How effective would a modern kamikaze be? Think: F22 Raptor or

like squashing an empty can to a wall

>>33977449
Not very. It would reduce combat effectiveness until next drydock. Affecting its seaworthiness is out of the question.

>>33977449
>>33977449

When you consider that modern carriers are pretty much designed from the ground up to absorb plane crashes? Completely shit.

>>33977449
why not use a cruise missle instead?

File: Aegis.jpg (70KB, 332x332px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 332x332px

>>33977449
Crazy idea, why not modernise the Kamikaze concept from WW2.

Take an aircraft, make it as cheap as possible so it's more disposable than a modern plane, maybe have it powered by a single turbojet. Gut most of the electronics from the front of the plane and replace them with an explosive charge, make them small and light so you can carry more of them, then replace the pilot with a homing radar.

>>33977635
This.
Worst case scenario it'd dead some birds that are ready up, and maybe some of the flight line guys if they didn't get out of the way in time. Depending on where, they could get back to business as usual within an hour.

>>33977659
Bam, tomahawk!

That's slower and less effective than a modern anti-ship missile

>>33977661
What if they crash into the bridge, so as to take out the leadership?

>>33977750
There's like five hundred other officers on the ship

>>33977750

The best thing to aim for would be the radar to be quite honest. A modern warship without radar is basically mission-killed.

>>33977766
Yeah but how many of them know how to command an entire ship, as opposed to just running their specific area?

>>33977750
There are hardened "battle bridges" deep within the ship manned by fully capable next in line of command officers who train constantly for such events.

>>33977659
kek

>>33977787
So do they just sit around doing nothing and being redundant until the main bridge gets wiped out, or do they have actual work to do?

File: web_120629-N-YQ369-022.jpg (47KB, 600x392px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x392px

WHAT THE FUCK IS CIWS????????????
(not to mention SAM)
Are you guys joking?

>>33977800
>doing nothing and being redundant
that's literally 80% of the navy and 90% of the air force

>>33977800
I'm not navy, but I'm sure they have some secondary jobs with some redundancy. Alot of ship combat is literally just sitting around monitoring things until you are actually needed, which may never happen.

It's not like a video game where one, or a few, players are frantically trying to run everything on the ship at once.

>>33977800
>>33977807
>>33977830

Imagine ever episode of Star Trek there's a whole secondary bridge crew that you never ever see somewhere on the ship half board out of their fucking minds nervously watching the shows stars knock it out of the park every fucking week. Secretly wish Picard would take a torpedo to the dome so you could get the ship to stop ignoring the prime directive, let the dumb fucking aliens conduct their genocide in peace, finally get that promotion and be able to fuck around on moronic away missions instead of just occasionally indirectly feeding the main cast a report on the hull integrity of deck B.

>>33977807
(You)

>>33977449
The only damage you could really cause is if you rammed the tower, and even that won't be critical.

>>33977449
heavy AShMs fill that role anon. They are also specifically designed to withstand CIWS at least to some degree and get through the ships hull, things a normal airframe sucks really hard at. Depending on the model they're also a lot faster and pull 20+G maneuvres during terminal approach.

>>33977659
raffed

>>33977805
>CIWS
It hit its own ship once.

>>33977659
I think we're done here

>>33977449
Why would you even do this?
The point of WW2 kamikaze planes was to be more precise than bombing the ship from above. Today you have precise weapons, no need to sacrifice a pilot.
Even in WW2, had it gone longer, eventually the kamikaze attacks would have stopped. The Japanese were already working on radio controlled rockets like the Germans had used on some allied ships, they just never got one operational before the war ended. Had they been able to mass produce them, they likely would have ended the kamikaze missions.

>>33977449
>implying you don't have to be a kamikaze to fly the Su-27 to start with

Well you could sort of design the plane to be more effective at it. Make sure your radar has as much jamming power as possible, probably going way over the power limits because you don't care if it burns up after two hours of use. Add external fuel tanks and replace most inner tanks with explosives. Add loads of small missiles and fire them all when getting close, like some hellfires or whatever. Just drop shitloads of flares and chaffs when you get in range of its Aegis until impact.

Maybe this way you could cause a decent amount of damage. But then you'd have to get close enough, with the main issue being the whole carrier group.

All you have to do to deduce that a modern kamikaze against a carrier is fucking retarded is look at the Forrestal incident. That was just as bad as any aircraft impact could be and it still managed to stay afloat and power.

