PDA

View Full Version : Dutch Subs "Sinking" US Carrier and many ships



Praxus
27 Feb 04,, 20:51
I was reading how in an excersice in 1999 the dutch with two subs managed to "sink" half a Carrier Battlegroup.

What exactly were the conditions of the excercise and how could it pass our ASW assets?

Officer of Engineers
28 Feb 04,, 03:08
Very typical of these exercises, it was not a full prosecution (ie once you detect the sub, you throw everything you have at it) but a unit prosecution (ie two helos and a P3). The point is to test and build unit proficancy (and the sub's), not to gang up on the sub.

Franco Lolan
30 Sep 04,, 04:43
The Author
Roger Thompson is Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.

In 1981, The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.
They were quite impressed.

geurtjalink
09 Aug 06,, 13:23
The Author
Roger Thompson is Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.

In 1981, The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.
They were quite impressed.
geurt jalink naval officer ret. in the navy two kinds ships exists :subs and targets :)

geurtjalink
09 Aug 06,, 14:44
geurt jalink naval officer ret. in the navy two kinds ships exists :subs and targets :)
old subs from former USSR sold customers: rogue nations real danger for new ships :eek: old subs potent weapons :confused:

Sea Toby
10 Aug 06,, 04:03
Nothing new, America's submarines have been sinking aircraft carriers for decades. Submarines have also been sinking other submarines in exercises, and escorts have sunk submarines too. It goes both ways.

geurtjalink
10 Aug 06,, 10:28
old subs from former USSR sold customers: rogue nations real danger for new ships :eek: old subs potent weapons :confused:

I was officer in dutch navy(ret) :)
1. designer radar sytems
2. member NATO configuration board
3. configuration manager naval systems
4. manager computer naval centre
5. weapons officer of several ships
civil career :
ICT consultant of Philips and Halliburton :cool:

geurtjalink
10 Aug 06,, 11:41
The Author
Roger Thompson is Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.

In 1981, The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.
They were quite impressed.
Walrus sub is fine sub by design ,silent
well trained crew
cunning ,daring captain :)

spittle8
11 Aug 06,, 05:09
*BUMP* I'm sorry, but this topic fascinates me. I hope someone smart can come and alleviate/antagonize my fears. :confused:

neilmpenny
26 Sep 06,, 14:41
These stories have been going around the fleets for years. Some are probably true and others tosh. The one I heard was of and old diesel electric Oberon class sub from the Aussie NAVY that sat under the keel of the Enterprise for two days or so. Photographed the hull and totally mapped it.....but who is to know?

Dreadnought
26 Sep 06,, 16:18
These stories have been going around the fleets for years. Some are probably true and others tosh. The one I heard was of and old diesel electric Oberon class sub from the Aussie NAVY that sat under the keel of the Enterprise for two days or so. Photographed the hull and totally mapped it.....but who is to know?

I'd be more inclined that its untrue. The Enterprises ECM/search suite onboard is located in the bulbous bow area and is much more modern as compared to any diesel sub. Enterprise would be no where without her escorts that constantly search for nothing else but those outside entities that attempt to infiltrate her battle group. The diesel sub makes wayyyyyyy to much noise to even be able to approach her group without being detected no matter how deep they go. She also carries one or two subs in her own battlegroup whichever is assigned. In either fashion her battlegroup subs are probably of the latest design and definately more elusive and silent more then any diesel sub afloat. For a diesel sub to lay beneath her keel for two days means one of two things.

1) They knew the sub was there and chose to do nothing.
2) They werent looking and are as deaf as a post.

*Both are found very diffacult to believe when following USN SOP for the battlegroup under any captains command unless under Nato exercise.

This is not a "knock" at the Dutch efforts but in a real exercise it would be very doubtfull to even get within range of the battlegroup without early detection first giving away its position.

Shadowsided
01 Oct 06,, 22:55
These excercises are not realistic really.They probabaly wanted to keep it top secret because the media would get too excited. Remember the bin laden dead possibility. Crap was on CNN for 2 whole days!

heres something froma sailor.


One of the unfortunate reasons that SSKs have such a good reputation against SSNs is the nature of the excercises in which they are pitted against each other. In order to provide "training for all" a close encounter is forced - usually with the SSN screaming in at high speed from a distance - immediately giving the SSKs at an advantage.
Again, without going into too much detail, I have done both the afore mentioned excercise (blew), and a week-long one with a diesel in which we were just hunting in a big chunk of ocean. In the second, more realistic, excercise, we wiped the ocean floor with the diesel. And these guys were not sloutches.
Also, US SSNs have gotten a lot better at combined ops with surface and air assets. That will absolutely end an SSK right there.
http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/07/does-size-matter.html
Another sailor our very own rickusn!!!:)


SSK stealth is partially a myth. WHy do I say that? Because it is usually very temporary.

