# Aircraft carriers: floating coffins? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721 "2010-12-29T17:46:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/21 "2010-12-29T20:19:35Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Agreed…If such a war did break out, China would find it’s hands full just dealing with our SSBN fleet. And China would, in retaliation, incinerate some of the larger cities in the USA. People seem to keep forgetting China’s armed with ICBMs and nuclear weapons. “Well, we’ll just use tactical nukes…” sure, and then Los Angeles vanishes. Aircraft carriers have always been vulnerable to nuclear weapons. Everything’s vulnerable to nuclear weapons. If you’re talking about an honest-to-God direct war between two countries with ICBMs, it’ll go nuclear, and concerns about an anti-ship missile will seem pretty minor. The balance between ASM and ship defense technology will always tilt this way and that. This isn’t really a major piece of news. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/22 "2010-12-29T20:21:00Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Agreed…If such a war did break out, China would find it’s hands full just dealing with our SSBN fleet. And China would, in retaliation, incinerate some of the larger cities in the USA. People seem to keep forgetting China’s armed with ICBMs and nuclear weapons. “Well, we’ll just use tactical nukes…” sure, and then Los Angeles vanishes. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/23 "2010-12-29T20:25:04Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > “Well, we’ll just use tactical nukes…” sure, and then Los Angeles vanishes. No great loss, Disneyland needs better parking.😃 ---
**Author:** ![TehRoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@TehRoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TehRoot)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/24 "2010-12-29T20:30:19Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > And China would, in retaliation, incinerate some of the larger cities in the USA. People seem to keep forgetting China’s armed with ICBMs and nuclear weapons. “Well, we’ll just use tactical nukes…” sure, and then Los Angeles vanishes. and nothing of value was lost. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/25 "2010-12-29T20:35:22Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > What is difficult about hitting a ballistic projectile following a parabolic trajectory? > Fight my ignorance. 🙂 Regarding the Patriot in Desert Storm. Great at “intercepting” the Scud but pretty much a zero for “shooting it down”. Puzzling?😕 The ballistic missile or just the warhead from same hurtling down is at Mach something - it’s moving pretty good. The Patriot missile was shooting up at Mach (classified). The radar for the system was able to accurately track the Scud (if it was coming down intact) and actually track the pieces if it broke up (not to well modified and tested). The problems were: 1. Fuzing. The Patriot fuze didn’t look far enough forward relative to the closing velocity. The triggering fuzes are on the sides of the missile, not the nose which houses the radome. Remember it was designed for aircraft intercept with the target moving at around Mach 1 / 1.5 or less. The explosive train would get triggered as the Patriot was passing the Scud or its warhead. There’s always a delay between initiation of the explosive train (bridgwire - detonator - leads - booster - main charge) and the boom. In this time passage - milliseconds - the target would move past the Patriot warhead. The speed of detonation (we are not talking light speed here) and that of the fragmentation warhead shell simply would not catch up to the target going in the other direction. Might blow up the the tail of the Scud generating a lot of debris. Might deflect the warhead a little but that didn’t matter as the accuracy was “city-wide” at best. Wouldn’t destroy or cause sympathetic detonation of the Scud warhead. 2. Warhead design. The Patriot warhead’s fragmenting shell was meant to deal with relatively unarmored/unhardened aircraft skins. The shell had 1000s of pre-formed cubes good at tearing up aircraft. A ballistic missile warhead (or its outer shell) has to withstand the heat and shock of atmospheric re-entry. Essentially it’s armored. The Patriot fragments were not sufficient in mass - and relative velocity (see 1 above) - to kill/detonate the Scud warhead. 