OT: Seven US aircraft carriers have been sunk in the past 30 years.

[RN7]

In 2006 the Chinese Navy Song Class diesel-electric submarine famously reached within striking distance of the USS Kitty Hawk undetected. However in naval exercises a total of seven US Navy aircraft carriers have reportedly been sunk by non-nuclear submarines.

1981: USS Eisenhower was sunk in NATO exercises in the Atlantic Ocean by Royal Canadian Navy Porpoise Class diesel-electric submarine built in Britain in the 1960's, and wasn't even detected by US Navy ASW assets.

1981: During the same exercise the USS Forrestal was also sunk by an unidentified diesel-electric submarine, probably a British Royal Navy submarine.

1989: USS America sunk in the Atlantic Ocean by Dutch Navy Zwaardvis Class diesel-electric submarine.

1996: USS Independence sunk by the Chilean Navy German built Type-209 Class diesel-electric class submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

1999: USS Theodore Roosevelt sunk by the Dutch Navy Walrus Class diesel-electric submarine in the Atlantic Ocean.

2003: Unidentified US Navy aircraft carrier sunk by two Royal Australian Navy Collins Class diesel-electric submarines in the Pacific Ocean.

2005: USS Ronald Reagan sank by Swedish Navy Gotland Class AIP submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

Many other US Navy ships have also been sunk in exercises by non-nuclear submarines. In 1999 the Dutch submarine that sank the USS Theodore Roosevelt also sank the exercise command ship USS Mount Whitney, a cruiser, several destroyers and the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Boise. In 2000 a Royal Australian Navy Collins Class diesel-electric submarine almost sank the USS Abraham Lincoln, and sank two US Navy nuclear attack submarines in the Pacific Ocean. In 2001 another Australian Collins Class HMAS Waller sank two US Navy assault ships in the Pacific, and during the same exercise a Chilean Navy submarine sank the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Montpelier twice. In 2002 another Australian Collins Class HMAS Sheehan hunted down and sank the Los Angeles Class USS Olympia, while in 2003 two Australian Collins Class sank two US Navy nuclear attack submarines and an unidentified aircraft carrier.

Although such losses were only in exercises and its possible that operational restraints were put on US naval forces during such exercises it highlights the fact that US Navy carrier battlegroups could be vulnerable to submarine attack. During the Cold War the principle objective of the Soviet Navy was to eliminate US naval air superiority. The principle means of doing that was through Soviet nuclear submarines which were the Soviet Union's primary naval asset, and followed/shadowed US aircraft carriers and trained to destroy them through conventional or nuclear means in wartime. In the Twilight 2000 timeline this could have led to huge American naval losses.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Were they on a war footing? Were they heavily prosecuting enemy contacts? Were they dropping Mk46's on every possible contact? Were they using countermeasures and screening forces? Were ASW birds constantly dropping sonobuoys?

It's easy to cry wolf at scenarios like these but to suggest we don't know what's out there or how to deal with it is...spurious.

[Targan]

No person or war machine is invulnerable.

[headquarters]

Were they on a war footing? Were they heavily prosecuting enemy contacts? Were they dropping Mk46's on every possible contact? Were they using countermeasures and screening forces? Were ASW birds constantly dropping sonobuoys?

It's easy to cry wolf at scenarios like these but to suggest we don't know what's out there or how to deal with it is...spurious.

Excercises - has a starting time and and an endex. Within that time the players act according to orders and scenario. If someone neglected to "stand to"and got hit - thats the way it goes...

[RN7]

Were they on a war footing? Were they heavily prosecuting enemy contacts? Were they dropping Mk46's on every possible contact? Were they using countermeasures and screening forces? Were ASW birds constantly dropping sonobuoys?

It's easy to cry wolf at scenarios like these but to suggest we don't know what's out there or how to deal with it is...spurious.

Unfortunately during these exercises the US Navy was on a war footing, or as close as they could get to one during an exercise.

In the case of the USS Eisenhower and USS Forrestal in 1981, they were participating in the NATO exercises Ocean Venture/Magic Sword North, the largest exercises in the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet history along with British, Canadian and US Coast Guard ships. The objective was for two carrier battle groups to transit the North Atlantic and enter the Norwegian Sea and simulate air attacks on enemy positions in waves of coordinated air attacks. An old Canadian submarine slipped through the escort screen undetected and conducted a successful simulated torpedo attack on the USS Eisenhower. Another submarine did the same to the USS Forrestal later in the exercise.

The most significant part of the exercise was the transit by the carriers of the GIUK gap. In five previous NATO exercises American carriers had always been attacked trying to transit the gaps, and US tactics were exposed as seriously flawed. In wartime it is believed that neither American carrier would have made it through the GIUK gap unharmed, and that US tactics and levels of training were inferior to their British and Canadian allies.

A US Navy officer who tried to report it to highlight aircraft carrier vulnerability to diesel-electric submarine attacks was censored by navy officials and in fact the officer was ridiculed for reporting it and it harmed his career. In Ocean venture 81 90% of first strikes were by submarines against carriers, a fact that did not sit well with US Navy aviators.

[RN7]

Also in 1983 the Canadian submarine HMCS Okanagan reached within a kilometre of the USS Kitty Hawk and prepped itself for torpedo launch before sneaking away unnoticed through the carriers destroyer escort screen.

In 1996 the Canadian submarine HMCS Onandaga also beat the USS Hartford, a nuclear submarine 30 years younger largely according to its commander because his crew had been together for two years and was well trained while US submarines had a 25% annual crew turnover and 50% over two years. The HMCS Onandaga beat the USS Hartford 6 out of 7 times in exercises according to the Canadian submarine commander, and lost once because he started to get complacent about the American not picking him up during a snorkling procedure.

Closer to current times during NATO exercise 99FEX the Dutch submarine Walrus launched two successful simulated attacks on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well sinking its escorts and a nuclear submarine and sneaked away undamaged. The crew of the Walrus even had T-shirts printed with a walrus impaling the Roosevelt.

[Canadian Army]

Royal Canadian Navy Porpoise Class diesel-electric submarine

Got this from Wikipedia:

The Oberon class was a 27-boat class of British-built diesel-electric submarines based on the successful British Porpoise-class submarine.

Thirteen were constructed for the Royal Navy, while another fourteen were built and exported to other countries' navies: six to the Royal Australian Navy, three to the Royal Canadian Navy with an additional two British submarines later transferred, three to the Brazilian Navy, and two to the Chilean Navy.

The Oberon class was arguably the best conventional submarine class of its time, with an astonishing reputation for quietness that allowed it to exist into the 21st century until replaced by newer classes such as the Collins and Victoria classes in Australia and Canada respectively.

The Oberon class was briefly succeeded in RN service by the Upholder-class submarine. The Upholder-class submarines were later upgraded and sold to the Canadian Forces after refit as the Victoria class, again replacing Oberons.

The Australian Oberons were replaced by the six Collins-class submarines.

The two Chilean Oberons were replaced by the Scorpène-class submarines O'Higgins and Carrera.

The Brazilian Oberons were replaced by Type 209 submarines.

[Cdnwolf]

http://www.projectojibwa.ca/

And one of the Canadian ones will be only 50 miles away from me as museum.

[Adm.Lee]

Admiral "Sandy" Woodward's Falklands War memoir relates a story of how an RN DD or FF got within visual range of a US CV shortly before that war, in the Indian Ocean. I cannot recall if he was the skipper or a flag officer at the time. From what I remember:

The exercise rules were that there wasn't supposed to be aerial recon beforehand, but his ship was overflown just before sunset anyway. They had planned for that, however.

