Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[Totoro]

Nuclear strike for getting its carrier force destroyed? I think not. Any use of nuclear weapons, be they even on a tactical scale, is a huge escallation of conflict, a whole new level of insanity. Sure, i guess there's 1% chance someone would be crazy enough to do such a move, but US leadership isn't that crazy, they know the possible consequences. (and yes, of course US has more nukes than anyone else but what is worth for you if you scorch whole china/russia/europe/whatever if your cities too get nuked? Especially since those deaths could've easely be avoided)

To answer drifter: I was talking theory. How does one go about destroying a US type carrier force. Yes, some countries today could pull off the B kind of attack, with today's resources. you need two prerequisities. the general location of the target, and protection of your own airfields. Then you take off with massive numbers of kamikaze planes (doesnt matter if theyre old f-4s, j6s, b737 or whatever and just go. most of them will get shot down but sooner or later the defences will get oversaturated and enough will slip through to make damage. Of course most people would say that is crazy, that no one would sacrifice those people and that equipment - and they're probably right. But it IS possible.

So, if you DO have large enough pool of trained volunteers, you simply design a cheap and efficient kamikaze plane for that very purpose, equip it with line of sight next to impossible to jam datalinks, IRST sensors and build thousands of them. Once you have a location of the target (biggest issue objectively but that's not the point i'm trying to make anyway) and you have the planes in the air (another issue, but again, thats not what we're talking bout here)
the carrier is as good as dead. Of course, who wants to sacrifice a thousand people?

Theoretically, one could try to pull something like that off without pilots, by using UAVs/missiles, however you wanna call them. make them cheap, low performance, strip them off all the fancy gadgets and just equip them with off the shelf tech IR sensors, camera, target recognition software. and the ubiqitous non jammable datalink. Use a laser datalink if necesarry for all i care. Have the uavs (just like the planes in first scenario) fly close enough to stay in contact but far enough to prevent two being destroyed with one missile) Make a chain of them, from the shore to the carrier. put the uavs on trucks, you solve the problem of the enemy striking first and destryoing your airstrips. So, even if it does sound like a megalomanical plan, it is not really. It just requires a dozen or two biliions of dolllars worth of work/equipment and you're off.

Save for a force field type shield - nothing can resist a large enough attack, providing the location of the target is at least vaguely known. End of my THEORETICAL idea.

 

[Wild Weasel]

Totoro, what was/is being suggested, is nothing less than a modern-day equivilent to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, with the potential for more lives lost than those killed in the 9/11 attacks. What's more, to attack and destroy one of America's greatest symbols of military dominance- a nuclear-powered super-carrier, would undoubetly require the destruction of one or more of her escorts as well. We are rapidly approaching as many as ten thousand dead in one coordinated attack- an inconcievable loss of lives and equipment.

Yes, absolutely- the nuclear option is definately on the table. I would be very suprised if were not already in play, within hours of such an attack taking place.

I am suggesting a limited nuclear strike against the nation(s) involved- not a massive global nuclear war against every concievable target set. But make no mistake about it- nuking a large military garrison, or industrial target in retribution for the sinking of a CVN is well within their capabilties, and definately a possibilty that would be carefully considered.

 

[Totoro]

And again im saying - any use of nukes would be considered by any country in the world as escalating the conflict unnecesarily.

Even if one attacks and sinks a carrier out of the blue, without declaring war, without purpose other than to sink it - even then US has enough resources to fight a conventional weapons war against that country.

Perhaps i wasn't clear, but i dont see anyone attacking US carrier for no reason. Biggest chance USN has to be attacked is by china, over taiwan or something like that. (and even that is rather slim, realistically). And even china in that situation wouldnt attack a carrier unless that carrier launched attacks on china first (cause china invaded taiwan, for example). Are you saying that in such a development - carrier attacks, china attacks back and sinks the carrier - that US might use nukes to retaliate? I don't see that happening.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you saying that in such a development - carrier attacks, china attacks back and sinks the carrier - that US might use nukes to retaliate? I don't see that happening.

actually, every wargame I've seen factors in a nuke response if a Carrier is sunk.

