Chinese carrier weapon

[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?

[Max2147]

Short of nuclear war, the CVBG is still much more useful than the submarine. A submarine can still only control a small bit of water - its sensors can't detect anything too far away. A CVBG can dominate a large swath of ocean, thanks to its long range aircraft and their radars.

[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

[TheSatyr]

What is with you people's fascination with tactical nukes? NO NUKES should ever be used...by any one...in any circumstances.

You seem to think tactical nukes can be used with impunity...they can't. The first time a tactical nuke goes off,you can expect someone to launch ICBMs at whoever used the tac nuke. Simple reasoning,any one willing to use tactical nukes would be considered also willing to use ICBMs. It WILL escalate. Only a fool would consider nukes a viable option for any military reason.

The use of any kind of nuke by any one would be flat out suicide.

The only ones that I can see ever using a nuke would be a terrorist organization. Terrorists have nothing to lose. Nations do.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

The land-based variant was withdrawn, the Yankees insisted that sea-based weapons shouldn't be counted and got their way. It is one of the reasons many Russians are so bitter about INF - because come on, how easy it is for those sea based Tomahawks to be deployed in a way to give the US its INF missile ability back...

Later, IIRC in 1991 some kind of agreement happened, then the TLAM-Ns were withdrawn.

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

What is with you people's fascination with tactical nukes? NO NUKES should ever be used...by any one...in any circumstances.
You seem to think tactical nukes can be used with impunity...they can't. The first time a tactical nuke goes off,you can expect someone to launch ICBMs at whoever used the tac nuke. Simple reasoning,any one willing to use tactical nukes would be considered also willing to use ICBMs. It WILL escalate. Only a fool would consider nukes a viable option for any military reason.
The use of any kind of nuke by any one would be flat out suicide.
The only ones that I can see ever using a nuke would be a terrorist organization. Terrorists have nothing to lose. Nations do.

This is good old MAD theory. One must wonder how many nations really subscribe to it any more.
It is probably true, considering our indoctrinated nuke antipathy, that anyone that has crossed his mental barriers and used a nuke is probably more likely to launch ICBMs, but frankly, if I really believe that, I'll probably be more reluctant to provoke him (if he has ICBMs as well).
Ultimately, while nuclear deterrence depends on everyone pushing a fierce face that this is the position they'll be taking, it is far from clear that anyone will take such a step should some leader be "brave" and step into the unknown world.

Originally Posted by roman2440

The ASBM is an interesting twist in carrier warfare, though it isn't the carrier killer its made out to be. At max range it still takes 12 minutes to target, and a carrier in war time should be moving at quite a clip.

It can only be moving at 30 knots or so, which is about 1000 yards/minute. In 12 minutes it can only move within a 12km circle. That's not a very large area to search. If you knew its course, even better - a carrier will waste minutes just trying to alter its vector.