Help support TMP


"What It Would Really Take To Sink A Modern Aircraft Carrier" Topic


9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Modern What-If Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

20mm U.S. Army Specialists, Episode 5

Another episode of Identity That Figure!


Featured Profile Article

Yad Mordechai/Deir Suneid

The first of a series of reports from sargonII, who is currently traveling in the Middle East.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


Featured Movie Review


1,280 hits since 22 Apr 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0122 Apr 2017 11:03 p.m. PST

"The modern aircraft carrier is a global symbol of American dominance, hegemony, peace, even empire. But at over 1,000 feet long, and displacing more than 100,000 tons, is it a sitting duck? Is the massive emblem of American greatness just an obsolete, vulnerable hunk of steel?

There's a lot of consternation about whether or not the United States should even have massive supercarriers anymore. Obviously, the answer here is "depends on how much explosives you've got." But while sinking an aircraft carrier is difficult, it's not impossible. The key is what it's used for, and who it's used against. But if you wanted to sink one, here's what you'd have to do, and what you'd be up against…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

nukesnipe23 Apr 2017 4:54 a.m. PST

Interesting article. Truthfully, sinking a CVN isn't worth the effort. Damaging the propulsion train or the flight deck would accomplish the same near-term goal of a mission kill.

Regards,

Scott Chisholm

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP23 Apr 2017 6:03 a.m. PST

That's true – but sunk is gone.

And a lot more hand-wringing than a ship that limps back to port eventually.

Tango0123 Apr 2017 2:50 p.m. PST

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile)


Amicalement
Armand

doug redshirt23 Apr 2017 3:28 p.m. PST

There was a reason after all that the US bothered to capture all those islands in the Pacific. It was called land based air. If a nation has an airfield with lots of planes on it, it is very difficult to operate in the surrounding waters with your navy. Carriers are limited in what they can bring in the way of aircraft, unless you bring lots of carriers. Which the US could and did do in the last years of the war.

Even during the Gulf War the navy would use land bases to sortie aircraft. Quicker and easier to do stuff on land then in a tight hanger or flight deck. During the WWII, the Navy had lots of land based aircraft too.

You can't sink an island and it only takes a good engineering unit a couple hours to get a runway back up and running. That is way Clark Field is so important and would give the Chinese fits if it was reopened. Heck the Vietnamese would probably be more then happy to host an Air wing or two.

Stryderg23 Apr 2017 5:06 p.m. PST

I thought it took loose lips to sink ships.
Good read, though.

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP24 Apr 2017 11:01 a.m. PST

Pull out the plug and let the water in? They DO still have plugs, don't they?

GarrisonMiniatures24 Apr 2017 12:11 p.m. PST

Yes, they have to have plugs – if they leak a bit the plugs are very useful for letting the water out.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.