Which missile could sink or destroy a Nimitz class aircraft carrier?

>>29563106

> No nukes

That's cheating, because really that was all the Russian had planned to deal with carrier groups

Just one missile?

>>29563120
Maybe two

>>29563106
That'd have to be a pretty big missile

Whichever one causes enough loss of hull integrity to allow water to fill the vessel thus lessening its boyency.

>>29563155
Soo... A MOAB?

Bunker buster shot through the longest path while staying beneath water level.

>>29563106
>>29563115
This, in a real situation you bet your fucking ass Russia won't spare a nuke to sink that shit.

And before the FBI busts through my door, it's for a screenplay I'm writing

>>29563196
That's some bad wording there... meant Russia would definitely wouldn't care using a nuke to get the carrier.

>>29563221
Jesus christ what's wrong with me. I need to get some fucking sleep, geez.

I guess a REALLY small nuke or a FOAB

>>29563133
Fuckhuge bunkerbusters that hit it from opposite ends, longways at or below water level. Or a fuckhuge torpedo detonated right beneath it. Like, really big torpedo. Maybe.

I guess this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i9H50tHiHjs

GBU-57A/B
>not actually a missile

this is all assuming that the rest of the group is BTFO and you somehow got through the fighters and CIWS.
a FOAB would be the best option (russian superbomb as I'm assuming it's commies attacking) but even then you might need a few.
you're not gonna be able to sink one of these fuckers with a single missile/bomb, it's gonna take quite a few to cripple it.

File: P-270Moskit.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

A couple of these or a P-800.

You might as well use nukes because if you sink a Nimitz your capital city won't exist the next day.

>>29563414
the next day?
no way, your country would be a burning crater within 12 hours.

>>29563115
yeah salvo fire nukes and hope one gets through. i heard they also might use them for creeping emp but i can't remember where so that's probably just bullshit. they had conventional warheads as well, but probably would have been for non-battlegroups.

if shit got real i wonder how long it would have taken for nukes to be released for naval warfare. i don't think oppenheimer has ever talked about this. i know the us had sealance, was there ever a nuclear option for harpoon? pretty sure exocet had one.

Are there any weak spots? Like a reactor or the armory

>>29563459
HELLO GRU/PLAN/IRANIAN INTEL.

File: tumblr_mgrzo8N6F91qznvi3o1_500.jpg (54KB, 500x312px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x312px

>>29563429
>12 hours

>>29563414
In the story the carrier is from a PMC
>PMC can afford a multi billion dollar carrier

File: p-1000 vulkan.jpg (337KB, 768x461px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 768x461px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt#P-1000_Vulkan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit

I'm sure these three were designed to take out carriers.

>>29563479
well we may not know who sunk the carrier, so determining who did it, meeting about what to do, deciding to use nukes, and then by the time they all hit it'll be closer to 12 hours.

>>29563498
>deciding to use nukes
It's literally standing policy that we'll nuke you in response to sinking a carrier.
>1. By legal definition, only a nuke can sink a carrier.
>2. Carriers are considered US soil just like a piece of Kansas
So basically sinking a carrier is equivalent to nuking Omaha. You gon' get raped.

Op here, I'll go with a FOAB aimed at the nuclear reactor

>>29563459
sure, but they're deep inside the ship. ships that size rely on size for protection to a point, even today it's hard to cut through that much steel, accurately, with something fired at range, to hit something that is below the water like i believe the reactors are.

>>29563488
i'm sure most of those had nuclear options, and it's no secret that the soviet union intended to use nuclear weapons against us carriers. remember that during the cold war, nukes were always on the table. hell, the soviets even had nuclear torpedoes and i think lemay wanted to move the us air force away from conventional weapons all together.

some of those have conventional warheads weighing several hundrend kilograms (i think one was even 600kg, details escape me) and the momentum of those fuckhuge 3 ton missiles would carry them a long way inside a carrier before detonation, but carriers are big and the soviets (and now russians) never counted on just using one missile. the us navy is no different, the whole kill web idea is multiple weapons from multiple platforms frow multiple directions.