After sunset, they rigged every light they could all over the ship, and whenever an American plane flew nearby, they identified themselves as an Indian (or Pakistani?) cruise liner, including stereotypical South Asian accent. (I read this in 1991-92, when I had an Indian boss, so the accent written in the book had me chuckling.) Come sunrise, they were on the horizon from the CV, "launching" Exocets.

This scene was later reprised, more or less, in the almost-classic naval movie "Down periscope."

[RN7]

Got this from Wikipedia:
The Oberon class was arguably the best conventional submarine class of its time, with an astonishing reputation for quietness that allowed it to exist into the 21st century until replaced by newer classes such as the Collins and Victoria classes in Australia and Canada respectively.

They were excellent submarines and based on a German design of WW2, and only surpassed in quietness by current generation diesel-electric/AIP submarines.

The Canadian submarine service is like its Australian and British cousins a very professional and well trained service, and the Australian and Canadian submarines have caused the US Navy huge problems in exercises. But other navies have also frequently got the better of the US Navy ASW forces and nuclear submarines; Chileans, Dutch, Japanese and Swedish. Even a Pakistani Navy submarine approached a US Navy amphibious group in the Arabian Sea in 2001. It was detected by one of the amphibious groups escorts; a Canadian frigate, and escorted away from the area.

There seems to be a bit of a hubris problem within the US Navy that stems from the fact that the US Navy is the most powerful and the most advanced and that no one else can challenge it, when in fact the reality is that they can and frequently do. In naval aviation, the strategic use of nuclear submarines and possibly anti-air warfare the US Navy is the unquestioned leader, but in ASW and mine detection capabilities the Americans are by no means the leader of the pack, and this fact has frequently been commentated on by US naval commanders since the First Gulf War.

The all nuclear submarine fleet has many advantages in range, speed and firepower, but its superiority can be countered in shallow waters or even in the open ocean by a willy diesel submarine commander with a well trained crew. During NATO exercises European submarine commanders were frequently more worried about colliding under water with big US Navy nuclear submarines than being detected, because the US submarines seemed to be blind to their presence until they hit one of them.

Even the notion that US Navy nuclear submarines are the quietest nuclear submarines in the world would be seriously questioned by current generation Russian nuclear submarines, who have enjoyed at least a parity in noise levels with American submarines since the Victor III Class was introduced in the mid-1980's. Russian under-water detection technology is also very advanced.

Part of the problem with the American's is that their navy is so big and covers so many roles that a smaller professional navy can specialise more. Even the US Navy submarine service is huge by any standard. However US submarines have got the better of quieter diesel submarines when a commander operates outside the box.

[stormlion1]

I notice all of those sunk CV's have been killed by Diesel Subs. I guess it is true that Diesel boats are quieter than nuclear subs.

[dragoon500ly]

The diesel subs have an advantage when they are cruising on their batteries, one thats is counter-balanced by the noise of their diesels when they are recharging the same batteries. Due to the capacity of their batteries, the diesel subs have to creep up on their targets. If the can get into position in front of the carriers, then they can creep, maintaining steerage way and let the carrier come to them. Faster speeds, eats rapidly into battery endurance.

As for the nukes, their reactors are, for the most part, rely on pressurized water for cooling. The noise of these pumps are the most noticable part of their signature.

Towards the latter days of the Cold War, subs started covering their propellers with shrouds (to reduce the prop noise) or even replacing the props with pump jets in an effort to reduce their signature even more.

The diesel-eletric subs have more than proved their worth, in certain situations they have a superior advantage to a nuke. On the other hand, sooner or later, they have to approach the surface and recharge their batteries, and they are quite vulnerable during those times

[RN7]

The main advantages of a modern AIP and diesel-electric sub over nuclear subs is that they are quieter and cheaper.

Nuclear subs still dominate in submerged endurance, deep-ocean performance, speed and weapons load, but modern non-nuclear subs are stealthier and with the right equipment and tactics are more suited for operations in littoral waters with choke points, islands and shallow coastlines such as the North Sea, the Mediterranean and the Western Pacific.

A nuclear subs reactor must constantly pump coolant, generating some amount of detectable noise. Non-nuclear subs running on battery power or AIP can be virtually silent. New small, high-tech non-nuclear attack subs are highly effective in coastal operations and pose a significant threat to less-stealthy and less-maneuverable nuclear subs. Measures can and have been taken to reduce sound and magnetic signatures of nuclear subs, but the steam turbine still makes them naturally far more noisy than AIP subs. Nuclear subs are also generally larger making them more detectable through either acoustic, infrared or magnetic sensors. Nuclear subs also have to cool down nuclear reactors with hot water being dumped into ocean, leaving long trails behind the submarine which is detectable by IR sensors.

The older Los Angeles Class boats cost US $1 billion. The newer Virginia Class cost between US $1.8 to $2.5 billion, and Britain's Astute Class costs US$1.8 billion. A Swedish T-96 Class costs $100 million, while at the upper end a German Dolphin Class would cost US$ 500-870 million. American nuclear submarines also cost US $21 million a year to operate and US $200 million to refuel and modernise at their half-life cycle.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the info, RN7. I could have used this in my In Defense of the Red Army arguments.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897&highlight=Defense+Red+Army

At the height of the Cold War, the USN was no doubt the most powerful navy in the world, but it clearly wasn't the invincible juggernaut that we'd like to imagine. As these exercises clearly demonstrate, the USN was pretty conclusively not invincible and, at the very least, the Soviet Navy in its prime could have given it a seriously bloody nose or two. This is especially so if you add in the X-factor of command.

[RN7]

Thanks for the info, RN7. I could have used this in my In Defense of the Red Army arguments.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897&highlight=Defense+Red+Army

At the height of the Cold War, the USN was no doubt the most powerful navy in the world, but it clearly wasn't the invincible juggernaut that we'd like to imagine. As these exercises clearly demonstrate, the USN was pretty conclusively not invincible and, at the very least, the Soviet Navy in its prime could have given it a seriously bloody nose or two. This is especially so if you add in the X-factor of command.

I think it's difficult to judge how the Soviet Navy would have fared against the US Navy in wartime has it never happened. Unlike the US Navy the Soviets used a large number of conscripts in their navy, although maybe not so many in their submarine service which was likely to have been the elite of their navy.

Known and covered up fatal accidents aboard Soviet submarines points to reliability problems and sub-standard levels of training, but Soviet nuclear submarine technology was advanced enough to cause NATO some headaches. From the late 1970's the Soviets incorporated light and strong titanium hulls on their nuclear submarines, which enabled smaller size, greater diving depths, reduction in radiated noise and increase resistance to torpedo attacks. Victor III, Sierra and Alpha Class nuclear submarines were faster, more maneuverable and deeper diving than any American submarine up to the Los Angeles Class. The Alpha Class with a lead cooled fast reactor had a top speed of well over 40 knots and a claimed dive depth of 800 meters, which alarmed the US Navy enough to develop the ADCAP torpedo program and the Sea Lance missile programs projects, and the British to develop the high-speed Spearfish torpedo.

However the Soviet were clearly intimidated by US Navy air power and had a very healthy respect for NATO submarines. Their two main assets for eliminating US naval air power were nuclear submarines and bombers with long ranged anti-ship missiles as they knew they couldn't match the US Navy carrier fleet in numbers or capabilities. Their first proper carriers; the Kiev's, were basically hybrid-missile cruisers with an air arm heavily biased towards ASW operations. In fact all major Soviet surface warships seemed to be defensively orientated and almost top heavy with either air defence or ASW weapons. When the Soviet started reaching parity with America across a number of military areas in the 1970's a more offensive mind set seems to have taken hold in Soviet naval doctrine. The Kuznetsov Class emerged from the drawing board in this period as did the Kirov class battlecruiser anomaly, which seems to have been designed to bludgeon its way out into the north Atlantic and eliminate the NATO threat to its emerging carrier arm and nuclear missile submarines.

