Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- From: "Kronoman" <kronoman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Jul 2006 01:31:23 -0700
Fred J. McCall wrote:
dbohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
:Say the chinese launched a strategic nuke missle against a US carrier
:group. Assume the nuke is a 200 KT yield single warhead per missile.
:Say they launch 3 such missiles and the flight time is 8 minutes and
:the accuracy of the missiles is 750 meters. Assume the launch is
:detected and trajectory calculated within 2 minutes leaving 6 minutes
:before impact.
Well, first let's look at what happens. The carrier has sufficient
warning to move almost 6 km. Significant blast radius (20 PSI
overpressure) for a 200 kt weapon is on the order of a kilometer and a
a half and prompt radiation (500 REM zone) radius is like two and a
third kilometers.
:What is the probability of the carrier surviving?
Pretty high if they detect it soon enough and do the right thing.
:probability of being able to continue operations?
Again, pretty high if they detect it soon enough and do the right
thing.
:probability of survival/operability for other vessels?
Good.
:What tactics would the carrier group take for maximum survivability in
:this situation?
Turn into the wind and kick it in the ass. Launch all aircraft on
deck as quickly as possible (if possible) and button up. If you can't
get the planes off, dump them over the side and/or move them forward
(as possible). Start the washdown system. Prep SM-3 if your escorts
have 'em; SM-2 if they don't but have the missile-tracking mod for
AEGIS.
You're going to lose any aircraft sitting up on deck, but other than
that probably not too much. Perhaps some blown off radars and/or
radio antenna.
:What tactics would the chinese use to maximize kill probability?
Try to drop them in a triangle three kilometers or so on a side
centered on where they think the battle group will be when the weapons
arrive. Since they can't know when the weapons will be detected and
how the CVBG will react, all they can do is project ahead on whatever
the current base course is.
All in all, the Russian approach was better - nuclear tipped cruise
missiles with local guidance fired from up close into your face. The
PLAN doesn't have the boats to do that kind of thing with, though.
Sovremennys and Luhais, if they could get the drop. Also, are there
nuke shells for the 130mm guns or (nuke warheads) for SA-N-7/SA-N-12?
On the other hand, if anybody gets an inkling that they might be
planning something like that (or hell, even a mass conventional salvo),
an absolute %$%^storm of Harpoons, SM-2s, LGBs, Mavericks and Mk. 48
ADCAPS will ensue. I wouldn't give four Sovs and four Luhais very good
odds against an alpha strike from a Kitty Hawk, a Tico, three Burkes
and a 688i. They might splash a few Penguins and Harpoons, and make
life a little hairy for the attack plane pilots, but even one hit would
be bad news. Now, I'm assuming that SM-2 block IIIb can be used
over-the-horizon against surface targets, but even if it can't, and
only the Hornets and the sub get to attack, that's still got to hurt.
To top that off, what are the odds that the CVBG's SSN is the only one
in the area, and how good is Chinese ASW?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- References:
- Strategic nuke VS carrier
- From: dbohara
- Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Strategic nuke VS carrier
- Prev by Date: Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- Next by Date: LM2500 variants
- Previous by thread: Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- Next by thread: Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
