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

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/eboo...ns-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.