Active member
:roll: Anyone an expert here? Please give your ideas how you could sink an aircraft carrier?
Great topic, I have wanted to discuss this in English long time ago. And this has been discussed numerous times in Chinese forums in Chinese :D

I will try to dig out some points there later :lol:
Yes I have always been itching my head when those enormous ships mooves around on the opend sea and they are in combat situations.
I have never heard that one of them in modern warfare have been attacked. "Closest I have come to a posibility to sink one attackdivers"
*lol* Libya did not send any fighters against them, Iraq didn´t send any fighters under the Gulfwar. If I was a nation and I did know that a country with carriers would attack my country then the first thing to take out would be the carriers of my enemy. Even long before they could establish a "bridgehead". 7 December 1941 Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was a success in many ways, sad but true. :)


What about Exocet-style missiles? I know during the Falklands war, the exocets were a big threat to the Royal Navy and that destroyers had sometimes to be sacrificed in order to allow the Aircraft carriers to remain undamaged.
you know, the posters on this forum are getting very very creative. Lets qualify things a bit:

1. First is this open to an assault on just any old aircraft carrier? Or specifically, an US Aircraft Carrier, an English Aircraft Carrier, a French Aircraft Carrier, or just the generic type Aircraft carrier? Each national group that has them has diffrent methods to employ them, different methods to protect them.

2. Second, which country is going to do the attacking? Big difference here as well. There would be a world of difference in the capability of the attacker against the target. Lets say the US and the Idonesasia groups are at war. There could be a method for the Indonesasians to absolutely eat the American carrier easily, just based on the tactic used.

3. Do you want it done with regard to the attackers lives, or no consideration. This makes a difference in the method too.

4. One last thing: remember, we are not trying to provide a cookbook or military recipe environment here, as this could really get us in trouble with just about every law abiding country in the free world. What ever answer you post cannot contain details of your countries capabilities that are considered not in the public domain.

So with that in mind, happy hunting the carriers.

Well that can be a posibility.... But how many got a missile like that? Poore cruiser crews :? China have anti-ship missiles this one look big.
Maby a score of Ying Ji-82 Anti Ship Missile (C-802) or a score of Russian 3M-54E antiship missiles. :lol:

Btw: Great link to the Falkland War 1982


As Mark Conley say what type and country aircraft carrier "do you want to sink?" modern or WW2 carriers? HERO? Don´t know anything more then I know from the game sinking ship :lol: Honest I think there is no other way to sink one of those ships modern or old ones then with a large number of Kamikaze suicide pilots and aircrafts armed with anti-ship missiles. ;)


Gentes, please be realistic:

Only Chinese PLA is planning to sink US CBG's :D

Open sea East of Taiwan, 1000 KM from Chinese coast (1000KM for the fighter jets attacking range).

How can Chinese PLA sink American CBG's.

And the American threat is coming soon :D


Seven aircraft carriers to move within striking distance of China; Taiwan forces slated to join in drill The United States is planning a massive show of force in the Pacific Ocean near China to register a point with Beijing.

In an exercise codenamed Operation Summer Pulse 04, it is expected to arrange for an unprecedented seven aircraft carrier strike groups (CSGs) to rendezvous in waters a safe distance away from the Chinese coastline - but still within striking distance - after mid-July.

This will be the first time in US naval history that it sends seven of its 12 CSGs to just one region.

July 5, 2004
Crisis in Asia
by Gordon Prather
Foreign ministers attending the Asia Regional Forum – hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in Jakarta, this week – agreed on the need for political reform in Burma and a diplomatic solution to the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

Forum attendees included the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Japan, both Koreas, the European Union and Australia.

Political reform in Burma would require the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest since the Burmese military junta crackdown on her National League for Democracy more than a year ago.

A Korean diplomatic solution would require the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea to agree to "freeze" once again all nuclear programs, peaceful and otherwise. In return, the U.S. would lift decades-long economic sanctions, allowing other nations in the region to provide DPRK appropriate aid.

And compensation. Compensation is required because the U.S .abrogated the original "freeze" agreement in October, 2002 and the DPRK withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a few months later. Hence, none of DPRK’s current nuclear programs are violations of international laws or treaties.

Secretary of State Colin Powell met DPRK Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun on the sidelines of the Forum to further discuss proposals made at the six-party talks held a week earlier in Beijing

There has been a report – not yet denied – that during the six-party talks the U.S. had suggested applying to the DPRK the Nunn-Lugar nuke dismantlement and fissile-material disposition concept successfully applied a decade ago to states of the former Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is proceeding to pull back all U.S. troops from the de-militarized zone in Korea, to transfer about a third of all U.S. troops in Korea to Iraq, to base in Korea a dozen F-117 Stealth fighter-bombers and to begin Operation Summer Pulse – the simultaneous deployment of seven aircraft-carrier strike groups to "demonstrate the ability of the Navy to provide credible combat power across the globe."

The U.S. has twelve such groups and typically deploys only three at a time. There has been media speculation that these seven now being deployed are in addition to the three already deployed. If so, virtually every warship the Navy has that is able to go to sea, will be at sea, "combat" ready, and mostly in the Pacific.

That probably means we are about to apply the Bush Doctrine to some other "rogue state."