>>29563543
the reactor is like, buried in the ship.
it is literally the most heavily protected part, in manpower and armor.
maybe try shooting a ASM up in the hovercraft port to blow a hole in the hull there and flood the ass end.

>>29563556
They do and the conventional warheads had 750-1000kg warhead.

>>29563541

>carriers are considered American islands
>we give China shit for actually building islands

Kek

>>29563498
>well we may not know who sunk the carrier

i sincerely doubt this.

there are not that many countries that have the capability to do this. and you also have to be within a certain distance to do this also; the majority of countries can't put assets anywhere on the planet so you have limits of geography. the world is a small place and a fairly well know one. this tabular rassa shit doesn't apply in the real world.

>>29563556
>I'm sure most of those had nuclear options
All did, even the lighter missiles like the Moskit, Ametist and Malakhit had nuclear options.

>>29563594
That's because they're paving coral reefs to do it and doing it in contested waters. Totally different than a CSG in Okinawa or Yokosuka.

what would the US do to sink a ruski carrier?
let's say nukes are on the table and it's WW3, how would we sink their carriers?
we can't use ICBMs since targeting a moving thing isn't all that easy and the CEP may fuck us.
what weapon would we use?

>>29563594
a ship is sovereign territory of nation flag it carriers ...

>>29563589
yeah, real big fuckers. it would do huge (yuge) damage no doubt, but i would still hazard you'd need more than one.

military planners don't generally operate on 'we'll use just enough' in these situations. it's pretty much 'as many as we can, more the better, fuck those guys and everyone standing next to them'. they're going to use multiple rounds to improve the chance of penetrating defences and doing enough damage to kill once they do.

>>29563622
We'd reactivate/build more of the aerial AShM cruise missiles that were designed for the job. Basically do a supersonic driveby in a B-1B going "meep meep" roadrunner style.

>>29563622


>what would the US do to sink a ruski carrier?

nothing?

not bother as its more harmful to russia afloat than sunk ?

in reality, attack submarines

basically weapon everyone will use against major surface ships if they have access to it

>>29563622
Probably a shit ton of bombers and a few MOABS coming from an army noob like me

>>29563652
>meep meep fuck you
eheheheh

>>29563652
I imagine a missile with a dick paint scheme and a loud ass speaker saying "you Fucked up now boiii"

>>29563594
I think what you're forgetting is that they're unfriendly gooks. Regional hegemonies are for real people.

>>29563613
BURN BABY BURN COLD WAR INFERNO

>>29563622
probably a sub and a bunch of torpedoes. alternatively air attack and multiple missile salvos from multiple directions using the whole kill web concept. lrasm will probably be a thing, and maybe if there is a need they might buy some of the upcoming perseus of the brits and the frogs. but lots of lrasm would probably suffice.

>we can't use ICBMs since targeting a moving thing isn't all that easy

impossible for an icbm, which is a specific kind of nuclear missile. the chinese thing is not an icbm, it's a missile with a ballistic trajectory and probably won't work, not in the least because of trying to mix guidance with re-entry. the soviets tried, there are reasons to do with physics.

>>29563409
i don't care what fanboys say, that is fucking impressive and i wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. and neither does the us navy, which is why aiegis and layered air defense is a thing.

>>29563689
Isn't that the general message of any cruise missile?

Hard mode:
> Be a PMC
>enemy carrier coming
>have inside help from the carrier
>can't use nukes, too shit of a PMC
>wat do?
>

>>29563622
the threat level from a russian "carrier" is just as big as a russian tug boat. I can't imagine it being any kind of priority unless it was near US forces, in which case it'd be raped by all possible conventional means.

>>29563743
given the level of unreal made up bullshit in that entire premise, just make some bullshit up and call it magic. it's not like you're fooling anyone anyway.

>>29563743
Have the inside guy negotiate terms of surrender.

>>29563743
this is some vidya level shit, so;
press X to sabotage reactor

>>29563746
I don't think the Navy is as blaise as you are.

