Actually, a howitzer might do a better job. There are many of them out there and if you get a good crew you could lob as many 15-30 (4 rounds per minute) rounds into the carrier from up to 10 miles away (155MM) before the local police would show up and attempt to shut down your party.
Since it would likely be the fifth shell before anybody realized what you were doing, there’s a good chances that you might even sink the carrier in port.
Hypothetically.
Have you ever been on an actual aircraft carrier?
I was never in the Navy and I haven’t been on a modern carrier, but I have toured the local floating museum - the USS Hornet, a WW2 carrier. At “only” 870 feet long and a standard weight of 27,000 tons it is noticeably smaller than the Nimitz (over 1000 feet long and over 100,000 tons), and the Hornet is freakin’ HUGE. It’s a massive armored building that happens to float and it was designed with the idea that bad guys will be lobbing heavy weapons at it.
A 155mm howitzer shell contains about 15lbs of high explosives. I think you’ve got as much chance of sinking a Nimitz-class carrier with a few of those as you do of bringing down the Empire State Building. Modern antiship missiles have warheads with 300-500lbs of high explosives.
I am new hear, so forgive me if I am out of place. 20some years ago I served on the Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. At the time, we were told that CIWS system couldn’t target anything flying parallel to the ship. To that point some missiles were programmed to fly an S pattern which would theoretically let it get close enough to hit. It is probably different now. I would think the easiest way to disable a carrier would be in a USS Cole type attack when in port. They would still require some supplies to brought out to the ship.
Howitzers can fire armor-piercing shells.
The deck of a Nimitz-class carrier probably cannot withstand being struck by an armor piercing shell, much a dozen or more. And the shells wouldn’t have to sink the ship; the fuel and munitions they could ignite would be more than capable doing just that.
Also, the reactor is certainly armored; but again, there are numerous types of armor piercing rounds on the world market which can more than overcome that plating. This would include depleted uranium, which is going through plate steel like a hot knife through butter. Or a trophy wife through a fortune.
Piercing the containment vessel of a nuclear reactor on board a ship is pretty much several years worth of drydock time if it doesn’t cause a major radioactive spillage and necessitate the ship being completely decontaminated. Strike one carrier from the rolls.
The advantage of a howitzer is that there is no protection against it. To date, no one has invented a means of stopping ballistic shells from striking their target. You can use Sea Sparrows, Phalanxes or RIM missiles against anti-ship missiles and aircraft; nothing is stopping artillery rounds before impact.
With naval guns now reaching out to 50 miles or more, and faster, stealthier ships, naval engagements could again be decided by gunnery. Imagine a stealth ship that manages to sneak within 50 miles of a carrier task force.
Stealth reduces radar cross section (RCS), but a ship it still pretty big. I’m curious how reduced the detection threshold could be reduced to.
Didn’t the Russians have an ultra-fast rocket-propelled torpedo?
Wrong again. The Army has taken a CIWS cannon and a commercial radar and produced a system that is quite effective against indirect fire weapons, like mortars and artillery. Putting similar capabilities on ships is almost certainly a software development matter, not a hardware one.
Yes. However under normal circumstances the below…
…are probably more dangerous for all the reasons Dissonance cites. Much longer range, still pretty fast and wake-homing is apparently a difficult homing method to counter.
Yeah, but I question the effectiveness of these anti-projectile weapons. During combat situations, how fast could radar and those gun mounts swing up to intercept several mortar rounds? Heck, I’d rather have my artillery wipe out those enemy mortar emplacements.
Back to the topic, I understand that it’s still very difficult for a surface ship to detect a “slient” attack sub lurking deep underneath the thermocline. Even a “waterfall” sonar scan might not pick it up. But then, a Russian Alpha will also have difficulty tracking the task force above it. But… a 90,000-tonne carrier makes far more noise than a nuclear attack sub.
Very difficult. Those “not in the business” have no concept of just how quiet a modern nuke sub is. It’s not too far off the mark to say that when looking for a submerged submarine one does not look for the noise it makes, but instead looks for the hole it leaves in the ambient background noise.
Absolutely, considering that there are no Alpha class submarines in service.
But still surprisingly quiet when not engaged in flight ops.
Wait until nobody’s looking, then take the propeller off, turn it around and stick it back on. The ship’ll be in dock for months while they try to figure out why it keeps sailing backwards.
“Wrong again?”
Really?
Please feel free of an example of the system actually WORKING against artillery.
That is from a source which is not biased towards making it appear to work.
Also, feel free to point out any Nimitz-class carrier which is currently using this system or has successfully USED this system to prevent an attack.
I’ll wait.
what about just taking out the crew? Spread some bio weapon over the carrier and infect part of the crew, which would spread to the rest. No need to damage the actual carrier at all. No clue what the best/cheapest way to spread it would be, just wondering if this would be an acceptable scenario.
It seems to me there are two very different ideas going on here. Sinking a carrier without some very serious firepower would be very unlikely. Although the flight deck isn’t armored, you would have to get through all the surveillance and all the support ships that protect the carrier at all times. However incapacitating it would be somewhat more doable. On the destroyer I was on in 1989, almost half the crew was put out of commission for a week because the Chief in charge of the Mess didn’t feel it was necessary to refrigerate the fresh eggs we had gotten while in port in Italy. Nothing like standing duty on a rocking ship while you have salmonella! We were ordered to the closest port while people recovered. That was an extremely unpleasant time.
Well actually… my naval forces have a kevlar driftnet prepared to immobilize carriers with fiendish propellor tangles. Cheap and invisible! If timed carefully, the incapacitated carrier will be in range of our MMLs (mobile molasses launchers) which will easily prevent airplane launches by virtue of gumming everything up. Step 2 also facilitates step 3, which is still under development but I’ll just say “giant wasps” and leave it at that.
…a hooker with Ebola?
I’m afraid this is a “no true Scotsman” sort of test where if I provide a cite that the system appears to work, you’ll dismiss it as a biased source. So, no real point in answering that question under your preconditions, but other interested observers may want to read that the system is credited with intercepting 175 incoming rockets and mortars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you re-read my post, I actually acknowledge that the C-RAM system itself isn’t in use on carriers, as I explicitly said that new software would have to be developed for that capability, but that the hardware appears to exist already.
By the way, how many opportunities have carriers had in the last 30 years to actually repel incoming artillery fire? Are you seriously asking me to provide evidence that a new defensive system has actually prevented something that has not happened? That’s a ridiculous question.
If it’s not already on carriers, then I don’t think it counts. The thread is about disabling carriers as they are currently equipped. Is there anything else on a Nimitz-class that could defeat incoming artillery?
I was responding to these comments:
He didn’t qualify those statement with anything about what systems may or may not be on carriers, he said that artillery cannot be defeated by anything. That’s wrong. And as I said just minutes ago, I acknowledged that further development would be needed to have a C-RAM capability on a carrier (or any other surface combatant, AFAIK).
ETA: Plus the idea of China (or a similar competitor nation) acquiring and setting up artillery within 10 miles of San Diego, Honolulu or Norfolk is pretty damn far-fetched anyway.