Anti-Carrier Trump Card

H5N1 said:

bd popeye




While various ways to defeat a carrier was discuss above like nuking it (too drastic, but a sure way), isolate it from its escorts (possible, unlikely nowadays) or evening develop a laser cannon (too far off).

I was thinking of a simpler and more direct way.

Bd poeye had explained the structure integrity of a modern carrier, but my point was their fuel and internal munitions in fact sank the carriers. Their flight decks were no doubt armored, so was the WWII carriers. Both the USS Forrester and USS Enterprise were overwhelmed by flames cause by JP5 on the deck. In fact, USS Enterprise came close to dying by those accidents.

Having valves and sprinkler system is not effective as all the aircraft aboard have a least a ton of JP5 each. And 2/3 of the aircraft are below deck. Shut the fuel valves would help, but that’s not the main problem. Heat generated by the aircraft fires might eventually ignite the fuel storage too. Water sprinklers help spread the fires of this nature.

While you assume that I mean that the carriers would be attack from the deck, I am not that naïve. Sea skimmers, especially the Sunburns tend to strike the side of the carriers, with so many aircrafts and munitions spread below deck. A single strike from a Skimmer, above or below deck, would ignite a serious fire situation. Both the Enterprise and Forrester had only accidents on the decks, under war conditions the deck is filled up with munitions and fuel.
It may not sink it, but would put it out of commission for months. I can’t imagine if the carriers would to be strike by multiple explosive hits. Which is possible, since PRC , I believe adopted a mass missile attack doctrine.

Click to expand...

BRAVO! excellent analysis on one of the vulnerabilities of carriers which Americans too often overlook due to patriotism (i'm not saying patriotism is bad)

in fact, i once read an article in my daily newspaper in 2000, which said that several Us top brass were considering decommisioning most of their carriers because they were too expensive and OBSOLETE. however, 9/11 came shortly, and no one was complaining about the carriers since then. (i admit carriers ARE useful against smaller and weaker countries, but not against a cruise/ballistics missile spammer like China lol )

actually about the laser part, i was referring to a sat based laser radar (to guide cruise/ballistics missiles to the carrier) which China developed and which some of our friends here didn't believe me.

can china eventually use emp weapons on a carrier? that will shut down aegis, than use the missles.

i dont kow how legit a tactical nuke is. you can think of it as a very powerful missles. as long its not used on a civilian population, i dont see why it can be used on enemy warships. they dont produce a huge amount of radiation either.

H5N1 said:

bd popeye




While various ways to defeat a carrier was discuss above like nuking it (too drastic, but a sure way), isolate it from its escorts (possible, unlikely nowadays) or evening develop a laser cannon (too far off).

I was thinking of a simpler and more direct way.

Bd poeye had explained the structure integrity of a modern carrier, but my point was their fuel and internal munitions in fact sank the carriers. Their flight decks were no doubt armored, so was the WWII carriers. Both the USS Forrester and USS Enterprise were overwhelmed by flames cause by JP5 on the deck. In fact, USS Enterprise came close to dying by those accidents.

Having valves and sprinkler system is not effective as all the aircraft aboard have a least a ton of JP5 each. And 2/3 of the aircraft are below deck. Shut the fuel valves would help, but that’s not the main problem. Heat generated by the aircraft fires might eventually ignite the fuel storage too. Water sprinklers help spread the fires of this nature.

While you assume that I mean that the carriers would be attack from the deck, I am not that naïve. Sea skimmers, especially the Sunburns tend to strike the side of the carriers, with so many aircrafts and munitions spread below deck. A single strike from a Skimmer, above or below deck, would ignite a serious fire situation. Both the Enterprise and Forrester had only accidents on the decks, under war conditions the deck is filled up with munitions and fuel.
It may not sink it, but would put it out of commission for months. I can’t imagine if the carriers would to be strike by multiple explosive hits. Which is possible, since PRC , I believe adopted a mass missile attack doctrine.

Click to expand...