 

[Schumacher]

Very interesting indeed. Seems the threshold for nuke use is lowered all the time. First it's carrier, let's hope it'll never reach the stage where the US will contemplate a nuke response when a plane is attacked. Little wonder so many countries are trying to get nukes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Very interesting indeed. Seems the threshold for nuke use is lowered all the time. First it's carrier, let's hope it'll never reach the stage where the US will contemplate a nuke response when a plane is attacked. Little wonder so many countries are trying to get nukes.

It's an interesting situation. Baer (the CIA agent in Afgahnistan) indicates in his memoirs that there was a very clear intent in the opening stages of 9-11 that the US was discussing the option of nuking the area where Bin Laden was holding out. Ie if they had clear unimpeachble evidence of his location they were contemplating a focused nuclear strike.

The issue is that a CVN is regarded as a US city - so strike it and you risk reciprocity of some form or fashion.

In the end, who really knows though? Personally, my view is that any attack on a CVN would result in a "weapons free" command. I know quite a few people in the 7th Fleet who hold on to that philosophy. (That doesn't mean to imply that it's policy)

 

[tphuang]

It's an interesting situation. Baer (the CIA agent in Afgahnistan) indicates in his memoirs that there was a very clear intent in the opening stages of 9-11 that the US was discussing the option of nuking the area where Bin Laden was holding out. Ie if they had clear unimpeachble evidence of his location they were contemplating a focused nuclear strike.

The issue is that a CVN is regarded as a US city - so strike it and you risk reciprocity of some form or fashion.

In the end, who really knows though? Personally, my view is that any attack on a CVN would result in a "weapons free" command. I know quite a few people in the 7th Fleet who hold on to that philosophy. (That doesn't mean to imply that it's policy)

lol, you have psychos in PLAN who think any Chinese surface should be regarded as a city. I personally don't think US would risk the nuclear retaliation or the international outcry if a carrier gets sunk through conventional means. But then again, there are plenty of crazy American generals.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But then again, there are plenty of crazy American generals.

the mainland should be happy that this isn't the time of LeMay or Rickover....

 

[Totoro]

Wargames are supposed to take into consideration any and every possibility, only that way can they be precise. Of course they will factor in the possibility of nuke strikes too. But wargames are made by the armed forces themselves, while the actual, real-world decision to use nukes is purely political. And yes, there have been outcries that tactical nuke usage should be made optional for commanders in the field but that has so far not happened. And i hope it stays that way since it just raises the chances of escalation of conflict.

When Isreal was on the verge of defeat, they considered using nukes to answer to conventional arab attacks. But still they didn't, cause they knew just what a nuke strike means, rather opting to try to answer conventionally, no matter how slim the chances were. And if a country on a verge of defeat opts for conventional counterstrike then i simply can not see US using nukes as retaliation. Do you realize what kind of a precedent that would make?

Logic that US carrier is a city is just deeply flawed. Cities do not attack. They are populated with civilians. Whereas a carrier fleet is a purely military target, constructed and operated with just one goal in mind - projection of military power, be that attacking the enemy or defening from it. It is therefore a valid target for any opposing military.

Also, in the concrete scenario of china sinking a USN carrier fleet, US would still have a vast force to counterstrike with conventional means. There is no way china could destroy more than a few carrier fleets before totally exhausting and spending its forces, even if that. Unless unrealistic amount of luck is counted it, i don't think anything more than 2 mission killed CBGs are possible, perhaps just one, perhaps none.

So, 'weapons free', by all means. But as long as it doesnt include nukes. And US has more than enough conventional means to retaliate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wargames are supposed to take into consideration any and every possibility, only that way can they be precise. Of course they will factor in the possibility of nuke strikes too. But wargames are made by the armed forces themselves,

No, they're not entirely military constructed events. at the immediate battlespace level they can be - at theatre level they include civilians (ie politicians) for escalated strike options.

while the actual, real-world decision to use nukes is purely political. And yes, there have been outcries that tactical nuke usage should be made optional for commanders in the field but that has so far not happened. And i hope it stays that way since it just raises the chances of escalation of conflict.

well, thats what everyone assumed. recent publications like "Red Tide Rising" where ex Soviet/Russian submarine commanders and mil planners were interviewed about their past showed that there were at least 3 incidents where the Soviet/Russian sub commanders were given complete autonomy to fire their nukes. The west assumed that the soviets/russians employed similar command safety measures - the reality is that they didn't and that the world went awfully close to nuclear war approx 3 (declared) times.