(1) A state of the art SSK has a maximum endurance of about 400km at about 4 knots on its batteries. You don't get anywhere at 4 knots and you certainly are not going to be very successful chasing your quarry at that speed. You also do not typically run your batteries 95% flat before a recharge. Rather you tend to do it at conventient times when you don't think there is anyone around to find and kill you. When you surface to run your diesels you have very little stealthy on your side. You are noisy and at periscope depth. In fact, every other thing aside, running fast and near the surface is doubly bad acoustically because your screw cavitate like hell near the surface whereas at depth the water pressures migates the formation of vaccum pockets on the trailing edged of your screw reducing or eliminating cavitation. Radars can find your snorkel, SSNs and ASW ships can hear your from a long way off and aircrafts can literally see you at that depth. You are basically exposing yourself!

(2) There is always the option of AIPs. The problem is that firstly AIPs, probably with exception of the Fuel Cell, is not as silent as motors on batteries. The sterling is a reciprocating piston engine running of separately heated working gas. The Close cycle diesel is exactly that a diesel engine running on diesel fuel, oxygen and part of its recycled exhaust. The MESMA is a steam turbine running on the products of alcohol-oxygen combustion. They all make more noise than a battery does and they all have exhausts to get rid of. The worst thing howeveris that power density is in usually horrible enough that cruise speed on AIP is no better than 5-6 knots and there is every little power left over to recharge the batteries in a timely manner. The Fuel Cell which is the quietest AIP setup also happens to have the worst energy density by a long shot... large PEM stacks, large LOX tanks and huge LH2 tanks, all for less energy yield than the combustion type AIPs. In the end what it means is that AIP boats usually transit or maneuver tactically by running their diesels and running on the surface or at snorkel depth to get close to their quary. In a real war with a massive navy like the USN, a lot of them will be picked off while doing this by ASW aircraft and a forward screen of SSNs.

(3) The other fallacy is that batteries and electric motor equals total silence. This is nonsense. In fact, it is frequently not flow noise and propeller noise which shows up most prominently on a sonar system when an SSK is picked up. It is frequently the inverter buzz from the switching inverters which the SSK uses to convert its DC battery power to AC current to run its motors with. Just about all high power motors are AC induction motors.

(4) The last thing when cosidering using diesels against a major surface action group is that all the silencing advantage is useless against active sonar which is routinely employed on ASW helos and once they catch a glimpse of you, an SSK has neither the speed on the endurance to slip away. Once found you are usually dead meat.


diesel downside!

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Buff_071305-P1,00.html

AntiSatellite
02 Oct 06,, 03:27
Walrus sub is fine sub by design ,silent
well trained crew
cunning ,daring captain :)

It's a great sub does about 20 knots submerged, carries the NT 37, surface-to-surface missiles, the Mark 48 torpedo
http://lexikon.freenet.de/images/de/thumb/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg/180px-Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg
and has some top class Sonar Systems.

sidishus
02 Oct 06,, 03:43
I was reading how in an excersice in 1999 the dutch with two subs managed to "sink" half a Carrier Battlegroup.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/pictures/pictures_periscope_shots.htm

A picture paints a thousand words...
http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/pictures/images/tijgerhaai2/scope_tijgerhaai2_uss_america_med_oct93_2.jpg

YellowFever
02 Oct 06,, 09:26
We have pictures of Mars.
It doesn't mean we can blow it out of the sky.

sidishus
02 Oct 06,, 14:49
We have pictures of Mars.
It doesn't mean we can blow it out of the sky.

That is because Mars is not within torpedo range. The America in the pic above most certainly was. Have seen plenty of green flares in my day. I just count my lucky stars they were flares and not something with more bite like this:
http://navysite.de/dd/dd-images/dd938_sink.jpg

Since no carrier has been seriously challenged since the end of WWII, a quite erroneous mystique about their supposed invulnerability has taken deep root.
Much ado is made of a carrier's ability to remain afloat with grievous damage. That is not what matters.
What does is the ability of a carrier to continue flight ops. One hit aft with a modern torpedo, like the one cutting the Jonas Ingram in half above, and the America would have been done...probably for the rest of the conflict. One hit anywhere else would have stopped flights ops for at least a while...and perhaps a Long while.
Its not just the danger of a torpedo hit that threatens a carrier either. A weapon (such as a cruise missile) that can throw any little bit of shrapnel across the flight deck would mean a mission kill-perhaps for a long while as well-as critical personnel are killed or injured and aircraft are rendered inoperable.

