RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:43 PM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 345
Default

The "Cliff Notes" draft version of the USN carrier force we've worked up with Matt Wiser:

CV-41 Midway: sustained damage in summer 1997, escorts were chasing down Sov raider/sub & Midway sunk by Sov SSN in Central Pacific.
CV-43 Coral Sea: operated in North Sea providing air support in Baltic, struck by Su-24 toss-bombed tac nuke 1997 & lost off Denmark.
CV-59 Forrestal: severely damaged by Soviet combined-arms strike in Vestfjord during Battle of Norwegian Sea December 96, burned out & abandoned in Bodo.
CV-60 Saratoga: participated in Norwegian Sea & Kola battles, damaged by Oscar July 97, nuked in drydock Philadelphia Nov 97.
CV-61 Ranger: Cam Ranh raid destroed air wing, served as Pacflt training carrier in 1997 (remnants of air wing to Lincoln), in port for liberty Thanksgiving 1997 when damaged by Tsunami in SF Bay induced by TDM strikes on north bay refineries, then caught in firestorm following strikes & burned out
CV-62 Independence: disabled and forced to anchor at Muscat, Oman. lost two props and a rudder from a Type-65 torpedo from an Sierra-class SSN, and was lucky to make it to port. One elevator is knocked out (by the AS-4 hit) and one rudder is jammed, along with a prop shaft blown out by the Type-65 torpedo (the ship's Nixie torpedo decoy worked-barely). Some internal flooding and shock damage as well. The ship was also damaged by BACKFIRE-launched AS-4 after anchoring and is not currently seaworthy, 18 months to repair...
CV-63 Kitty Hawk: anchored off Hilo (harbor to shallow to dock), no fuel.
CV-64 Constellation: homeported in Japan, sunk at 2nd Kamchakta.
CVN-65 Enterprise: participated in Battle of Norwegian Sea, damaged in Kola op, in Belfast.
CV-66 America: participated in ops vs Greece, Italy & Libya 1997, damaged in Op Carthaginian by Italian mines & subs, docked in Sigonella & abandoned when US withdrew from Sicily.
CV-67 John F. Kennedy: damaged by Soviet mine at outset of war in Western Med, repaired in Gibraltar in time for Carthaginian, operated in Med until arrived in Split, Croatia in mid 98 with minor mine damage (lost 1 shaft). Declared for Civgov with rest of forces in Jugoslavia.
CVN-68 Nimitz: damaged at 2nd Kamchachta, repaired at Bremerton, active there.
CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower: Participated in Battle of Norwegian Sea & Kola op, holds Iceland 98-00, withdrawn to Little Creek, covers TF34 as part of Op Omega.
CVN-70 Carl Vinson: overwhelmed by Soviet ASMs from 200+ Backfires at outset of war while operating solo in Yellow Sea.
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt: participated in Battle of Norwegian Sea & Kola op, supports HM Govt in UK, withdrawn to Norfolk & NJ as part of Op Omega.
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln: participated in Cam Ranh raid, damaged by 2 Soviet ASM, in Bremerton w/o port waist catapult, arrestor gear.
CVN-73 George Washington: overwhelmed by Soviet ASMs from 200+ Backfires during Battle of Norwegian Sea.
CVN-74 John C. Stennis: operates in both Battles of Kamchakta with reserve air wing, provides CAS in Korea and Japanese Kuriles op, occasionally patrols between Guam & Okinawa.
CVL-16 Lexington: hunted for raiders in Caribbean and central Atlantic, its aircraft located & tracked Kirov as tried to reach Cuba, suffered engineering casualty & put into repair yard in Mobile. Following TDM parts unavailable, aircraft & crew became part of local defense force under USMC leadership.
CVL-34 Oriskany: on workups off West Coast following reactivation in Long Beach with scratch airwing during TDM. Patrols area from San Francisco-Hawaii-Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia)-Galapagos Islands-Panama until runs out of fuel. In Panama.

edit: (CVN-75 Harry Truman is destroyed while still under construction in Newport News, Va when the Norfolk area is struck by a SS-24 during the TDM).
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-23-2010, 08:44 PM
JHart JHart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
CV-61 Ranger: Cam Ranh raid destroyed air wing, served as Pacflt training carrier in 1997 (remnants of air wing to Lincoln), in port for liberty Thanksgiving 1997 when damaged by Tsunami in SF Bay induced by TDM strikes on north bay refineries, then caught in firestorm following strikes & burned out
I don't think a carrier would pull into port unless severely damaged, especially after the Soviets aren't afraid of slinging nukes.