Results from exercises with NATO and Western aligned navies may be a bit unfair on the US Navy. Smaller NATO navies are very professional and they can specialise more and their smaller subs are better suited for littoral operations, while their equipment and tactics are very different to the Soviets. In regards to US nuclear subs versus AIP diesel subs, generally once the US sub commanders learns the tactics of opposing AIP subs the results are more in favour of the US submarines.

[Raellus]

Perhaps I overstated my argument. I'm not asserting that the Red Banner Fleet would or even could spank the USN. I'm concluding that the USN wouldn't experience the cake walk some blindered superfans think it would.

It's true that the Soviet submarine fleet has experienced some catastrophic accidents but the USN has not been immune to embarrassing mishaps either. There have been several incidents where US subs have collided with each other or with surface combatants, and a couple of alleged incidents where US and Soviet/Russian subs have collided with one another. I went on a San Diego harbor tour last summer and saw a USN amphib being repaired after a USN destroyer collided with it (ending both captains' careers, according to the tour guide).

Also, about 7 years ago, an US ELINT/map exercise set in the Mediterranean resulted in a CVN and a couple of its escorts being 'sunk' by Libyan gun and missile boats.

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.

Bottom line is, the USN is not invulnerable and error-proof. A particularly well-led Soviet naval force could wreak havoc on a poorly-led American/NATO one. The law of averages would result in at least a couple of significant Soviet naval victories in a WWIII scenario. To think otherwise would fall into the trap of hubris and we all know where that leads. That's my argument.

[RN7]

In a general war scenario such as the Twilight War, NATO's primary maritime objective would be to secure the North Atlantic for shipping to resupply Europe from North America. The primary obstacle to that would be the Soviet Northern Fleet.

The traditional answer in the past two world wars to the problem of protecting merchant shipping against submarines has been the convoy system. However merchant ships are now larger and faster, and establishing protected shipping lanes across the Atlantic would also be necessary in addition to a more traditional convoy escort system. Also the Soviet Union is a land power like Germany, and like Germany is at a geographical disadvantage in the Atlantic against naval powers such as Britain and America. The Soviets only access to the Atlantic is through the narrow and heavily defended Kattegat at the mouth of the Baltic Sea and through its own Arctic coast. Aware of Soviet physical difficulties in accessing the Atlantic from the north, NATO established a naval defensive line know as the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), to bottle the Soviet's up.

The GIUK Gap seriously eroded any Soviet effort to break out into the Atlantic undetected. NATO implanted mines, moored torpedo systems and monitoring devices such as SOSUS on the seabed linked to processing data stations. Allied with active NATO ship, submarine and aircraft patrols across the GIUK Gap made any undetected breach of the gap near impossible. Land based AWAC and long ranged F-15 and Tornado fighter squadrons in Iceland and the UK also increased NATO's ability to detect and intercept Soviet long ranged naval bombers. Its effectiveness also forced the Soviet's to develop longer ranged missiles for their SSBN's, with sufficient range to launch from well behind the barrier in the Barents Sea.

The US Navy, being what it is, also espoused a second more offensive minded and controversial approach to dealing with a Soviet threat to NATO shipping. Deploying powerful US aircraft carriers groups to strike against northern Soviet bases, through sending carriers across the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea. The Norwegian Sea was an area were Soviet naval forces would be very active, and where NATO forces could not guarantee the carriers protection. Basically the US Navy was advocating sending its most expensive assets into a hostile environment and looking for a fight.

Despite the defences of the GIUK Gap the Soviets possessed a number of non-nuclear options for disrupting NATO naval and merchant shipping in the Atlantic. In addition to its large fleet of nuclear and diesel attack submarines, it had a large number of reconnaissance aircraft and land based naval bombers with stand-off missiles and a highly developed mine warfare capability. Also it was developing carrier based airpower and had many escorts with powerful anti-ship missile and ASW capabilities, personified by the massive Kirov Class.

Soviet submarines carried an array of weaponry in addition to torpedoes that were a threat to NATO naval forces. Akula, Charlie, Sierra and Victor III Class nuclear submarines carried SS-N-7 (P-70), SS-N-9 (P-120) and SS-N-15 (RPK-2) anti-ship missiles, while the Oscar Class carried SS-N-19 (P-700) dual nuclear/conventional cruise anti-ship missiles with a range of 600km at Mach 2.5. From the late 1980's the Soviet Navy started fitting out Akula, Sierra and Victor III Class submarines with SS-N-21 (RK-55) cruise missiles with a range of 3,000km. Many Soviet destroyers, cruisers and the ASW carriers were also fitted with SS-N-12 (P-500) anti-ship missiles and SS-N-14 (RPK-2) ASW missiles. The Kirov Class carried SS-N-14 and 20 launchers for the long ranged SS-N-19 missile.

The most formidable threat to US carrier groups were from the supersonic Tu-22M Backfire bombers with AS-4 (Kh-22) long ranged anti-ship missile. The Tu-22M has a combat radius of 2,400km when fully armed, and the AS-4 air launched missile was capable of being launched at high or low altitude modes with conventional or nuclear warheads. With a maximum range of 500- 600km and capable of making terminal dives from high altitudes at speeds of Mach 4.6 it was a devastating weapon designed to annihilate US Navy aircraft carriers. Until the end of the Cold War NATO intelligence believed the maximum speed of the AS-4 was only Mach 2.5. The Soviet Navy also deployed Tu-16 bombers with AS-6 (KSR-5) cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads. The AS-6 was considered a scaled down version of the AS-4, and it could only reach speeds of Mach 3.5 with 2,200ibs warhead.

My own assessment of a naval war in the North Atlantic is that US aircraft carrier would be relatively safe from attack south of the GIUK Gap, as NATO ship and land based air and ASW assets would be too powerful for Soviet long ranged bombers to penetrate. However Soviet submarines would likely try and force the Gap in numbers to break out into the Atlantic from the north. Most would be detected and forced north and some will be eliminated, but some will get through particularly as we now know that Soviet nuclear submarines were secretly surveying paths through and around NATO ASW defences in waters near Greenland and Canada for decades. Conversely NATO nuclear submarines would also be very active north of the GIUK Gap, and will likely cause disruption to Soviet surface and submarines operations in northern waters. Soviet nuclear submarines and major surface warships will be priority targets for NATO sub commanders and they will certainly get some long before they move south.

Penetrating the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases would be a very risky strategy for US aircraft carriers for a number of reasons already mentioned. Theoretically US aircraft carrier air wings have the capacity to deal with Soviet bombers. F-14's on CAP close to their maximum ranges are capable of keeping Tu-22M 's with AS-4 at bay, while an F/A-18 has the range to engage Soviet warships and submarines equipped with SS-N-19 before they are in range to fire at US carriers. Land based AWAC, tankers, long ranged fighters and US anti-ship and long ranged land attack cruise missiles will also widen the ability of NATO to cope with Soviet air threats. Carrier based ASW along with land based P-3 and Nimrod aircraft, towed sonar, and sonar arrays of individual escort ships and also escorting nuclear submarines will also be a formidable threat to attacking Soviet submarines. But the Soviets will attempt to breach these defences with a combination of saturation submarine, surface warship and bomber attacks.

In the mid 1980's the North Atlantic Maritime Balance was numerically in favour of NATO.