And if the bomb farm is lit off:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Mar1999/990227-N-0800C-003.jpg
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pao/images/pages/photos/weapons/jsow/lg/bombfarm.jpg

...Well that's all she wrote as your carrier will look like this:
http://www.phnsy.navy.mil/images/timeline_uss-enterprise.jpg

Yes, carriers pack an awesome punch, but they possess some critical vulnerabilites as well. To proclaim,"carriers will never be sunk or damaged because none has since 1945!", is a dangerously misguided view.

Francois
02 Oct 06,, 15:20
No, that happened.
The Enterprise blew a dozen of bombs and few airplanes in 1969.
Well, still in the Navy nowadays.

You never know how the US Navy is handling its damage control.
You would be surprised. Since 69, they made big progress.

Francois
02 Oct 06,, 15:24
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Aircraft_burning_on_USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29.jpg

14 January 1969: At approximately 8:19 am, a MK-32 Zuni rocket warhead attached to an F-4 Phantom was overheated by exhaust from an aircraft starting unit and detonated, setting off fires and additional explosions across the carrier. By the time the fire was finally brought under control 27 lives had been lost, and an additional 314 people had been injured. The fire had destroyed 15 aircraft, and the resulting damage forced Enterprise to put in for repairs.
early March 1969: Repairs to the ship were completed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

sidishus
02 Oct 06,, 15:24
These stories have been going around the fleets for years. Some are probably true and others tosh. The one I heard was of and old diesel electric Oberon class sub from the Aussie NAVY that sat under the keel of the Enterprise for two days or so. Photographed the hull and totally mapped it.....but who is to know?

View of the Carl Vinson from HMAS Onslow as she unsucessfully attempted a high speed breakout from Pearl

http://www.gibstuff.net/warships/images/rp98periscopevinsona.jpg


http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/1998/08_10_98/100898story5.htm

"We set ourselves up right across from where we believed the CARL VINSON would transit," LCDR Tim Brown, Executive Officer of ONSLOW, said.

"At 0930 we detected CARL VINSON on our sonar moving out of Pearl Harbour. We manoeuvred into position, getting within 300 yards and attacked by releasing four green grenades."


To the submariners' delight the CARL VINSON was taken by surprise, increasing her speed in an attempt to escape. For ONSLOW the attempt was even more satisfying in the knowledge that the highest-ranking Australian on exercise CDRE Shalders, was also embarked on CARL VINSON as the Sea Combat Commodore.

sidishus
02 Oct 06,, 15:41
No, that happened.
The Enterprise blew a dozen of bombs and few airplanes in 1969.
Well, still in the Navy nowadays.

You never know how the US Navy is handling its damage control.
You would be surprised. Since 69, they made big progress.

It was the caused by an accidental missile firing during her ORE off Pearl.
http://www.bigefire.com/

She was out of the war for six months too. The party line that she could have conducted flight ops hours after that conflagration was put out is outright garbage. Sure, her forward cats were still operational, but her airgroup had been rendered completely combat ineffective, and it took days for spaces such as the arresting gear rooms under the flight deck to cool enough to enter.
It took every bit of that six months to get here able to be a viable participant off Vietnam.

The flight deck is entirely exposed to battle damage. Putting out the fires is all well and good, but now you have a ship-or more precisely, an air group- that wont be contributing to the fight.

Francois
02 Oct 06,, 15:46
But still afloat, she went to port, and became ready in 3 (THREE) months.
Was the equiv of half a dozen of ashm on her deck. And that was almost 40 years ago.

Think nothing changed since?
I don't hold americans deep in my heart (well, just a few of them), but we have to give them this one ;)

sidishus
02 Oct 06,, 16:00
But still afloat, she went to port, and became ready in 3 (THREE) months.
Was the equiv of half a dozen of ashm on her deck. And that was almost 40 years ago.

Three months is a very long time to be out of the fight. Could spell the difference between victory and defeat.

