Record holders: Oberon 6Percy said:
Collins 4
Daphne 1
HDW 209 2
Just remember that apart from the exercise run in the last RIMPAC, that all prev exercises were scripted. In RIMPAC 04 the sub was loose.
Sinking an Aircraft carrier
- Thread starter corsair7772
- Start date
- Status
Collins 4
Daphne 1
HDW 209 2
Just remember that apart from the exercise run in the last RIMPAC, that all prev exercises were scripted. In RIMPAC 04 the sub was loose.
Anythings possible...Percy said:Scripted or not, it seems to be possible. True, as Commander of such a sub, you need plenty of luckgf0012-aust said:
Yaguarete_AR
New Member
That's true, my fellow corsair. BEsides, even with several oldies Exocets an modern aircraft carrier could be leave it out of combat (radar damage, eletronic equipment damage, fire all over the place...) leaving the wreck unprotected for a free fall bombing ride (Malvinas old style...corsair7772 said:
)- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #65
Yup. You gotta appreciate the skill and courage the Argentinians showed in the Falklands. Ive read abt the entire war and written two analytical papers on it, and youll never find a single word against them. They deserve to be in the top 10 performanc wise.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #67
I suppose their emphasising on a decaying ASW capability of the USN which used to be ultra in the old days but seems to have lost its edge due to neglation and in comparison with other military projects going on the ASW capability has fewer projects assigned to it.
PLAN should have 4 new subs online by 2010 which are:
Type 093 SSN
Yuan SSK
Song SSK
Kilo SSK
These new subs have more capable torps capable of sinking a large USN ship with one hit and none of these has to surface to launch its missiles. Added to this are better hull designs and more endurance.
PS the chinese have got a new MING variant as well which seems to be excellent in coastal defense role and similar to Daphne class subs due to improvements especially in C3I.
PLAN should have 4 new subs online by 2010 which are:
Type 093 SSN
Yuan SSK
Song SSK
Kilo SSK
These new subs have more capable torps capable of sinking a large USN ship with one hit and none of these has to surface to launch its missiles. Added to this are better hull designs and more endurance.
PS the chinese have got a new MING variant as well which seems to be excellent in coastal defense role and similar to Daphne class subs due to improvements especially in C3I.
Nope, incorrect. The only torp that could sink a CVN with one shot are the British ones designed in the early 1960's. They were nukes. The British stopped producing them as there were other ways to take out Russian Battle Cruisers and Cruisers (of that period)
Nobody makes a nuke torpedo now as there are other ways to achieve the kill.
The most powerful torps currently known would have to hit a CVN at least 3 times to achieve a terminal effect.
A Mk48 ADCAP will sink a WW2 Cruiser sized vessel. 2-3 could finish of a carrier the size of the Vikrant.
If anyone launched a nuke torp, or a nuke ASM, then that's as good as a declaration of war.
Whoever launched it would probably end up with a country that would be the largest piece of silicate in the history of the world.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
1 hit by a heavy weight torpedo like the Mk-48 ADCAP, would probably put the Carrier out of action though, gf. That'd be just as useful tactically as sinking it...
True, hitting it up the freckle would lame it. Sinking it though is another issue. The USN estimates that it would take probably 4 torps of the calibre of an ADCAP to drop a CVN.Aussie Digger said:
3 would be precision shots and would assume that proper lockdown was not able to be affected.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #71
No no Gary i wasnt referring to a capital class cruiser or Carrier. it was a vague reference for destroyers and frigates like an Aegis or possibly a supply ship. The chinese these days have torps capable of sinking one of those with a single hit but certainly not an CVN let alone disable it.gf0012-aust said:
OK, I assumed that we were talking about a carrier. A ticonderoga would probably need 2, but 1 would be terminal enough I think to take it out of a fully functioning role.corsair7772 said:
(assuming the torp was of an ADCAP capability)
A heavily listed carrier cannot launch it's aircrafts. a carrier that cannot launch it's aircrafts is a dead weight in a fleet. a highly confidence (close to insane) Sub commander might aim to sink the carrier outright. The less confident one might aim to heavily damage the carrier and send it limping to the port.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Sending it limping to port would be more useful than hanging around to try and sink it, IMHO. US "Super Carriers" need to be able to cruise into the wind at a failry high speed to launch their aircraft. If a carrier can't launch it's aircraft it's basically useless, other than providing some command and control capabilities.
If a sub driver managed to get a good shot on a Carrier it would be more useful for him to get the hell out of there. The ASW effort would be enormous at that point... I would imagine that a decent shot by a heavyweight torpedo (or anti-ship missile for that matter) on a US Carrier would probably damage it to the point that it would be unable to launch and would probably be obliged to make it's way home as best it could. Of course the Americans would be none too impressed and you could probably kiss your Navy goodbye, but at least you would have achieved something no-one else has managed in recent times...