Quote:
CVN-75 Harry Truman is destroyed while still under construction in Newport News, Va when the Norfolk area is struck by a SS-24 during the TDM
The Truman was launched in 1996 as once the US gets its war on, she could easily be outfitted and ready to fight during the war


The Reagan could be destroyed in dock. Her keel was laid in 1998, but with the war, it could have been laid sooner. It is possible the Reagan could be launched before the TDM.
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox.
If you run out of ammo, become a bunker.
If you run out of time, become a hero.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-23-2010, 10:38 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

The Midway was put into mothballs in 91/92 and turned into a museum without poweplant, propellers and steering in 99, most of its machinery would have been removed shortly after decomissioning.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-23-2010, 10:56 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,350
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester View Post
The Midway was put into mothballs in 91/92 and turned into a museum without poweplant, propellers and steering in 99, most of its machinery would have been removed shortly after decomissioning.
This is a great example of potential V1 vs V2 differences. Given the Midway was still active for desert storm I could certainly see its continued operation if the cold war never ended.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-24-2010, 12:08 PM
adimar adimar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Default It's allways the human factor

I’ve never served in the navy,
Is it feasible that a couple of soviet agents stationed onboard key USN vessels sabotaged them to disrupt their operations during a massed missile attack?
i.e. the attack's time was preplanned and the agents were talled to disrupt the ###wierd protective gadjet### at 21:32 moscow time.
(even if it only for a couple of minutes)

Adi

p.s:
Quote:
And a very modern Israeli Eliat (Saar 5) corvette just got tagged by a shore launched Hizbollah Silkworm or C8. It didn't carry Aegis, but it's systems are based on similar bought/borrowed/stolen technology.
The official story is that data regarding the pressence of the missile was not passed to the craft's co, so the protective system was not turned on.

Last edited by adimar; 03-24-2010 at 12:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-24-2010, 12:52 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Thanks for chiming in regarding the human factor, adimar. This is my favorite explanation for things that are otherwise difficult to explain. Decisions made by chuckleheads in high places can ruin the most well-conceived plans executed by the best forces.

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-24-2010, 08:42 PM
JHart JHart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
Default

Two things for Midway

Quote:
During an overhaul in 1986 in Japan new bulges were added to improve freeboard and seakeeping. The bulges actually made the problem worse, making flight operations impossible in 6-10 foot seas. This problem was never corrected.
Could cause trouble if attacked in a storm

After being the first aircraft carrier forward deployed for 17 years in Yokosuka, Midway returned to North Island Naval Air Station in San Diego for decommissioning in April of 1992.

Quote:
The former USS Midway, moved to the Navy's mothball fleet in Bremerton, Washington, was available as a donation. Eligible recipients included any US state, possession, municipal government, or non-profit entity. The recipient of the aircraft carrier was required to maintain the ship as a non-moving museum or memorial. The San Diego Carrier Museum refurbished and converted the former USS Midway aircraft carrier into a unique, interactive educational and entertainment complex, featuring the excitement of carrier aviation. Opening in late 2001, it includes exhibits, activities, programs and attractions for all walks of life, and play an important role in the continued revitalization of downtown San Diego. The Midway is located at Navy Pier, at the foot of San Diego's revitalized downtown district.

Would need to research when she was stricken. Being mothballed means it could be reactivated. She could easily have been mothballed and reactivated in '95-'96. I wonder if she could become an Army helo carrier, providing another amphib force for the Med, Gulf or SE Asia

I toured the Midway in San Diego a couple of years ago and it was impressive.