Faulty memory about how long she was down, had friends aboard in RVAH-12.
Point is, its not about sinking the carrier. What has changed is that your are likely to have only one or two carriers in theater today....Unlike the 5 deployed off Vietnam in 1969. Add to that fewer aircraft on deck and fewer aircraft with which to replace any damaged or lost. Not to mention fewer carriers.
For an opponent against a carrier, its all about mission kill. And that is much easier than the USN wants to admit.

sidishus
02 Oct 06,, 16:55
I'd be more inclined that its untrue. The Enterprises ECM/search suite onboard is located in the bulbous bow area and is much more modern as compared to any diesel sub. Enterprise would be no where without her escorts that constantly search for nothing else but those outside entities that attempt to infiltrate her battle group. The diesel sub makes wayyyyyyy to much noise to even be able to approach her group without being detected no matter how deep they go. She also carries one or two subs in her own battlegroup whichever is assigned. In either fashion her battlegroup subs are probably of the latest design and definately more elusive and silent more then any diesel sub afloat. For a diesel sub to lay beneath her keel for two days means one of two things.


Not sure where you got that info about the ECM/suite Dread, but it isn't so. ECM is about RF so its not for ASW. The only CV(A) to carry a sonar was the America, and it was removed well before her retirement.


A favorite diesel boat tactic in noisy waters such as the Med or the Littorals against a carrier is to simply wait for her to steam overhead like the Onslow did tto the Vinson. Time after time I have seen this sucessfully done with the boat undetected until it wants to be. In exercises you see a green flare. With non exercise opponents somebody may report a pop up in "mother's" baffles and everyone scrambles about with their hair on fire (in low sea states, the SPS-49 air search depressed to its lowest elevation makes an excellent periscope detector...just an FYI).

This game has been known to get sporty at times. A Victor III (current links show that, but I remember it as an Echo-II) collided with the Kitty Hawk in 1984. It was known the sub was around. Contact had been gained and lost a number of times. Nobody knew where she was at the moment though. To complicate matters for the Victor however, this was an early use of Prairie Masker (or so I heard through the grapevine) so the Victor had come up for a look.
Problem was, she surfaced underneath the Kitty Hawk.

Dreadnought
02 Oct 06,, 17:52
Bad term used for ECM. Sorry bad choice of words for this. I was told that a few CV's were testing further improvments on "monitoring" and detection equipment for the newer subs including the carrier Ronald Regan (CVN 76). However this is grapevine talk and I cannot substantiate it. But its diffacult to imagine the CVN not having some kind of detection suite aboard given how broad the parameters are for them to operate independently.

As far as mishaps and collisions go I do know there has been many on both sides of the spectrum however Russia has faced some of the most costly accidents thus far. Notice a vast majority in both cases have predominately been a sub and a surface combatant. But there still have been a few with sub to sub as the Kursk accident suggests. The loss of that sub had to be astoundingly expensive and then to retrieve the pieces of it even more. IMO Its always been a trade off between the two since the inception of the game. Thats the price you pay for peaking over the guys shoulder ;)

sidishus
02 Oct 06,, 18:12
[QUOTE=Dreadnought;274142]Bad term used for ECM. Sorry bad choice of words for this. I was told that a few CV's were testing further improvments on "monitoring" and detection equipment for the newer subs including the carrier Ronald Regan (CVN 76). However this is grapevine talk and I cannot substantiate it. But its diffacult to imagine the CVN not having some kind of detection suite aboard given how broad the parameters are for them to operate independently.[QUOTE]

Now that you mention it, I do believe there is something going into the bow on the newest boats.
Can't look now as the people who give me a paycheck actually expect me to work!.

Bastards!!!

later...

AviramDj
02 Oct 06,, 19:00
I think Dutch made subs are the best in the world .
I love the dolphin class they made especially for israel .

Francois
03 Oct 06,, 03:21
Since RDM bankrupt...

YellowFever
03 Oct 06,, 05:30
What has changed is that your are likely to have only one or two carriers in theater today....Unlike the 5 deployed off Vietnam in 1969. Add to that fewer aircraft on deck and fewer aircraft with which to replace any damaged or lost. Not to mention fewer carriers.
For an opponent against a carrier, its all about mission kill. And that is much easier than the USN wants to admit.

I have no doubt a carrier can indeed be sunk.

I have serious doubt that killing one would be "much easier than the USN wants to admit".

It was an excercise, dude, an excercise!

We never hear how many SSks got "sunk" trying to prosecute carriers in these excercise because it's not that sexy.
But a Carrier gets "killed" in an excercise and whoever "killed" it posts it all over the net trying to tell us how awesome they are.

Before I start to worry about a Carrier being "killed" I want to know what were the ROE of the excercise(s).
Was the CVN screened by Orions and SSN's? Were there any frigates around? Or was it anything like what the Colonel said in post number 2?

ROE for peacetime and war is obviously different.
In peacetime, I can see how an SSK can sneak up inside the picket fence but it won't be that easy during war.