>>29563784
The best (only?) post-Soviet carrier airframe they have is the MiG-29K which gets raped up the ass in BVR by USN aircraft.

Op here, today I learned that
>I need at least two bigass missiles
>carriers are useless
>this whole premise is bullshit
>my best bet would be a nuke

Thanks /k/ need to re-write at least 40 pages

>>29563808
>carriers are useless
Wat. There's absolutely nothing in the thread that supports that unless you're specifically referring to a Ruski or Chinese ramp-carrier versus a USN CSG.

>>29563781
Filled with quick time events and 60 minute cutscenes

>>29563371
while i agree that bomb would fuck the carrier's shit up i wonder if it would actually sink

seems like it would leave a smoking barely floating charred wreck that would be barely worth salvaging

>>29563808
you're somewhat right.
what you need to change/learn is;
>at least 2 giant as all fuck missiles/bombs
>nukes are best bet
>the thought of sinking a carrier is retarded since the country that does so will be glassed
carriers are still useful, don't get us wrong.

>>29563818
That, and also that probably that blowing up a fucking carrier would make you more wanted than Isis
Except you don't have oil

>>29563800
Russians don't have western style carriers. That small airwing is backed up by some of those nuclear tipped supersonic missiles we've been talking about, and is used close to Russian shores and landbased air coverage, in conjunction with surface and sub-surface escorts.

This shit isn't a high noon draw down at magic place, middle of the ocean. These systems were designed for a doctrine and that doctrine includes a geography. So you have to be a bit careful when you evaluate how shit works.

Personally I believe the US Navy would win, but the idea that they would be laughing and drinking beer and doing it in their spare time is fucking stupid. If it was a shooting war they would absolutely be taking it extremely seriously because the fact of the matter is if they don't, they run an unacceptable level of risk of getting fucked up.

So no, the USN would not be as blaise as you are.

>>29563858
Of course they wouldn't be blasé as some anons are, but the fact remains that the odds of the Russians winning such an exchange are miniscule.

Didn't the US Navy test their carrier security by sending one of their own SF teams to infiltrate and "assassinate" the captain of the carrier and they actually managed to do it because security was such shit?

Does anyone know what I'm talking about I just remember reading about it a long time ago and can't find it.

Let's just say fuck reality and say that :
>The carrier is owned by a PMC
>It's headed to North Korea
>There are two giant fucking missiles inside a military base in an island off the coast of Alaska
>You are a shit tier PMC
Wat do?

>>29563106
A carrier is a mobile airstrip.

How do you destroy an airstrip? All you have to do is fuck up the runway so planes can't take off and land.

Same goes for a carrier.

>>29563914
Turn off the Xbox and go play with my guns.

>>29563914
>shit tier pmc owns a Nimitz
Wait Wat? Did I read that wrong?

>>29563914
let the PMC rape the gooks and go have a snack

>>29563914
And...
>you have to solid snake the shit out of this, disabling the defenses because... The fuck do I know, I'm not the writer...
Oh wait

>>29563952
No, the other PMC owns a nimitz, you own a few helicopters and a couple of guns

>>29563578
>hovercraft port
>Nimitz class
Wat

>>29563881
the odds of the russians winning that exchange is failing to shoot down one of those nuclear shitkickers in a hostile ew environment and contested airspace. that's it. one of those is putting your carrier out of the fight, even if it doesn't sink it, and even if it's conventional it's still serious damage.

if even one of those detonates, shit is getting real bad real fast. and don't talk about 'glassing your country' because this is the russians we're talking about, and they can glass right back.

i doubt that anyone in the navy takes this so lightly as you blatantly do.

>>29563979
shit, I was thinking about that back open part, not the hovercraft entry thing.

>>29563914
wait what

>>29563975
wait what

>>29563939
>>29563992
>let's just say fuck reality and logic...

FFS, y'all do realize there are different size nukes, RIGHT?
Russia/ China, whoever isn't going to waste a full-on ICBM on a CVN battle group, but they probably would use a nuke torpedo or a tactical sized nuke(15KT) which is enough to take out several city blocks.

