Killing Carriers

[Matt Wiser]

One thing to keep in mind, gents, was that U.S. policy in the Cold War was that if nuclear warfare was initiated at sea, it would not remain limited to the sea. There would be retaliatory strikes against Soviet Naval bases within 24-48 hours. And things would escalate from there.

[Legbreaker]

Policy of course doesn't mean it was actually followed.

As we know, the nuclear war on land was conducted in a peicemeal manner - there's nothing to say the same didn't occur on the sea for the very same reasons.

[stilleto69]

I''ve always gone for the following:
For the Battle of GIUK Gap (Late Nov): NATO attacked with CV-59 USS Forrestal, CV-60 USS Saratoga, CV-66 USS America, CVN-69 USS Dwight D Eisenhower & HMS Illustrious. NATO sunk the CV Kusnetsov, CVGH Kiev & CVGH Baku.
The Soviets manage to counter using various tactics from massed attacks to just plain luck. The result is the Forrestal is damaged by AS-4s (Flight Deck, Port Elevator, 1 Starboard Elevator & Arrester Gear) & the HMS Illustrious is sunk. Forrestal sails to Newport News for repairs escorted by the Saratoga. Thus NATO only has 2 carriers in the North Atlantic.
Saratoga is ordered to report to the Med to replace the John F Kennedy after it was damaged by a Shkval torpedo (thanks Chico)
CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt ordered to replace the Saratoga, and the RN orders the HMS Ark Royal to replace the Illustrious. Thus NATO Strike Fleet Atlantic is down to 4 carriers for the Battle of the Norwegian Sea.

Battle of the Norwegian Sea (12/3-12/24): NATO attacks w/CV-66 USS America, CVN-69 USS Dwight D Eisenhower, CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt & HMS Ark Royal. The Soviets again counter this time by using a variety of new "superweapons", i.e. Kh-31 AAMs to down NATO AEW & AWACS aircraft & SS-N-27 missiles against Aegis cruisers & destroyers (thanks again Chico), but the result is the same, NATO wins, but at the cost of the America (Damaged by AS-4s off the coast of Norway) & HMS Ark Royal (Damaged by AS-4s just south of Norway) America docks in Tromoso, Norway.

Thus after 2 "successful" battles NATO Strike Force Atlantic commander recommends a "pause" to allow his forces to rest and a chance to reevaluate NATO's tactics.

Sorry for the rambling, but that pretty much how I manage to explain how NATO Strike Force Atlantic came to be without the Soviets using nuclear weapons.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by stilleto69

Sorry for the rambling

No need to apologize, I love the details.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

One thing to keep in mind, gents, was that U.S. policy in the Cold War was that if nuclear warfare was initiated at sea, it would not remain limited to the sea. There would be retaliatory strikes against Soviet Naval bases within 24-48 hours. And things would escalate from there.

I agree. In the Norwegian Sea, NATO and US forces have a clear opporunity to archieve a decisive victory. A victory with great strategic repercusions for the war development in Central Europe. The security of the supply lines between EEUU and Europe can be nearly granted after one decisive action. If soviets use the nuclear option so early in the war to counteract a conventional NATO action, it seems reasonable that NATO would consider that any temporal own advantage in any front could have the same response. Soviets would have broken the rules too early. A retaliatory strike seems a must.

[pmulcahy11b]

US carriers were high-value targets that, in the mind of the Soviet military, fully warranted the use of nuclear weapons. The most likely avenue of attack would be by overwhelming amounts of Soviet maritime bombers launching cruise missiles armed with conventional, antiradiation, and nuclear weapons. The Soviets knew their attack subs were, for the most part, too loud to simply slip under US carrier task force defenses, and they didn't have enough of them for overwhelming attacks. They were willing to lose large amounts of maritime bombers on the chance that one or two might get through to kill the carrier. To the Soviets, US carriers were some of the most frightening items in the NATO inventory.

[Marc]

I don’t blame the soviets about their fear against the US carriers. If the option is to take the moment of the nuclear escalation stated in the canon, the situation in the Norwegian Sea must be somewhat balanced to avoid the soviets to avoid the temptation of the red button. Fear to a nuclear escalation is one point. But something must cause them the impression that a victory (or a draw) is possible without the use of the nuclear alternative. Some alternatives have yet been posted here. Dispersion of the US carriers to protect the supply lines is a good point. I liked the option posted by Stilleto, too.

I will suggest one more possible way to complicate NATO options. An accident similar to the one suffered by the USS Forrestal in 1967 while in the Gulf of Tonkin. Link here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

Enough to eliminate one carrier from the equation.

[chico20854]

Some of the ideas we've come up with:

At the outbreak of war, Soviet Naval Aviation masses bombers against US carriers before they can form the entire strike fleet up. In the Far East, Vinson is struck by over 200 bombers launching ASMs, as the Far Eastern TVD commander lets slip the massed bombers that had been participating in Operation Tchaikovsky. The next week the feat is repeated to the detriment of Washington.
Ranger is afloat through most of 1997 but ineffective as her air wing took heavy losses (as did Lincoln's) in December 96; the remnants of the air wings were merged and Ranger sent back to the West Coast to form a new air wing. It's nearly combat-ready when SF Bay gets nuked and she burns next to the pier.

Keep in mind that just because the hull is still intact, if the air wing is ineffective (as it might be after tangling with the PVO near the Kola peninsula in the dead of winter before trying to land on a carrier in 24-hour darkness) or the 6000 sailors aboard can't be supplied with food the carrier isn't much use.

One note on use of ballistic missiles against ships at sea - its a tough targeting problem... to locate and identify the target, transmit it to a HQ and then on to a launcher, program the missile and launch it and have it land within a lethal radius (20 PSI) of the target before that target moves away at 20-30+ knots. Mid-course guidance requires the observing sensor to remain intact and have working comms. It's doable, but tough.

[Jason Weiser]

Well,
In the interests of full disclosure, I am the poor benighted soul who has introduced nukes into the discussion of the naval war. The story goes something like this.

It was the first meeting of the DC working group some almost four years ago...has it been that long? We met in Union Station over Chico and Law's lunch hour at Uno's in Union Square (I was relocating here from NYC and was not working at the time).

So, we got to talking about the Naval war, and it was as Law put it "How the f$%k are we going to kill so many US carriers with the Soviet Navy dead?"

Well, the ideas came fast and furious, except from me...an idea was coming unbidden in my head. A dark one...like none of mine aren't? And then I said it..."How about nukes?" Law grinned...Chico smiled too...and I knew then...I was with like minded souls as dark as mine. Chico then reminded us...hey NATO always supposedly subscribed to the idea that nukes at sea were not as escalatory as nukes on land. So, we ran with it, and I put up my notes here on the boards...and the rest is, how you say...history?

[JHart]

Do the Soviets attack the carriers with nukes all at once or as targets present themselves?

It will be hard to do all at once, but if they don't, if the go after one carrier with nukes, the word is out and if the US Navy is allowed to take the gloves off, then nuclear tipped Tomahawks start falling on soviet bomber bases, and nuclear tipped antiaircraft missiles go on the rails and come out of VLS tubes.