By the way, in ODS and OIF, the US deployed six carriers each to those conflicts.

AviramDj
03 Oct 06,, 11:56
a point of an exercise is too find weak spots and improve them .

So i wouldnt say its so ez to sink a us carier .

Also no muslim terror group has subs so no carrier is gonna be hit .
And if somehow they could hit a carrier, I bet they wouldnt do it due to the consiquence .

HistoricalDavid
03 Oct 06,, 16:23
Muslim terror groups aren't the only threat in the world today.

ArmchairGeneral
04 Oct 06,, 07:02
Muslim terror groups aren't the only threat in the world today.

Amen to that.

Shadowsided
04 Oct 06,, 21:51
I have no doubt a carrier can indeed be sunk.

I have serious doubt that killing one would be "much easier than the USN wants to admit".

It was an excercise, dude, an excercise!

We never hear how many SSks got "sunk" trying to prosecute carriers in these excercise because it's not that sexy.
But a Carrier gets "killed" in an excercise and whoever "killed" it posts it all over the net trying to tell us how awesome they are.

Before I start to worry about a Carrier being "killed" I want to know what were the ROE of the excercise(s).
Was the CVN screened by Orions and SSN's? Were there any frigates around? Or was it anything like what the Colonel said in post number 2?

ROE for peacetime and war is obviously different.
In peacetime, I can see how an SSK can sneak up inside the picket fence but it won't be that easy during war.

By the way, in ODS and OIF, the US deployed six carriers each to those conflicts.
Thank you Yellowfever!!!!!
Guys it's an excercise it aint gonna be realistic remember Cope india?!??!?! PPl we're screaming bloddy murder about it!
Here's something from a sailor!!

PigBoatSailor said...
One of the unfortunate reasons that SSKs have such a good reputation against SSNs is the nature of the excercises in which they are pitted against each other. In order to provide "training for all" a close encounter is forced - usually with the SSN screaming in at high speed from a distance - immediately giving the SSKs at an advantage.
Again, without going into too much detail, I have done both the afore mentioned excercise (blew), and a week-long one with a diesel in which we were just hunting in a big chunk of ocean. In the second, more realistic, excercise, we wiped the ocean floor with the diesel. And these guys were not sloutches.
Also, US SSNs have gotten a lot better at combined ops with surface and air assets. That will absolutely end an SSK right there.
http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/07/does-size-matter.html

rickusn who is also a sailor

SSK stealth is partially a myth. WHy do I say that? Because it is usually very temporary.


(1) A state of the art SSK has a maximum endurance of about 400km at about 4 knots on its batteries. You don't get anywhere at 4 knots and you certainly are not going to be very successful chasing your quarry at that speed. You also do not typically run your batteries 95% flat before a recharge. Rather you tend to do it at conventient times when you don't think there is anyone around to find and kill you. When you surface to run your diesels you have very little stealthy on your side. You are noisy and at periscope depth. In fact, every other thing aside, running fast and near the surface is doubly bad acoustically because your screw cavitate like hell near the surface whereas at depth the water pressures migates the formation of vaccum pockets on the trailing edged of your screw reducing or eliminating cavitation. Radars can find your snorkel, SSNs and ASW ships can hear your from a long way off and aircrafts can literally see you at that depth. You are basically exposing yourself!

(2) There is always the option of AIPs. The problem is that firstly AIPs, probably with exception of the Fuel Cell, is not as silent as motors on batteries. The sterling is a reciprocating piston engine running of separately heated working gas. The Close cycle diesel is exactly that a diesel engine running on diesel fuel, oxygen and part of its recycled exhaust. The MESMA is a steam turbine running on the products of alcohol-oxygen combustion. They all make more noise than a battery does and they all have exhausts to get rid of. The worst thing howeveris that power density is in usually horrible enough that cruise speed on AIP is no better than 5-6 knots and there is every little power left over to recharge the batteries in a timely manner. The Fuel Cell which is the quietest AIP setup also happens to have the worst energy density by a long shot... large PEM stacks, large LOX tanks and huge LH2 tanks, all for less energy yield than the combustion type AIPs. In the end what it means is that AIP boats usually transit or maneuver tactically by running their diesels and running on the surface or at snorkel depth to get close to their quary. In a real war with a massive navy like the USN, a lot of them will be picked off while doing this by ASW aircraft and a forward screen of SSNs.