When Isreal was on the verge of defeat, they considered using nukes to answer to conventional arab attacks. But still they didn't, cause they knew just what a nuke strike means, rather opting to try to answer conventionally, no matter how slim the chances were.

no, it was due to the fact that both the americans and the russians stepped in to take control of their "proxies". The Egyptians actually requested Soviet support as they said the USN was feeding equipment to the Israelis and that they were assisting in the air strikes - they couldn't believe that the Israelis could maintain and deliver on their sortie rate. The Commander of the Black Sea Fleet (who was shadowing the US 5th Fleet) confirmed that the Americans were not assisting and denied assistance/intervention.

And if a country on a verge of defeat opts for conventional counterstrike then i simply can not see US using nukes as retaliation. Do you realize what kind of a precedent that would make?

Yes I do, and I believe that the loss of a US carrier will invole a catastrophic response. No american president would last in office if they didn't order demonstrable and equallly catastrophic reciprocity.

Logic that US carrier is a city is just deeply flawed. Cities do not attack. They are populated with civilians. Whereas a carrier fleet is a purely military target, constructed and operated with just one goal in mind - projection of military power, be that attacking the enemy or defening from it. It is therefore a valid target for any opposing military.

Its not an issue of what you or I might believe, its an issue of likely behaviour if such an event happens.

Also, in the concrete scenario of china sinking a USN carrier fleet, US would still have a vast force to counterstrike with conventional means. There is no way china could destroy more than a few carrier fleets before totally exhausting and spending its forces, even if that. Unless unrealistic amount of luck is counted it, i don't think anything more than 2 mission killed CBGs are possible, perhaps just one, perhaps none.

Just because a country has warfighting overmatch doesn't mean that they will delimit their response. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of nukes at work. The US could either run the risk of losing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of soldier conducting an invasion of Japan to win the war - or they could shorten it by using atomic weapons and save lives on their own part. For all the criticism that some make of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the reality is that considering the way that the Japanese fought in Okinawa etc... then the US knew that it would be a bloody invasion and that they didn't want to risk allied troops if the war could be demonstrably shortened.

So, 'weapons free', by all means. But as long as it doesnt include nukes. And US has more than enough conventional means to retaliate.

unfortunately the term "weapons free" at a theatre level usually refers to responding with all available weapons.

war is an ugly business - it doesn't always follow the path of reason and logic and usually fails the test of consistency at the the moment the first shot gets fired.

 

[Totoro]

well, thats what everyone assumed. recent publications like "Red Tide Rising" where ex Soviet/Russian submarine commanders and mil planners were interviewed about their past showed that there were at least 3 incidents where the Soviet/Russian sub commanders were given complete autonomy to fire their nukes. The west assumed that the soviets/russians employed similar command safety measures - the reality is that they didn't and that the world went awfully close to nuclear war approx 3 (declared) times.

That is true, and it was a horrible thing to be done. I was told today's russia's policy on that is changed and i hope that is true. I was really refering to US nuclear arsenal, i was told US has never given local commanders that much freedom. Bottom line is - you use the force that you will be held responsible for. And one can b sure that whole of US (or russia, or china or whoever else) would be held responsible for use of ANY nuke, not just the commander that authorized the strike.

no, it was due to the fact that both the americans and the russians stepped in to take control of their "proxies". The Egyptians actually requested Soviet support as they said the USN was feeding equipment to the Israelis and that they were assisting in the air strikes - they couldn't believe that the Israelis could maintain and deliver on their sortie rate. The Commander of the Black Sea Fleet (who was shadowing the US 5th Fleet) confirmed that the Americans were not assisting and denied assistance/intervention.

Are you saying Isreal did not seriously consider using nukes at any point in that conflict?

Yes I do, and I believe that the loss of a US carrier will invole a catastrophic response. No american president would last in office if they didn't order demonstrable and equallly catastrophic reciprocity.

