Posted on May 11, 2015
What's the most lethal vessel in the Navy's modern arsenal?
52.7K
347
196
16
16
0
What is the Navy's most lethal warship in today's fleet? The aircraft carrier? The submarine? Something else? What say you?
Navy
Weapons
Submarines
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 103
20
20
0
As a (retired) surface Sailor I would love to say Destroyers (DDG) and Cruisers (CG), but honestly I would have to say Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN). They have the capability to blow up small countries and you would never know they were there.
(20)
(0)
PO1 Lester Frilling
All of you are right but i still love the simple Power of Oue Aircraft Carriers !!!
(3)
(0)
CDR James Christopher
PO1 Lester Frilling - Carriers are a heavyweight fighter with a glass jaw. Great offense but no defense. Also, due to fuel requirements of the aircraft, they have limited sustainability.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Michael Dean
Agreed with what has the most power it the nukes. In reality what does ALL THE HEAVY LIFTING IN the military is the aircraft carrier and it's battle group including the destroyers. Submarines have played no part in winning any actual wars. Thankfully the silent and unseen force is just that.
(1)
(0)
17
17
0
LTC Paul Labrador
Not having a laser beam on it's head brings it down a few places, unfortunately.....
(5)
(0)
12
12
0
SSBN, hands down. A single SSBN has more operational 100-300 kt than the third most powerful nuclear nation. (As hinted at by PO1 John Miller and LTC Paul Labrador).
The operational nuclear warhead pecking order goes: 1. US 2. RUS 3. A single US SSBN
The raw numbers invert the US and Russia, but the SSBN is still third.
The operational nuclear warhead pecking order goes: 1. US 2. RUS 3. A single US SSBN
The raw numbers invert the US and Russia, but the SSBN is still third.
(12)
(0)
LT John Stevens
As a former Surface Warfare guy, I have to question whether or not a weapon that no one is willing to use has any real lethality.
(1)
(0)
CPO Joseph Grant
We are the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in anger. As a Submariner, I can assure you that when National Command Authority gives the launch order those birds will fly. There is a greater chance they'll be used now that "rogue" nations are acquiring nuclear weapons technology along with ballistic missiles.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
I don't think it can be narrowed down to one single vessel. More appropriately would be the Carrier Battle Group. Several ships including a submarine make up a multi directional strike force and can be most anywhere in the world to launch strikes or fly support missions for other services. Rain, shine, high winds and heavy seas don't make a difference. Within a few days a carrier battle group can be anywhere and ready to join the fight or get it started.
We can stay at sea indefinitely due to underway replenishments for receiving food, ammo and parts, even additional personnel.
We can stay at sea indefinitely due to underway replenishments for receiving food, ammo and parts, even additional personnel.
(9)
(0)
LT John Stevens
Do you really believe that President Obama ever, under any circumstance, would authorize the launch of nuclear weapons? A weapon you are not willing to use is not a weapon at all and certainly has no real lethality. We have them because our opponents have them to support the old mutually assured destruction (MAD) concept. These boats are incredible, awesome weapon systems, but they also are somewhat like pistols without triggers.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
While I will agree that the SSBN is powerful its pretty much a one and done deal. There are what, 24 nuclear capable missiles onboard? Shoot your load and then what? You can't sustain operations underwater indefinitely, while the power plant can, the crew cannot. And when shooting your 24 missiles how many will actually make it to target? I would say though without a doubt that the SSBN is the scariest lethal weapon because they are difficult to track, they don't need to surface to fire and nuclear weapons are no joke if even 2/3 of the missiles hit target or close to target there is going to be massive destruction. Not to sound ignorant or disrespectful but the SSBN is your military boogyman.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Erm, you know those 24 missles are MIRVs, right? Each one has like 3-12 warheads each. So those 24 are really 72-288.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
SN Greg Wright, yes I get that, but again, a SSBN will shoot it's load and then what? You can't stay submerged forever and when you do surface your fairly defenseless. I got a lot of respect for bubble heads takes a special kind of person to spend 3 months at a time underwater.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
In my opinion which is a bit slanted its the Carrier. 80,000 + tons of whop ass. 4.5 acres of Soverign land that can be anywhere in a few days. With near 100 aircraft onboard in can launch fighter attack aircraft every 30 seconds fully loaded for bear.
(8)
(0)
SFC Stephen Carden
I completely agree with your answer MCPO Douglas Pennington , but that capability comes with a price , doesn't it? From what I understand (and please know that my understanding of the Navy is minimal), while the carrier is an awesome offensive platform, its defenses are a bit lacking. That is why they have carrier groups with successive rings of defense. From CAP all the way in to the carrier itself, everyone's mission is to protect the carrier. True?
(0)
(0)
MCPO Douglas Pennington
This is true, however when you have a mighty ship as a Carrier, Defenses around her will always be maximum. It has a pretty good defensive armory of its own but one can imagine that with 80,000+ tons of pure power the Battle Group will desend on and protect her.
(0)
(0)
LT John Stevens
Considering that the Russians appear to have hypersonic anti-ship missiles, and China has "Carrier-killer" ballistic missiles, are 4.5 acre warships survivable in a major maritime confrontation in which the US does not have unchallenged air and sea superiority? Like the pre-WW-II battleships that were awesome weapons of their time, has the aircraft carrier been surpassed by technology as an effective and lethal weapon system? If we are talking war with lower Somalistan, the carrier is an awesome and effective weapon. If we are talking war with China or Russia, I believe the aircraft carrier is past its prime.
I have to go with the latest Aegis cruisers and destroyers loaded with hundreds of cruise missiles, long range guns, and masked using low-observable technologies.
I have to go with the latest Aegis cruisers and destroyers loaded with hundreds of cruise missiles, long range guns, and masked using low-observable technologies.
