Could a single F-35C, loaded with a single B61 mod 12 configured for minimum yield of 300 tons...

Probably.
I'd bet on those odds

A direct hit would do it. A near miss... well, it'd have to be a *very* near miss.

Assuming you're able to penetrate the carrier's air defense, then yes. Modern B-61s have some degree of standoff capability, so you wouldn't necessarily have to fly directly above the target.

Yes unless the carrier was an American one, as they are impossible to sink.

With a CSG or without?

>yeah if somehow it can mask itself as a duck or find a way to avoid detection from the aesa radar..

LEL, isn't Lockheed Martin saying that it's invisible?....LEL...oh no, they say 'very low observable.'...

>impossible to sink.

They thought the same for the Titanic, but then the pesky iceberg came along...Nothing that swims is unsinkable....not even these overpriced carriers....

Why do you type like a fucking retard?

F35 could just pretend it's coming in for a landing.
Now the question is would a 0,3 kT nuke on a flight deck sink a carrier.

>yield of 300 tons
0.3 kt? Are you retarded?

Not even close to powerful enough to sink a carrier. Seriously, we tested shitbox 50s carriers against nukes, that won’t do anything. No one will want to be on the carrier though because, y’know, radiation.

Just a reminder that Soviet anti-ship missiles that were expected to take out aircraft carriers had 300-1000 kiloton thermonuclear warheads.

Attached: 1144 pyotr velikiy launching 3m45 p-700 granit.jpg (1440x810, 65K)

Well, two things. I don’t know where they were intended to hit the aircraft carrier. If the top, they have momentum to lunch through the deck. If the side, they’re hitting it closer to waterline. Blowing up a bomb on the flight deck will just destroy the flight deck

>I don’t know where they were intended to hit the aircraft carrier

Attached: p-270 moskit & p-1000 vulkan.webm (1280x720, 2.7M)

Or alternatively in case of Kh-22 and possibly Kh-15:
>It can be launched in either high-altitude or low-altitude mode. In high-altitude mode, it climbs to an altitude of 27,000 m (89,000 ft) and makes a high-speed dive into the target, with a terminal speed of about Mach 4.6. In low-altitude mode, it climbs to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and makes a shallow dive at about Mach 3.5, making the final approach at an altitude under 500 m (1,600 ft).

Attached: tu-22m3 with kh-15 & kh-22.jpg (1024x672, 73K)

Bigger question would be probably whether or not the bomb can penetrate the air and close range defence systems of the carrier.

Maybe

>what is bikini atoll
Various tests were done in the ‘50s regarding nuclear devices and surplus navy ships

Obsolete battleships and pre-ww2 carriers doesn't tell much about a modern supercarrier.

If we thought our carriers were unsinkable we wouldnt have 3 layers of defense for aerial and surface threats alone
It would almost certainly disable it and crater the ramp even if it didnt outright pop.

Soviets also compensated for shit accuracy and were targeting the whole carrier group.

>Soviets also compensated for shit accuracy
Nice meme, shitface, see webm above. Also,
>Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter (19.63 m2 (211.3 sq ft)), and was 12 m (40 ft) deep.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
So much for "shit accuracy". Keep your ignorant whore trap shut, clueless westfaggot clown scum.
>and were targeting the whole carrier group.
With separate missiles that had selective targeting, fucking retard. Eat shit.

>Nice meme, shitface, see webm above. Also
Not him but are you saying Cold War anti ship and ballistic missiles were accurate?

user, that’s literally why they had such fuckhuge yields on those missiles. You don’t need a god damn megaton warhead to sink a carrier if you plan on scoring anything resembling a direct hit.

Cold War anti ship missiles were and still are accurate as it is evident from the videos of them hitting targets.
They had those yields because their targets were 1/3 kilometer long 100000 tonne ships.
>You don’t need a god damn megaton warhead
Must be why most missiles didn't have it.

Pretty sure the general idea was to target them against the CSG as a whole.

They do if even those old cans dont sink from it. Meme all you want about muh armor, old school seamanship, ordinance handling, safety measures and damage control would turn even the most negligent Indian skipper today green in the face.
And they still didnt sink, with no crew aboard to do any damage control at all.

>Cold War anti ship missiles were and still are accurate as it is evident from the videos of them hitting targets.
Ah so you are a retard.

>Not him but are you saying Cold War anti ship and ballistic missiles were accurate?
What do you mean by "accurate"? An aircraft carrier is a damn big target user.

The general idea was not just to target specific ships selectively in order from the most to the least crucial, it was also to perform evasive maneuvers in the terminal flight stage.
Fucking clueless memeing clowns, Jesus Christ.

Attached: 3m80 p-270 moskit maneuvers.webm (1920x1080, 2.6M)

I'm not the one claiming anti-ship missiles were inaccurate in spite of all the evidence proving that they were and still are, so I'm not a retard here, you little clueless memeing faggot clown imbecile scum.

The Fatpig 35C can't do shit, only true planes can take off from an aircraft carrier
pic related : a real plane, take notes american faggots

Attached: Rafale.jpg (1600x1067, 289K)

Cold War missiles lost their targets frequently and would target other ships including civilian ones. Also carriers move.