For the Coral Sea

Quote:
Life International, a non-profit organization, obtained CORAL SEA (CV-43) from the Navy in 1990 for 15 dollars under a plan to use the ship as a shelter for homeless residents of Baltimore. The aircraft carrier was scrapped at the Seawitch Marine Salvage Company at the Fairfield Marine Terminal in the outer harbor during 1994. The top of the ship`s mast was removed at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to ensure the carrier would have enough clearance to pass under the Chesapeake Bay bridges as it was towed to Baltimore.
Found everything at globalsecurity.org
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox.
If you run out of ammo, become a bunker.
If you run out of time, become a hero.

Last edited by kato13; 03-24-2010 at 08:48 PM. Reason: changed html tags to quote tags
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-24-2010, 08:50 PM
JHart JHart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
I’ve never served in the navy,
Is it feasible that a couple of soviet agents stationed onboard key USN vessels sabotaged them to disrupt their operations during a massed missile attack?
i.e. the attack's time was preplanned and the agents were talled to disrupt the ###wierd protective gadjet### at 21:32 moscow time.
(even if it only for a couple of minutes)
Anything is possible, but a lot of things have to go right. The Navy does background security checks for a reason. Assuming you get a sleeper aboard, it is hard to communicate. Coms are controlled on board, but a coded message could be sent to the sleeper. Its also hard to shutdown a system, there are backups for most everything. Even if you somehow shut down the AEGIS system on a ship, another is usually nearby.

And it would have to be a sleeper, unless the KGB can find some suicidal traitors.
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox.
If you run out of ammo, become a bunker.
If you run out of time, become a hero.

Last edited by kato13; 03-24-2010 at 08:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-24-2010, 09:57 PM
Bluedwarf Bluedwarf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5
Smile 3 easy ways to loose a couple of CBG's

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.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-24-2010, 10:09 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

I toured the Midway, and had a freind who came from her before the Desert. We also got a few guys from her after she was put down.

We must remember, she was pretty old and in sad shape when they put her to bed. The museum in my view was a let down. And like I said she wasn't in all that great shape. She also had a very long service life.

As for taking her out. A couple sleepers, maybe a team of operatives, say 4, could do ALOT of damage to her.

If I were a sleeper on her, I would do the following:

Several Thermite grenades in the various pipes and lines that run unsecured througout the ship carrying Jet Fuel and Oxygen.

I would also toss a WP into her engine compartment, the passageways to the magazines and near the fuel tanks. Remember, she was diesel powered so she also had a fuel filter, toss a WP or thermite there too.

And a WP in the Marines and Master at Arms areas.

Another target, the flight deck or the bomb elevator or topside fuel pumps. A burning plane full of fuel and bombs with a couple secondary explosions/fires near the bomb elevators or fuel areas. Figure 4 men with half a dozen such devices could surely put it out of action and with luck cripple it. The ship is not that wide. Two WPs inside could block the internal passageways which would cause a nice disruption.

Those are some things that would have worked to take down a diesel ship by a small team. Those are some of the ideas off the top of my head.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-24-2010, 10:50 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluedwarf View Post
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.
All very good stuff. I like it!

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-22-2014, 02:04 AM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 311
Default

I know I am a little late to this party. Has anyone ever played the old (late 80 to early 90's) computer game Harpoon? I used to play it and from my understanding it was supposed to be very accurate as far as the military tech went. I never had satalite support for any of the games I played but with out them it came down to who saw who first. If the US saw the USSR first they launched there fighters and killed them 9 time out of 10. Same if the USSR saw the US first they launched a missile salvo that was so heavy that the US could not shoot them all down and lost several ships, the second or third would finish them off.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-23-2014, 02:28 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

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.
__________________
the best course of action when all is against you is to slow down and think critically about the situation. this way you are not blindly rushing into an ambush and your mind is doing something useful rather than getting you killed.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-06-2015, 08:03 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,653
Default

I stumbled across this rather telling list whilst perusing Militaryphotos.net and lifted it, wholesale to share here. I've neglected to cross reference every incident listed here, since I'd already read/heard of several of them. I don't think that this list is necessarily exhaustive either. There are several more similar incidents mentioned in the source thread (read on for link).