If a sub driver managed to get a good shot on a Carrier it would be more useful for him to get the hell out of there. The ASW effort would be enormous at that point... I would imagine that a decent shot by a heavyweight torpedo (or anti-ship missile for that matter) on a US Carrier would probably damage it to the point that it would be unable to launch and would probably be obliged to make it's way home as best it could. Of course the Americans would be none too impressed and you could probably kiss your Navy goodbye, but at least you would have achieved something no-one else has managed in recent times...
That's true enough, but the conventional driver would also need to try and shoot from within the littorals to increase survivability chances. Any deep blue attack would reduce by significant quantums their chance in getting away alive. That of course doesn't matter if their intent is to be sacrificial.Aussie Digger said:
A nuke could do a deep blue attack, and gamble on running the 800k perimeter at high speed to get away, but they are handicapped by their noisemaking.
Any sub travelling above 5-8 knots is basically starting to act like an aquatic transducer - so it makes the issue of wolf packing even more critical.
Again, bear in mind that a battle formation is running numerous layers of ASW capability at different ranges - so a sub has to peel the onion first.
It's not just staying undetected. That would be a longshot option for a 3rd world sub. All they have to do is to prevent the enemy ASW force from pinpointing their exact location. Remember, Detecting a sub is one thing. Localizing it accurate enough for weapon delivery is another thing. Sub might be able to use the thermal layers and the biologics to create a confusing picture to the Surface ASW force. Of course, there is a Submarine escort to be trifle with.
I wonder how the SSN(DS) can keep up with the CVBG. The CVBG might travel at 20 knots at least. the sub probably use sprint and drift tactics but what if the enemy sub can lob a torps during the sprint when sonar is virtually blind.
I wonder how the SSN(DS) can keep up with the CVBG. The CVBG might travel at 20 knots at least. the sub probably use sprint and drift tactics but what if the enemy sub can lob a torps during the sprint when sonar is virtually blind.
It depends on what countries navy you are talking about. The disposition of units in the USN is different from that of the French, or the Indian Navy.Awang se said:
If a USN CSF is in battle config, then they are travelling at greater than 25 knots and also engaging in manouvre as well. They also have their own SSK(N)'s as part of the defensive layer. ASW in a USN fleet is not passive, it is aggressive. So all ASW platforms are used to find and scare an OPFOR sub into movement.
A fleet commander would have run probables on what subs were a likely threat, check their last known appearance from various Int areas and then done a tactical of likely intercept points etc... Hence why they will probably run deep water strikes and at flank speed at various points in time. The only sub that can keep up with a CSF travelling at flank is a nuke, and then its hoping that flank noise is masking it's own interception approach.
If subs are in a LUP then the advance units of a CSF will be aggressive (especially if they are going in closer to littorals)
No fleet commander is going to play into a sub driver with local knowdledge - that would be courting risk.
I know it's a very old topic, nontheless quite intriguing
I do realize there is little that can counter a USN carrier battle group and chances of suceeding are slim at best, however this doesn't mean an opposing force would necessarily give up right away.
Obviously a surprise attack (as much as that is possible given todays sat coverage) would have much better chances at being successful, then again one would still need a plan for the remaining 11 carriers. So not really a bright idea.
For the sake of discussion, lets assume the Taiwan conflict goes hot and Chinese are determined to re-integrate the 'province' to gain access to vital technology, more tax revenue and to set and example to other provinces and the rest of the world. The USA have a strategic interest in the region and highly dependant on Taiwanese products (specifically -> computers). Despite having gigantic foreign debt to China, they decide to intervene to ensure Taiwans independency.
In general terms the Chinese do have two advantages to start with - firstly it is their home turf and secondly Americans are incredibly convinced of themselves (to a degree that causes errors).
I do realize there is little that can counter a USN carrier battle group and chances of suceeding are slim at best, however this doesn't mean an opposing force would necessarily give up right away.
Obviously a surprise attack (as much as that is possible given todays sat coverage) would have much better chances at being successful, then again one would still need a plan for the remaining 11 carriers. So not really a bright idea.
For the sake of discussion, lets assume the Taiwan conflict goes hot and Chinese are determined to re-integrate the 'province' to gain access to vital technology, more tax revenue and to set and example to other provinces and the rest of the world. The USA have a strategic interest in the region and highly dependant on Taiwanese products (specifically -> computers). Despite having gigantic foreign debt to China, they decide to intervene to ensure Taiwans independency.
In general terms the Chinese do have two advantages to start with - firstly it is their home turf and secondly Americans are incredibly convinced of themselves (to a degree that causes errors).
No CVSF commander will be fool enough to put its assets in harm way.Nautilus said:I know it's a very old topic, nontheless quite intriguing
I do realize there is little that can counter a USN carrier battle group and chances of suceeding are slim at best, however this doesn't mean an opposing force would necessarily give up right away.
