Sinking an Aircraft carrier

[gf0012-aust]

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.

CSF's already have nukes riding shotgun. there role is to sniff and kill an enemy sub ahead of the strike/task force.

Also subs don't go hunting or lurking around arrays - and there are not a lot of SOSUS grids left. there is also superior and more flexible technology available than SOSUS.

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.

actually the missile armed patrol boat won't get anywhere near a carrier on a war footing. it's utility is immediately diminished by the fact that organic EWINT air will detect the cruise missile and vector support to kill the patrol boat. Aegis/CEC is more than sufficient in killing the cruise missile - even if multiple concurrent attacks are launched.

 

[Berserk Fury]

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

Well, I was talking more about subs though you are, of course, more than right.
If you are close to an enemy island and they launch concurrent missile attacks along with subs especially from different directions it'd at least cause a CBG to stay away for the fear of a possibility of a missile hitting before taking the threats out despite the fact that that chance of a missile hitting is slim to none.
Actually if a carrier gets close enough, Aegis probably wouldn't have the response time necessary to take the missiles out (if the missiles came in large numbers at the same time). CIWS probably be the best option though carriers never get THAT close.
Hmmm... anyhow... I wonder what'll happen in this scenario:
CBG vs. a group of Big Bertha/railgun type weapons considering the fact that the CBG already was already within firing range before their knowledge of such a threat.
Yes, it's pretty far-fetched... :

 

[Wild Weasel]

Well, I was talking more about subs though you are, of course, more than right.
If you are close to an enemy island and they launch concurrent missile attacks along with subs especially from different directions it'd at least cause a CBG to stay away for the fear of a possibility of a missile hitting before taking the threats out despite the fact that that chance of a missile hitting is slim to none.
Actually if a carrier gets close enough, Aegis probably wouldn't have the response time necessary to take the missiles out (if the missiles came in large numbers at the same time). CIWS probably be the best option though carriers never get THAT close.
Hmmm... anyhow... I wonder what'll happen in this scenario:
CBG vs. a group of Big Bertha/railgun type weapons considering the fact that the CBG already was already within firing range before their knowledge of such a threat.
Yes, it's pretty far-fetched... :

Well, that assumes that such a weapon exists. And what method is used to guide the shell to the target? Satellite? The American-owned GPS constellation? I don't think that would be allowed to happen.
Sure, a railgun can fire a projectile with blazing speed- but flight time is flight time, and even an enormous carrier isn't going to be sitting still. Chances are, however, that a land-based railgun/supergun will not be a moving target- and that the ESG itself will be equipped with railguns that could be used to destroy any land-based threat.

At this time, the US leads in railgun technology, and superguns died out prior to Desert Storm. If such weapons existed on a wide scale, they would have to be taken into account- or taken out- before risking a carrier task force. Some day, railgun proliferation might very well be commonplace- but then again, other American military advances would also have continued. By the time China ever possesses a railgun that could threat an American ESG, the ESG would likely be equipped with railguns, a stealthy and/or hyper-velocity follow-on to TLAM, THEL-based close-in air-defenses, and hundreds of small, stealth UCAV's.

Once again, stealth and pre-emptive precision attacks from air, sea, and sub-surface platforms trumps any sort of defence against an ESG- even twenty years from now. Even if such an attack ever were to take place, then comes the inevitable, swift, and decisive retribution for an attack against a carrier.....

 

[Berserk Fury]

True true...
but any physical damage even a small hit would wound moral... which might be an important goal.

 

[KGB]

True true...
but any physical damage even a small hit would wound moral... which might be an important goal.

I certainly disagree. The US 'suspects' Spain for blowing up their ship in Cuba at the turn of the century, so they sink Spain's fleet and take its colonies. The laconia sinking was important in getting the US to enter ww1, Pearl harbor got the US to enter ww2, and prior to september 11, the US didn't consider invading afghanhistan or iraq.

Attacks on the US give the hawk faction in the US a pretext.

 

[tphuang]

I certainly disagree. The US 'suspects' Spain for blowing up their ship in Cuba at the turn of the century, so they sink Spain's fleet and take its colonies. The laconia sinking was important in getting the US to enter ww1, Pearl harbor got the US to enter ww2, and prior to september 11, the US didn't consider invading afghanhistan or iraq.