>>33977449
obviously su-27 is rather effective against infantry. 77 killed 543 injured with a single one at air show.

>>33979855
remove crew and pointless small missiles ,add nuclear warhead and you have just described average ICBM

>>33979855
>Just drop shitloads of flares and chaffs when you get in range of its Aegis until impact.
AEGIS's range is whatever's in an F-35 sensor range these days.

>>33977449

I suppose that if they hit the island or, by some twist of bizarre luck, they managed to hit directly onto a lowered lift and impact the hangar deck then some serious damage could be inflicted.

Hitting the flight deck though, well think mosquito attacking an elephant.

>>33977787
CIC
The wndowed bridge is for shiphandling. The back wall is flight deck ops.

>>33980000
Nice digits.

The missiles were just there to try and keep the C-Rams busy or whatever. In any case the possible solutions would generally converge to something that already works.

>>33980031
At the same time you'd have to be quite hopeful to try and get a kamikaze aircraft through a whole carrier group.

This would leave one probable solution if they haven't thought of it already : fake distressed passenger aircraft. You could hide something quite beastly inside of a A-380 and if you can get it close enough...

>>33980234
>Aircraft in distress
>Diverting deeper over the ocean

>>33978937
>The point of WW2 kamikaze planes was to be more precise than bombing the ship from above

The point of Kamikazes was the Japanese realization that air attacks on USN task forces were not only costly, but their inexperienced crews rarely scored any damaging hits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

>>33980234
Except ever since 9/11 most militaries treat wayward passenger planes VERY seriously. Guaranteed there's a pair of Hornets trailing that A380 ready to shoot it down if it so much as gives the CSG a funny look.

>>33977449

That's a big carrier.

>>33977449

It would be extremely painful.

>>33977449
I mean, this is implying that
>fighters innaAO don't see it and fuck it to death
>aegis doesn't rape it to death
>CIWS doesn't do the same
>repeat for the rest of the CBG
it might nuke whatever's on deck and maybe fuck up the catapult but I highly doubt it would do shit to affect the ship's ability to be a ship.

>>33977449

There would be no survivors.

>>33977449

UU UU
UU UU

UU UU
UU UU

China has got hundreds of its Mig-21 knock-off J-7 that it is going to remove from service. Considering that the USA has been using its old Phantoms as QF-4 target drones for some time, surely China could rig up hundreds of these old jets as fuck-huge AShMs as part of a saturation attack.

>>33981102
For Jews

>>33977659
Too insidious.

Well, in Hellsing an SR-71 rammed a carrier at full speed from a vertical dive and didn't even fully destroy the flight deck. SO I doubt an Su-27 would do much.

it would probably go right through it since it's impervious to radar

>>33977945
I would watch the hell out of this if it were a tv show

>Richard Ayoade as Backup Spock

Who else should we cast?

File: su-33 with kh-41 & onyx.jpg (108KB, 1805x1239px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1805x1239px

>>33977449
Depends on the payload, but nowadays it is simply more effective to release your payload.

File: slow missiles.png (59KB, 861x231px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 861x231px

>>33977659
Kek. On a serious note though, why are there no fighter launched torpedoes?

File: 1423587298532.jpg (67KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1280x720px

>>33982888
missiles are faster and more accurate.

File: 5f262b02d0cbc49721dd1abe5ff5ea6a18ec4d01_hq.gif (526KB, 364x489px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 364x489px

>>33977486
>>33977635
>>33978013

Ok ok ok wait, I'm like mostly certain that modern ships aren't armored like WWII ships anymore. All the extra weight is put into more missiles for longer range engagements where armor won't be necessary.

Isn't this why anti-ship missiles fly low, fast, and don't have a shaped charge like tank shells and RPG warheads? Pretty sure they're just high explosive to cause damage, because modern ships are very lightly armored.

I'm probably wrong about this but I'm genuinely confused right now.

>>33977667
oh

right

>>33983812
Faster, accurate and useless against subs.

>>33982888
We have specific aircraft for asw. Usually helicopters for carrier groups or P3 orions for closer to shore stuff

>>33977750
star wars told me that when that happens, the entire ship is somehow disabled

>>33977830
I just imagine like I. The real navy there's like one salty as fuck weapons officer who does nothing but dip and spit incredulously into a platic bottle all day the bitch about his command and how his last ship was o, so much better.

>>33981198
>Considering that the USA has been using its old Phantoms as QF-4 target drones

Big fucking thank you for reminding me, asshole.