Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

 

2007-06-17 00:33:43
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7024|Cambridge (UK)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jord wrote:

Why is it called a Nimitz?

That's not a very American name.
Tell me what an American name is exactly...
Little Bear.



























(though, I'm sure that's a hideously stereotyped generalization)

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-06-17 00:35:22)

2007-06-17 03:53:45
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6492|Albion

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

Spark wrote:

How would AA guns suppress the air defenses?
You do realise that a carrier's only offensive and mean defensive weapon are its fighters, right?
That's why he said Carrier Strike Group.  IE, more than one ship.
once the minefield is in place the CSG has two options, one wait for minesweepers from the US or two try and pass through on their own using the "any ship can be a minesweeper once" strategy. if they choose option two then the carrier and some others survive but its a technical victory.

if they stay, their invincible to missile attack and air attack, which means conventional naval weapon, torpedos and guns, were their relatively weak.
plenty of navys maintain vessels which out gun the carrier group alone. anyone remember the general belgrano?

to do that you need to get in range, which means you need to neutralize the air group.

its an unlikely set of circumstances which requires total strategic suprise to have a decent chance of sucess, but it is at least a suggested tactical solution rather than "use even more carrier strike groups!"
2007-06-17 03:53:48
Echo
WOoKie
+383|6978|The Netherlands

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Yeah, about those missiles...I have two words for you: Phalanx gun
http://www.montysminiguns.com/smallphalanx.jpg

They're much better in real life than BF2 makes them appear.
Did you know they are using them in Iraq now as anti-mortar also?
they really are changing things up over there.  QRF and counter battery were the only anti-mortars during OIF II.  although we did have the radar to detect where they were coming from.  but then haji tunes it on a hand cranked kitchen timer so hes long gone by then.
Cool, i didnt know that. I was wondering how they were moving these things around cause a Phalanx gun doesn't seem very portable. Then i found this video of a Phalanx gun on a trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpQBZF2sZQ&NR=1 Thats probably what you guys are talking about cause it looks like arty getting shot out of the sky in the end of the video. Is it used to defend bases or do they take it with them to the front lines to protect convoys etc?

Btw the dutch royal navy has goalkeepers. It has a the same gun as the main gun in an a-10, a 30mm gau 8 avenger. For the people that like big flames and military hardware here's an old video of the goalkeeper. Skip the first 1:20 minutes and then they start firing exorcet missiles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOmWaEXMBRw

Interesting topic anyways and i had some good laughs about all the comments. +1
2007-06-17 04:24:16
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6879|London, England
You guys didn't read about the SSN22 Sunburn missile.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … moskit.htm

So, you can almost guarantee that a couple of them fired simultaneously will reach the ships. It would have to be taken out before it's launched otherwise it's bye bye. Reaches Mach 3 in the Air and 2.2 on the sea, pretty damn fast. That's about 700m/s along the sea, which is roughly as fast as an AK47 bullet. I don't think we should be underestimating the capabilities of this missile. Just be thankful the Airforce with their super-cheating stealth aircraft would take it out before any ships get in range of it.
2007-06-17 06:45:56
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6461
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTHEL

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-06-17 06:46:27)

2007-06-17 07:05:08
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6879|London, England
Not really being fielded, but that's what they need. If it just uses thermal energy to bring stuff down, i'd imagine that they'd simply build missiles more heat resistant.

Does a USN (Or any country) Carrier Strike Group field an MTHEL or something similair?
2007-06-17 07:16:57
paranoid101
Ambitious but Rubbish
+540|6998
https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6385/drevildp6.jpg
HIM

+

Lots of these's
https://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5580/shark1ax7.jpg

=
https://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4876/oriskany485iv2.jpg


https://img352.imageshack.us/img352/5973/austinpowersshagadelicyu8.jpg
Unless they have him on-board
2007-06-17 07:33:58
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6604|Twyford, UK

Spark wrote:

I automatically thought of the NATO carrier force that got raped in 'Red Storm Rising' by missle barrage.
Pretty much the only way to do it. Combined attack by missiles from multiple angles, subs from long range, at night, in inclement weather, and with a LOT of equipment (Either long range bombers or an opposing carrier group). And even then, you wouldn't really sink the carrier so much as put it out of action for a good long while and require expensive repairs. And you'd lose a fair chunk of your equipment, too.