3. Tracking. A warhead didn’t look all that different from a fuel tank in a broken up Scud until atmospheric drag took over. It wasn’t all that easy to trach the densest target in the debris storm is the Scud started to break up on re-entry. Post war analysis led to a number of improvements. Faster acting fuzes that looked ahead further and a redesign of the firing train. Larger but fewer tungsten carbide fragment cubes to penetrate hardened warheads. Finally, kinetic energy hit-to-kill projectiles. At the speeds we are talking, any hit will destroy the warhead. Better target recognition and differentiation was incorporated for the missiles that broke up. Still tough to hit a bullet with a bullet though - RED not withstanding (see movie)🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/26 "2010-12-29T20:45:48Z")
When ICBMs start flying at the cities, a big boat in the middle of the ocean with supplies to last a month might be a nice place to be. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/27 "2010-12-29T20:51:25Z")
Aircraft carriers are WW-II era technology used to project power against 3rd world dictators. They cannot be used to wage a war on the scale they were originally designed for because they can’t hide from satellites or nuclear weapons. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Amazing_Hanna)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/28 "2010-12-29T20:52:05Z")
The difficulties in shooting down a DF-21D are: [ul] [li]It can adjust course and identify targets in mid-flight. No current anti-missile system can deal with missiles like that.[/li][li]It can be launched from a concealed or mobile position on land, and has an amazing range - 1,900 miles.[/li][li]It’s pretty fricking fast - 13,000 mph - and tiny.[/li][li]It comes in at a trajectory that makes it harder to shoot down than traditional missiles. This illustration shows how the magic is done: [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/\_cys2T5FgJdo/TCzALLLQzBI/AAAAAAAAHmQ/U7eJOiGr7kc/s1600/DODDF21Diagram.jpg](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/TCzALLLQzBI/AAAAAAAAHmQ/U7eJOiGr7kc/s1600/DODDF21Diagram.jpg)[/li][/ul] A detailed explanation: [http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/07/chinese-fireworks-on-4th-of-july.html](http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/07/chinese-fireworks-on-4th-of-july.html) This really is a significant development, and one that should make us pause and think. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/29 "2010-12-29T21:14:05Z")
What about adavnced diesel-electric submarines? Ships like the HMS Gotland (an advanced Swedish sub)-these subs are very difficult to detect. If China deploys a sufficient number of them, they could make life very difficult for a carrier. Of course, the actual chances of an armed conflict with China are pretty remote-any “wars” we fight with China will be in cyberspace. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/30 "2010-12-29T21:27:12Z")
One thing I’ve never really understood about this conversion of ICBM/SLBM to utilize guided conventional warheads: how is the defender supposed to know which warhead(s) the missile is packing? IOW, to a DSP bird, isn’t this DF-21D going to look exactly like a DF-21D with a ~10MT warhead until it hits? And the US Navy is going to blithely wait while it’s under “nuclear” attack and not retaliate massively? Seems to be a very destabilizing weapon—not in the sense that it’s impossible to stop, but I would think it’d have a big chance of my conventional naval engagement dramatically escalating to exchanging nukes. This goes for all of those US proposals to convert Trident SLBMs to a conventional payload too. For those citing Desert Storm to counter the idea that IRBM/ICBM use automatically equals nukes are being lobbed at you, the Iraqis never shot any SCUDs with NBC warheads, nor do I believe it was seriously feared that Saddam had a nuclear warhead for his SCUDs. I’d be curious to know the cross-range capabilities of the warhead, and see how big of a “basket” you could lob the missile into and have it hit. Precise target acquisition of a CVBG—as opposed to just picking up the E-2’s radar, and knowing a CVN is out there “somewhere”—seems to be a bit challenging. Re: target acquisition/missile launch from SSKs—they are extremely quiet on battery/AIP, but they are susceptible to active sonar. So no driving the SSK right up to the CVN. [Usually](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229237,00.html). Accordingly, the attacker gets a really good idea where the outer ASW screen is, but isn’t that much closer to getting a bead on the CVN. Unless of course, the terminal guidance and cross-range is so good, that knowing the CVBG location to within 2500 sq miles is good enough. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/31 "2010-12-29T21:29:22Z")
The Chinese have nuclear subs. They don’t need diesel-electric ones. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/32 "2010-12-29T21:49:33Z")