The US Navy deployed 5 large aircraft carriers, 49 nuclear attack submarines and 90 escort ships. The British had 3 ASW carriers, 12 nuclear attack submarines, 14 diesel submarines and 46 escort ships. Other NATO powers could also add 57 diesel submarines and 107 escort ships. The Soviet Northern Fleet had 2 ASW carriers, 71 nuclear attack submarines, 54 diesel submarines and 85 escort ships. NATO airpower was also superior and could draw on non-naval air assets.

[boogiedowndonovan]

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.



oddly enough, that event occurred 25 years ago today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Raellus]

I still have a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Quito to my international (mostly American) school warning parents, staff, and students of possible retaliation for the airliner incident. Those were some pretty tense times. EDIT: I just took another look at it and it was dated September 22, 1987, so it must have been about some of the 'tanker wars' stuff that preceded the IA shoot-down incident. Still, the Soviets weren't America's only antagonists during the '80s.


The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[Adm.Lee]

The "Boomer" timeline sets the big/final North Sea battle as part of NATO's June '97 offensive towards Murmansk from far-northern Norway. No mention of anti-air activity in Norway, but it's certainly possible. Or, NATO pulled a lot of air into the Central Front battle, since that's getting towards its climax in eastern Poland in June as well.



The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[RN7]

The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.

Until the development of nuclear submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles the Norwegian Sea and the northern polar region were of limited importance to all major powers. By the Twilight War period it had become highly important to the strategic interests of the United States, the Soviet Union and their allies. The dynamics of anti-submarine and ballistic missile technology had also led to a constantly evolving significance of the region.

When the Soviet first deployed ballistic missile submarines they had to reach launching positions in the western Atlantic to strike the continental United States. NATO stopped them in their tracks when they established the GIUK Gap. This forced to Soviets to develop longer ranged missiles which enabled them to fire from the Barents and Polar seas. By the late 1980's Soviet submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles were considered first strike capable, and 75% of their SSBN's could reach any target in the USA, Western Europe, Japan, and China from launching positions in Arctic waters, and in the case of the Typhoon and Delta IV from beneath ice packs. Although this lessened the importance of access to Atlantic waters for Soviet nuclear forces, controlling the Norwegian Sea remained highly important. To maintain the capability to launch a nuclear attack or counter strike on the USA the Soviet Navy had to protect these strategic assets by devoting a major part of its attack submarines, surface vessels, and aircraft to be used in an anti-submarine role. It also led to the development of several new types of attack submarines and cruise missiles to tackle increasingly more advanced US and NATO naval forces in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic. The Soviets also had to defend their homeland through control of the Norwegian Sea, and in wartime it was necessary to be able to cut the sea-lanes of communication between North America and Europe and attack and destroy NATO forces.

For NATO it pushed its naval priorities beyond the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea and the Arctic. US and British nuclear submarines were now tasked with hunting Soviet SSBN's in northern waters and tackling improving Soviet attack submarines and anti-submarine defences. Changing US Navy naval strategy from the early 1980's based on the principals of deterrence, forward defence, and offensive warfare also proposed sending US carrier battle groups into the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases in the Kola Peninsula. This put further pressure on NATO to defend these expensive and irreplaceable assets, and meant that control of the Norwegian Sea was more important. Also if NATO lost control of the Norwegian Sea then Norway and probably Denmark would be lost too, allowing the Soviets to force the GIUK Gap and gain access to the Atlantic to cut sea lines of communications. Losing control in the Norwegian Sea makes it almost impossible for sufficient surveillance in this area, and would allow the Soviet Union access to Norwegian airfields from which they can operate bombers and fighters. If the Soviets also gained control of Iceland then almost any important part of Europe will be within range of Soviet bombers.

[Adm.Lee]

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.


Given that the Soviets struck first in this theater, I suspect there was plenty of action, it just didn't get mentioned?

[Raellus]

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea.

Me too. Perhaps the Battle of the Norwegian Sea was a series of linked battles, kind of like those surrounding the campaign for Guadalcanal, albeit covering a shorter period of time. More likely, it was a multi-day battle involving multiple task forces, a-la the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

[Nexus]

In 1974 a Soviet submarine was tasked to track a USN carrier and its escorts. “Three days we followed the carrier,” navigator Pavel Borodulkin described.
Borodulkin said that the sub spent much of the time at a depth of 120 feet. He also stated that soon after the photo (below) was taken, the US Navy Destroyers escorting the carriers raced at him and they crash-dived.

http://m2.i.pbase.com/g3/90/668790/2/101581592.bcbCWDm7.jpg

That wasn’t the only USN carrier the Soviets tailed however. In 1984 a Victor-class Soviet attack submarine K-314 shadowed the task group of USS Kitty Hawk off the Korean Peninsula in the Sea of Japan in an exercise called "Team Spirit".
The Americans lost track of the Victor and, in the dead of night, the 80,000-ton carrier actually collided with the 5,000-ton sub.
K-314 surfaced directly in front of Kitty Hawk, at the time of 22:05, too dark and too close for Kitty Hawk to see and avoid the resulting collision.

In November the same year, Illustrious, then a young vessel, was targeted by Soviet Tango-class submarine some 500 yards away, during a Royal Navy exercise off the Scottish coast.


In 2001 during an exercise in the Caribbean Sea, USS Enterprise CVN-65 had also been "sunk" by the German U-24 (Type 206 class) submarine. She fired a spread of four simulated torpedoes at the carrier...
In real circumstances, this would have resulted in a total loss.

And again the Enterprise's escort screen was successfully penetrated by U-28, also a Type 206 class submarine.

http://www.ewind.com/~sayc/pix/026524.jpg


And in 2007, the Canadian submarine HMCS Corner Brook, a diesel-electric submarine of the Canadian navy, sneaked up on Illustrious during an exercise in the Atlantic. The submarine got close enough to "kill" the HMS Illustrious aircraft carrier.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/30/hmsillo.jpg


And on March 2015, USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 of Carrier Strike Group 12, was also "sunk" by French Submarine SNA Saphir, in a training exercise off Florida.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSK_0K6xoz8Uni7bjShsuS-ZpDD4tbVsy4gJ5h7aq4kjMYnPeeO

It was initially reported in a blogspot of the French Navy and Defense Ministry. However, the blogspot was soon removed. Censoring evidence that US carriers are not unsinkable and almighty?

https://www.rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/

[Cdnwolf]

I found my copy of 2nd Fleet....

I am trying to update it to year 2000 units and changes using some old Harpoon info I still have laying around.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I still have 6th Fleet in the original box somewhere in the garage. Never did play it with any of my friends. I think the old hex and counter games are probably ancient history to today's youngins'

[Cdnwolf]

I still have 6th Fleet in the original box somewhere in the garage. Never did play it with any of my friends. I think the old hex and counter games are probably ancient history to today's youngins'


Well with the Vassal system they put converted all the old boardgames to an online format so you can play them with people around the world. All you need is the original rules but you can find most of them in a pdf format online.

[Webstral]

Me too. Perhaps the Battle of the Norwegian Sea was a series of linked battles, kind of like those surrounding the campaign for Guadalcanal, albeit covering a shorter period of time. More likely, it was a multi-day battle involving multiple task forces, a-la the Battle of Leyte Gulf.


I like the way The War That Never Was handles the fighting in the Norwegian Sea. The battle moves through high intensity and medium intensity phases without ever really pausing. I suspect that the naval battle has two distinct high intensity phases. The
first starts with the main clash in the North Atlantic between NATO and the Red Banner Northern Fleet. After NATO wins, the Allies follow the next logical step and pound the Soviet bases on the Kola Peninsula so that air power based on carriers and on land can focus on providing support for NATO forces counterattacking on the ground in Norway. The Soviets move the surviving aircraft and naval assets out while leaving a lot of wrecked hardware around to give NATO the impression that attacks on air bases are destroying a lot of combat platforms.