>>29564017
>but they probably would use a nuke torpedo or a tactical sized nuke(15KT)
Granit and Bazalt carry warheads in the 300-500kt, Moskit has a 100kt+ warhead.

Remember, this is for a movie, and as we all know movies are soooo accurate...

>>29564017
you do know icbms can't target moving objects and those russian supersonic attack missiles had warheads up to 500kt don't you?

>>29564064
if a movie is too fantasitical then it rapidly becomes shit.

go all the way or don't. there's no such thing as halfway crooks.

>>29564105
>>29564017
Kh-22 which would be the main missile used to attack a carrier is up to 1Mt

>>29564119
OK, so I go full B-movie cheesiness or metal gear cheesiness?

>>29564149
do you mean nuking the carrier and having a reactor meltdown, or going sneeki breeki and disabling it?
I like explosions, go B movie.
just look up how to get the explosions to sound and look right, that will go a long, long, long way.

>>29563106

The damage control systems on carriers are mega-top-secret. Nobody here can tell you what it would take to actually sink the bugger. But realistically, I wouldn't be confident with anything less than a nuclear torpedo.

>>29564133

mother of fucking god. i never bothered checking the warhead on the kitchen.

russians are crazy.

from memory i think a 2mt device gives third degree burns out to 45 miles. shit.

>>29564171
Either way there will be an explosion, I was just saying if either completely fucking balls to the wall B-movie or semi realistic but still cheesy metal gear style

>>29564235
balls to the wall for sure.

>>29564235
Pretty much like the beginning of MGS 2

>>29564017
So, you think that if somebody used a 'small nuke' to destroy a carrier the Navy would just say " well it was only a small nuke so we'll just overlook that one?

>>29564207
>Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter, and was 12 m (40 ft) deep.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22

As much as I love the west, I don't think anything is walking away after that. I think you're trying to stay afloat and rescue as many people as possible.

Expect this to release in like 7 years, it won't be easy but I'll try to at least sell the script, thanks /k/, I'll include an Easter egg for you

Probably the Chinese missiles. God they are so strong.

>>29564298
>I'll include an Easter egg for you
there has to be at least one dragon dildo/mosin nagant in the movie.

Now I just need a name for:
The PMC
The "fictitious" missiles
The carrier
The location of the missiles
It will take a while
>Inb4 nigger island

File: Tu-16 Badger Medium-High Bomber2.jpg (249KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1000x667px

>>29563115

>>29564235
you're not getting semi-realistic with a pmc nimitz. you'd have to recast your scenario with a corporation run world a la cyberpunk, because nothing else is going to explain how the fuck a bunch of ex-mil cowboys got the capital for (or the ability to even lay an order for) a 10bn nuclear powered ship, several billions worth of aircraft, all the ordnance, fuel, pilots (take how long to train? infrastructure infrastructure), 6000 officers and rates (see pilots) and the fucking escorts to run a carrier, not to mention covering the day to day running costs. the majority of countries in the world can't even do that.

>>29563409
Wouldn't sink a carrier. Definitely fuck it up, but not a guaranteed kill. Mission kill, maybe a mobility kill depending on where it hits, but you'd probably need 8 or so to sink it. Carriers have compartmentation and reserve buoyancy like you can't even begin to imagine.

>>29564316
Ok, and a cargo bay named /k/

>>29564330
nigger island.

>>29564343
Remember, b-movie

>>29564330
>PMC: Valdus International
>missiles: tundra-9
>carrier class: stalker (this could be our easter egg)
>carrier name: firestorm
>island: roosevelt atoll (reference to bikini atoll and FDR in the atomic age)
thoughts?

>>29564133
An anon did the math a while ago regarding if somehow every Tu-22 armed with max load of KH-22's magicked their way into optimal firing range and let loose at once.

A single Arleigh-Burke armed with a half load of ESSM had enough missiles to counter all incoming even with assuming the reported 33%Pk and sending 3 missiles per incoming. Hopefully some anon still has the screen cap somewhere with more of the math and numbers.