Anyone have any data on how accurate the Chinese CLAIM this thing to be? I mean, with a range of 1900 miles, and flying on a ballistic trajectory (presumably in autonomous mode) it’s not exactly going to be a laser guided bomb. How sophisticated is this thing really supposed to be? It’s got to hit a pretty small target…and it’s got to choose which target is the carrier, and which target is one of the many escorts. And it’s got to do this in a relatively short period of time, since it’s coming in at high velocity. And it’s got to be able to adjust to the targets throwing up ECM and maneuvering. And… Well…you see the problem here, no? The Chinese can claim they have this magic weapon, but I’m a bit skeptical that the US or Europeans (or Japanese or SK’s) could produce something with this level of flight and performance characteristics to hit a moving target with active defenses with any sort of high probability, let alone the Chinese. Also, if China fires off ballistic missiles to attack a carrier group, how would we know the difference between that and a regular ICBM attack? Wouldn’t it be, um, fairly risky for the Chinese to launch such a weapon if things were tense between the US and China? Might we not panic and retaliate with sub launched missiles of our own? -XT ---
**Author:** ![The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Amazing_Hanna)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/33 "2010-12-29T22:31:45Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Might we not panic and retaliate with sub launched missiles of our own? Certainly, and this is why it would be a bad idea to put a carrier in the proximity of Chinese waters if the weapon is as good as advertised. We might as well send a guy dressed as Uncle Sam in a rowboat if all the good he’s going to do is to provoke a missile exchange. Or, you know, outsource the actual dressing up and rowing bit to China, which would be cheaper and probably about as impressive. I suppose there will be a public test carried out sooner or later, probably sooner. One of the articles mentioned within a year. However, there doesn’t seem to be anything incredibly improbable about a cheap, highly efficient ship-killer. After all, the Chinese routinely launch spacecraft and certainly manufactured the MacBook pro I’m writing this post on. And with military bases in 156 countries, why is there a need for hugely expensive, floating airfields? Sounds more like pork than a sound strategic choice to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/34 "2010-12-29T23:05:56Z")
China started designing a knock-off-second-best copy of the American F-19 Fighting Falcon, the J-10, back in the 80s. They didn’t get working prototypes in the air until _2002_. First production models delivered in 2010, & \*even then \*only 80% as effective as a F-16. I cite– > **[Warplanes: The Elusive Inexpensive F-16 Clone](http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20101229.aspx)** > > As expected, China is now offering its new J-10 jet fighter for export The price is $27 million, which is less than half what a new F-16 costs, but still more than the Chinese JF-17, which goes for $15 million But there are still hundreds of used... I’ll belive in this capabilities of this “wonder weapon” when I see it.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/35 "2010-12-29T23:21:49Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > China started designing a knock-off-second-best copy of the American F-19 Fighting Falcon, the J-10, back in the 80s. > > They didn’t get working prototypes in the air until _2002_. > > First production models delivered in 2010, & \*even then \*only 80% as effective as a F-16. > > I cite– > > [Warplanes: The Elusive Inexpensive F-16 Clone](http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20101229.aspx) > I’ll belive in this capabilities of this “wonder weapon” when I see it.:rolleyes: Your cite struck me as funny, since strategypage’s immediately previous article [20101228](http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20101228.aspx) concerns the DF-21. Evidently the Chinese are relying on RORSATS to acquire the CVBG and terminal guidance will be IR. Neat trick on an ICBM; I would’ve thought the warhead’s residual heat from air friction would swamp any passive IR signal from a ship. Perhaps they mean a LIDAR, similar to the radar terminal guidance for Pershing II? Moreover, as the comments to the linked post note, I wonder if AEGIS/SM 3 is capable of confidently defeating the warhead and also engaging the RORSATS? 600 km orbits aren’t that high, as ASAT-capable weapons go. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/36 "2010-12-30T03:07:47Z")
