Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers.

All ships have armour. US carries have in the range of 3-4 in armour, that's it. It is not designed to protect against missiles. And that is what you have been going on and on and on about.

Most of the ships sunk with bombs were in a harbor. The aircraft were able to come up on them virtually unopposed over land. This was a screw-up of a mammoth scale. That is why so many ships were sunk by bombs.

The ships sunk by missiles were well out to sea, where a ringed defense would have protected them from conventional aircraft. The ships sunk with bombs were in the harbor, where anti-ship missiles of the day could not have touched them.

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

And once again, you throw out claims that you make up, with absolutely nothing to back them up yet. You claim that smaller nations do not have anti-ship missiles. Well, you are wrong buddy, very wrong.

In 2006, it was believed that Hezbollah fired Silkworm missiles at Israeli ships. Well, it turns out the report was wrong. They did not fire SIlkworm missiles, but more advanced C-701 missiles.

We are talking about not a nation, but a single group. And that same group has also used the Chinese made Yingji-82, a much more advances missile that uses a TV tracking system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit

We are talking about a single group having some of the most advanced technology in the world. This is not a nation, but a single group. When are you going to wake up and realize that missiles are the treal threat, not bombs. And that every nation has them, and even non-nation political and terrorist groups.

 

You have got me all wrong, I never wanted armour to project against missile that can sink carriers. As I said in my last post, protect against or limit the damage from other sorts of missiles and bombs. Armour like the US carriers have.

That group gets it's missiles from Iran, most nations aren't Iran. And don't have that many missiles or a large inventroy of lots of different missiles, as they cost quite a lot. Argentina has a crap military now, and they do still have missiles, but not in a large number and there planes are rubbish. So they may have to go back to using bombs and flying jets into ships as the Japanese did.

Wasn't one of the ship in the harbor sunk by a missile?

 

Where did I say I wanted armour to defend against ship sinking missile? It's just something Mushroom picked up.

I am 18, from Cumbria, and I cut and sell firewood. Is there anything else you want to know?

 

The US carriers only have 4-6 inches of armour. That's all. They rely on their task force to protect them, not armour.

And if you want to protect against bombs, then you need to add armour not on the sides but on the deck of the ship, even more weight. And why bother with that, when you have defenseive ships?

Bombs against ships are only effective when the ship is basically in a port or harbor, where the ships have no room to move, and nearby terrain or buildings mask the approach of aircraft. Those Argentinian aircraft would not have done as much damage as they did with bombs if not for the fact the ships were in a harbor and could do nothing in defense. Out at sea, they would have been toast.

And you would never bring your aircraft carrier into a hostile harbor. So once again, that point is moot.

Nowhere near as much as you think. Old Soviet missiles have been floating around for decades. And China and North Korea are also still major producers and exporters.

And one of the newest Chinese missiles, the C-802A is highly effective, and half the cost of an Exocet (around $500k each). For a nation, dumping a mere $50 million would give them a missile force to stand off most naval task forces.

And Iran did not build the missiles that Hezbollah used. They came from China. And Hezbollah definately has the finances to buy many more where those came from.

Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? How about answering your own question, instead of making me do all of your work.

HMS Antelope, bombs, 2.75 inch rockets.
HMS Ardent, bombs.
HMS Coventry, bombs.
LCU, bombs.

There you go, they were all sunk by bombs. The Antelope did take minor damage by 2.75" rockets, but those are not missiles, and were used to take out the ships AA guns and missiles, it was the bombs that sank the ship.

The attacking Argentine aircraft could not use missiles. They were comming in over land at low level. Even modern missiles would have a hard time targeting ships in a harbor when approaching over land and having to avoid terrain features and structures. That is why missiles are used in the open sea, not in harbors. Bombs are more effective here, because they can engage before the ships AA can effectively engage them.

The attacks were not known as "Bomb Alley" for nothing.

 

The entire issue came up, because you do not seem to understand what armour is used for in a ship.

Armour is modern ships is used to protect against land and naval based guns. That is, the 5" or so artillery pieces on the deck. And because there really have not been any engagements of this type in 60 years, it is rather worthless.

Ships nowadays never really get within striking distance of each other, they normally engage aircraft or missiles instead. And since defending against these threats is largely impossible, modern navies have given up even trying with armour, and instead concentrate on direct air defense with anti aircraft and anti missile systems.

I was pointing this out to you, and you just do not get it. Armour against bombs is stupid, instead concentrate on shooting down the aircraft in the first place. Armour against missiles is stupid, instead concentrate on shooting down the missiles.

And in this case, never again put your ships in a tight harbor, with a city and mountains right up against it. That is simply asking to get your arse handed to you.

Well, I am 47 in 2 weeks, and have spent 15 years in the military, 10 years in the Marines, and the last 5 years in the Army. My main jobs were Infantry in the Marines (with special training in security, amphibious warfare, and jungle warfare), and Air Missile Defense in the Army (specifically the PATRIOT missile system).

In the period between service, I was mostly in the computer industry.

You are young, and you are full of p*ss and vinegar. But this is a case where you should sit back and listen to people that have some actual experience in what you are discussing. My military training started in 1980, and it has never ended in the 31 years since.

And please, learn how to do your own research.

 

I said "would modern armour be any better". So you said "it's still steel", so fair enough, modern armour isn't any better at stopping missiles. I never said what you think I said.