>a real plane
Why do all eurocanards look the same? It’s like someone decided that every “modern” EU aircraft would be a single tail delta with canards. The Rafale is probably the most aesthetic of the bunch, though.

Oh you're talking from that perspective, in that case most close to the blasts did sink and nukes are rather more powerful today, along with the difference between an underwater blast miles off vs a directly targeted nuke.

It does dispel the russian pipe dream of a single nuclear torpedo taking out the whole carrier group.

>Cold War missiles lost their targets frequently and would target other ships including civilian ones
Nice fart into a puddle.
>carriers move
So do missiles and targeting aircraft and satellites. And at much faster pace.

>Blowing up a bomb on the flight deck will just destroy the flight deck
That's honestly good enough since a carrier that can't launch aircraft isn't a carrier anymore.

Because you have no clue about aircraft.

Attached: saab 37 viggen.jpg (1024x669, 173K)

>posts another single tail canard delta configuration

>So do missiles and targeting aircraft and satellites. And at much faster pace.
We are talking about Cold War missiles

Yeah, like I said it's because you have no clue about aircraft. You're like those people who can't tell T-64, T-72 and T-80 apart.

Attached: mig-1.44 (4).jpg (1435x801, 144K)

>rectangular munitions
What the hell are those?

Indeed, we do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombkapsel_90

Attached: saab 37 viggen armament.jpg (1024x663, 195K)

Neat.

>take out
Assuming you mean mission kill, then yeah, assuming you hit the thing.

Jesus you are assblasted, i cant imagine getting this angry at a mongolian tapestry forum

Not that guy you're talking to but he's just saying they have the same design roots and basic principles. Not that they are the same aircraft or copies of each other. Stop getting so defensive

The Eurofighter and the Rafale have the same “father”. France was working on the Eurofighter project but later left to develop the Rafale on its own, so they used parts of the design for the new plane

Would the EMP-effects from a nuclear detonation have an effect on an aircraft carrier? Pretty scary if so, since I'm assuming cooling pumps etc for the reactor (on american ones) are computer-controlled. But maybe they're hardened against such things?

da fuck you talking about. source on a carrier getting nuked and not sinking. i want that video

kamikaze the f35 and detonate the nuke in its belly. f35 could get close on a dive to avoid the close in phalanx

Bikini Atoll tests is all you need to see.

If nukes can't sink a fucking WW2 battleship(that wasn't in the direct proximity of the bomb) in a single strike, you're not gonna sink a modern carrier without the bomb being like on top of the carrier.
The crew will be fucked by the blast, but the ship will survive.

Nuclear weapons have advanced quite a bit in 60+ years user. The B-61 set to maximum yield is significantly more powerful than any of the bombs used in those tests.

The advancement in nuke tech only really means that the absolute lethal range of the nuke increases in size.
The same logic applies, if the target is far enough away from the epicenter, even if its still in range of the nuke, it will not sink.

You want a guaranteed sinking? Direct hit. Going further offtarget to avoid interception and hoping the blast will sink the carrier is a gamble.

Full context on that webm? Looks interesting and vaguely familiar.

It's kinda hard to find out if the B-61 fits into the internal bays or not. If the bomb is too big, it has to mounted externaly, considerably increasing the RCS.
That being said, it makes no sense to risk a 180+ megabuck$ plane to deliver a nuclear device, when you have cruise missiles and a nuclear warheads for them of similar yield...

Zero effect, given that a ship is a giant metal box with any vulnerable conductive lengths safely inside.

Some russian AShM's being tested on some ship. Vatniks routinely post that as proof that Mother Russia could take down carriers if they wanted to. 'Muricans usually reply with "that ship is laced with explosives, the way it blows up makes no sense, your missile would never make it to the carrier anyway" and then the shitfest ensues.

>I don’t know where they were intended to hit the aircraft carrier
>Gets shown how
>An imbecile redneck fatnik faggot on damage control pops up squealing something about vatniks

Attached: 3m70 p-1000 vulkan launch from 1164.jpg (1963x1300, 258K)

>and then the shitfest ensues
pottery

because he's drunk off of putinka and wobbles while he squats. English is also his second language

I think a 300 kt blast at or near the flight deck would be enough to do it. Fireball radius is great enough to go all the way to the keel, and the shockwave/blast effect would be enough to compromise watertight integrity throughout the remaining structure of the ship. It might take a few hours, but whatever is left would definitely sink.

You’d probably do it faster by putting the warhead in the water alongside. The blast effect would crush the hull on that side.

You need casaba howitzers if you want to carve up a carrier with small yields. Not very practical though.

0.3 would be enough with a direct hit, even a close airburst would effectively neutralise the ship.

youtu.be/hkoBwFYitlU

The bomb would immediately destroy everything topside through massive overpressure and blow a 20m hole through the flightdeck, filling the hangerdeck with fire, neutron radiation and shrapnel.
The ship wouldn't sink, infact the nuclear reactor would probably be fine, but it would get the full bismark treatment, with everything above the waterline a burning wreck.