Once the Allies hit their stop line in Germany, they’d like to call it quits. The bulk of the surviving Atlantic Fleet assets retire for replenishment. During this period, the Soviets move back in and repair the runways and other facilities as best they can. They know NATO will be back. NATO does come back in June, and they get pasted.

[Adm.Lee]

I collected all of the Fleet series, but I think the one I never actually played was Sixth.

An idea for someday: put together enough groups that the games could be simultaneously played, perhaps with some OB modifications depending on team strategy.

For now, they all sit. I have 30-gallon plastic box that has nothing but WW3 games in it-- the Fleets, Air War (TSR/SPI), NATO (VG), Third World War series (GDW), Central Front series (SPI and 3W), and others.

[rcaf_777]

Their is a Hunt for the red October Board Game that I played in High School, I liked it quite a lot

[Anna Elizabeth]

I used to love GDW's Harpoon, I still have Harpoon 4.1 and the High Tide box set that covers the Cold War with declassified Soviet weapons. Did you know that the USSR had a 100 knot Nuclear-tipped torpedo?

I'm wondering lately whether CVNs are pretty much the modern version of BBs in 1941? I've heard so many stories and rumors of diesel submarines getting perfect killshot opportunities, and the US Navy seems to have drawn down their surface ASW capabilities.

[unkated]

Three points.


These Diesel-electrics are Western - quieter than their Soviet-made or Chinese contemporaries.


Torpedoes themselves are loud; firing torpedoes provides, giving time for a carrier to react.

Yes, carriers are large, and are unlikely to evade all of a spread of torpedoes. But, not knowing the nature of the evasion before hand, a spread of torpedoes would be necessary to hit. Wire guided torpedoes provide a better chance of a hit, but most subs can only guide one or two at a time.

Which brings us to my next point.


Aircraft carriers are REALLY big. A hit from a modern torpedo or two, is probably not going to kill one.
Ruin it's ability to continue operations? Probably.
Cause it to leave the area of operations? Probably.
But probably not sink it.

A nuke warhead is a different proposition, but if you are opening WW III with nuke strikes on carriers... having a tactical navy won't matter much. This will become strategical level nukes strikes before the 11 o'clock news.


Until then, aircraft carriers are useful for projecting (national) strength by
providing an airbase that can be moved as needed (however expensive to operate).

Uncle Ted

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Fact is, exactly zero carriers have been sunk in the last 30 years, ever. The Argentinians had the best shot (no pun intended) at hitting one in the Falklands and they couldn't pull it off. We parked MANY in the Gulf and the Iranians and Iraqis - armed with the vaunted Silkworm missiles - didn't do shit.

The reality is that (surprise!) the US Navy actually knows about how to defend against symmetric threats to its carriers! Aegis and other systems are designed specifically to deal with the air threat, and if you don't think the USN would prosecute every transient around a CBG until they knew down to the rivet what it was, you're damn wrong.

Anything else, this "OMG CARRIERS ARE SO DEAD AGAINST GLORIOUS RUSSIAN SUBS" is young pioneer masturbatory fantasy.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think you missed the point...
Fact is nobody who has carriers has been in a full-scale war with an enemy who could sink carriers in the last 30 years.

The Falklands War is not a good example to use. the Brits knew that the Argies had limited time on station once they reached the islands and so the carriers were kept out of reach of Argie aircraft. That wasn't any special "carrier defence", it was common sense and smart tactics.
If the British carriers had been within the range of the Argies, then results such as Sir Galahad and Atlantic Conveyor were very possible.

[Legbreaker]

Torpedoes themselves are loud; firing torpedoes provides, giving time for a carrier to react.

You know, you'd think that would also be able to be simulated in an exercise, otherwise what's the point? Why not just sit back in a classroom?
I know there's plenty of options for battlefield simulations used on land, why not at sea? We probably don't hear about it because a) it's not as "sexy" as the real weapon systems, and b) there's this thing called "classified" that prevents the dissemination of information which may be deemed sensitive.

Edit: A quick search online found multiple references to simulated shots. The simplest being expulsion of water from the tubes - "The force of the blowback of air from two simulated torpedo launches from Canadian Navy submarine HMCS Victoria sends hats, cameras and notebooks flying."
Now if that can't be detected by modern sensors, somebody somewhere has royally screwed up.

[Legbreaker]

A thesis (draft) that's well worth a read!
http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm
And you can buy the book https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Hr-uaYXoyIQC&rdid=book-Hr-uaYXoyIQC&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport

[rcaf_777]

Tom Clancy describes an attack on a us carrier in red storm rising, if I remember correctly missile decoys lure away the carrier air wing while Tupolev Tu-22M bombers launch a large barrage of anti ship missiles. While it dose not sink the carrier it dose cause enough damage to take the carrier out of action.

wish I could remember the carrier name

[dragoon500ly]

Wasn't it Nimitz, Saratoga and Foch?

And the score was Nimitz badly damaged and Foch sunk?

[Legbreaker]

The article above actually mentions Tom Clancy and devotes about a page or so to him. They suggest he's the perfect PR man for the US Navy as he does more to cover up the inadequacies than anyone else.
Not bad for an ex-insurance salesman with no military experience whatsoever.

[Cdnwolf]

I used to love GDW's Harpoon, I still have Harpoon 4.1 and the High Tide box set that covers the Cold War with declassified Soviet weapons. Did you know that the USSR had a 100 knot Nuclear-tipped torpedo?


I still have the Harpoon books and their supplements including one of their review of the fleet books. I also still have kicking around on through a Steam sale, SCS Sub Command, 688(I) Hunter Killer and Fleet Command. Diesel subs are a nightmare on their electric motors and I got lucky and killed one by hiding over a ship I already killed and waited until he had to recharge his batteries.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I think you missed the point...
Fact is nobody who has carriers has been in a full-scale war with an enemy who could sink carriers in the last 30 years.


And I think you missed what I said when I said the USN knows how to deal with symmetric threats.

[Legbreaker]

And I think you missed what I said when I said the USN knows how to deal with symmetric threats.

Actually, they don't.
Read the thesis I linked to for a brutally honest assessment from those who should know why not.

[RN7]

A thesis (draft) that's well worth a read!
http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm
And you can buy the book https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Hr-uaYXoyIQC&rdid=book-Hr-uaYXoyIQC&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport

I think a lot of what I stated at the start of this thread is in this thesis, which also greatly expands on what I originally stated. Diesel submarines are undoubtedly a major threat to aircraft carriers, particularly AIP submarines. But as Unkated said these are Western submarines/or navies that have beaten US Navy ASW defences, and these were in exercises.

The US Navy and US submarines would be focused on tactics of rivals such as the Soviet/Russians and maybe the Chinese now. Smaller Western allies can also specialise more in particular fields which the US Navy can't due to its much broader task. AIP submarines seem to excel in choke points and littoral naval warfare, but in deeper more open waters I doubt they could tackle the big US Navy nuclear attack boats so successfully.

As I see the major threat to US Navy carriers are....

Other Carriers. None at moment. Russian carrier too limited. French and new British ones are allied. Chinese and Indians also too limited, although some potential threat in future from new Chinese and possibly Russian ones.

Nuclear Attack Submarines: Only Russia is a threat. Britain and France are US allies, Chinese submarines are untested and likely much noisier and less advanced, while India is just entering this field with Russian assistance.