(3) The other fallacy is that batteries and electric motor equals total silence. This is nonsense. In fact, it is frequently not flow noise and propeller noise which shows up most prominently on a sonar system when an SSK is picked up. It is frequently the inverter buzz from the switching inverters which the SSK uses to convert its DC battery power to AC current to run its motors with. Just about all high power motors are AC induction motors.

(4) The last thing when cosidering using diesels against a major surface action group is that all the silencing advantage is useless against active sonar which is routinely employed on ASW helos and once they catch a glimpse of you, an SSK has neither the speed on the endurance to slip away. Once found you are usually dead meat.

Der Wille zur Macht!

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=12454&pp=20

Downsides of a diesel sub

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Buff_071305-P1,00.html

zraver
23 Oct 06,, 21:48
I hope our allie scontinue to sink our carriers in training. Steel sharpens steel afterall. Going upagainst varseity players using top end gear means if we ever have to do it for real against a not quite so proffesional or well equipped force we will be that much better prepared.

ArmchairGeneral
23 Oct 06,, 23:02
I have no doubt a carrier can indeed be sunk.

I have serious doubt that killing one would be "much easier than the USN wants to admit".



Sidishus was referring to a "mission kill," not sinking the carrier outright, but doing enough damage that it is unable to effectively perform its mission. While sinking a 90,000 ton carrier is a formidable task, mission killing is much less rigorous. All that's really needed is to significantly damage the flight or hangar decks. Not to say that that's easy; you still have to get through an extremely dense and multi-layered defence, from the Hawkeyes and SSNs to the RAM and Seahawk ASW helicopters. But all it takes is one or two well placed shots for a mission kill.

avon1944
26 Oct 06,, 00:35
While the SSK's are not really a threat to a CVBG, it is a real threat to the amphibeous groups.
You also have to remember that the US Navy's ASW forces are a 'shadow' of their former selves. Yes, the escorts are all aegis ships but, they are fewer in number. There are no S-3 Vikings and the number of P-3 squadrons is greatly reduced. Half the SOSUS & COLOSSUS stations are no longer being used for ASW but, rather for science of the deep. These are scientist are mainly studying whales, so everytime the US Navy goes active the 'whale world' knows about it.
The prosecution of SSK's is being done with passive sonar. I a war, at the first detection of a torpedo helicopters and escorts will be pounding the waters with active sonars.

So like Cope India for the USAF, explaining to the public in terms they understand, that dispite the economy.... the services need more money.




What does is the ability of a carrier to continue flight ops. One hit aft with a modern torpedo, like the one cutting the Jonas Ingram in half above, and the America would have been done...probably for the rest of the conflict.
Well actually the super carriers were designed during the Cold War and with their double bottoms and their keels being a web of beams they are able to sustain the damage cause by the Soviet 1,000Kg warhead -keel hunter torpedos! A warhead that is thirty percent larger than any torpedo today.



One hit anywhere else would have stopped flights ops for at least a while.....
A sea skimmer missile would not necessarily stop flight operations, only a missile in the pop-up mode of attack.




You never know how the US Navy is handling its damage control. You would be surprised. Since 69, they made big progress.
In each of those three fires, the fire fighting teams responded immediately and laid down foam to stop the fire from spreading. Then a bomb exploded/cooked off and killed the firemen. Shrapnel put holes in their hoses. The sailors who replace them used water to fight the fire and washed away the foam and the fire spread!
Those three fires aboard US carriers (USS Oriskany, USS Forrestal and, USS Enterprise)causd the Navy to view fire fighting as the Marines view their troops. The Navy reasoned, "if every Marine is a rifleman, then every sailor will be a fireman."

The Israeli Navy's corvette INS Hanit, reflects America's view on ship damage control. (SEE NOTE) The ship was struck by an anti ship missile was back in service in just three weeks! A testiment of integral damage control integrated into the initial design.
NOTE:
The Sa'ar 5 class corvette was designed and built in the USA to Israeli specs.




We never hear how many SSks got "sunk" trying to prosecute carriers in these excercise because it's not that sexy.
Good point, unfortunately sinking SSK's does not produce the most desired results -a budget increase.




you still have to get through an extremely dense and multi-layered defence, from the Hawkeyes and SSNs to the RAM and Seahawk ASW helicopters.
When it comes to firing a anti-ship missile at a carrier, you will first have to get a radar lock-on. The EA-6 will make this difficult. The other is helicopters acting as jamming platforms. This is what Prince Charles did during the Falkland/Malvinas Islands conflict. When the missile comes over the horizon and detects multiple targets where there should be only one.

