alert5 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 The Republic of China Air Force sent two F-16s and two AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters to sink a South Korean freighter that capsized off its coast last Thursday. Both missions failed to sink the ship, but the Ministry of National Defense still declared the mission a success. http://www.alert5.com/2005/11/botched-bomb...-embarrass.html Link to post Share on other sites
Mandrake Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Hey the aircraft got back to base safely, I'd call that a success! Link to post Share on other sites
RotorheadTX Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Nothing like a bit of reassuring news for all the PRC Navy invasion-ship captains! Link to post Share on other sites
MarkusN Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 "We have a freighter full of toxic benzene just offshore!" "Let's send it to the bottom of the sea; that will take care of the problem." Jeah, right. Morons. Link to post Share on other sites
Tank Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 "We have a freighter full of toxic benzene just offshore!""Let's send it to the bottom of the sea; that will take care of the problem." It's that what started Godzilla..... Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 There was a similar outcry in th UK - way back in 1967. A tanker, the Torry Canyon, ran aground near the Scilly Isles and was spilling oil. The Royal Navy tried to bomb it - using Buccaneers - with limited success. Check out the news report...http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/29/newsid_2819000/2819369.stm The press had a field day - laughing at the Navy's inability to sink a static target. Despite all the input from the 'experts' on TV - the press just could not understand why it was so difficult to destroy it. That's what you get from watching too many Rambo movies !!!! He would have done it with a rowing boat and a hand grenade The Navy eventually set fire to the spilled oil using napalm - which set off another debate in the media about why the UK forces had stockpiles of napalm !!! There was outrage in the liberal press about us Brits even having such barbaric weapons in our inventory! Then, as now, a reality check was desperately needed. Ken Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Williams Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Not surprising that Hellfires didn't do anything to something the size a freighter. Hollow charge warheads just put a small hole in the target and, even assuming that you made the holes under the waterline, it would take a long time to sink a ship that way. Probably the best you could do was hope to start a fire in some combustable liquid on the ship, but even then the ship could just burn out but still be afloat. Link to post Share on other sites
PBoilermaker Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 A single Mk-48 ADCAP would have made quick work of splintering that keel . Very old pic of the aftermath of a Mk-48, but you get the idea: -Mike Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 "We have a freighter full of toxic benzene just offshore!""Let's send it to the bottom of the sea; that will take care of the problem." Jeah, right. Morons. I thought very much the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
yardbird78 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Where is the EPA, PETA, SPCA, GREENPEACE, ACLU, and Jesse Jackson when you really need them? Maybe Ramsey Clark and Hanoi Jane could help solve the problem? Darwin Link to post Share on other sites
siesta3 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 During OIF ... F-14s, F-18s, and S-3s used Saddam Hussein's yacht as a dump target and the ship floated througout the war. But I guess it just depends on the type of weaponry and the locations of damage inflicted. Link to post Share on other sites
Collin Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Sinking a ship is tough business folks. Takes a lot of ordnance or very specialized ordnance in very specific areas of the ship. As a former S-3B CVW Strike Lead and now flying the P-3... my main goal is to mission kill the ship and prevent it from being/becoming a threat. Sinking it is secondary. All in All.... a MK-48 ADCAP is the real answer... but I can't put one of those on my 30" 0r 15" aircraft rack. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 What does all this mean for the infamous "even a heavily armored battleship falls easily to airpower, thus making the carrier queen of the sea" arguments? Link to post Share on other sites
BAM'n'IVM Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 What does all this mean for the infamous "even a heavily armored battleship falls easily to airpower, thus making the carrier queen of the sea" arguments? I think Collin answered the question pretty well: "...my main goal is to mission kill the ship and prevent it from being/becoming a threat. Sinking it is secondary." Sinking a ship is spectacular, but neutralizing it is the most important thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 It took the US Air Force seven modified 2,000lbs JDAMs and four 2,000lbs LGBs to successfully sink the 522ft USS Schenectady during exercise Resultant Fury in Dec. 2004. http://www2.hickam.af.mil/pacaf//news/release4.htm Link to post Share on other sites
Holeshot Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 It took the US Air Force seven modified 2,000lbs JDAMs and four 2,000lbs LGBs to successfully sink the 522ft USS Schenectady during exercise Resultant Fury in Dec. 2004. http://www2.hickam.af.mil/pacaf//news/release4.htm So what's changed in warship and/or explosive design since WW2? SBDs, TBMs, Kates, and Vals (among others) generally armed with 500 or 1000 lb'ers rountinely sunk the full range of their opponent's vessels during WW2, with a LOT less than 22,000 lbs of ordnance hitting each vessel... Curtis Link to post Share on other sites