The Forrestal and Enterprise fires on the Vietnam war was primarily the result of ordinance and jet fuel from aircraft that was already park on the deck. They were being prepared to be lauched. IN now way were both vessels under threat of sinking

When a carrier is about to be under attack, USN standard procedure is
1.) Lauched all the aircraft
2.) Flood the JP5 fuel lines with CO2

This is carrier ops 101, learned the hardway in World War II.

What you are proposing is an ambushed on an unprepared carrier at sea. This is a highly unlikely scenario. During war time scenario, carriers always have an AEW bird in the air.

IF such a scenario were to happen, US dmaage control team are very good. Check USS Franklin. US were able to save the ship.

Bd poeye had explained the structure integrity of a modern carrier, but my point was their fuel and internal munitions in fact sank the carriers. Their flight decks were no doubt armored, so was the WWII carriers. Both the USS Forrester and USS Enterprise were overwhelmed by flames cause by JP5 on the deck. In fact, USS Enterprise came close to dying by those accidents.

Click to expand...

The flight decks of WW 2 USN CV's were not armoured. I served on the USS Hancock in '74-'75. The Hancock was comissioned in 1944. The flight deck was made of teak wood laid over about 1" thick steel plating. Not amour. The wood on the flight deck was covered by an epoxy coating called no-skid.

The explosions on Enterprise and Forrestal were caused by exploding bombs and rockets that inighted the JP-5. Actually the explosions on the Forrestal were so severe damage after steering was affected. After steering is on the sixth deck. Three decks below the hangar deck. Dispite all this both ships were saved by super human efforts of the crew.

There was no other flooding or damage below decks and both ships returned to port for repairs.

While you assume that I mean that the carriers would be attack from the deck, I am not that naïve. Sea skimmers, especially the Sunburns tend to strike the side of the carriers, with so many aircrafts and munitions spread below deck. A single strike from a Skimmer, above or below deck, would ignite a serious fire situation. Both the Enterprise and Forrester had only accidents on the decks, under war conditions the deck is filled up with munitions and fuel.
It may not sink it, but would put it out of commission for months. I can’t imagine if the carriers would to be strike by multiple explosive hits. Which is possible, since PRC , I believe adopted a mass missile attack doctrine.

Click to expand...

A mass missle attack would severly damage a carrier. Please do not assume what I think. I am aware of sea skimmimg missiles. Firstly the sea skimmimg missiles would have to penetate the hangar deck door which would be closed in battle. The hangar deck itself rest on 3" thick armour. The hangar doors are armored with two slabs of 3" armour. The overall doors are abot 18"s thick. They are hollow inside to allow for operating mechnisims. If a missile were to penatrate the outer defences of a CV and strike a carrier as you said it would in the hangar deck the light water & sprinkler systems would go on. And start to extinguish the firealong with firefighting crews.. Multipule missiles hits? I doubt if that would be possibe unless the PRC planned to use a large number of it's missiles to try to sink a single CV.

in fact, i once read an article in my daily newspaper in 2000, which said that several Us top brass were considering decommisioning most of their carriers because they were too expensive and OBSOLETE. however, 9/11 came shortly, and no one was complaining about the carriers since then. (i admit carriers ARE useful against smaller and weaker countries, but not against a cruise/ballistics missile spammer like China lol

Click to expand...

You would never hear a US Navy admiral say that. USAF types hate Naval Air. Because they are not as mobile as Naval air. And they can't do what Naval air does on such short notice. And Naval air has superior pilots . Plus I don't know of any USAF or Army generals tha ever served on a CV.

Obsolete?? The USN has already cut the steel for their next class of CVN.



My post come from my 20 years experience serving in the US Navy and my son that has spent the last 7.5 years on active duty in the USN. As most in this forum know.

I served on five CV's. Kennedy, Nimitz, America,Midway and Hancock and other shore commands.

Thanks. You guys have great well thought out post! Keep it up!

MIGleader said:

can china eventually use emp weapons on a carrier? that will shut down aegis, than use the missles.

i dont kow how legit a tactical nuke is. you can think of it as a very powerful missles. as long its not used on a civilian population, i dont see why it can be used on enemy warships. they dont produce a huge amount of radiation either.

