Look out, the Chinese have had it for years now!SargeV1.4 wrote:
an EMP.. bomb. If they even exist. They wouldn't sink the ships per se, but they'd leave em wide open to attack
An nuke? Or just an entire submarine force.
EMP is not a conventional weapon and are therefore ruled out.
Blow up it's power supply/engine/control station. Whichever is easiest.
you just need to take out the carrier that is the biggest threat so about 4 - 10 torpedoes and about another 10 harpoon missiles and if that don't sink her she ain't going to be able to fight do to damage control possitions being overloaded and the main deck would be useless
james bond and chuck norris
Last edited by kn0ckahh (2007-06-16 12:16:07)
Aliens! They would have super powerful lazerz that would be unstoppable!
B-5, I sunk your battleship!
No, you're not a nut job for that, but rather for just being the pessimistic ass that you are. And, I'm not even going to answer your weapons research question because its probably the most retarded question I have seen all dayBubbalo wrote:
Yes, because I certainly wasn't saying that just to point out the obvious fallacy of usmarine's statement.iamangry wrote:
I don't think the OP meant to include the United States' own weapon systems, because if they did, its a simple matter of sending the B-2's out for a bombing run, then following through with some F-22's and finally just coming in with another carrier group. But of course I don't know why I'm even saying this, because you're going to come back with some excuse like "it doesn't say only non-american technology in the op" or something like that, and I'll make some reply to the effect of what I just said, only being more deliberate in explaining my logic, and then you'll say something completely off the wall, and then we'll all be sick of arguing semantics with you instead of actually debating, and concede. So let me make you happy and concede outright. usmarine's a nutjob, I have no idea what I'm talking about (makes me LOL when it comes to defense tech), you're always right.
And a couple of B2s wouldn't make it past a carrier group's air defences.Yes, because I'm absolutely crazy for suggesting that anything but a deity could destroy a carrier group.Pernicious544 wrote:
You should think about the word "nutjob" and how it relates to you for a second.Bubbalo wrote:
Show me an example of two carrier groups attempting to.
Seriously, you say things like that, then attempt to seriously defend them, and then you wonder why some people consider you a nutjob?
If they're so good, why is the US still doing weapons research?
One curling stone
which bond? I'd say either sean connery or daniel craig. sean connery's cool but Daniel craigs the bad ass bond.kn0ckahh wrote:
james bond and chuck norris
definately not roger moore, he'd end up getting lost somewhere. definately not timothy whatever as he'd fall overboard. and pierce brosnan would just sleep with everyone on board.
EDIT for failure using the english language.
Last edited by Noobeater (2007-06-16 12:25:05)
It would probably take a massive attack from an equally sized strike group to defeat an opposing carrier strike group. A combination of long range cruise missles fired from ships, Exocet anti-ship missles fired from aircraft, and torpedoes fired from attack submarines would all have to be coordinated, have the element of surprise, and a little luck on their side to achieve this goal.
I would bet that if you send a couple of bomber squadrons with jammers in front that some of the missiles would make it through. just a handful would be enough for the first or second strikes, anti-ship missiles would cause quite a bit of damage and knocking out part of the screen would open the hole.
Heck, there are probably dozens of ways to take out a Carrier strike group, but for the most part the people on these forums are civilians who know little to nothing about the tatics of modern naval warfare. I'm a Marine grunt and I know very little of it too, but there are always ways to get around the ultimate defense.
Heck, there are probably dozens of ways to take out a Carrier strike group, but for the most part the people on these forums are civilians who know little to nothing about the tatics of modern naval warfare. I'm a Marine grunt and I know very little of it too, but there are always ways to get around the ultimate defense.
I suppose 3 carrier strike groups would do the trick.
What about that Chinese sub that surfaced near a strike group? One or two subs could disable/sink the carrier, but wouldn't be able to take out the entire group...so that's a nice suicide mission that would seriously hinder any potential enemy's war fighting ability. Since the US could simply send 4 more groups, it seems to be a futile idea.
When a sub surfaces like that, it usually means they are having a very bad day. Additionally, I don't think the US wanted to reveal its detection capabilities to the Chinese (and it was the Kitty Hawk--not a Nimitz carrier).RAIMIUS wrote:
What about that Chinese sub that surfaced near a strike group? One or two subs could disable/sink the carrier, but wouldn't be able to take out the entire group...so that's a nice suicide mission that would seriously hinder any potential enemy's war fighting ability. Since the US could simply send 4 more groups, it seems to be a futile idea.
Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-06-16 14:00:27)
A few dozen Jihad speed boats.
Yes, I am being serious.
Yes, I am being serious.
There's already a fix in progress for that:RoosterCantrell wrote:
A few dozen Jihad speed boats.
Yes, I am being serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_USV
I saw this thing on Future Weapons on the Discovery channel today. Pretty badass.
simple- TWO carrier groups should be able to defeat one carrier group. then beat the next group, etc.
I've always thought. Is inflatable rubber boats really smart for a bullet-rich environment?
Polyurethane is bulletproof.Mekstizzle wrote:
I've always thought. Is inflatable rubber boats really smart for a bullet-rich environment?
Either they are non inflated, and just solid rubber or some other material that would provide buoyancy, while still being bullet proof.Mekstizzle wrote:
I've always thought. Is inflatable rubber boats really smart for a bullet-rich environment?
even better.....italian frog men....Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Jihad-dolphins
so they just let a potential treat to come close to the carrier group, in my book thats just stupidCerpin_Taxt wrote:
When a sub surfaces like that, it usually means they are having a very bad day. Additionally, I don't think the US wanted to reveal its detection capabilities to the Chinese (and it was the Kitty Hawk--not a Nimitz carrier).RAIMIUS wrote:
What about that Chinese sub that surfaced near a strike group? One or two subs could disable/sink the carrier, but wouldn't be able to take out the entire group...so that's a nice suicide mission that would seriously hinder any potential enemy's war fighting ability. Since the US could simply send 4 more groups, it seems to be a futile idea.
In all fairness, World War 3 would've broken out had the carrier group destroyed that sub.herrr_smity wrote:
so they just let a potential treat to come close to the carrier group, in my book thats just stupidCerpin_Taxt wrote:
When a sub surfaces like that, it usually means they are having a very bad day. Additionally, I don't think the US wanted to reveal its detection capabilities to the Chinese (and it was the Kitty Hawk--not a Nimitz carrier).RAIMIUS wrote:
What about that Chinese sub that surfaced near a strike group? One or two subs could disable/sink the carrier, but wouldn't be able to take out the entire group...so that's a nice suicide mission that would seriously hinder any potential enemy's war fighting ability. Since the US could simply send 4 more groups, it seems to be a futile idea.