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

[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.

1. These Diesel-electrics are Western - quieter than their Soviet-made or Chinese contemporaries.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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]

Originally Posted by unkated

[*]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/...earch_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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

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]

Originally Posted by 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/...earch_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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by Targan

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]

Originally Posted by Targan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

Originally Posted by Targan

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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/mili...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]

Originally Posted by 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/mili...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]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

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.