Adrian

gf0012-aust
05 Nov 06,, 07:56
These stories have been going around the fleets for years. Some are probably true and others tosh. The one I heard was of and old diesel electric Oberon class sub from the Aussie NAVY that sat under the keel of the Enterprise for two days or so. Photographed the hull and totally mapped it.....but who is to know?

AFAIK the Oberon story is true. One of my work contacts is an ex UK nuke driver who transferred into the RAN as an Oberon driver. he has the scope photo of enterprise sitting on the wall next to mug shots of his old nuke. The photo was taken in the early 70's.

he didn't map the hull, he just took happy snaps.

gf0012-aust
05 Nov 06,, 08:02
We never hear how many SSks got "sunk" trying to prosecute carriers in these excercise because it's not that sexy.

But a Carrier gets "killed" in an excercise and whoever "killed" it posts it all over the net trying to tell us how awesome they are.


actually we do (we as in RAN). the last series of RIMPACs we knew how many times we killed the desig target - and also how many times we got slotted.

Its never one sided.

these exercises are designed to improve upon and finesse everyones skills - its not meant to be a "death duel".

BIGAL
11 Nov 06,, 08:53
Actually these scenarios happen all the time.Despite the technology advantage you may think you have,these ancient machines have been scoring major hits against carrier groups.This does not mean the sub wouldnt be toast, but one sub for one carrier is a huge loss.The subs sucess rate is due to having an advantage-it can hear everything that is going on and plan the attack where it has the advantage.If the sub is trying to catch up to a carrier group,no way.But that is what they do,hunt down the enemy ubdetected.This is why the USA wants to spend much time in these simulations,because they are extremely deadly subs.Canada leased a few subs from Britain and was going to do many exercises with the USA but the designs of the subs are not appearing to be without some major flaws.

gf0012-aust
11 Nov 06,, 12:54
Actually these scenarios happen all the time.Despite the technology advantage you may think you have,these ancient machines have been scoring major hits against carrier groups.This does not mean the sub wouldnt be toast, but one sub for one carrier is a huge loss.The subs sucess rate is due to having an advantage-it can hear everything that is going on and plan the attack where it has the advantage.If the sub is trying to catch up to a carrier group,no way.But that is what they do,hunt down the enemy ubdetected.This is why the USA wants to spend much time in these simulations,because they are extremely deadly subs.Canada leased a few subs from Britain and was going to do many exercises with the USA but the designs of the subs are not appearing to be without some major flaws.


I'm not sure if you're dumbing this down on purpose - but you''re way off the mark on a few things.


ex's are partial prosecution events - it gets harder on full prosecution. they're also designed to train - not to "win" per se. There is a subtle but important distinction.
the nature of scoring means that the sub might get one off - but sinking a carrier requires a hell of a lot more than 1 ADCAP sized torp. Its a hell of a gamble to assume a mobility kill of sufficient order to knock out a carrier with one torp. lots of torps means more time for the rotors and skimmers to get angry
screening means that subs butting up against full prosection will have their work cut out for them. getting close would be interesting. launching the requisite number of torps to drop the carrier even more so.
conventionals don't try to "catch up". Speed is noise. Noise kills.
canada hasn't leased them - she owns them.
the problems with the upholders don't lie in the design - its a combination legacy of the layoff period and some due diligence issues.


I'm curious as to what flaws these subs have? I once attended a briefing where we compared the Collins and Upholders and the problems the canucks were having to our own. There was a raft of similarities. They are a solid design, and in real terms the canadians got a bargain. what let them down were procurement management and due diligence issues.

They're a mini conventional powered version of their sister generation nukes. Confusing management and procurement problems with hardware problems per se is cute - but not exactly reflective of actual events.

BFD15
11 Nov 06,, 16:30
gf0012-aust
Don't wish to hi-jack this thread, but a quick question. I have seen your postings here and a couple of boards and am impressed with; and respect your knowledge in all things submarine. In your opinion do you expect the Victoria class (upholder) submarines purchased by Canada will ever live up to their potential as sold to the public by the government? Do the problems as you know them have a lot of similarities to the Collins program in Oz? In short were they worth it?
Thanks in advance.

gf0012-aust
11 Nov 06,, 17:29
gf0012-aust
Don't wish to hi-jack this thread, but a quick question. I have seen your postings here and a couple of boards and am impressed with; and respect your knowledge in all things submarine. In your opinion do you expect the Victoria class (upholder) submarines purchased by Canada will ever live up to their potential as sold to the public by the government? Do the problems as you know them have a lot of similarities to the Collins program in Oz? In short were they worth it?
Thanks in advance.

there's actually no short and simple answer to this. Both subs were a legacy of well intentioned designed concepts but were victims to various military political, govt political, engineering assumptions and some good old vendor marketing that was bordering on fanciful. the fact that both were eventually built is testimony to the dedication of players outside of the prime contracters.