-1981 NATO exercise Ocean Venture, an unnamed 1960s vintage Canadian diesel submarine “sank” the carrier USS America without once being itself detected, and a second unidentified vintage sub “sank” the carrier USS Forrestal.
- 1989 exercise Northern Star, Dutch diesel submarine Zwaardvis “sank” carrier USS America.
- RIMPAC 1996, Chilean diesel submarine Simpson “sank” carrier USS Independence.
- 1999 NATO exercise JTFEX/TMDI99 Dutch diesel submarine Walrus “sank” carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, exercise command ship USS Mount Whitney, one cruiser, several destroyers and frigattes, and Los Angeles class nuclear fast attack submarine USS Boise.
- RIMPAC 2000, Australian Collins class diesel submarine “sank” two US fast attack submarines, and almost “sank” carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
- 2001 Operation Tandem Thrust, HMAS Waller sank two US amphibious assault ships in water barely deeper than length of submarine itself, though it was later sank herself, and Chilean diesel sub took out Los Angeler class nuclear fast attack sub USS Montpelier twice during exercise runs.
- October 2002, HMAS Sheehan hunted down and “killed” Los Angeles class USS Olympia.
- September 2003, several Collins class submarines “sank” two US fast attack subs and a carrier.
- 2005, Swedish Gotland-class submarine “sank” USS Ronald Reagan.

Here's the thread from whence it came:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ead.php?244917

Food for thought, eh?
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-06-2015, 08:51 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
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.
Under Soviet doctrine carriers were prime A #1 targets, getting attention from nuclear bombs dropped from helicopters to Backfires firing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Nuclear torpedoes, depth charges, and mines were all fair game. I can easily see a Spetsnaz team attaching an ADM to a carrier -- for E&E purposes, probably in port.
__________________
How did the universe get so weird? -- Michio Kaku

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-07-2015, 01:56 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,501
Default

Another one I was reading just today:

http://rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-07-2015, 05:09 AM
Silent Hunter UK Silent Hunter UK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Another one I was reading just today:

http://rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/
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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-08-2015, 05:00 AM
Canadian Army's Avatar
Canadian Army Canadian Army is offline
No-Intensity Conflict Specialist
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 269
Default

Quote:
-1981 NATO exercise Ocean Venture, an unnamed 1960s vintage Canadian diesel submarine “sank” the carrier USS America without once being itself detected, and a second unidentified vintage sub “sank” the carrier USS Forrestal.
The Submarine was one of three Oberon-class submarine the Canadian Navy operated at the time.
__________________
"You're damn right, I'm gonna be pissed off! I bought that pig at Pink Floyd's yard sale!"
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-08-2015, 11:00 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,213
Default

Was this not discussed on this thread..

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4079
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-09-2015, 12:45 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
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.
Remember also that it is believed by some scientists that noise from nuclear subs are responsible for some whale and dolphin groundings -- they're being deafened.
__________________
How did the universe get so weird? -- Michio Kaku

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-09-2015, 01:15 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Paul, some of it also is being blamed on the active sonar "pinging" which to those animals I would imagine is like being inside a ringing bell which would scramble anyones brains.

HOWEVER, the archealogical record shows that beachings of such animals goes back thousands of years at some of the same locations they occur today.

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?
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-09-2015, 03:46 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester View Post

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?
I'd have tio research it more, but my first impulse is...not as much. Sonar pings not only in the audible range, but mostly in ranges that a human cannot hear.

Additional question: Does sonar have sort of a concussive effect, especially at short ranges?
__________________
How did the universe get so weird? -- Michio Kaku

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 03-09-2015 at 09:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-09-2015, 05:55 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

RE: French sub attacks on US carrier group in war games.

