Chinese carrier weapon

[Max2147]

That's what we built the SM-3 for.

Actually, since it needs external guidance to hit a moving target that can change direction, the best way to defeat an ASBM would probably be through some form of ECM to mess with the guidance system.

[Letum]

Would carriers really be of use in a war of super powers anyway?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Letum

Would carriers really be of use in a war of super powers anyway?

They would still be useful in delivering tactical nuclear ordnance deep into enemy held territory by means of their airwings.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

They would still be useful in delivering tactical nuclear ordnance deep into enemy held territory by means of their airwings.

If they survive long enough. A submarine with nuclear missiles has better chances.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If they survive long enough. A submarine with nuclear missiles has better chances.

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.

[Steel_Tomb]

Does anyone still actually have nuclear tipped fish? I thought they were all gone, replaced in favour of cruise missiles and conventional fish.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.

1. For example the old TLAM had a range of 2500 km. It carried submunition warheads, nuclear warheads (wiki says 200 kt), or fragmentation warheads.

2. Airwings can't take off from 4000 m below sea level.

3. If the duel is modern CBG versus modern SSN, I bet my money on the SSN. Even more money I would bet if the sub is a modern SS and the CBG runs into it. Defending a CBG versus a Gotland or 212 trapping the CBG in transit must be a nightmare.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

1. For example the old TLAM had a range of 2500 km. It carried submunition warheads, nuclear warheads (wiki says 200 kt), or fragmentation warheads.

2. Airwings can't take off from 4000 m below sea level.

3. If the duel is modern CBG versus modern SSN, I bet my money on the SSN. Even more money I would bet if the sub is a modern SS and the CBG runs into it. Defending a CBG versus a Gotland or 212 trapping the CBG in transit must be a nightmare.

I take your point about the below sea level launch platform but still consider an airwing capable of carrying a far superior number of weapons and capable of penetrating closer to the target before launch (less chance of intercepting the incoming and putting all your eggs in one basket........one or two subs as opposed to a few dozen aircraft).

How embarrassing if an old Iranian (ex Soviet/Chinese or whatever) gets lucky and takes out your sub.

Better to get in there with stealth equipped assets or fighter and ecm units, take out the radar and fighters in your path, then sit on the first banger like Dr Strangelove

[Letum]

What kind of tactically achievable objectives might there be after the
ICBM/Submarine strategic exchange is fully complete?

I readily confess ignorance on the topic, but I don't see what is left to do
after the destruction of all major cities on both sides and the depletion
of most strategic weapons.

Isn't anything a carrier could do after that just flogging a dead horse?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

But would they have the same range and numbers/varieties of ordnance that said airwing could carry?

Remember, I'm making reference to tactical nukes here, not strategic or ICBM.

Submarines can launch TLAM with tatical nuclear warheads no ?
Its more cost effective to have a sub launch 20 TLAM from somewhere in the pacific undetected.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Submarines can launch TLAM with tatical nuclear warheads no ?
Its more cost effective to have a sub launch 20 TLAM from somewhere in the pacific undetected.

TLAM-N was taken out of service in the early 1990s and is no longer carried by US subs. However, I don't know whether taken out of service means:
1) Either warhead and/or cruise missile may have been destroyed to comply with treaties governing tactical nuke cruise missiles.
2) They may have been stored. In who knows what condition/shelf life and whether the warheads are still on them or elsewhere.

PD

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Submarines can launch TLAM with tatical nuclear warheads no ?
Its more cost effective to have a sub launch 20 TLAM from somewhere in the pacific undetected.

I wasn't aware they still had them...as far as I was aware, the BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Nuclear (TLAM-N) with a W80 nuclear warhead was withdrawn from service as part of the Intermediate - Range Nuclear Forces Treaty