Originally Posted by Bluedwarf (Post 20533)

Greetings

It strikes me there are a few details overlooked. First, since we are not talking about a land war, water play a much bigger role. Then there is a type of weapon I understand was in use that would be perfect for this that has not been mentioned, but more on that in a minute.

-Moderate to strong storms can effectively ground all aircraft on a carrier, while the soviet land-based aircraft could launch and then rise above the weather at about 200nm to launch. The violent motions of the ships, not to mention green water getting to the gun barrels rendering the guns of the smaller screening craft inoperable, will dramatically reduce the combat effectiveness of the anti-aircraft screen, forcing the defence to rely primarily on missiles and making it harder to detect wave-skimming missiles. Further, the large waves will mess with targeting systems of both sides, and that would reduce the percentage of missiles that maintain correct lock. That is a sword that strikes both ways, but as most modern Soviet missiles would lock into the radar transmissions and heat of the ships that would be effected less than the radar guided point defence missiles attacking them. Since the north Atlantic is known for it's nasty weather, a Soviet strike timed to make the most of the storm could easily prove wise and profitable for them. Just ask the English, especially where the "Invincible Armarda" of Spanish warships are concerned...

-Oil rigs in the North Atlantic also report occasional freak waves, up to 50m high or more. One of these could not be controlled by the Soviets, but they would make a mess of screening warships such as frigates and destroyers. While a carrier could well survive them, it may clean a lot of excess planes from the deck at an inopportune time, and could capsize them if they were focused on something else and did not maneuver into position to survive such a wave( like the captain was focussed on launching aircraft, for example).

-The russians had developed in the early 80's a new type of mine that could be dropped from even fishing vesseles, let alone old subs or warships. Rather than floating on the surface, these mines would sit on the bottom and wait for a warship (or, more exactly, a ship with sonar that did not have the right IFF signal in the sonar) to pass overhead. The sonar ping then activated the mine, launching a torpedo into the ship from underneath.

Now a screening fleet would usually be pinging, as are fishing boats, coincedently, but it would not take much for such a minefield to be laid with mines that were programmed to activate when they recieved a given signal, if they don't already have them. Then, while the fleet chases the sub giving off the signal, it will take them some time to realize that the torpedoes are not coming from a hidden wolfpack, by which time they could well be in the middle of a minefield. Throw in a real wolfpack, and the CBG will have a nightmare under the water.

Of course, combine any of these, and you could well deal with more than 5 CBG's without needing to resort to nukes. Nature is fickle, especially at sea, and could well throw it's weight against either, or even both sides, as history can tell.

Originally Posted by bobcat (Post 57546)

honestly without going with canon i could envision multiple ways to eliminate a small fleet with one primary munition four guys and an IBS(or soviet equivalent)

granted especially if the fleet is underway it would be almost guaranteed at 100% casualties trying to sneak in and plant an ADM on the hull of a ship but it is doable and the doctrine is there on both sides. now assuming the coastguards port watchers are to be pressed into serving naval intelligence(likely right after the pentagon realizes they exist). planners would be able to accurately predict the approximate positions on a fleet. we did the same thing during the second world war and some NATO allies still maintain similar assets because they are so effective. this gives you the when and where, then use a fishing boat to move the team to the ORP where they deploy an inflatable boat to get to the CBG. as they enter the surveillance perimeter they can partially submerge the boat and using the waves and wash from escorts get right up on the carrier with their nuke or a butt load of conventional limpet mines. no need for large fleets to play when you only need a small team with the right training.

Originally Posted by Targan (Post 63449)

Another one I was reading just today:

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

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK (Post 63450)

It is generally the quieter diesel subs that are better at this sort of thing. Nukes, especially the earlier Soviet ones, could be very noisy due to the reactor; when an 'Alfa' powered up for the first time off Kola, SOSUS picked it up in Bermuda.

Originally Posted by jester (Post 63473)

Now, that brings the following question to mind. If an active sonar blast can confuse marine animals. What would a concentrated blast do to divers?

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser (Post 63477)

Concur, Web; and though there were some embarrassed admirals, this is a valuable lesson learned, from which the mistakes made can be dissected, analyzed, and not repeated. Though I'm sure the Navy is wishing they hadn't retired the S-3 Vikings from the ASW role.....

Originally Posted by Targan (Post 63600)

Interesting article on the late Cold War power (or lack thereof) of the Soviet Navy:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...vy_107707.html

Originally Posted by stormlion1 (Post 63898)

Honestly, I always figured the Russians kept track of the various Carrier Battlegroups and tasked a few of there more accurate ICBM's to deal with them.

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK (Post 63916)

ICBMs lack the accuracy to deal with a target that may move 10+ nm between launch and impact.

As for keeping track of the carrier groups, the USSR did have RORSATs that could do that, but it's a question of how quickly the Americans would use ASAT and take them out.

Originally Posted by stormlion1 (Post 63920)

ASAT has always been a issue, up until a few years ago it was relatively basic and had a lot of stop and go development. Including a gap in US development between 1989 and 2006 I think. And in the 80's only one real successful intercept. Not really a issue I am thinking.

Not sure on Russian or Chinese development.

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 63923)

Keep in mind too how much warning the Navy would get on any nuke attack - they would be balls to the wall as soon as they knew of any nuclear missile on approach, changing course to present the minimal aspect possible so any sea surge would not hit the hull broadside but instead be in the same direction the ship was traveling, etc...