Sure there'd be a response, perhaps whole of enemy's fleet would be sunk, in china's example over hundred vessels with some 10-20 thousand people. That's not catastrophic enough for china? All i am saying is that such a countstrike is achievable with conventional means. It's one thing to throw a nuke at bin laden who doesn't have nukes to retaliate with (or so we should hope) but to go for nukes against another nuclear stike capable nation? When US is not at risk of being defeatd, when conventional strikes could very well do the job?
Option A: one carrier lost, chinese fleet sunk with nukes, dozens of cities in US obliterated with 50 million dead, most of china wiped off the earth with over 500 million dead.
Option B: one carrier lost, chinese fleet sunk with conventional means, perhaps one more carrier lost while doing it. China defeated, US victorious with a loss of 'mere' two carriers.

What sane person would pick option A as better for USA? And that does not even count in the world's reaction. Can you imagine what kind of hatred and distrust towards US such a move would generate?

Its not an issue of what you or I might believe, its an issue of likely behaviour if such an event happens.

Well, you have your opinion, i have mine. And my opinion is that likely behaviour is different than what you say. So unless you want to make a bet then wait (perhaps fruitlessly) for such a war - we can both just agree to disagree.

Just because a country has warfighting overmatch doesn't mean that they will delimit their response. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of nukes at work. The US could either run the risk of losing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of soldier conducting an invasion of Japan to win the war - or they could shorten it by using atomic weapons and save lives on their own part. For all the criticism that some make of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the reality is that considering the way that the Japanese fought in Okinawa etc... then the US knew that it would be a bloody invasion and that they didn't want to risk allied troops if the war could be demonstrably shortened.

Again, different opinions. Decision to use nukes included many other things, too. To further test the brand new weapon in real world scenario, to make a show of force to the russians, etc. It has been also said japanese have shown will to surrender after first bomb, too, yet still the second one was used. And any kind of strike on a civilian target (like a city!) is just not acceptable. Yes, wars are not fought fairly but so many people forget to take into consideration the long term effect. One may win a battle, or even a war. But unnecesarry use of force will be remembered forever and it will just spawn more enemies and further wars. world war two wouldnt even have happened if world war one didnt end like it did.

war is an ugly business - it doesn't always follow the path of reason and logic and usually fails the test of consistency at the the moment the first shot gets fired.

Amen to that. May be ironic thing to say on a military forum - but war is sheer lunacy.

 

[Schumacher]

It's quite irrelevant to argue how crazy or how inhumane US would be to retaliate an attack on its carrier with nukes, which btw I do believe is crazy . Any nation planning go to war with US must prepare for a nuke strike, either by making sure they can also respond with nukes to make US think twice or other means. Simply assuming the US will be sufficiently rationale & humane not to go nuke & therefore not prepare for it is a bad idea.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you saying Isreal did not seriously consider using nukes at any point in that conflict?

My understanding is that the Soviets detected the Israelis preparing their Jericho missiles and warned the Americans that they would step in. The Americans advised the Russians that such a move on the Soviets part would see them respond in kind. It was then cycled down.

Sure there'd be a response, perhaps whole of enemy's fleet would be sunk, in china's example over hundred vessels with some 10-20 thousand people. That's not catastrophic enough for china? All i am saying is that such a countstrike is achievable with conventional means. It's one thing to throw a nuke at bin laden who doesn't have nukes to retaliate with (or so we should hope) but to go for nukes against another nuclear stike capable nation? When US is not at risk of being defeatd, when conventional strikes could very well do the job?
Option A: one carrier lost, chinese fleet sunk with nukes, dozens of cities in US obliterated with 50 million dead, most of china wiped off the earth with over 500 million dead.
Option B: one carrier lost, chinese fleet sunk with conventional means, perhaps one more carrier lost while doing it. China defeated, US victorious with a loss of 'mere' two carriers.

What sane person would pick option A as better for USA? And that does not even count in the world's reaction. Can you imagine what kind of hatred and distrust towards US such a move would generate?

well, I guess the issue is that the chinese govt has made it clear that it would use absolute force if it responded - that tends to make it critical for whoever launches first to overstrike. China doesn't have an overstrike capability (which in nuke terms is almost a redundant issue anyway)

But, I'm theorising.

Well, you have your opinion, i have mine. And my opinion is that likely behaviour is different than what you say. So unless you want to make a bet then wait (perhaps fruitlessly) for such a war - we can both just agree to disagree.

yes, thats what I was indicating.