The best way to sink a nimitz-class is by sabotage. Dump weapons-grade plutonium into the reactor, and cause a meltdown. But then you'd have to get it on there, and then INTO the reactor.

Theoretical weaponry, either the giant fricken' space laser, or the proposed US space bombardment system of 'tungsten telegraph poles'. Punch one of them through the flight deck, and down she goes.

There's a reason the russians had nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and torpedoes.
2007-06-17 09:24:59
XanKrieger
iLurk
+60|6917|South West England
The Kraken, Its conventional to Davy Jones

Besides any damage done to it with the exception of subs or depth charges would only wound its tenticles
2007-06-17 09:48:35
jord
Member
+2,382|6937|The North, beyond the wall.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jord wrote:

Why is it called a Nimitz?

That's not a very American name.
Tell me what an American name is exactly...
Apache, Eagle, Raptor, Falcon, Warthog, Commanche.
2007-06-17 10:03:00
Twist
Too old to be doing this sh*t
+103|6782|Little blue planet, milky way
Technically speaking, the reason a carrier task force is considered a threat is the airplanes it carries, the japaneese had the right idea during WW2. Just destroy the deck, and the planes cannot land (and if done efficiently enough they can't use the catapult to take off either), in essence making the carrier group ineffecient at its task. I kinda doubt that you can get close enough with a bomber to destroy the deck though, after all that's what the planes and support ships are there for.. to kill off enemy threats.

I kinda doubt there's many conventional weapons that WILL cripple a carrier group, someone said mines, torpedoes, cruise missles. But in reality all of these can be defeated easily, and at worst you'll end up stopping the group temporarily, you wont stop it from operating. Also, even if you do manage to take out the carrier deck, Nato forces have access to mid air refuling virtually around the world, so using a carrier is today more of a logistical advantage than a strategic one. You save fuel, and give the pilots more downtime (or active flight time if need be). So you'll need to take out every single support option available to the airplanes, including airfields that can be used as alternate landing sites, acess to fuel, spare parts etc. etc. It's just no feasible. Even IF you use a tactical nuke, then you'll still only take out the logistical advantage.

But in todays world, it's not likely that the carriers of today will end up seeing any "definitive" action against them. While I'm not aware of the excat number of carriers in the hands of non NATO forces, but I'll have to guess the number is rather low, so I dont think anyone has ever thought that it was a requirement to take out a large number of carrier groups (other than the Warsaw pact countries during the cold war).

Today, the greast threat to NATO forces would probably have to be insurgency, not outright attack. So I'd have to venture a guess of sabotage against the ships nuclear powerplant as the most likely candidate to kill off a carrier today.
2007-06-17 10:06:15
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6604|Twyford, UK

jord wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jord wrote:

Why is it called a Nimitz?

That's not a very American name.
Tell me what an American name is exactly...
Apache, Eagle, Raptor, Falcon, Warthog, Commanche.
Those are aircraft, named as a model after a certain thing.

Ships are named after a place or a person, and the name of the first one of the class is applied to the class as a whole. They're named after Admiral Nimitz, a WW2 admiral.
And you need to do your research.
2007-06-17 10:27:47
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|7022

jord wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jord wrote:

Why is it called a Nimitz?

That's not a very American name.
Tell me what an American name is exactly...
Apache, Eagle, Raptor, Falcon, Warthog, Commanche.
It's named after Admiral Nimitz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Nimitz
2007-06-17 10:29:40
jord
Member
+2,382|6937|The North, beyond the wall.

Ridir wrote:

jord wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Tell me what an American name is exactly...
Apache, Eagle, Raptor, Falcon, Warthog, Commanche.
It's named after Admiral Nimitz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Nimitz
Yeah I got that after the first two times, but thanks anyway.

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard