How much damage can weapons carried by a 'typical' modern fighter/multi-role aircraft do to a modern warchip? How about a ww2 era battleship with armour?
Iowa can't be hurt by a fighter. Its throw-weight is too much for your typical FA 18 to handle. ;)
>>30549805
If using AShM's, crippling but not fatal.
If using bunker busting LGB's, battleships might as well be made of wet paper.
No battleship was heavily armored enough to resist 1000kg class AP bombs dropped from altitude.
a BLU 109 dropped from sufficient altitude has the capability of punching through the deck armor and out the bottom of the hull. Which would still be a fatal hit due to a keel-breaking explosion.
Modern fighters can fly higher than the AA ceiling of WW2 battleships, so they can approach with impunity.
>>30549805
Missiles carried by fighters are geared more towards disabling warships rather than sinking them. Torpedoes are the real ship killers.
![B-61_bomb[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/M5feGvP.jpg "B-61_bomb[1].jpg")
>>30549805
To a modern warship, a modern fighter / multi-role can sink it. To something like the USS Iowa... well the Iowa fired projectiles that were heavier than the largest JDAMs.
That said, fighters can carry pic, which no ship can withstand.
>>30552660
I was once told a story of fire support way back in the day when I was in the Guard by one of the Old Guys:
They were in a combat zone and needed fire support. They called it in, procedure on the answering group was weird, but authenticated right.
Shot over-shot out called.
Then they waited.
And waited.
And waited.
Then what looked and felt like a Volkswagen rumbled over their heads and BOOM!
They'd gotten ahold of a battleship and received fire support via a 16 incher.
aside from detection of the sub what defenses does a standard carrier group have against a torpedo launched from like a Russian attack sub?
>>30555073
and for that matter does the US navy even carry depth chargers anymore?
>>30555086
Nah, Anti-sub use torpedoes. Depth charges are the equivalent of carpet bombing.
>>30555073 Anti-torpedo torpedo. Not joking. But mostly shooting the sub before it gets to fire and sonar jamming.
>>30555073
Ships also can carry a decoy called a nixie.
>>30550134
>Missiles carried by fighters are geared more towards disabling warships rather than sinking them.
No, they're geared to being light enough to be carried by tactical aircraft.
>>30552660
>To something like the USS Iowa... well the Iowa fired projectiles that were heavier than the largest JDAMs.
I keep having to say this in these threads. That 16 inch round was mostly steel. The bursting charge was only 153lbs. And that's the non-AP version.
>>30555086
No. The problem these days is by the time the depth charge gets to depth, the submarine is already out of the blast radius. They're too slow to be of any use now.
>>30556399
I thought you were full of shit the first time. Or were mixing up AP and HE specs. But you were right. Thats an insane amount of steel for something like an HE round.
>>30555025
God bless the Big J.
>>30549805
Modern warships are rather fragile. It takes a lot to actually sink one, given that they are very well engineered, but a major casualty to any number of systems could leave a ship blinded, lame, or disarmed, with as little as one hit.
There are quite a lot of weapons either designed for or suitable for use against shipping, from short, medium, and long ranges, with warheads of whatever sizes, and guidance ranging from active radar to infrared homing.
At one end of the spectrum is the air launched variant of the SS-N-22, weighing 4500 kg, traveling at mach 3, bearing a 320 kg warhead, and carried by Su-33 aircraft. At the other, there is the American AGM-123, which is a Mk 83 + Paveway kit and rocket booster. Any weapon in this category would make short work of a BB, especially since there are no hard or soft countermeasures in the 30s.
>>30556410
The Russians still use the RBU-1000 and 6000 in addition to ASW torpedoes and standoff missiles like the SS-N-14 and 15. They are basically the evolution of the Hedgehog and Squid mortars of the world war.
>>30556399
Still capable of leaving 50 foot wide craters.
>>30549805
>How much damage can weapons carried by a 'typical' modern fighter/multi-role aircraft do to a modern warchip? How about a ww2 era battleship with armour?
An F-35 with external stows is capable of carrying as much ordinance as a B-17 and every last one of those bombs can be delivered precisely on target. Using 1000+ pound bombs, they would have no trouble causing critical damage to, and quite likely sinking, a world war 2 battleship. Modern warships are also squishy if the ordnance can be brought to target.
The US f-35 non navy Version is slightly dangerous because it can be upgraded.
the Navy Version cannot, the Electronic warfare which dominates modern military is replaces with technology from Yaks and Harries from the 60's
>>30556704
>the Navy Version cannot, the Electronic warfare which dominates modern military is replaces with technology from Yaks and Harries from the 60's
It takes allot more then a shortwave radio from 1960 to take out a modern ship like the USS cook out of action, its like hacking, the more energy and computer power You have the better the chances to surprise an enemy.
USS Donald Cook and SU-24's both engaged each other, the SU-24's electronic warfare where... Formidable to put it into nice words.
That being said, the F-35 cannot store external wares, leaving only internal space.
>>30556743
>That being said, the F-35 cannot store external wares, leaving only internal space.
Except that's completely wrong.