PBoilermaker Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 It took the US Air Force seven modified 2,000lbs JDAMs and four 2,000lbs LGBs to successfully sink the 522ft USS Schenectady during exercise Resultant Fury in Dec. 2004. http://www2.hickam.af.mil/pacaf//news/release4.htm So what's changed in warship and/or explosive design since WW2? SBDs, TBMs, Kates, and Vals (among others) generally armed with 500 or 1000 lb'ers rountinely sunk the full range of their opponent's vessels during WW2, with a LOT less than 22,000 lbs of ordnance hitting each vessel... Curtis Actually, today's warships are relatively 'fragile' compared to their WWII counterparts in some respects. As was stated before, all you really need to do is deny use of the asset to succeed in your mission. Especially true for subs...as a shipdriver, I am more than happy if we deny the sub the ability to fire a weapon. It is completely one-sided otherwise... Modern aircraft-launched weapons are not typically designed to sink large ships, just limit their capabilities as much as possible. If you want to sink a ship, have a sub do it or lay mines. If you want to make the ship deaf, blind and ineffective, use a missile or two (or four...). Aircraft at relatively close range would be a last resort against warships these days, probably even suicidal in many respects. WWII ships were typically overwhelmed by large numbers of bombs and torpedoes. When you factor in limited air defense capability and secondary explosions, you lose ships in WWII because they can only take so much punishment. Quantity, not quality (or technology). -Mike Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 It took the US Air Force seven modified 2,000lbs JDAMs and four 2,000lbs LGBs to successfully sink the 522ft USS Schenectady during exercise Resultant Fury in Dec. 2004. :D http://www2.hickam.af.mil/pacaf//news/release4.htm So what's changed in warship and/or explosive design since WW2? SBDs, TBMs, Kates, and Vals (among others) generally armed with 500 or 1000 lb'ers rountinely sunk the full range of their opponent's vessels during WW2, with a LOT less than 22,000 lbs of ordnance hitting each vessel... :huh: Curtis As Mike just mentioned, secondary explosions come to mind. I would think that most target practice ships aren't carying loads of ordinance and fuel. :) Link to post Share on other sites
Collin Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 (edited) It took the US Air Force seven modified 2,000lbs JDAMs and four 2,000lbs LGBs to successfully sink the 522ft USS Schenectady during exercise Resultant Fury in Dec. 2004.  :D http://www2.hickam.af.mil/pacaf//news/release4.htm So what's changed in warship and/or explosive design since WW2? SBDs, TBMs, Kates, and Vals (among others) generally armed with 500 or 1000 lb'ers rountinely sunk the full range of their opponent's vessels during WW2, with a LOT less than 22,000 lbs of ordnance hitting each vessel... Curtis As Mike just mentioned, secondary explosions come to mind. I would think that most target practice ships aren't carying loads of ordinance and fuel. No they are not... and they are normally buttoned up and made watertight so that one bomb won't do the job (ex, the Hawaii exercise). SINEX's as we call them... means training. I have seen in the past... ships sink after the first weapon hits. Not so good for the stack of S-3's, F-18's, F-14's (and maybe some P-3's) I had waiting to practice their ASuW weapons skills. We all just saw a swirl in the water and said "****"...lets hit the dump area and go home. Now the next exercise... the ship was welded and stuffed full of things to keep her afloat. It took a lot to put her down (Harpoons, Mavericks, LGB's, 2000lb GPB's). Just keep in mind that in "pratice" sinkings... it's expected that a lot of ordnance is going to be used (it's maximizing training). Remember the USS Stark, horrible incident, but an example of what a peice of metal at very high speeds can do to a modern ship, mission kill.\\ Cheers Edited November 2, 2005 by Collin Link to post Share on other sites
James A Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 How come the ROCAF didn't use Harpoons to sink this ship? They equip those on their F-16's. I'd imagine an ASM like an Exocet/Harpoon/ASM-2 would sink a ship quicker. Link to post Share on other sites
Collin Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 How come the ROCAF didn't use Harpoons to sink this ship? They equip those on their F-16's. I'd imagine an ASM like an Exocet/Harpoon/ASM-2 would sink a ship quicker. Lots'of reasons that can't be discussed here. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
Erdferkel Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 How come the ROCAF didn't use Harpoons to sink this ship? They equip those on their F-16's. I'd imagine an ASM like an Exocet/Harpoon/ASM-2 would sink a ship quicker. There was an article some time ago, that stated an gouverment official. This guy said, that most missles are stored on US bases near Taiwan (e.g.Guam) and not on Taiwan itself.... Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 $$$ Use cheaper weapons, keep the expensive ones for the real fight. Link to post Share on other sites
Collin Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 $$$Use cheaper weapons, keep the expensive ones for the real fight. That's one of them. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
chenc544 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 (edited) $$$Use cheaper weapons, keep the expensive ones for the real fight. No kidding. The Harpoon gotta be around one mil a piece while LGB is in 100k range I would think. If you really want to sink a ship you use a torpedo that blows up under the water. The water pressure create by the explosion will snap the ship in half. Of course if the ship is already capsized then that might not work too well either... Edited November 2, 2005 by chenc544 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts