Want to Sink an Aircraft Carrier? You Might Need a Nuclear Weapon.

[rangerrebew]

December 31, 2020

Want to Sink an Aircraft Carrier? You Might Need a Nuclear Weapon.

Taking one out would be a big achievement for America's enemies, and a big setback for America's military.  However, the likelihood of any adversary actually achieving that without using nuclear weapons is pretty close to zero.
by Loren B. Thompson

Here's What You Need To Remember: The one real concern is missiles - which are getting progressively faster and harder to shoot down. But carrier defenses are advancing, too.

Large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are the signature expression of American military power.  No other combat system available to U.S. warfighters comes close to delivering so much offensive punch for months at a time without requiring land bases near the action.  As a result, the ten carriers in the current fleet are in continuous demand from regional commanders -- so much so that extended overseas combat tours are becoming the norm.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/want-sink-aircraft-carrier-you-might-need-nuclear-weapon-175569

[PeteS in CA]

As was shown with Saratoga, Enterprise, and Shokaku multiple times in 1942, damage well short of sinking it can put a carrier out of action.

[Fishrrman]

If an enemy to America is serious about sinking one or more carriers, and if they have nuclear-equipped weapons with which to do so, they might as well use them.

Wouldn't even have to be a direct hit... get within half a mile, and it's probably going to have the intended effect.

But they'd better have more nukes to use afterwards.
A LOT more.

[skeeter]

The Essex class were extremely robust and difficult to sink. But the Japanese achieved a couple of ‘sinkings’, for all practical purposes, with single aircraft strikes - Franklin and Bunker Hill. Don’t need to sink them as long as you knock them out of the war.

[PeteS in CA]

The Essex class were extremely robust and difficult to sink. But the Japanese achieved a couple of ‘sinkings’, for all practical purposes, with single aircraft strikes - Franklin and Bunker Hill. Don’t need to sink them as long as you knock them out of the war.

One term for that is "Mission Kill", damage severe enough that a ship cannot perform its mission. USS Saratoga spent much of 1942 undergoing repair from torpedo hits (multiple occasions). USS Enterprise, similarly, was hit by bombs in 1942 battles and was out of action for repairs.

In the original plan for Midway, Shokaku and Zuikaku were supposed to be with Kido Butai, but Shokaku was damaged at Coral Sea. Zuikaku's air group was depleted and IJN doctrine didn't provide for reforming her air group by incorporating members of Shokaku's air group. Try re-imagining the Battle of Midway with Nagumo having 5 or 6 carriers instead of 4.

While US shipyards in WW2 had the capacity to do repairs and crank out many new ships, Japan's shipyards were already stretched thin going into the war. Having to repair ships - mission-kill - impacted their yards' ability to replace sinkings and increase Japan's naval and cargo forces. IOW, mission-kill can have significant impact beyond simply temporarily losing the use of a ship.

[skeeter]

One term for that is "Mission Kill", damage severe enough that a ship cannot perform its mission. USS Saratoga spent much of 1942 undergoing repair from torpedo hits (multiple occasions). USS Enterprise, similarly, was hit by bombs in 1942 battles and was out of action for repairs.

In the original plan for Midway, Shokaku and Zuikaku were supposed to be with Kido Butai, but Shokaku was damaged at Coral Sea. Zuikaku's air group was depleted and IJN doctrine didn't provide for reforming her air group by incorporating members of Shokaku's air group. Try re-imagining the Battle of Midway with Nagumo having 5 or 6 carriers instead of 4.

While US shipyards in WW2 had the capacity to do repairs and crank out many new ships, Japan's shipyards were already stretched thin going into the war. Having to repair ships - mission-kill - impacted their yards' ability to replace sinkings and increase Japan's naval and cargo forces. IOW, mission-kill can have significant impact beyond simply temporarily losing the use of a ship.

"Sorry Sara" was a no-show for most of the war. A big deal when at one point our war fortunes hinged on a single carrier, Enterprise, present in the entire Pacific.