But which one?

Do the neo-crazies expect China to take advantage of virtually all our combat troops being pinned-down halfway around the world in Iraq to invade and reabsorb "rogue province" Taiwan?

Well, the war-gamers doubt that China is thinking "invasion." Taiwan is 120 miles off the Chinese mainland. Think back to June 6, 1944, to the vast armada of ships it took to transport a few divisions of troops and their equipment across the English Channel, which is only about 30 miles in places.

On D-Day there were no German naval or air forces available to oppose the invasion. Total Luftwaffe operations that day amounted to one Me-109 pilot and his wing-man making one machine-gun firing pass at allied troops on one beach.

No, the war-gamers are thinking "blockade."

A Chinese naval blockade could bring Taiwan to its knees with relative ease and minimal international protest. A sustained interruption of key sea lines of communications would be economically disastrous for the Taiwanese economy, which relies heavily on shipping for its lifeblood trade and energy needs, some two-thirds of which are fulfilled by fossil fuel imports.

China could easily impose and then enforce a successful blockade.

How to enforce? With Russian-made super-sonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles launched by Russian-made submarines and Russian-made warships.

At present, U.S. warships have no effective defense against the Russian-made Sunburn and Yakhont, both of which travel at Mach 2.5 and execute terminal maneuvers specifically designed to overcome U.S. warship defenses.

China also has several dozen long-range Russian-made Su-30MKK Flanker naval fighters equipped with the Russian-made X-31 supersonic anti-ship missile.

Recall that the Brits very nearly lost the Falklands War because of the Exocet – a French-made air-launched subsonic sea-skimming anti-ship missile. The Argentines had only five Exocets – and no long-range aircraft – but sank two British ships with them, including the vitally important container ship Atlantic Conveyor.

What if the Argentines had had several dozen Exocets and long-range aircraft to deliver them?

Let’s just hope the real neocrazy purpose of Operation Summer Pulse is to get the Burmese junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi.
This sounds very alarming really :?

*Time to get the gas mask and the equipment ready when these Operation Summer Pulse 04 blow open then* :army:


Aircraft would probebly out of question if you look at modern Carriers protection systems. Best bet would probebly be a missile, but you would need a very low flying missile and a very accuret one to make it work, also you would need a few ;)

Mine field?
Gentes, please be realistic:

Only Chinese PLA is planning to sink US CBG's

Open sea East of Taiwan, 1000 KM from Chinese coast (1000KM for the fighter jets attacking range).

How can Chinese PLA sink American CBG's.

And the American threat is coming soon ....

On the lighter side of things: aw come on flying frog...equal opportunity for all. Your country ain't the only guy on the block that would want a carrier... They are just too juicy a target to resist. Sort like eating lays potato cant eat just one. :D

I would imagine with that type of Air and Naval aviation units the PLA has, you could just over whelm the carrier's support groups defenses with sheer numbers. I mean there are only so many missiles..planes..and bullets to throw at an attacking force. What was that old saying? " hey Sarge, how many hordes in a chinese rifle platoon"?

No finesse maneuvers...weapons...or tactics needed. Just a big hammer and lots of balls to do it.

:cheers: heres to the targets... :D
ennnh, it will be a hard time for me to think about the HOW TO stuff, let's rest a bit first then I try to dig something out .. :D
Or we could work out how America could sink China's new aircraft carrier when it launches in two or three years time :)
As far as Exocet type missiles are concerned, the solution was found after the Falklands with the Phallanx system:

Gatling type 20mm multi-barrelled guns with high rate of fire and guided by low altitude radars able to detect and target fast flying low altitude missiles. A hail of bullet would automatically destroy the incoming missiles before they hit the target.
Only a massive "all front" attack would take a US carrier: air, surface and underwater simultaneous attack by dozens of missiles would be needed to overcome all the cumulated defenses of the carrier and its 3 dimensional long range escorts.

Maybe a MRV nuke or high altitude nuke explosion to generate massive electro magnetic pulse over the whole fleet???
Maybe a MRV nuke or high altitude nuke explosion to generate massive electro magnetic pulse over the whole fleet???

No nuke please, otherwise we are all dead :D

Let's first assume there is only one CBG. OK, I know US can deploy 5 CBG's at same time, but now just one CBG :D

1 CSG traditionally consists of:
- 1 nuclear aircraft carrier (Crew Approx 5500)
- 2 guided missile cruisers (approx. 200 each)
- 1 destroyer (approx. 200)
- 1 guided missile destroyer (approx. 200)
- 1 AEGIS cruiser (approx. 1200)
- 1 frigate
- 2 SSN's
- support ships (ammunition, oiler, and supply ship)
I am just a bit confused, do we need to sink a Carrier after all?

What's the purpose of a Carrier? Carring fighter jets right? So the ultimate role to destroy the CBG is to destroy the jets carried on it.

So, it is in fact a air-air war :D
FlyingFrog said:
I am just a bit confused, do we need to sink a Carrier after all?

What's the purpose of a Carrier? Carring fighter jets right? So the ultimate role to destroy the CBG is to destroy the jets carried on it.

So, it is in fact a air-air war :D

Thats a very good point! :)