Click to expand...

yes that is one alternative. fact remains that the carrier is a sitting duck with a big bullseye on its forehead, its like Usa putting all her eggs in one basket. CHina's doctrine is different in the sense she believes in spreading out her forces, so even in EMP attack, she won't lose everything. ie 25 smaller ships wont get wiped out as easily as 1 big ship. (of course China still needs some medium/large sized destroyers for ballistics support)

fact remains that the carrier is a sitting duck with a big bullseye on its forehead, its like Usa putting all her eggs in one basket

Click to expand...

Sitting duck? I don't think so. But you just keep thinking that if you want to. All the eggs in one basket?..In case you did not know the USN has 12 CV's and 12 LHD/LHA's plus 266 other ships. And 110 auxilleries operated by combined crews of Navy and civillian personnel. I won't mention the USAF....

I pray tha war between the US and PRC never comes. And I do mean never.

bd popeye said:

Sitting duck? I don't think so. But you just keep thinking that if you want to. All the eggs in one basket?..In case you did not know the USN has 12 CV's and 12 LHD/LHA's plus 266 other ships. And 110 auxilleries operated by combined crews of Navy and civillian personnel. I won't mention the USAF....

I pray tha war between the US and PRC never comes. And I do mean never.

Click to expand...

is the Us able to field all 12 at the same place at the same time? are all 12 up to date? even IF somehow they managed to, i wouldn't exactly consider a $0.5 million (conversion from RMB) cruise missile exchange for $5.0 BILLION vessel as a fair deal.

I hope too that a war never breaks out between ANYBODY. there is always a peaceful solution.

is the Us able to field all 12 at the same place at the same time? are all 12 up to date? even IF somehow they managed to, i wouldn't exactly consider a $0.5 million (conversion from RMB) cruise missile exchange for $5.0 BILLION vessel as a fair deal

Click to expand...

No the USN could not send all 12 to sea at once. But last year the USN deployed 7 at once in operation Summer Pulse 2004. USN CV's are constantly being updated. Check that Northrup-Grumman page. All 12 have the same basic capablity. The US has no "second line" active duty forces.



A single missile could not sink a CV unless it was a nuke. Multipule missiles would severly damage a CV but not sink it. In my opinion.

At what cost would the PRC risk to sink a CV? How many losses would the PRC take to possibly sink or damage a CV? The cost would be high. Very high.
How many PLA forces would be nutrelized just to sink a CV?

War Sucks!

Gotta go help my fiance move... Bye 'till tomorrow.

chopsticks said:

yes that is one alternative. fact remains that the carrier is a sitting duck with a big bullseye on its forehead, its like Usa putting all her eggs in one basket.

Click to expand...

Actually all of the major combatants are EMP hardened and would not be effected.

As to the CVN's being sitting ducks...you could not be any more wrong. All of the world's navies, particularly potential belligerents have been trying to crack that nut for fifty and more years. No one has yet.

I do not believe, short of some high tech, asymetrical weapon that no one knows the PLAN has yet, that it is likely they will in the near future either.

I echo popeye's staements...I hope it never comes to that. But, God forbid it does, the US Navy will be prepared.

bd popeye said:

No the USN could not send all 12 to sea at once. But last year the USN deployed 7 at once in operation Summer Pulse 2004. USN CV's are constantly being updated. Check that Northrup-Grumman page. All 12 have the same basic capablity. The US has no "second line" active duty forces.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A single missile could not sink a CV unless it was a nuke. Multipule missiles would severly damage a CV but not sink it. In my opinion.

At what cost would the PRC risk to sink a CV? How many losses would the PRC take to possibly sink or damage a CV? The cost would be high. Very high.
How many PLA forces would be nutrelized just to sink a CV?

War Sucks!

Gotta go help my fiance move... Bye 'till tomorrow.

Click to expand...

chinas ot going to loose much if they just keep sitting there and launching missles at the CV. but thats being cheap. most likely the chinese dont have to sink the cvbg, but to damage it, and let it get low on supplies. that may teampt it to leave.

i dont think the u.s would want to put all 12 cvs at china. too risky and pulls em away from iraq...