AIP Submarines: Mainly Western navies and certainly NATO and allied navies have the best of them. Possible Russian and Chinese threat in near future

Anti-Ship Missiles: Really only the Russians could still threaten the US Navy in this area with Tu-22M Backfire launched supersonic missiles. Other navies except the British do not have anti-ship or cruise missile with the range to launch outside of US Navy carrier aircraft protection, or in most cases US Navy ship based SAM.

Land Based Aircraft: Would depend on how close to shore US Navy carriers are and who the opposition would be.

Land Based Missiles: Don't get me started about the Chinese DF-21D carrier killer, please don't!

[Legbreaker]

I think a lot of what I stated at the start of this thread is in this thesis, which also greatly expands on what I originally stated.....

Did you read the entire document?

[RN7]

Did you read the entire document?

As a matter of fact Leg I did read the entire document and it was very entertaining. I started this thread and my comments over different posts by and large said the same thing about the US Navy's modern ASW capabilities (although in less detail). That was 8 posts I made earlier on the thread, did you happen to read any of those 8 posts?

Obviously I didn't say anything about the US Navy's ASW capabilities in WW2 or the early Cold War, or too much about US Navy aviation like Thompson did. But I think Thompson is being a bit overly critical of the US Navy as according to him it is a basket case. I mean according to him the US Navy was so bad it was lucky to survive WW2, and was just lucky the Japanese weren't a bit more canny or the US Navy would have bought it. No mention of the fact that the US Navy had its back up against the wall after Pearl Harbor, fought the Japanese across the Pacific Ocean against the odds, and then annihilated them as a naval force all on their own. Also despite its earlier inexperience in ASW operations and the questionable attitude of senior officers like King it did a very good job of eliminating the Japanese submarine threat in the Pacific, and played a major role in doing the same to the German submarine threat in the Atlantic with the British.

Is Thompson proposing that the US Navy should scrap its nuclear submarine fleet and aircraft carriers because of the threat posed from diesel submarines? There are only about 30 countries in the world that have effective submarine fleets, in fact there may be less than 30 and most of them are US allies. There is a reason why the US Navy is focused on aircraft carrier operations and prefers nuclear submarines. Carrier's are extremely powerful and mobile platforms that have a greater strike capability than most countries entire air forces. Nuclear submarines are twice as fast and have twice the war ordinance of a diesel submarine, and they also have unlimited range and are big enough to be fitted with long ranged land attack cruise missiles. US Navy combat aircraft are primarily strike aircraft and were the air-to-air duels between US Navy and other airforces at BVR ranges? With budget cut backs you cant have it both ways. The US Navy can't have a big carrier fleet and a nuclear sub fleet and then spare extra money to improve its ASW capabilities. Does Thompson's precious RCN and RCAF have anywhere near the capability of the US Navy or the USAF?

[Targan]

No mention of the fact that the US Navy had its back up against the wall after Pearl Harbor, fought the Japanese across the Pacific Ocean against the odds, and then annihilated them as a naval force all on their own.

Wow, when you put it like that, I look back on all those ANZAC Day marches I watched with Royal Australian Navy veterans of the Pacific war marching with their medals and battle honours and wonder what the hell they were doing in the parades. Must have been imposters with fake medals and such.

[RN7]

Wow, when you put it like that, I look back on all those ANZAC Day marches I watched with Royal Australian Navy veterans of the Pacific war marching with their medals and battle honours and wonder what the hell they were doing in the parades. Must have been imposters with fake medals and such.

Well Targan no disrespect to the Aussies but at sea what percentage of the Allied naval vessels and aircraft were American from 1942 onwards?.

[unkated]

Wow, when you put it like that, I look back on all those ANZAC Day marches I watched with Royal Australian Navy veterans of the Pacific war marching with their medals and battle honours and wonder what the hell they were doing in the parades. Must have been imposters with fake medals and such.

Didn't we just go through this idiocy in another topic?

Yes, Targan, The Australians fought. No dispute on that. We acknowledge that Australians fought with valiance and panache in New Guinea, Bougainville, the Solomons, Malaysia, Burma, as well as across North Africa and Europe. We acknowledge that the RAN fought too throughout; the USS Canberra was named in honor of the HMAS Canberra that fought and died alongside the US Navy at the Battle of Savo Island (Aug, 1942). We acknowledge that RAAF aircraft flew over all of these places, including Guadalcanal. We even acknowledge that given the scale of available naval assets, population, and cost of replacement, Australia's losses in combat were probably more costly to Australia than US losses in the Pacific.

I AM DELIBERATELY NOT POSTING STATISTICS OF TONNAGE OR KIA/WIA VS POPULATION BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

"All by itself" was an exaggeration, as you are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know, I'll wager.

"Mostly by itself" is not, as you are also intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know.

Uncle Ted

[Targan]

I make no apology for pointing out that the US didn't defeat the Japanese Imperial navy "all on their own". That's a statement of absolutes, and why wouldn't I be offended? If you were in my position you'd be offended too, so don't come over all high and mighty on me.

[RN7]

I make no apology for pointing out that the US didn't defeat the Japanese Imperial navy "all on their own". That's a statement of absolutes, and why wouldn't I be offended? If you were in my position you'd be offended too, so don't come over all high and mighty on me.

You know Targan if I had criticized the Australian armed forces and their war record I could understand your offence, but the fact that I didn't even mention Australia and only criticized the author of this document makes it difficult to understand your grievance. Perhaps as Unkated said I should have phrased the role of the US Navy in the Pacific differently, but have you read this document? It basically implies that the US Navy has been populated by buffoons for the past 80 years. If I was an American serviceman or had family who served in the US forces I would be badly offended by this document. I'm actually Canadian by nationality and I found his praise of the Canadian forces and his denigration of the US Navy way over the top. But if you are offended then I am afraid there is nothing that I can do about that.

[Targan]

Let me preface my next comments by pointing out that I haven't bought into any of the recent discussions regarding WWII and the participation of various nations in it. I didn't get involved in the "Who could have won WWII" thread, in part because my knowledge level sits far below other participants in the conversation. So I'm not carrying any baggage or butt-hurt from the discussions earlier this week.

RN7, the way I read it, "all on their own" was you paraphrasing, not making a direct quote from an author. Then you justified it with "at sea what percentage of the Allied naval vessels and aircraft were American from 1942 onwards?". I'm not accusing you of criticizing the Australian armed forces, in fact I'd be surprised if you did as your posts are almost uniformly reasoned and well-informed. I took umbrage at the almost casual total editing-out of Australia's contribution to the Pacific war, small though that contribution might have been.

Unkated, "Didn't we just go through this idiocy in another topic?" means nothing to me. I wasn't involved. On a per capita basis, Australia and New Zealand expended huge amounts of blood, sweat and tears in both world wars, so yeah, we get a little touchy when our contributions, modest as they may have been, get dismissed as not worth a mention in the grand scheme of things. I didn't post what I wrote as some piece of attention seeking faux-outrage. Do you recall me having a history of that sort of behavior on these forums?

Whether any of you care about me taking offence as I did, well that's your business.

[RN7]

RN7, the way I read it, "all on their own" was you paraphrasing, not making a direct quote from an author. Then you justified it with "at sea what percentage of the Allied naval vessels and aircraft were American from 1942 onwards?". I'm not accusing you of criticizing the Australian armed forces, in fact I'd be surprised if you did as your posts are almost uniformly reasoned and well-informed. I took umbrage at the almost casual total editing-out of Australia's contribution to the Pacific war, small though that contribution might have been.

Well Targan all I can say is that I am very sorry for causing you offence as that was not my intension. I do know a good deal about Australia's contribution to the Pacific War and I know it was far from minor. In my own defence I posted my reply to Legbreaker without reviewing it properly, and part of my reply could have been better thought out.

