I was having an argument with someone about this topic, and I was wondering if people could shed some light and facts on this subject for me…
HMS Dauntless VS USS George H.W. Bush
starting distance of 4000 KM
no ship escorts
full aircraft complement for both ships
i’m well aware that they aren’t designed for this role…
Bush by a mile. Much, much more ordnance to put on target (in the form of many more missiles from many, many more aircraft), and much, much more raw tonnage which makes her harder to sink.
Carrier is more than 10 times the displacement of the destroyer.
So it’s basically Dauntless’ air defences against George H.W. Bush’s aircraft? Got to give the encounter to the USN, Dauntless only has helicopter-launched assets that can hurt a carrier, so would need to be relatively close in, and the GHWB is a big ol’ thing anyway and could probably survive a few hits.
The air battle would be exciting though, for both sides!
What kind of argument can that be? The carrier will spot the destroyer far before the destroyer can spot the carrier and will be able to engage it for at least a day* before the destroyer can get a shot off at the carrier. The destroyer will very quickly find itself without aircraft if it deploys them.
The only chance the destroyer has is in shooting down all of the carrier’s aircraft while being too damaged itself and then catching up to the carrier and attacking it. Slim odds.
*Presuming the carrier doesn’t kite the destroyer. If it does, given that they have similar maximum speed and the carrier is nuclear-propulsed while the destroyer isn’t, the destroyer will never get a shot off at the carrier short of a fluke.
Earlier thread with similar scenario (carrier v. battleship) and much joking around.
Basically, if the carrier has planes, it wins. The battleship only has a chance if the conditions are massively tilted in its favour.
I doubt Dauntless even has enough missiles to shoot down Bush’s complement of airplanes. According to every source I can find, Dauntless carries a full load of 48 SAMs (which is a great many, actually.) I believe USS George H.W. Bush carries more combat aircraft than that.
The Royal Navy already thought of that.
Obviously the pros blow planes apart in mid air in such a way that the debris takes out 3 or 4 others. Failing that, they have Sean Connery and an umbrella standing by.
i did read that, but this is a guided missile destroyer geared to anti-air operations, not a battleship 
i was just wondering if there would be anyone taking the destroyer’s side, quite like my acquaintance did…
oh, and it’s also for good fun and my amusement.
Let’s see how the following arguments are going to be debunked…
The DD-33 has an invincible defense called the Viper-E!
The DD-33 has a CIWS to take care of anything that gets past the Viper-E
The CIWS can obliterate any aircraft that is thrown at it, it’s very accurate!
The Nimitz class has no offensive power!
The Nimitz class only has 90 helicopters! (wrong on so many levels, but i have proof that someone was stupid enough to repeat that over and over…)
No, you can’t exhaust the DD-33’s ammunition stores, there’s less crew, so there’s more room for ammo!
There’s really only one deciding issue.
Which ship is Chuck Norris on?
HMS Dauntless is not a superdestroyer but an air-defence destroyer. Did you have another vessel in mind?
The only way Dauntless could possibly sink George Bush as a known hostile would be to sneak in under cover of fog behind an island (so as to be undetectable by sight and radar) and then fire her missiles and gun at point blank range. And maybe not even then - the carrier is big.
And the carrier can likely outrun the destroyer anyway.
Not to mention that carriers don’t travel alone anyway.
huh, valid point, i totally missed that… no, we’ll keep going with this 
I wonder if that point was addressed in the OP at all?
The sources say that there is a 48 strong launcher cell - any idea if that is the total onboard? Can it be reloaded from onboard stores? Not that that’ll make that much difference to the outcome
Let’s see…
A. Helicopters aren’t great versus F/A-18s armed with, among other things, Phoenix missiles and E-2 AWACS support.
2. The carrier is going to carry around 90 aircraft. Most, but not all of them, will be F/A-18s.
III. F/A-18s have multiple hard points. They can carry a lot of ordnance.
So…
The carrier launches it’s E-2 AWACS planes with fighter escorts to locate the destroyer. No helicopter will be able to get close to it. After the destroyer is located, the Carrier will arm up and launch, when the distance is most favorable, let’s say 45 F/A-18 armed with radar guided air to ship missiles. When the fighters get close enough, they’ll each launch 2 ASMs toward the destroyer. That’s 90 incoming “vampires” for 48 SAMs to destroy. Even with CIWS, there will be a lot of leakers getting through. And then the still incoming fighters will each fire ANOTHER 2 ASMs at the destroyer. No SAMs left to take them out and the destroyer is out or really low on ammunition for the CIWS. So the destroyer will take a LOT of damage from the second wave. After the 2nd wave, presuming the destroyer is still afloat, the still incoming fighters will probably fire another 2 ASMs each at the destroyer. And then the fighters will finally fly over the debris of the sinking destroyer, do victory rolls, take some photos, and return to the carrier. They may have to refuel on the way back.
HMS Astute vs the GHWB - and fling in the support group - is an interesting one. Nobody in NATO really designs things to take out a USN carrier group, but I wonder how a first-rate attack sub would do in extremis.
Well, first of all the USS Trippe (DD-33) was scrapped in 1934. I know that the USN had a dodge to get around Congressional funding questions where they built a new ship while pretending to “greatly improve” the old one, but that’s a hell of an improvement!
ETA: And none of that can be used to sink a carrier.
Yeah, for the carrier pilots it’ll be exciting as in “We’re gonna blow the SHIT out those dudes!” 
For the destroyer crew it’ll be exciting as in “We’re all gonna die!” 
I wonder. Post-Falklands there hasn’t been much in the way of using modern ship-based air-defence systems against a competent air force (and boy, were lessons learned in the South Atlantic). There was the USS Vincennes shooting down a civilian airliner, but that’s not much of a challenge really. There’s not been many anti-missile engagements either: HMS Gloucester took out a Silkworm aimed at the USS Missouri in the first Gulf War.