"The GQM-163A is the first U.S. target missile to successfully use ramjet engines, and this technology can be now used in other missiles."

 

What about the MQM-8G "Vandal" target, which was based on the Talos SAM?:

 

 http://www.skytamer.com/Bendix...

 

http://articles.janes.com/arti... 

During WWII much smaller aircraft carriers (25-30 000 t) took a lot of 500 and 1000 lb bombs before going to the bottom. I think that those simple gravity bombs used to carry much bigger payload than missiles do today. Todays carriers are 50 - 100 000 t. 

 

DG

 

 

 

Are shaped charge warheads, producing a cone of destruction, several of them are multiple charges, charges facing in several directions, so they are, arguably, more dangerous than the warhead of an equivalent WWII weapon.

 

The USN does not claim that ONE Sunburn or Yakhont/Brahmos will sink or even disable a Nimitz class, but that doesn't mean they want to get hit by one in any event.  It will still take multiple hits to sink or disable a US CV(N), but that doesn't mean they aren't a threat.

I love it when people explain with a degree of certainty that the Nimitz class could survive "n" impacts with any given weapon system - as we know there are certain cascading failures that ships of all kinds but most especially those laden with HE, aviation fuel, propellants etc are particularly vulnerable to - I know that stowage and insensitive munitions are designed to minimize this risk but there will inevitably still be occasions where, for example, several tonnes of high explosive (insensitive or not) are in close proximity in which case, sink or swim, the ship is still out of action for the foreseeable future - same goes with an impact to the tower (to a degree). The point being that it is a question of probabilities, and those can go the wrong way..

 

I'm not sure I agree about warhead design - it depends upon the missile and its impact speed.

 

R

 

Whilst it is theoretical, it is also EMPRICAL, based on WWII impacts and design changes, plus we have the USS Forrestal and USS Enterprise fires as guides.  So it is true we can not "know" the effect of a Sunburn or Brahmos on the USS Nimitz, we certainly have a basis for making an estimate.  Read Friedman's US Carriers: a Design History or Carrier Airpower for a discussion of survivability issues and design.

JFKY,

 

I didn't mean to appear condescending, I just meant that I've seen several discussions where people are making exact estimates of the number of ASHM's that a Nimitz could withstand and remain operational, the basic point of my post was to illustrate that there are scenarios in which even a 100kT damage-resistant design can be rendered functionally inoperable, at the very least in terms of maintaining air cover. I think too often the idea of "sending a ship to the bottom" is conflated with a scenario that requires withdrawl from theatre and repairs, which in a high-intensity Taiwan conflict for example, is an equally-decisive event.

 

R

we see that Essex Class CVA's absorbed AShM's hits and were capable of operting within a few hours of being struck, on about 30K tons displacement.  A Nimitz CV(N) is a lot larger, a lot tougher and more well-laid out.  The Enterprise (CVN-65) was capable of air operations shortly after extinsguishing her fires, IIRC.

Want to functionally disable a carrier?  Here's a clue:  What is a carrier but a sea-borne mobile airbase?  And how did the Airforce plan on disabling enemy airbases?  Runway cratering bombs.  Dual-warhead submunitions are designed to crater concrete runways, they could obviously be designed to do a number on a carrier deck as well as potentially to the hanger level below, to steam catapults and elevators, etc.

 

Second, the thought of a fuel-air warhead detonating after punching through the relatively thin skin of a carrier is naaaaasty.  Way more damaging than the shape-charge carrot. 

 

 

we see that Essex Class CVA's absorbed AShM's hits and were capable of operting within a few hours of being struck, on about 30K tons displacement.  A Nimitz CV(N) is a lot larger, a lot tougher and more well-laid out.  The Enterprise (CVN-65) was capable of air operations shortly after extinsguishing her fires, IIRC.

 

 

Agree entirely - the only assertion I am making here is that there is no 'n' and if the Nimitz is unfortunate it may be disabled or rendered vulnerable for a period of time, a hit on the bridge, damage to propulsion, an unlucky direct hit on munitions stowage, traps, catapults etc. - the sinking part is virtually irrelevant next to damage that lowers the sortie rate or severely impedes mobility. Also fires are less catastrophic than was once the case precisely because of IHE munitions regs. Anyway, owing to the enormous protection the Nimitz has (the exceptional RAM etc) it's pretty safe from harm, its last-ditch defenses alone are formidable even if AEGIS with Standard (and EW capability) and whatever else (decoys, HPM etc) we don't know about were to fail or be overwhelmed. 

 

It seems the DF-21 is probably a more threat although its reported 600kg payload is far lighter than I'd imagine is necessary either in HE or Kinetic versions, even if that is ~4.5 & 3.26GJ respectively..

 

R