This sort of thing separates the professional forces from the rest. An embarrassment at the hands of an allied "enemy" is a golden opportunity for learning. Units that get beaten at NTC and JRTC enter combat with a more realistic sense of their vulnerabilities. Overconfidence is very, very dangerous. We can't replace carriers in a reasonable timeframe, and we can't treat them like battleships (i.e., keep them out of harm's way). The only other alternative is sober, professional leadership that appreciates that the enemy may find ways to do the unlikely.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-09-2015, 06:36 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 871
Default

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.....
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-09-2015, 09:04 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
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.....
History shows that one type of plane can't do it all, though the US Navy seems to think their Super Hornets can do just that...
__________________
How did the universe get so weird? -- Michio Kaku

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-10-2015, 02:13 AM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 871
Default

Thank the Clinton Administration for pulling the ASW mission off the S-3s....it happened during their tenure.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-19-2015, 08:38 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,501
Default

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

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...vy_107707.html
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-19-2015, 10:29 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Interesting article on the late Cold War power (or lack thereof) of the Soviet Navy:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...vy_107707.html
Good article but I think to much speculation about what the Soviets expected of their navy rather than raw data
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-30-2015, 04:22 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 950
Default

I wonder if the Soviets would even try to attack a task force unless forced to. Assuming that they are reasonably intelligent and are considering the consequences of their actions; I think that most US naval casualties would be the result of hunter/killer operations against Soviet Navel assets.
When the Russians begin their campaign against China (presumably over the Mongolian oil reserves under both countries' soil); they would have to know that that action would have a major impact on the US economy. Even in the early 90's, 40% of our imports came from China. They would also know we wouldn't sit by and allow this to happen. As sanctions against them began to tighten, resources in Russia (but with no obligations stemming from Western aid rendered in our real life timeline) would become scarce. This might prompt the Soviets to offer Iran and Iraq military hardware in exchange for oil and open the stage for a plot to tie up US navel assets in The Gulf. They would give these countries more advanced hardware and "encourage" them to "harass" oil tankers in the Gulf.
They could "negotiate" with India to clandestinely allow the transit of oil and military hardware through their country in exchange for upgraded military hardware. India agrees because they are upset with a build up of the Pakistani Military using US financial support (in exchange for allowing US forces to "stage" in Pakistan). The Pakistan/Indian War occurs as a result of the US pressuring Pakistan to "close down" the overland supply route and India reacting to an "Invasion of it's soil."

While all of the above is occupying the US in the Gulf AND squeezing off the Middle East oil supply; the East and South China Seas would be under "attack" as well. The Soviets would most likely declare those areas "War Zones" and attack all commercial shipping in Chinese waters. They could use their very fast but noisy nuclear attack subs as "commerce raiders." No commercial ship could escape them or the long range bombers that Russia could send so far out to sea that the Chinese couldn't intercept them. The combination of fast nuclear subs and ships operating in conjunction with long range bombers and orbital surveillance would dramatically increase the effectiveness of such raiders. These raiders would be very difficult to track down and destroy. Millions of tons of commercial shipping could end up on the bottom of the East and South China Seas and the Indian Ocean before these raiders were stopped.
The US carriers would be unintentionally "split up" to protect shipping in the East and South China Seas as well as the Malacca Straights. Ever growing "skirmishes" between the US Navy and Russian "Commerce Raiders" could end up costing the US a couple of carriers before general hostilities begin (and could "accelerate" such hostilities). The loss of large numbers of tankers could cripple the US conventional carriers (turning them into "static airbases"). When the big naval battles finally come, the NATO fleets could already be of reduced strength.

Last edited by swaghauler; 03-30-2015 at 05:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-30-2015, 05:11 PM
stormlion1's Avatar
stormlion1 stormlion1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Vineland, NJ
Posts: 581
Default

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. Even if the ships weren't sunk, they would be to irradiated to be able to operate for long as resupply would become a major issue much less putting guys on the decks to actually launch and recover aircraft. And ships at sea are nothing but a military target.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.