Whether any of you care about me taking offence as I did, well that's your business.

I don't think anybody on this board wants to offend another member, so I think that I would care if you are offended.

[Legbreaker]

I don't think anybody on this board wants to offend another member, so I think that I would care if you are offended.

Absolutely correct for my part. So little emotion is transmitted by the written word compared to a face to face chat over a few drinks. It's all too easy to forget that what you read is only a small part of what the person is saying, and often the readers mind can jump to the wrong conclusion. This is especially true if there's been tension in the air in recent times as on this forum lately.

It's ALWAYS best to step away from the keyboard, consider what other meanings the post you're about to respond to may have, and relax for a while before typing even one single word. I challenge anyone here to claim they've never over reacted - I sure as hell have.

[LT. Ox]

Absolutely correct for my part. So little emotion is transmitted by the written word compared to a face to face chat over a few drinks. It's all too easy to forget that what you read is only a small part of what the person is saying, and often the readers mind can jump to the wrong conclusion. This is especially true if there's been tension in the air in recent times as on this forum lately.

It's ALWAYS best to step away from the keyboard, consider what other meanings the post you're about to respond to may have, and relax for a while before typing even one single word. I challenge anyone here to claim they've never over reacted - I sure as hell have.
And perhaps should one more time.
Some one posted a line about the poor training that We In the US had in the '60s.
it was just an aside remark and not directed at me, the problem was/is I was a product of that training and then part of the machine that trained the 19 and 20 year olds to go to Viet Nam.
I took the remark very personal, still do.
I wanted so much to keep each and every GI alive, I want to "get the job done" as we used ta say and some one here stated we were not up to it.

I know National pride often gets in the way of rational thought and I am at times just as guilt as the next but folks I do not belittle or attack others in that pride.
Now here this ....PLEASE.... some few of the people here are Vets and have been in harm’s way, the events that you talk about so casually are very real to us I did not live through the hell of WWII but I did two tours in VIET NAM was shot and blown up and had a lot of my brothers killed and or wounded.
To say that they were poorly trained is a hurt that I have a hard time overlooking.
My Father was in the NAVY in WWII in the Pacific and served on the Hornet. My two uncles were in WWII in the US Army Airforce and shot down over Germany and interred. My father’s best friend served in the US Marine Corp and did The Island thing from Guadel (sic) Canal on. They are all gone now but I remember the stories and the pain they went through.
We all took/take advantage of the US Veterans Hospitals. Perhaps you may get it.
I am not asking you to forgo your debate, just think about those you are talking about as real people not just numbers to be discarded.

[Targan]

Fair enough. We're good.

[Raellus]

The U.S. is lagging behind in ASM capability. Go ahead and laugh at Russia's supersonic ASMs and China's ballistic ASMs, but American Harpoons and SM-6s are arguably much worse ship-killing weapons. This is what putting most of your eggs in carrier air-power gets you.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18391/the-us-navy-is-slowly-realizing-it-may-have-to-sink-ships-again-in-the-future/

[Legbreaker]

And that essentially is what the thesis I've been talking about confirms. The US Navy relies too heavily on technology and it's carriers and almost ignores ASW. They've also got a problem with training and keeping technicians with some vital maintenance roles (and a few operational ones too!) currently filled by civilians who will not be accompanying the vessels should they go to war.
Many ships are currently undermanned in critical areas and some grossly over-manned with commissioned officers (one example is of a ship with a requirement of about 15 officers but having 34 assigned to it, most obviously having nothing to do). Crews are also rotated to quickly - almost the moment a crewmember gains competency (but not expertise) they're often reassigned to a new, completely different role, usually on a different vessel.

The US Navy has serious problems, but nothing that can't be fixed if there's a will to do it. The problem is though there is currently no will - too many high ranking officers with too much to loose if the problems are admitted to.

[RN7]

The U.S. is lagging behind in ASM capability. Go ahead and laugh at Russia's supersonic ASMs and China's ballistic ASMs, but American Harpoons and SM-6s are arguably much worse ship-killing weapons. This is what putting most of your eggs in carrier air-power gets you.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18391/the-us-navy-is-slowly-realizing-it-may-have-to-sink-ships-again-in-the-future/

No one is laughing at other countries ASM capabilities Raellus but the primary threat to US Navy aircraft carriers remains Russian air-launched supersonic anti-ship missiles launched from the Tu-22M bomber.

For any warship fitted with anti-ship missiles to get within range of a US Navy aircraft carrier they would have to be able to launch beyond the range of the carrier escorts air defence screen and the range of carrier aircraft. The US Navy positions most of its carrier escorts about 20 km from the carrier. But an air defence tactic the US Navy also use is to place escorts in emissions silence between 100 and 250 km out along an expected axis of threat. Also carrier aircraft are usually positioned about 300 km from the aircraft carrier on CAP, and that range can be extended.

US Navy escort warships are very well defended against the threat of hostile anti-ship missiles and aircraft. AN/SPY-1D 3D radars, AN-SPS-67 and AN-SPS-73 surface search radars, AN/SLQ-32 (V)2 EW system, RIM-66M, RIM-162 ESSM and RIM-174 ERAM SAM's, RIM-161 ABM system, Phalanx and Mark 36 SRBOC decoys.

In addition to the Harpoon the US Navy also uses AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER air launched cruise missiles which is carried by US Navy F/A-18, P-3C, P-8 and USAF F-15E. It has a range of 250 km and is extremely accurate, with the best Circular Area of Probable (CEP) among any munitions in the US Navy.

The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) will replace the current Harpoon anti-ship missile from 2018 or 2019, and pioneers autonomous targeting capabilities for anti-ship missiles. Some were actually put into limited production and deployed on US Navy ships in 2014. It can be launched from US Navy ships fitted with the Mk 41 VLS launcher and US Navy and USAF aircraft. The Norwegian company Konigsberg is also developing the Naval Strike Weapon as a competitor to the LRASM for the US contract. The Next Generation Strike Capability (NGSC) missile which combines land attack and anti-surface warfare capabilities and which will replace the Tomahawk is also in the works.

The Chinese DF-21D anti-carrier ballistic missile needs an OTH radar and RORSAT to track a US carrier, and they would hope that the US carrier was standing still. Even if they have a powerful and effective OTH radar (which I doubt) the accuracy wouldn't be good enough and they would need recon aircraft and warships/submarines to help track the carrier. And that would be in a sea of clutter and US counter-measures, yet alone US anti-ballistic missiles and anti-aircraft defences. If China has an operational OTH radar capable of tracking a US carrier offshore it will be the first thing the US will eliminate in hostilities, and quicker than China will believe possible. Russian kh-22 missiles launched from Tu-22M bombers are a lot more effective and devastating.

[stormlion1]

I find all this entertaining to read, but while a single diesel submarine may not be a threat many believe, what about wolf packs of them? Whats to stop a nation from producing dozens of diesels and just have them waiting along any projected carrier groups route?

[rcaf_777]

Whats to stop a nation from producing dozens of diesels and just have them waiting along any projected carrier groups route?

US Aircraft Carrier would be traveling in a carrier battle group, this battle group is made up of ships and aircraft who offer protection and screening from surface and sub surface threats.

So you answer your question nothing can stop a wolf pack style attack, but early dectection could drive them away but at end of the day, all any ship can do is employ it's counter measures and rely on crew training.

[CDAT]

US Aircraft Carrier would be traveling in a carrier battle group, this battle group is made up of ships and aircraft who offer protection and screening from surface and sub surface threats.