Attacks on the US give the hawk faction in the US a pretext.

hehehe, I guess you didn't watch Farenheit 911. Let's just say I disagree strongly with the Iraq part. And yes, I suspect the Spain incident was invented by the Americans to allow them to take over Cuba and Phillipines.

 

[Berserk Fury]

Farenheit 911?
Compare it with Farenhype 911 and whats in between is the closest thing to the truth.

I certainly disagree. The US 'suspects' Spain for blowing up their ship in Cuba at the turn of the century, so they sink Spain's fleet and take its colonies. The laconia sinking was important in getting the US to enter ww1, Pearl harbor got the US to enter ww2, and prior to september 11, the US didn't consider invading afghanhistan or iraq.

Attacks on the US give the hawk faction in the US a pretext.

You do have a good point though Pearl Harbor did at first cause confusion and, to some extent, fear, until the famous speech was given, rallying the people into fighting. But tactically speaking about my scenario, it'll almost force the carrier to use caution as some damage was done which would at least buy the defending forces (in most cases, as the US is almost always on the offensive nowdays) some time.

 

[tphuang]

Farenheit 911?
Compare it with Farenhype 911 and whats in between is the closest thing to the truth.

You do have a good point though Pearl Harbor did at first cause confusion and, to some extent, fear, until the famous speech was given, rallying the people into fighting. But tactically speaking about my scenario, it'll almost force the carrier to use caution as some damage was done which would at least buy the defending forces (in most cases, as the US is almost always on the offensive nowdays) some time.

I'm talking about one specific part from that movie. Let's just say, that part was what an American general said (I think that's what I remember) in an interview, not something that Michael Moore made up.

 

[Berserk Fury]

lol my bad, sorry for mistaking what you meant xP

 

[KGB]

Farenheit 911?
Compare it with Farenhype 911 and whats in between is the closest thing to the truth.

You do have a good point though Pearl Harbor did at first cause confusion and, to some extent, fear, until the famous speech was given, rallying the people into fighting. But tactically speaking about my scenario, it'll almost force the carrier to use caution as some damage was done which would at least buy the defending forces (in most cases, as the US is almost always on the offensive nowdays) some time.

Something like the Yom Kippur conflict, the Egyptians had spectacular successes at first, crossing the suez and neutralizing the IAF with the new russian SAMs. Then they found themselves in a tight spot after the Israelis found a gap in their lines. Diplomacy saved the Egyptian army from a really bad end (they had the suez canal to their backs), but they were able to claim a diplomatic victory because of their initial successes, earning them a good peace deal with the Israelis and some territory to boot.

 

[Awang se]

Egyptian defeat in Yom Kippur was contributed largely by the stupidity of Anwar Saddat. He goes against the advice of his generals and ordered the egyptian army to advance outside the SAM umbrella and got slaughtered by the Israel air power. This produce the gap which IDF use to neutralized Egyptian SAM network. Before that happen, IAF managed to destroyed 4 egyptian SAM batteries at the cost of 100 of it's aircrafts. besides, when IDF poise to attack Cairo. Egypt have a group of its army in a position to advance to tel Aviv unnoppose.

 

[KGB]

Egyptian defeat in Yom Kippur was contributed largely by the stupidity of Anwar Saddat. He goes against the advice of his generals and ordered the egyptian army to advance outside the SAM umbrella and got slaughtered by the Israel air power. This produce the gap which IDF use to neutralized Egyptian SAM network. Before that happen, IAF managed to destroyed 4 egyptian SAM batteries at the cost of 100 of it's aircrafts. besides, when IDF poise to attack Cairo. Egypt have a group of its army in a position to advance to tel Aviv unnoppose.

Exactly, and then Egypt was still able to capitalize from this defeat to gan political milage!

BTW, does this go on record as the most successfull use of SAM's ever?

 

[Awang se]

Actually, everyone did get something out of this war. Israel was spared from destruction, egyptian got back sinai and the russian by then can say for certain that their SAMs can properly protect their forces against NATO air power.

 

[Defcon 6]

And none of that has anything to do with sinking carriers.

 

[webmaster]

Folks, let's get back to the TOPIC:

Sinking an Aircraft carrier

Please!