>>29564346
I'd worry about the penetration, and hitting something vital like fuel or ordnance stores. If it does I would say that would kill it. Something that large going that fast is going to penetrate a long way, so it isn't outside the realm of possibility that it's going to collect something. Which is probably a design consideration in the missile.

No doubt a consideration for the ship as well, but passive protection can only protect so much. Which is why so much is spent on active systems.

/k/ the movie
Featuring:
Kurt Russel as :"hard serpent"
Gary busey as: "colonel Gorbachev "
Jamie Lee Curtis as: Necessary love interest
And Christopher Walken as: "octagon"

>>29563702
>there are reasons to do with physics.

And quantum may very well be involved.

>>29564399
Pretty good, but I like nigger island better

>>29564417
yeah, i was there. it was just a numbers exercise and assumed everything working perfectly from detection to interception. i am not sure that actual navy planning is so simplistic, especially after reading that pdf on super vs subsonic missile design. i would be interested to see how the navy actually plans for this sort of thing and what sort of algorithms they use.

>>29564330
>The PMC
Fast Action Group
>The "fictitious" missiles
ashm 88
>The carrier
SS Browning
>The location of the missiles
Gookistan Peninsula

One more question
Is a G36 a reliable gun usable by mercenaries?

File: xm8.jpg (23KB, 600x301px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x301px

>>29564498
it's a meme gun honestly.
have them use the XM8 or something.
pic related

>>29564465
The 33% Pk accounts for errors but harder portion would be actual aquisition/tracking/engagement of that many targets. That's were Aegis and the other ships in the flight + internal guidance comes in.

As for actually realistically defending against something like that, the scenario itself is pretty much impossible. The Kill Chain would be detected well before it got to the actual firing portion of the attack. Just way to many things to give the attack away and alert the Strike Group.

>>29564537
>The Kill Chain would be detected well before it got to the actual firing portion of the attack. Just way to many things to give the attack away and alert the Strike Group.

even in a heavily contested ew environment?

Quick summary of the story:
>Inb4 MGS V rip-off
Be me, member of a mercenary group off the coast of South Korea
Successful raid opperation
O shit we're getting attacked
My helicopter loses control and crashes
Awake one year later, totally out of condition, all my friends are dead

1/??

>>29564568
>even in a heavily contested ew environment?
Well the US would have six heavily contested EW environments, while the Russians would only have two. Even accounting for errors, say 1/3rd, the US would still have 2 more. Leading to the final defeat of Al Qaeda and their Iranian backers.

>>29564620
Training montage
Buy shitty gear off amazon
Buy a meme gun
Kidnap an FBI agent
Interrogate him until he works with me(duhh)
Tells me that two missiles are located off the coast of Alaska
2/??

>>29564664
Decide to get revenge
Sneak that shit
Steal a briefcase containing the launch codes for said missiles and better gear
We make a plan to launch both of those missiles to a stalker class aircraft carrier
Sneak that shit
??????(spoilers)

So, what do you think?

>>29564422
Missile definitely has mass. However, unless it's got some kind of hardened penetrator, it's going to expend most of its energy on probably the first 10 bulkheads/decks it encounters. No doubt about it, every compartment it encounters will be sterilized. There's a lot of compartments, though. You'll need 2 or 3 hits in the same spot to seriously affect stability.

One hit in the hangar deck would probably carry all the way through, although that wouldn't affect stability or mobility at all.

I don't know enough about the structure of AShMs to hazard an educated guess. Reviewing the reports of the Stark and Sheffield incidents is of limited utility.

>>29564713
sounds cool, man.
i hope there's a big battle scene other than the missiles getting launched, gotta have that buildup

>>29563240
>>29563221
>>29563196

I think you mean "Russia would definitely be willing to use a nuke to sink a CBG".


And that would be fuck-huge escalation that would result in our own nuclear subs straining in retaliation.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play!

>>29564733
There will be, at the beginning
Also I need a name for the movie

>>29564814
Iron Cog Hard
The Ghost Hurting

>>29563325
This make me wonder. How deep would a bunker buster get coming straight down on the flight deck?

