I think you'd have to launch those cruise missiles simultaneously, carriers have so very potent antimissile defense systems these days and you've got their escorts to shoot down your missiles as well. I unno, tactical nuke it?

So we can either either use a sea-skimmer, a nuke or torpedo.

I personally support the first choice, but since the development of weapon systems like the Phalanx, the best choice would be a torpedo.

How do you get close? And stay stealthy? Well, you don't need to satisfy either criteria - That is, if you have the Shkval Torpedo - Load her up with a high explosive warhead and you've got a 200 knot (230mph) beast!!

If you all are interested, do some research about Billy Mitchel who was part of the Army Air Corp

Eric...Billy Mitchell was the "fore Father" of the USAF. He did not sink a carrier while proving his point about airpower, instead he sank the greatest German Battleship of WWI (Obsteinfer...sorry can't spell it). Anyways, that was in the 1930's and Naval ships have come a long way since than. Airpower and what Billy Mitchell did would have no effect on a carrier built today. It's gonna take alot...and I mean ALOT to bring when of those babies down.

The supercarriers of today are well protected. Extremely well protected. As I said before, "How do you sink an aircraft carrier" is a question that they are always asking. All bets are off with whatever method you use, because its probably been thought of and countered. If the carriers anti-missile system knocks down a nuclear warhead well before it get to the carrier, then that method fails as well. I don't have any familiarity with an anti torpedo system, but I'd be very surprised if it doesn't already exist.

Originally Posted by Big_Z

Sure you could launch 100 cruise missles and sink a carrier but who would be dumb enough to do that? There would be 3 more carriers and a massive invasion fleet to take its place.

If 100 cruise missiles is already enough to sink a carrier, I don't mind to increase it to 200 missile to sink a carrier.

If 200 missiles can sink a carrier, then I produce 1000 missiles to sink 5 carriers.

If you can procduce one missile, then you can produce 2000 if necessary.

If 1 missile cost 10 million, 2000 missiles cost maximal 20 billions, not a big deal when you are defending your country's safety

Not much has changed throughout the history of the world. Anyone wanting to launch an amphibious assault is at a big disadvantage.

Originally Posted by FlyingFrog

If 100 cruise missiles is already enough to sink a carrier, I don't mind to increase it to 200 missile to sink a carrier.

If 200 missiles can sink a carrier, then I produce 1000 missiles to sink 5 carriers.

If you can procduce one missile, then you can produce 2000 if necessary.

If 1 missile cost 10 million, 2000 missiles cost maximal 20 billions, not a big deal when you are defending your country's safety

Depends on that country's resources a little, doesn't it? For instance, a country like Malta will most likely not have $20 billion to spend on missiles at any time, and many nations, in fact most, do not possess the necessary technology to build even one missile, let alone 200.

the best defence for the carrier is to be out of range from the multiple missiles attack. The role of the carrier is to bring her fighter jets to attack enemy targets, not a sitting duck for missiles to be hurled at her.

So the carrier-borne jets will just have to carry more fuel (drop tanks) or have mid-air refueling when dealing with enemy that has antiship missiles, as the mother ship will have to be farther from possible hostilities.

One way is if the sub was so silent(virgina class) that it could surface and hit the thing with every torpedoe it had. This extremely hard the other would a cruise missile attack.

surface ships would have a small chance but there would have to be a large number to converge and destroy the carrier.