I've heard pundits wax on about swarm attacks by small boats.
I've read how antiquated it is to build US warships to warship standards...and why it would be better to copy the example of our European allies and to build them to mercantile standards.
Bullshit.
Do you remember this from a few years ago? Large ships don't go quietly into the night. After absorbing all that damage and without the benefit of Damage Control Parties, this ship still had to be destroyed by controlled INTERNAL explosives.
This from the Navy Site. DE
The photos below were taken on July 13, 2006, and show the BELLEAU WOOD being sunk by EOD set off bombs. On July 12, 2006, the ship had already taken Harpoon hits and gunfire from the USS MOBILE BAY (CG 53) but refused to sink. Thanks to Mario Silva-Hernandez for contributing the potos.
Good points.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess the bottom line is affordability. Large ships are great, but would not be available in sufficient number to cover all the 'little wars' and provide enough presence at the planned USN budget.
Man, that's a sad, sad sight.
I won't be surprised if the first underwater creatures on that new reef will be schools of Russian divers.
MMmmmmm' not sure about this. How many Harpoon's did it soak up? Harpoon has a small warhead compared to many Russian / Chinese designs, many of which also deliver more kinetic energy as they are supersonic. Lots of the stuff inside a ship which causes additional damage is removed for a sinkex - no fuel, no avgas, no munitions etc
ReplyDeleteI reckon a single MK48 AdCap torpedo detonated under the keel might still have broke her back !
Jed...
ReplyDeleteI get what you're saying but the LHA that was sunk...but the Harpoon is the western standard when it comes to anti-ship missiles...your point about the lack of gas and munitions is good too...but you forget that damage control parties, or the plus side of the equation was absent too ----
But i've got to push back on the Mk48 and the Sunburn speculation.... Sunburn is fast but that's it. Countermeasures---active and passive would turn it into a burning hulk...one that may or may not strike the ships (and with the rolling airframe missile it probably won't not to mention CIWS)....
The torpedo? Great point. I have no comeback for that one. Wish I did.
Nixie-decoy, perhaps prairie-masker...
ReplyDeleteOK, all good points, but I am not really thinking about the countermeasures, just what happens when something hits you.
ReplyDeleteYep your right, the whole DC part was removed from the scenario - of course, being a sinkex :-) I have never had to fill a real whole in a ships side, but I have had to fight a big engine room diesel fire (first team failed to extinguish before running out of air, I was on second team to go in! Not fun.....)
I think big ships are harder to sink too, I just don't think we can draw simple conclusions from this exercise.
thank goodness!~ i was coming up waaaaaaaaaaay short when it came to countering your arguments!
ReplyDeleteas far as your final statement about it being wise not to draw simple conclusions from a sink-ex...you're right again but just from a look at subsequent Navy action, i think its reasonable to believe that they were surprised by the robustness of these ships and wanted to determine exactly how tough a carrier would be to sink...
the fact that they've kept the results classified in my opinion means that they're either softer than we think (not likely) OR a much tougher nut to crack than many think....
and i still fall back on the ultimate proof. the Chinese are extremely practical...they wouldn't develop ballistic anti-ship missiles if the current generation of anti-ship missiles could get the job done....
Maybe it's time to replace the Harpoon and such. I wonder, how much damage an internally detonated thermobaric or thermite warhead would have done?
ReplyDeleteYou know, the Titanic was once cutting edge technology too. :)
the Titanic was built to mercantile standards...not combat...
ReplyDeletethermobaric warheads are generally anti-personnel in nature. thermite (white phosphorus?) is generally good against anything but I don't know if it is used in the role you imagine...
besides we're actually talking about launching a missile against the ship, the internally placed explosives was just an illustration of how hard it would be to sink these bad boys.
I should have made myself more clear.. sorry.
ReplyDeleteThe reference to Titanic. Relates to what people perceive as cutting edge today, but can quickly be dismissed as poor design & antiquated tomorrow.
As for therombaric & thermite. The idea did relate to a missile or similar, penetrating to the innards of a ship. With thermobaric capable of creating an even greater over pressure in confined spaces, as compared to HE. And thermite being able to create an unquenchable fire with related effects.... Thermite & 'willie pete' are different compounds. If that's what you're asking.