> [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](#): > > This really is a significant development, and one that should make us pause and think. China discovered the 1960s? Lines like this one from from the article you cited always make me scratch my head, “If so (and it may well not happen at this time), this would be the world’s first live public test of an anti-ship ballistic missile.” Anti-ship ballistic missiles aren’t a novel concept, the Soviets toyed with killing carriers with SLBMs in the 1960s. [From here:](http://books.google.com/books?id=cP4KPxaB8DQC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=ussr+slbm+aircraft+carrier+1960s&source=bl&ots=HHmBcnLaMK&sig=fkFQ7Piy5auzUmD_oMdU7VlcOaU&hl=en&ei=uOsbTaeTKsG88gaCl6jvDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ussr%20slbm%20aircraft%20carrier%201960s&f=false) > [@](#): > > Some Western analysts argued that the presumed _strategic submarine_ holding areas were in fact anti-carrier positions. Their R-13/SS-N-4 and R-21/SS-N-5 Sark missiles fitted with nuclear warheads could be used as area bombardment weapons against carrier task forces. Also there were instances when Project 675/Echo II cruise missile submarines sometimes occupied those SSB/SSBN holding areas. In the event, in 1962 the Soviet government approved the development of SLBMs for use against surface ships, especially US aircraft carriers that threatened nuclear strikes against the USSR. At the time the improved R-27/SS-N-6 SLBM was under development in Makeyev’s SKB-385 bureau. The decision was made to provide the nuclear missile with a terminal guidance for the anti-ship role, designated the R-27K. The R-27 and R-27K were similar with the 27K having a second stage containing the warhead and terminal guidance. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/37 "2010-12-30T03:38:51Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > What is difficult about hitting a ballistic projectile following a parabolic trajectory? > Fight my ignorance. 🙂 Because it’s small and traveling extremely fast. Sort of like shooting down a meteor. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > I was responding to Le Jacquelope’s question (which upon review appears to be more about how the missile would get through the Phalanx/SeaRam/SeaDart net). The answer, of course, is that the Phalanx and other ship defense systems probably aren’t very effective against next-generation low-trajectory anti-ship missiles. Ballistic missiles approach from a high trajectory. Sea-skimming missiles like the Exocet come in at a low trajectory at a thousand feet per second. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2010, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/38 "2010-12-30T05:41:50Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > China started designing a knock-off-second-best copy of the American F-19 Fighting Falcon, the J-10, back in the 80s. > > They didn’t get working prototypes in the air until _2002_. > > First production models delivered in 2010, & \*even then \*only 80% as effective as a F-16. > > I cite– > > [Warplanes: The Elusive Inexpensive F-16 Clone](http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20101229.aspx) > I’ll belive in this capabilities of this “wonder weapon” when I see it.:rolleyes: I don’t know who writes for that website, but they’re stupid. The J-10 is only an “F-16 clone” in the sense that it’s a small single engined fighter. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/39 "2010-12-30T06:29:23Z")
There are too many technologies out there which could potentially threaten a carrier. Ballistic missiles, super-cavitating torpedoes, surface-skimming missiles. It’s reasonable to assume that China is going to master these technologies. If they throw dozens of these missiles simultaneously at a carrier from different directions what are the odds, every single one of them will be defended against. Pretty low. The US would be foolish to rely on carriers in a naval war against China (admittedly a low probability event). Carriers could still play a role against lesser powers like Iran but even some of them could develop these technologies in a decade or two. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/40 "2010-12-30T07:10:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Chinese have nuclear subs. They don’t need diesel-electric ones. Diesel subs are quieter making it easier to sneak up on a carrier. As [happened](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html)in 2007. > [@](#): > > American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. > > By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. > > According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy. > > The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721.md?page=3)