Yes, they are nuclear-powered.
Military loses FA-18 overboard…
- Thread starter Saturnguy
- Start date
Imagine stopping her!
I'm guessing that he was saying that in reference to this remark from JimPghPA when he said "Better to maneuver to avoid incoming and lose something, compared to not maneuvering and taking a hit."
My question would be - how much or what kind of support do the other ships in a carrier group provide? And I suppose that it varies, but how far off are they?
It’s a carrier with aircraft in the sky. That’s at least one line of protection. The ships around it also have helicopters.
I hear they’re usually not in any kind of parade formation, so it’s not like they’re packed in with their escorts. I suppose spreading out also allows more coverage.
The disposition of forces assigned to a carrier strike group depends on the tactical situation. The threats from submarines, other surface combatants, aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, determine how the strike group will array the ships assigned.
The aircraft carrier itself is defended from air threats, like Houthi missiles, by its aircraft, other surface combatants, and its own weapon systems, including CIWS and the rolling air frame missile.
Naturally, maneuver, is part of the defense against threats. You maneuver the ship to stay out of engagement envelopes, if possible, but if a threat is inbound, then you combine shooting at the inbound threat (SM-2s, etc.) with maneuver of the target, in this case your own ship, to evade an inbound missile, if shooting doesn’t work.
Aren't modern missles (by modern, I mean up to 25 year old technology) fast and guided enough that a ship wouldn't be nimble enough ?
I guess if you can reach it to place explosives, you're also close enough to hook up to it cables to lift it. When would they destroy it vs retrieve it ?
---------------------------
Once submerged in salt-water, it only scrap-metal. Avaition requires top quality gear everywhere. The quality of everything of that aircraft has been compromised, and all parts are no longer usable.
It's literally not worth the effort required to recover it.
If it was carrying nuclear weapons, those might be of enough interest to recover to keep material out of unfriendly hands, and maybe reprocess core material, maybe, or maybe not.
Basicly, it's now just scrap, and something that might have design information that would be wise to destroy instead of allowing it to fall into unfriendly hands. People with more knoledge can make that call.
Very likley, it's not worth recovering that big piece of scrap.
Also. If it were worth recovering, witch it is not, the stresses put on it to remove it would destroy it as far as being air-worthy.
Last edited:
It’s not that simple.
Look at the launch site. Look at the maximum range of the missile. Look at the speed of the missile, then look at the terminal guidance capability.
If the missile is ballistic, and the ship maneuvers outside of the target area at which the missile was launched, then the ability of the missile to steer and impact the target is severely degraded.
In the terminal phase of flight, a ballistic missile is unpowered. It can steer, but there are limits on its maneuverability.
It is similarly true that air to air missiles can be “run out of energy” through maneuvering. It depends on the kinematics of the missile, the range at which it is launched, how it is guided in the terminal phase, the size of the fins, and the duration of the rocket motor burn.
While the aircraft will never fly again, there is a great deal you can learn from close examination of weapon system components, like radar antennas.
For even a salt soaked airplane to fall into enemy hands, greatly compromises many of its performance parameters, because they would be able to do close inspection, analysis, and exploitation.
If what you said was true, about the effort, not being worth it, then the Russians would not have tried so hard, and we would not have expended the effort, when this has happened previously.
But the Russians did see value in the effort, and tried to beat us in the recovery of the aircraft.
That’s because the aircraft itself has value.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
I'm not denying the intelligance value. I'm acknowledging the intelligance value, and that is why, if recoverable it needs to be destroyed to the extent that there is no longer any thing left of it that would provide information.
But I'm also pointing out that all the parts of it are scrap as far as being able to actually be used in a flying aircraft. Therefore, not worth the effort to recover, when properly destroying it is much easier, safer to do, and cost a heck of a lot less, if it is at all recoverable by unfriendlies.
Some aircraft have some titanium structural parts that might be worth recovering because they might still be totally NOT damaged, or be inteligance info to keep from unfriendlies and also survive after destroying the aircraft, but I can't see even those being actually used again. Maybe those parts would require recovering if feasible, maybe even after the rest of it was destroyed, again, only to keep info about it from unfriendlies.
It's not really my field of expertise, but I doubt the juice of a recovered aircraft that was submerged in salt water is worth the squeeze involved to recover it for the country that built it and has no intelligence to gain from it, if totally destroying it is a better option, and epically when any recovery would be in contested waters.
-----------------------
Lets just park recovery ships stationary for a day or two in waters where unfriendlies have been recently been attacking our moving ships. Yea, what could possibly go wrong with that.
-----------------------
An underwater demolition team from a sub that is unseen would be a much wiser and safer option, if required.
Last edited:
Everyone knows that antiaircraft missiles stay powered for up to two minutes. Obviously they don't run out of thrust in seconds and just coast the rest of the way. They're like movie missiles following around like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner.
Huh ? They DO recover them (if for no other reason than to keep them out of enemy's hands). I don't mean "recover" as in order to repair them for use again.
Bet they were told they'd better recover it or spare parts and more jets might not be available to them (even being the UK).
If they are active homing, and jamming doesn't work, even 50 year old missiles are nimble enough.
A Meteor hits Mach 4 though. I guess everyone also knows that missiles slow down to a speed where they give the target a sporting chance.
It’s gonna take a lot more than air strikes to wipe out those cockroaches’. 
We don’t need to wipe them out to debilitate their ability to cause trouble for shipping, and Israel can certainly take care of themselves.It’s gonna take a lot more than air strikes to wipe out those cockroaches’.
Air and missile strikes can certainly make their existance a living hell, and cause them to scratch their heads and re-evaluate their plans and course of action.
Just ask Hezbollah.