The purpose of my post was that a non-nuclear warhead couldn’t have that yield.
You also state the obvious, i.e. that a nuclear device COULD take out an aircraft carrier. Oddly - the BEST way for such a delivery is for the nuke to go off UNDER the carrier, not above it or near it. The damage to surface vessels even a small distance away from a nuclear detonation can survive at some level. You either have to deliver it right on top or right underneath (which is what nuclear tipped torps do). The nuclear tipped torp will break the keel of any major surface combatant and send it to the bottom instantly.
Couldn’t help but tail-gate this comment. There was an article day announcing that the Iranian Navy will be deploying a surface combatant into the Atlantic. Talk about blowing smoke! ;-)
I think with the many ships surrounding a carrier all with the “digital mapping controlled high speed guns”, will make the water so chummed with Iranians and their little boats, carrier water intake filtration may be the critical path.
We will find
sooner or later
if Achmed’ll pray
to a glowing crater.
Until then, the problem hasn’t really been addressed.
The Pershing II.
It had an active radar used in the terminal stage of flight, giving the Pershing II a CEP of 30m and a very effective hard/deeply buried kill capability with a warhead that ranged from 5 to 30kt.
It drove the Soviets absolutely nuts because of that capability and was one of the driving reasons behind the INF Treaty.
This technology has been around for 30 years, so don’t think the Chinese can’t develop something similar.
The ChiComs have not even tested this against a moving ship. Meanwhile ignorant western journalists switch a few words they don’t understand on a press release and call it a story.
You are dreaming.
A carrier at sea is the ultimate military target. No civilians for thousands of miles.
No President could or would kill civilians over a purely military strike.
And that's only the test version.
Once again, that’s about fine tuning accuracy when the target was already pre-determined ahead of time. It’s not about hitting a moving target.
You quote CEP numbers but I don’t think you realize what they mean. Ballistic missiles have gotten much more accurate over time, but they have no ability to track and target moving objects while in flight. If you understand the physics of this you will understand why this has to be so.
Clearly you don’t understand US military doctrine in these sorts of situations. If someone sank a fleet carrier that would be seen as an act of war and would lead to a nuclear level escalation within minutes.
As for targeting civilians, no one targets civilians directly in nuclear exchanges. They perform strikes on military targets—the fact that civilians are in the way is purely collateral damage.
Fun fact though: a strike designed to destroy military targets (which are hardened and require large ground bursts) are often more deadly to the civilian population than just outright targeting cities (which are air bursts and don’t create nearly the amount of fallout).
Exactly right. That’s what supercavitating torpedos were supposed to be designed for (the Soviet Shkval for example)—have a sub come up near a battle group, fire off a nuclear tipped super-high speed torpedo and run like hell.
That certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than firing a ballistic missile at a carrier group.
I sure do, I just don't believe that any President who could be elected by this degenerated electorate would ever give the order to do what you suggest.
In late September and early October 2001, we took out a bunch of klystrons for testing to make sure they still worked. That was the best news I ever heard.
When we did not nuke Tora Bora, I knew it was a fantasy.
Our nukes will never be used.
And, it's not that FAEs are news to the USN. Most of this FAE explosion video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRASCHJe2Q
was made at our Navy's China Lake test facility over two decades ago...
They would probably say it was a NorVgook AA gun...
Why is it called a pith helmet?
So the monkeys don't pith on you. /lounge lizard
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.