So you answer your question nothing can stop a wolf pack style attack, but early dectection could drive them away but at end of the day, all any ship can do is employ it's counter measures and rely on crew training.

I am not now, nor have I ever been in a Navy, but I kind of see it like the sniper. All it takes is for one to be missed and take the shot. It may depending on how well it sneaks away be trading itself for the carrier but it also may get away. All the escorts are there to keep one from getting through but no one is infallible, and it only takes one.

[Legbreaker]

And the US is known to be short on ASW ships, and training is known to be sub standard.
Each and every time a carrier has headed into danger the US has had to call upon allies to fill this role. Allies which may not always be around.
Take Australia as one example. Although allied, Australia is not part of NATO, so in the Twilight world, would not have been there to help. Same goes for New Zealand. Might not be particularly powerful navies on their own but they fill a vital gap in US capability.

[swaghauler]

It is kind of funny that nobody mentioned the most important ASW asset that was attached to a carrier group starting in the 90's (my friend Tim served on one attached to the Nimitz). The one (or two in high threat environments) LA Class Attack subs. I don't think they would just let an enemy sub stalk a carrier group without performing an "intervention."

[Legbreaker]

Except as mentioned by that thesis I posted the link to a while back, the LA class aren't really up to the job and their crews, like the rest of the navy, aren't either.
Also, they're big noisy nukes, only suited to deep water operations. In closer to the shore they're nearly useless.

[swaghauler]

Except as mentioned by that thesis I posted the link to a while back, the LA class aren't really up to the job and their crews, like the rest of the navy, aren't either.
Also, they're big noisy nukes, only suited to deep water operations. In closer to the shore they're nearly useless.

I saw that BS thesis, the writing of which was supported by a guy who went on to push for a larger budget for the US airforce. Politics is like that. What was said about the Navy is total Bull. I know several sailors. They are very well trained and the equipment they have is top notch. Better trained than the Soviets (I have been in close proximity to Soviet ships sailing in the Bahamas and near Cuba) and every bit as good as all the other NATO powers. The LAs cannot be that noisy as they have frequently operated in the Gulf without detection. My friend Tim was in the Gulf in 91, and they launched Tomahawks from a few miles offshore without detection. The Soviets have no truly new technology on their ships (which were mostly built in the 60's, and 70's) and China is almost a generation behind the US DESPITE the continual theft of technology. Maybe you're confusing the US Navy with the rest of NATO (who have cut their defense budgets to the bone since 2000). Most of the ships I see countries other than The UK operating don't appear much bigger than a Frigate or Coastal Patrol Ship. The vast majority of NATO subs are Diesel Electric with limited range (compared to nukes) and limited submerged dwell time. They might be good for a war in Europe but couldn't project power, say to China. If the LA class were "flawed," the US wouldn't have built 90 of them. Keep in mind that the "think tanks" that claim such weakness in the US military also predicted 40% casualties to allied air power and 60% casualties to the ground forces during the 91 Gulf War. It didn't happen, did it? Never trust an analyst who hasn't served with the entity they are "analyzing."

[Legbreaker]

So you, with all your intensive research are dismissing out of hand the work of Roger Thompson, Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University?
A man well respected by his peers and who has received a number of honours?

So tell us again what your formal qualifications are to make such a judgement?

I'll stick with the experts thanks.

[rcaf_777]

Each and every time a carrier has headed into danger the US has had to call upon allies to fill this role. Allies which may not always be around. Take Australia as one example. Although allied, Australia is not part of NATO, so in the Twilight world, would not have been there to help. Same goes for New Zealand. Might not be particularly powerful navies on their own but they fill a vital gap in US capability.

I like to point out that in the Twilight world the USN would have 51 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates and about 40 Knox class firgate, 2 Brooke Class Frigate, and 1 Garica Class Frigate in reserve that could be pressed into service.

Not to meation NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT) plus addtion UK and Canadian Assets

[RN7]

So you, with all your intensive research are dismissing out of hand the work of Roger Thompson, Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University?
A man well respected by his peers and who has received a number of honours?

So tell us again what your formal qualifications are to make such a judgement?

I'll stick with the experts thanks.

Is this the Knightsbridge University you are talking about Legbreaker?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightsbridge_University

[rcaf_777]

In legbreaker defense the Roger Thompson who wrote the actual book he talked about in his pervious post was Roger Thompson of Kyung Hee University in South Korea.

There another Roger Thompson of Knightsbridge University, who worte a very intrest paper which is fact a based on one chapter in his book

The Real Roger Thompson is an internationally recognized authority on combat motivation, military sociology, and military bureaucratic politics
check out the USNI entry on his book

http://www.usni.org/store/books/ebook-editions/lessons-not-learned

However the book's main theme is the U.S. Navy's "up or out" promotion system, massive personnel turnover, inexperienced crews, and drug and alcohol abuse as problems that make it difficult for the Navy to build cohesive, well-trained fighting units.

He dose talk about the US Navy being bested by other Navies and how Diesel submarines are so quiet that they are rarely detected by the USN, its only a protion not the whole book.

[RN7]

Thinking logically about this (and I was the one who brought it up) all that I can say about the alleged deficiencies in US Navy anti-submarine capabilities is that I think there may be more to it than meets the eye.

What we know

In exercises since 1980 US Navy anti-submarine defences have been repeatedly been breached by diesel-electric submarines from Australia, Britain, Canada, Chile, France, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden.

A Chinese Song Class diesel electric submarine surfaced within firing range of a US Navy aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in the East China Sea in 2006 and every sonar on the ships in the US carrier battle group missed it, as did the US nuclear submarines prowling around beneath the sea.

US nuclear submarines are the quietest nuclear submarines in the world, even the British ones which are very good are noisier.

The Virginia Class nuclear attack submarine has 9 different types of mast and 7 different types of sonar.

All of this information is freely available on the internet on various websites and articles, and there has been no attempt by the US Navy to suppress the results of these exercises or incidents which would seriously undermine its mission and funding in the public and political domain. Who does that benefit?

What this implies

Despite having a budget larger than the entire defence budget of Russia the US Navy has failed to grasp the importance one of the fundamentals of modern naval warfare; the threat from submarines.

US Navy anti-submarine technology must be deficient in comparison to other countries navies despite having a bigger R&D budget than any other navy.

US Navy anti-submarine equipment must be deficient in comparison to other countries navies despite using the same equipment, or similar or even better equipment.

In 35 years of exercises with NATO and allied navies the US Navy captains and officers have failed to understand or learn anything about the tactics of allied submarines despite all of these exercises.

In 35 years of exercises with NATO and allied navies the US Navy captains and officers have failed to understand or learn anything about the technical capabilities of allied submarines despite all of these exercises.

US Navy crews are staffed by many people who missed out on their career vocation at McDonalds.

The US Navy has got it all wrong with nuclear submarines. You can buy a whole squadron or more of diesel electric submarine for the price of a Virginia Class nuclear attack boat, or even three of the very best German Type 212 AIP subs for the price of a Virginia. The British and French have got it wrong too as they now only have nuclear submarines.

What we don't know

The true sensor capabilities of modern US sonar and sensors as the US Government doesn't release that information.

The motivation of US Navy intelligence.

What the US Navy has in mind when undertaking these exercises with allied navies. Is there a few billion in funding for new equipment they would lose out on if the results showed that they didn't keep losing?

What do I know

Nothing much, just throwing a few ideas in.

[Sanjuro]

At BRNC Dartmouth in the 80s I saw some photos of the propeller of a US carrier taken from very close- feet rather than yards. The submarine then left the area without being detected.
Tactically this was of course useless- far too close for weapon release. It was, however, fantastic for building crew's confidence in their skills and equipment.