(1)
(0)
SN Joseph Jensik
Carrier gets hit by a torpedo on the aft end. No shaft or shaft seals. No propulsion=no flight ops
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
6
6
0
Whatever warship is in immediate reach of the objective. A destroyer, sub or carrier out of range is useless in eliminating the target.
(6)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Excellent point shipmate. That is one reason we deploy so much and so far. Still we need more to be actually realistic.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I know everyone is saying the SSBN. I have been on a cruiser and a Carrier and I would personally have to say the Carrier. I understand the Submarine being able to blow up a small country and the fact that no one really knows where they are, but in reality, when things heat up, what do they send to the area? A Carrier, mostly with all it's capabilities and being able to launch a multitude of aircraft in a very short period of time makes it quite lethal. If the U.S. wants to pull out a can of "Get Right," they send the Carrier.
(6)
(0)
CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter
A DDG is visible but a carrier is not only visible but has awesome fire power.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
The real answer is it depends. If you are talking about just pure destruction, you have to go with the SSBN. However, simce we have executed that mission exactly ZERO times ever, I'm going to propose the more realistic answer to be the LHA/LHD. Your big deck Amphibious Assault Ship carries enough (2000ish) Marines and all of the associated support ranging from artillery, Ch-53's to left same and/or Marines, a full squadron of CH-46's for troop transport, 4 UH-1 Huey's for Command and Control (Huey Pilots would argue gunship, but seriously..lol), 4 AH-1's for Close air support, and 4 AV-8 Harriers also for close air support. I realize the loadouts sometimes differ, but that's the gist of it. That's the ONLY ship in the Navy and pretty much the whole planet that can realistically, do some significant damage, and more importantly take and hold a piece of real estate. So, since "lethal"in the original question wasn't specific, the big deck amphib gets my vote. I will share one disclaimer. As a Cobra pilot no longer on active duty, there is the slightest (I'm talking really slight) chance I could be baised. Semper Fi!
(6)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
The reason why we're all still here to talk about it is because SSBN's accomplish their mission of deterrence, every day since inception, just by being out there. In that sense, you have to total the potential power of all the nuclear weapons that have NOT been launched (at us), as a positive-number result.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I understand the need for Marines to call ships boats, and even aviators, but really Shipmates? Ships are ships and bots are boats! Sailors SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCES.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
5
0
The Carrier Battle Group is a combination of lethal weapons, the most lethal ship in my book is still the carrier and it's escorts. Indivdually, the Sub is pretty lethal, but limited in all it can do.
(5)
(0)
PO1 Steven Nelson
The Sub is only as lethal as the crews around it. The group is Lethal. No way to Replenish, no more than a few shots down range, on target. That's TEAMWORK, plane and simple. If needed, anyone of our Ships can hold off anything on the planet long enough to get the team there. That's when you get the can of " get right "! Jus sayin.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Indeed, the ability to take out the entire planet with one SSBN is "pretty lethal"...
(0)
(0)
CPO Mike Anderson
The problem with a nuke or multiple nuke's is you may win, but at what cost? I personally would like to come home to my family, not a self induced, glow in the dark parking lot.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Lethality always needs a context. Lethal to whom: other shipping, troops on the ground, aircraft, entire cities, what?
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
CMDCM Gene Treants
Picking the most lethal SINGLE platform I tend to agree with that order PO2 Alfredo Pacheco.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
I would agree with this order. If the equation of planes are to carriers as are missiles to CG/DDG is accounted for. Inversely one could say since planes can opperate from other places than carriers then CG/DDG would be higher than a CVN. Still a strike group is always a good choice.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
MCPO Tom Miller
My dear friend, a 22 year bubble head has told me this many times. He was a great friend and lived the life of submariner long after retirement a D never missed a reunion. My last tour was as a MCPO on CRUDEGRUEIGHT with the flag on board the USS INDEPENDENCE CV62. We had in the GRU a sub with cruisers and destroyers for protection too. Go Navy
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
CPO (Join to see)
It's OK, that kind of knowledge is supposed to be limited (but the SSBN platform isn't, LOL!)
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The Ohio Class submarine. 24 Trident D-5 missiles with up to 12 MIRV (multiple independent re-entry vehicle) warheads with a maximum yield of 375 KT giving you 136.8 megatons. Ships no longer carry nuclear weapons and carrier aircraft are not certified to deliver nuclear bombs.
(4)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Thank you, CAPT. Two points, The issue is lethality, and there is nothing in our arsenal that has the lethality of the SSBN, as you noted. Second, the Coast Guard is NOT part of the Navy, ergo, not in this topic. They are good fun to pick on though.
I may be prejudiced, though. my entire career (21 years) has been on submarines or related shore duty.
For anyone that is interested in more on your last sentence (SALT), here is a good historical timeline reflecting how we got there.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/salt
I may be prejudiced, though. my entire career (21 years) has been on submarines or related shore duty.
For anyone that is interested in more on your last sentence (SALT), here is a good historical timeline reflecting how we got there.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/salt
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The Ohio Class Submarine. 24 Trident D-5 missiles with up to 12 MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicle) warheads having a maximum yield of 475 KT gives you 136.8 megatons. Surface ships no longer have nuclear weapons aboard and carrier aircraft are not nuclear certified.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
SSBN, hands down. A single SSBN has more operational 100-300 kt than the third most powerful nuclear nation. (As hinted at by PO1 John Miller and LTC Paul Labrador).
The operational nuclear warhead pecking order goes: 1. US 2. RUS 3. A single US SSBN
The raw numbers invert the US and Russia, but the SSBN is still third.
The operational nuclear warhead pecking order goes: 1. US 2. RUS 3. A single US SSBN
The raw numbers invert the US and Russia, but the SSBN is still third.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google