I always assumed the deck is armored. Is it?

>>29565005
Yes, but not much. Theres a couple inches of steel and Kevlar spall lining, mostly so if a bomb goes off on deck it doesn't compromise the entire flight deck.

>>29563196
That was exactly what the soviet union had planed for dealing with the CBGs. When you have plenty and spare bombs to turn all of your enemies cities, airfields and navel bases to glass, you might as well have a few dozen for the floating airfields as well.

>>29563594
The claim is that Carriers are regarded as part of the US, not that they meet the full legal definition of an island and thus qualify for territorial waters and an EEZ. That would be silly, since only a Chinese person could confuse a man made construct with a naturally occurring island.

>>29563106
Consider casting a smaller carrier, eg:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_aircraft_carrier_Pr%C3%ADncipe_de_Asturias
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet

or a flexible combination of the above and an amphibious assault ship:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I_(L61)

or perhaps with some of it's own self defence weapons
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga-class_helicopter_destroyer
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov-class_aircraft_carrier

All of these options would be a little more believable than a PMC with the most powerful warship ever commissioned, and work fine with rule of cool.
Bonus: all of these are much easier to hit with a missile due to smaller and less capable escort, Early Warning aircraft and CAP.
Bonus II: you might even be able to hire Chakri Naruebet filming for like three-fiddy

File: tp-hitsplan02.jpg (176KB, 1984x309px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1984x309px

>>29565005
The supercarriers of the postwar era, starting with the Forrestal class — nearly 200 feet (61 m) longer and 40 feet (12 m) wider in the beam than their World War II counterparts – would eventually be forced to move the strength deck up to the flight deck level as a result of their great size; a shallow hull of those dimensions became too impractical to continue. The issue of protection had no influence on the change; the Forrestal class had an armoured flight deck[43][44][45][46] of at least 1.5"[47][48][49] thickness. Some of the follow on classes to the Forrestals also had armoured flight decks[50] although deck armour is of little to no use against modern anti-ship missiles, it may help limit the damage from flight deck explosions. The experience of World War II caused the USN to change their design policy in favour of armoured flight decks:

The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on Enterprise's flight deck in 1969. The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks.

Tirpitz had 3.9 to 4.7 in armor deck and got sunk by 3-4 tallboys. But dunno what if any is the armor of todays carriers? Maybe 3-5 MOP's could sink Nimitz-class?

>>29564017
Russia could happaly waste a dozen warheads of any old size they like on each and every CBG, since their arsenal is roughly the size of 4 X-Boxes. China on the other hand has a pint size arsenal and would indeed have to carefully chose where to use their warheads.

>>29563594
>>29563632
>>29566059

Ships are not 'American islands' or 'sovereign territory'. Their legal standing is much closer to a citizen made up of many people and their property, and they are subject to the laws of whoever's territory they enter. Arresting or attacking them risks an international incident, but does not constitute a direct attack on any sort of territory.
Warships in particular, like all military forces, are representatives of their governments and therefore have significant diplomatic standing, but this usually stops short of actual immunity.

This means it's not nearly so simple as 'attack our carrier and we nuke the shit out of you'. Response will be proportionate and depend on such things as:
-Who did it
-Specifics of relations and disputes beforehand
-Why they did it
-How hard they tried
-How much damage they actually achieved/how many people they killed
-Balance of power/how hard they can hit back

File: The Sum of All Fears (2002) - Aircraft Carrier is Attacked mute.webm (2MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x266px

>>29563106
>sink or destroy a Nimitz class aircraft carrier
>no nukes
It doesn't work like that, anon. Specifically _sinking_ a 100000 tonne bathtub simply screams for a nuke. Now mission kill is a whole different story.

One? No chance of getting through.

File: john_mccain.jpg (17KB, 250x332px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x332px

>>29566200

All that armor couldn't protect the forrestal against it's own dipshit pilots.

File: 4k18 r-27k.jpg (161KB, 1417x824px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1417x824px

>>29563702
>the soviets tried, there are reasons to do with physics
No. The missile system never became operational, since every launch tube used for the R-27K counted as a strategic missile in the SALT agreement, and they were considered more important.