 

[endeend]

My 2 cents:

Air-oriented assault is too hard. Missiles can be destroyed by a battle group Aegis system fairly simply. Bombers/Fighters carrying anti-ship missiles won't get close enough.

Most plausible vector of attack should come from the sea. Taking advantage of the ridiculous size and mass of the carrier itself.

Most dangerous weapons(real and fantasy):

the torpedo that envelops the torpedo in a layer of gas thus allowing it to travel underwater at incredible speeds. I forgot the name of this weapon, but I do remember reading that the Russians and Chinese have this weapon.

Smart-mines, mines that appear to be normal mines but when minesweepers are deployed these mines "activate" and propel itself forward like a torpedo. Wrap these mines in wood so it appears to be driftwood? Possible? No clue, i'll let you experts tell me.

More feasible; modified submarine that can get close enough to a carrier (hardest part); and launch 20-50+(in very short launch time, 30secs-1min to launch them all) miniature sized torpedoes in a fan shape at the carrier. I don't know what type of anti-torpedo defense a US carrier group has but 50 "dumb" or guided torpedoes coming at you might be a problem.

Multirole missile: can fly like a missile, but when aegis system launches counter missiles, this attacking missile can reduce speed and go into the water and evade like a fish, and still be able to fly out of the water and continue flying like a missile; or just act as torpedo. We'll let the engineers figure this one out.

and of course let's not forget the future sci-fi weapons (some soon to be real): railguns, teslacoils, or just a really big magnifying glass to bbq the people in a ship alive.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the torpedo that envelops the torpedo in a layer of gas thus allowing it to travel underwater at incredible speeds. I forgot the name of this weapon, but I do remember reading that the Russians and Chinese have this weapon.

The Skval has been a spectacular if not singularly hilighted disaster. There are indications that it has been pulled from service. Two of the obvious problems are range and manouvre.

The US was experimenting with cavitating torpedoes some 5-6 years before the Russians and abandoned the concept fairly early. They've elected to use cavitation propulsion for other weapons systems - but torpedoes have been ingloriously and unceremoniously dropped.

Smart-mines, mines that appear to be normal mines but when minesweepers are deployed these mines "activate" and propel itself forward like a torpedo. Wrap these mines in wood so it appears to be driftwood? Possible? No clue, i'll let you experts tell me.

Inert smart torpedoes/mines are also difficult to place in ares of likely approach. With the development of platoons of mobile networked arrays it becomes even more difficult to hide.

More feasible; modified submarine that can get close enough to a carrier (hardest part); and launch 20-50+(in very short launch time, 30secs-1min to launch them all) miniature sized torpedoes in a fan shape at the carrier. I don't know what type of anti-torpedo defense a US carrier group has but 50 "dumb" or guided torpedoes coming at you might be a problem.

Countered already with HK torpedo systems and various other on board electronic solutions.

Multirole missile: can fly like a missile, but when aegis system launches counter missiles, this attacking missile can reduce speed and go into the water and evade like a fish, and still be able to fly out of the water and continue flying like a missile; or just act as torpedo. We'll let the engineers figure this one out.

which is more or less a version of what ASROC or Ikara were designed to do except for behaving like a cruise missile before re-entry. Considering the fact that a CFS with aegis active is going to have something like 4-5 aegis systems running in CEC - then that means that the concurrency response rate would be hire than if a regiment of Backfires launched all their missiles at once.

 

[wittmanace]

though clearly not an aircraft carrier, is there anything to be learnt from the hms sheffield's experience of being hit by an argentinian exocet armed super etenard? though very different of course, did this event teach us any lessons for the topic were discussing here?

any relevant info would be much appreciated!


wittmanace

 

[endeend]

I have a question for those that can answer: Has the concept of a stealth missile or stealth torpedo ever been tried? If they can make fighters/bombers/submarines undetectable to many forms of radar and sonar then how come they can't figure out how to make a long slender rod (missile) which is 1/50th the size of a B2/f117/f22/diesel submarine impervious to detection?

 

[coolieno99]

I have a question for those that can answer: Has the concept of a stealth missile or stealth torpedo ever been tried?

There are counter-measures for acoustic-homing torpedoes, but there are no counter-measures for wake-homing torpedoes. They are a real threat to aircraft carriers.