>>30556534
yeah, google is everyone's friend and is more informative than shitposts.
the steel is probably because it has to withstand the pressures of being explosively propelled down a gun barrel. probably some sort of law of diminishing return applies to it.
jsow-c1 with broach can intercept moving maritime targets from standoff ranges. i don't believe it is made in versions above 1000lbs though, basically because there is no need for it at the moment. but the top armor of a battleship is not going to stop that thing. what will save it is its size and redunancy, provided nothing vital is hit. probably even the baseline jsow, which is a shaped charge with incindary ring, would severly fuck up a iowa.
>>30556659
they're probably expecting to use them in shallower waters. they also have to contend with euro-ssks.
The Americans have more then the advantage when it comes to projecting aircraft power.
There is literally Nothing in existence that can challenge this claim.
The Russians cannot put heavy weapons into the sky, while the Russians invested into sky jumps.
The Russians are at a Horrible loss and will not recover for the next 10 years, at the minimum.
Make no mistake.
>>30550072
>Iowa can't be hurt by a fighter
>load ATGMs
>stagger the fire so they impact a few seconds apart from each other
>aim at magazine
>????
>profit
>>30549805
An f-35 can carry 18,000lbs payload.
Easily enough to destroy a super carrier.
But then again, fucking why use a jet when a cruise missile is roughly 6x faster with greater range.
>>30556852
>df-21d
>>30556980
>But then again, fucking why use a jet when a cruise missile is roughly 6x faster with greater range.
What, like a Tomahawk?
Not faster, not at all.
Range when using something jet launched is greater, too.
>>30556819
>yeah, google is everyone's friend and is more informative than shitposts.
>the steel is probably because it has to withstand the pressures of being explosively propelled down a gun barrel. probably some sort of law of diminishing return applies to it.
Yeah, its to keep the shell from breaking apart from the pressure and acceleration. I've worked with artillery up to 155mm size and it makes sense, but its still strange to think about such a heavy projectile only containing such a tiny amount of explosive, at least when its a "HE shell".
>>30550134
The Mark 48 weighs more then a tonne and a half, is more then five meters long and has a 530mm diameter.
So yes, it could kill a ship dead. It's also four million dollars a shot and can't be deployed from the air.
As to missiles, if there's anything we have learned it's that damage control tells you more then armor band how long a ship will survive.
If the crew are trained well enough to store ammunition and fuel properly, to close doors tight and to follow proper firefighting procedures a ship can take a fuck of a beating. If not, it's going to go up like a firecracker.
>>30556980
Missiles go farther and hit faster when launched high and fast, rather then on or under the surface. They can also be launched by a platform with 2 people on it rather then a few hundred.
>>30555073
Another submarine.
>>30557220
150 pounds of high explosives is still a very, very big boom. Coupled with a very heavy steel object travelling at high speeds, it does damage.
an" f-35 cant carry shit.
Its an Aircraft incapable without extensive support.
Its all about money in my opinion.
Its all about extracting money from Europe.
>>30557421
Go home Sprey, you're not even making sense anymore
>>30557421
at least make an effort, dude
>>30556704
I think you're referring to the F-35B, which is the Marine/RN version with the quip about the yaks.
F-35C is extremely capable, and along with the EA-18G Growler has control over the EW spectrum at sea.
I'm not suggested "the last ship". Premise sounded too walking dead at first but its damn good. Watched every single one online.
It looked good. Not sure how realistic the ship to ship and ship to sub combat was but hey.
>>30556971
Wouldn't pierce the citadel. It's about of foot and a half of steel with spacing. If all the missiles hit the same square foot of hull, maybe but most missiles aren't designed for that kind of precision.
>30558108
Post fucked up. That was meant to say that I'm not in the USA so can't watch on TV but a guy here suggested
>>30558143
At a foot and a half of plain RHA steel and spacing, HEAT will penetrate no problem.
Of course, I'm not sure why a helo would try to shoot the ammo bunkers of an obsolete warship - they might not know where those are.
Put some Hellfires into the bridge, some into the radar, some more into the stern in hope of destroying the rudders, and finally directly into the guns.
>>30557286
The Mk54, OTOH, can be.
>>30555025
My dad was in the same carrier group as one during the gulf war. Contrary to what movies show, the ships are miles apart. He could feel the blast of the 16 inch guns in his bunk inside of an aircraft carrier 10+ miles away.
>>30552660
Against modern ships, pic related.
Also, you guys act like they hadn't thought of this when they made ships. Cruisers and destroyers are fully capable of engaging high-mid altitude aircraft.
>>30556743
>USS Donald Cook and SU-24's both engaged each other, the SU-24's electronic warfare where... Formidable to put it into nice words.
The fuck are you talking about
>>30558108
It's fucking retarded
>>30558286
Nothing of what he said made any sense. Just let it go
>>30556789
What's the point of making it stealth if you're going to do that?
>>30555977
This system literally isn't in production yet. One of the companies contracted to produce the components for it said they expected to be ready to start making the parts by 2019.
Until it goes into service it's pretty much just nixies and maneuvering and nixies don't work on wake homing torpedoes.
>>30558360
>stealth is on/off
>>30556743
Even the Russian manufacturer of the Su-24's EW equipment said that was a tabloid hoax.
>>30558393
It's doubly hilarious because they couldn't even go on Wikipedia and get a decent approximation of how many crew are actually on the Cook.