>>29563836
>the thought of sinking a carrier is retarded since the country that does so will be glassed
I highly doubt that 300+ million American citizens would want to die for a carrier.

>>29566200
>But dunno what if any is the armor of todays carriers? Maybe 3-5 MOP's could sink Nimitz-class?

Carriers dont and have never relied on armour to defeat large munitions, they do they rely on is; not being in range of large munitions, the munitions never hitting due to AA defence or Fleet Group defence or if in the catastrophic event that these fail... minimising the damage done.

to minimise the damage done to the carrier itself, compartmentalisation, internal bulkhead design and materials and damage control are key, and this is well known, there were a great many carriers lost due to poor damage control and contruction.

>>29563622
I have rarely seen ol' Kuzo in a strike group so it would be pretty easy I think.

>>29567565
111,000 of them died for 2400 militarymen and 4 naval vessel sunk, including some older battleships.


hundreds of thousands signed up after 9/11 for 3,000 civilian casualties
you under estimate the recruiting power of American Fury

>>29563106
A number of different ones could

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos_(missile)#Specifications

Those are all in the same family of weapons system, and yes I do know that the first one was design to be nuclear armed. However I do believe that it was refitted with HE warheads as part of a draw down of Russia nuclear forces.

File: icbm warheads hit kura missile test range.webm (475KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 320x240px

>>29567593
The difference is that now the consequences would include seeing this from your backyard.

File: 1144 pyotr velikiy & 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov & 1164 marshal ustinov.jpg (135KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x768px

>>29567589
They just don't really have anywhere to deploy such a strike group outside of military exercises.

>>29567595
>However I do believe that it was refitted with HE warheads as part of a draw down of Russia nuclear forces.
They have always had conventional warheads, nuclear was jut an option.
Only the P-5 was nuclear only, then converted.

>>29567611
whose backyard? whoever sunk a carrier

>>29567611
I never thought they would be so slow, i thought they'd be like 5x faster. But they sure are beautiful tho

>>29567650
>"Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."
Your very own backyard.

>>29567611
that's the most beautiful form of destruction i've ever seen

>>29563106
Any missile if there's enough of them.

>>29567593

>American fury...

The rest of the world refer to this as something less flattering - under the circumstances you described.

>>29567593
You are literally repeating a 1950s meme if you think Americans went to war to avenge Pearl Harbor.

File: the cook operator tatas under siege.webm (3MB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 960x540px

>>29563743

They covered this topic in the movie Under Siege but with the Missouri instead.

Webm kinda related.

>>29563414
Source?

This is such a bad meme.

>>29563541
No they are not.

>>29564498
>>29564521
The G36/XM8 system (internally they're pretty much the same) is the most reliable of currently fielded service rifles.

File: 300px-Zuni_unguided_rocket.jpg (11KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x200px

If you're counting by actual confirmed kills, the Zumi rocket:

>In July 1967, a devastating fire broke out on board the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. An electrical anomaly had caused the discharge of a Zuni rocket on the flight deck triggering a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 134 sailors and injured 161. At the time, Forrestal was engaged in combat operations in the Gulf of Tonkin, during the Vietnam War. The ship survived, but with damage exceeding US$72 million (equivalent to $511 million today), not including the damage to aircraft.[2][3] Future United States Senator John McCain and future four-star admiral and CINCPACFLT Ronald J. Zlatoper were among the survivors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

>>29563541

>Legal definition

Fuckingwhat?

>>29563409

So 2 different missles targeted on the bow of a stationary rust potted barge?

That is the ace in the hole?

Would a cruise missile ranged ASROC be able to achieve a kill by detonating under the keel?

>cruise missile in range
>engaging
>o shit where'd it go
>now there's a torpedo??

>>29563155
The problem with that is getting the water to fill the vessel. All warships nowadays are compartmentalized so if you blow a hole in a few rooms those will fill with water a few passageways but that's all because the ships are sectioned of to make them hard to sink