Again, different opinions. Decision to use nukes included many other things, too. To further test the brand new weapon in real world scenario, to make a show of force to the russians, etc. It has been also said japanese have shown will to surrender after first bomb, too, yet still the second one was used. And any kind of strike on a civilian target (like a city!) is just not acceptable. Yes, wars are not fought fairly but so many people forget to take into consideration the long term effect. One may win a battle, or even a war. But unnecesarry use of force will be remembered forever and it will just spawn more enemies and further wars. world war two wouldnt even have happened if world war one didnt end like it did.

that assumes that whoever launches wants to take a long term view. Any number of Soviet commanders saw that a nuclear war was winnable. There are chinese generals who think that it's winnable as they have a population surplus for latitude. LeMay thought that a nuclear war was winnable and that an overstrike was critical to ensure that the enemy never had the capacity to recover or strike back. Any number of Soviet Generals had a similar philosophy that was also reinforced by a belief that absolute brutal force would result in allies surrendering due to fear of continuance.

MAD is only a supportable philosophy whilst enemies fear cause and effect - for those who don't think that MAD limits their options it becomes a real weapon of use. again, the Northern Fleet commands and that of Kruschev inidcate a willingness to wage war even if the odds were against them. In the case of the Cuban Crisis, Kruschev blinked, but he clearly had General Staff who were prepared to take the final step.

 

[hovercraft]

i think an ice berg will sink aircraft carrier, like titanic
and one (agosta, kilo, scorpian, u214 class) submarine is too able to destroy any kind of aircraft carrier, this is claim of discovery channel documentry on air craft carrier.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i think an ice berg will sink aircraft carrier, like titanic
and one (agosta, kilo, scorpian, u214 class) submarine is too able to destroy any kind of aircraft carrier, this is claim of discovery channel documentry on air craft carrier.

with the greatest of respect to what the Discovery Channel tries to achieve, but I know more about Mao's innermost thoughts than Discovery knows about complex warfighting issues - let alone sub warfare and fleet defence.

ie, don't use Discovery Channel as an empirical source of info - it's akin to using Wikpedia as a reference source in a court of law.

 

[KGB]

i think an ice berg will sink aircraft carrier, like titanic
and one (agosta, kilo, scorpian, u214 class) submarine is too able to destroy any kind of aircraft carrier, this is claim of discovery channel documentry on air craft carrier.

Assuming an SSK gets to hit an aircraft carrier, presumably with a cruise missile, what are the odds of it's getting away? I'm thinking about Tom Clancy's assertion in one of his nonfiction books on submarines that a diesel sub, though quiet, essentially is only good for minelaying because of its limited endurance and speed. He said that ASW forces using active sonar can essentially force an SSK to hide it out on the ocean floor, then wait for its batteries to force the SSK to surface. I'm not sure if he included AIP subs in his calculations.

BTW, I admit that Tom Clancy and Discovery Channel is not the best way source of info on these matters, but in the top secret world of submarines, any information might be worth a look. Even if they are wrong, they do get a conversation rolling where hopefully someone who knows better can illuminate us.

 

[amber]

can any one post da exact and authinticate comparison of Pakistan navy with Indian Navy
along all the facts n' figure and
Future Predictionz plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[pepsi]

He said that ASW forces using active sonar can essentially force an SSK to hide it out on the ocean floor, then wait for its batteries to force the SSK to surface.

Surely there are other methods for escaping active sonar, if anyone knows how they go about this i'd be interested, all i know off the top of my head is going around a coastline, close to the coast, could possibly hide the sub

But in open ocean i guess that is not an option, surely the only method isn't to just go deep and hope the active sonar goes away though

 

[Wild Weasel]

In the modern Western naval warfare doctrine, active sonar wouldn't be used until the sub is almost underfoot. Like radar, active sonar broadcasts the ship's position to any passive sonar listener far away. Helos equipped with dipping sonar, and maritime patrol planes dropping sonobouys are typically the primary defense from SSK's.

 

[Berserk Fury]

Another possibility is another sub to counter the threat or maybe if they were around a SOSUS array. With SSIPS and SDS installed on shore stations etc. SOSUS gets more accurate.
Plus, carriers typically do not approach the coast unless they are forced to in transit to their station for fear of shore patrol boats with anti-ship missiles as they are relative cheap and have an advantage in shallow waters.