Obviously a surprise attack (as much as that is possible given todays sat coverage) would have much better chances at being successful, then again one would still need a plan for the remaining 11 carriers. So not really a bright idea.
Plus, he has the legs to reach very very far. So all HVUs will stay out of reach, while ops are running around.
Opfor will have to find the CVSG before to get to it.
I recommand you study the Falkland war, especially Sandy Woodwark's book.
Today, chinese assets are the most "looked at" of the world. Because for the last ten years, the US are preparing for the inthinkable.Nautilus said:
And, reading the chinese reaction after the Iraqi wars, I can tell you that the over-self-confident are the chineses. At least they were.
I believe it takes a much wider approach than launching X number of jets with such and such AShM to throw at the CBG! Here are some ideas to toss around...
China would approach Russia in an attempt to negotiate some 'special exercises' to be conducted. Given enough incentives, Russia could be persuaded to put to sea (part of) their fleet of SSBN's and SSN's. Basically this is nothing but smoke and mirrors to divert attention. Worry some decision makers in the Pentagon and in turn some USN SSN's would be pre-occupied with shadowing these subs. Less SSN's available for ops in chinese waters.
A weakness in carrier ops is their dependency on RAS. Between 12 CBG's there are only four large Supply class replenishment ships (and a fleet of other less capable ships) in the USN. The Supply class had their Phalanx and SeaSparrow armament removed a couple of years back. They have a part civilian crew and recently have adopted a new doctrine by which these ships operate idependently from CGB's - essentially these ships ferry ammo, fuel and food between friendly harbours and CBG's. Sinking some of these ships would have a direct impact on US ability to sustain ops around Taiwan. Compared to a CBG these ships are lightly escorted if at all.
Next, China would want to ensure the game is played by their rules (to an extend). For example, they could mine the southern and eastern areas around Taiwan. Obviously this would be picked up by american satellites which is the whole point of the exercise. As the ground invasion is in full progress, the USN would not have the time to clear the mines in time and hence have two options - a) stay away further from the shore effectively cutting down on the range of their jets or b) moving into the area not mined by China (north-east of Taiwan) which is a trap. It is close to chinese air bases and Taiwan is not in between the carrier and China as a buffer zone.
Direct attacks on the CBG would be drawn out, even though China would be interested to get it done with as quickly as possible to give Americans less time to repair damage and to wear out the crews. If at all, then it could only be tackled with a combined approach by masses of aircraft, submarines and during the final phase - surface units. The attrition rate would be extremely high.
For the Chinese some ideas could be worthwhile considering before all this starts. Firstly, installing a network much like SOSUS in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea to track US SSN's. Secondly, investments in american media as support for a war or lack thereof highly depends on the perception in the general american public. Also, the chinese navy would need to be build up considerably - something that is happening NOW! Chilling thought huh?
China would approach Russia in an attempt to negotiate some 'special exercises' to be conducted. Given enough incentives, Russia could be persuaded to put to sea (part of) their fleet of SSBN's and SSN's. Basically this is nothing but smoke and mirrors to divert attention. Worry some decision makers in the Pentagon and in turn some USN SSN's would be pre-occupied with shadowing these subs. Less SSN's available for ops in chinese waters.
A weakness in carrier ops is their dependency on RAS. Between 12 CBG's there are only four large Supply class replenishment ships (and a fleet of other less capable ships) in the USN. The Supply class had their Phalanx and SeaSparrow armament removed a couple of years back. They have a part civilian crew and recently have adopted a new doctrine by which these ships operate idependently from CGB's - essentially these ships ferry ammo, fuel and food between friendly harbours and CBG's. Sinking some of these ships would have a direct impact on US ability to sustain ops around Taiwan. Compared to a CBG these ships are lightly escorted if at all.
Next, China would want to ensure the game is played by their rules (to an extend). For example, they could mine the southern and eastern areas around Taiwan. Obviously this would be picked up by american satellites which is the whole point of the exercise. As the ground invasion is in full progress, the USN would not have the time to clear the mines in time and hence have two options - a) stay away further from the shore effectively cutting down on the range of their jets or b) moving into the area not mined by China (north-east of Taiwan) which is a trap. It is close to chinese air bases and Taiwan is not in between the carrier and China as a buffer zone.
Direct attacks on the CBG would be drawn out, even though China would be interested to get it done with as quickly as possible to give Americans less time to repair damage and to wear out the crews. If at all, then it could only be tackled with a combined approach by masses of aircraft, submarines and during the final phase - surface units. The attrition rate would be extremely high.
For the Chinese some ideas could be worthwhile considering before all this starts. Firstly, installing a network much like SOSUS in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea to track US SSN's. Secondly, investments in american media as support for a war or lack thereof highly depends on the perception in the general american public. Also, the chinese navy would need to be build up considerably - something that is happening NOW! Chilling thought huh?
- Status