In the case of the Upholders they decided to scale down a nuke and turn it into a smaller conventional. In the case of the Collins, the design runoff was to either build a 3000+ tonne version of a 209 or a 3000+ tonne version of the prototype Gotland. Both design concepts were thus a bit cavalier in the assumption that it wouldn't be difficult scaling down (Uph) or scaling up (Collins-471). You then add in the headache of negotiating the tortuous path of mil and govt politics.

In australias case, it became a maritime version of the F-111 debacle. it was so badly managed at a PR level that IMV the damage is almost irrepairable as far as public perception is concerned. That is the one thing that the Canadian Govt should take note of - MANAGE the PR and let the right people fix the problems.

Personally speaking, I'd never touch another swedish vessel ever again. They stuffed up Number 1 (the parts they welded) so badly that it was almost written off - and all the welding that was done in sweden was redone/repaired in australia. What galls me in particular is that the signature management issues were addressed solely by an australian company because the swedes had made an absolute hash of it. They made a big song and dance about the LO manangement of the Visbys, but it was the australian company that was called in to fix the noise and acoustic transmission probs for part of the US tour a few years back. funnily enough, we've ended up with extra business by fixing up other swedish subs used in other navies. :rolleyes:

In the case of the Upholders, they were basically cycled down and poorly maintained prior to delisting. That did require extensive effort to bring them back up to a saleable condition - but it really was a failure on the CanGovts/Navy part in not being diligent and persistent in monitoring overall progress.

At one stage (circa 99) when the flak was pretty heavy over the problems with Collins, an internal assessment was done as to whether we should just buy the entire Upholder squadron as an interim buy up and either scrap the Collins or slow build them to the Mk 2 proposed model.

The resounding answer was to leave the Upholders alone - and that was because we judged that the repair and maint cycle didn't warrant the extra burden of cost. It was still more cost effective to undo Kockums mistakes and start again properly from each subsequent 471 hull. Number 1 was kept as a fully functioning mule rather than scrapped.

I do remember sitting in a room of delegates while the then head of navy (Adm Barrie) gave a 1 hour lecture on the probs of refurbing and/or rebirthing the Upholders. It was completely cost ineffective for our purposes.

The reality is that for Canada, the probs are different. The sub is worthwhile and does require some diligence in making sure they qualify across the board. I've got no doubt that the USN/NAVSEA would/will provide Canada with the same support and effort provided to Oz. (ie common combat suite with the seawolf/virginias/688I's, co-development of CBASS ADCAP, common combat room, access to Virgina/Seawolf fluid dynamics data etc....

We were lucky also in the fact that the opposition party when they came to power had the sense to listen to Navy and elect to fix the problems rather than take the easy way out and can the squadron. Like all Govts though, they have not been shy in pointing out that they have fixed the mess left by the prev encumbents. They almost singlehandedly destroyed them though - such is fate and politics.

The other lesson is that CanGovt needs do things like educate the public press - the smartest thing that we've ever done is periodically take journos on short runs. they get to go everywhere except behind the "black curtain" - and their attitude has progressively changed now that they see what they're capable of.

my end comment? stay the course.

my other reccommendation? when its time to buy new subs, don't buy swedish, its costs too much to fix them. :tongue:

sidishus
13 Nov 06,, 13:34
Yet more evidence the presumed "Invincibilty" of the carrier (especially in Littoral regions, and especially in "hostilities imminent" or "near-war" scenarios) is a mighty dangerous mindset.

We have been lucky....So far....

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061113-121539-3317r.htm

China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned...

According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26. ...

"The Chinese have made it clear that they understand the importance of the submarine in any kind of offensive or defensive strategy to deal with a military conflict," an intelligence official said recently.
In late 2004, China dispatched a Han-class submarine to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan. Japan's military went on emergency alert after the submarine surfaced in Japanese waters. Beijing apologized for the incursion.
The Pentagon's latest annual report on Chinese military power stated that China is investing heavily in weapons designed "to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific."

Officer of Engineers
13 Nov 06,, 13:47
Several things comes to mind

1) This is international waters
2) This was peacetime conditions
3) It's budget time

sidishus
13 Nov 06,, 14:02
Several things comes to mind

1) This is international waters

Sure is and as long as we steam carriers into an area of crisis for Presence, we put them at great risk.



2) This was peacetime conditions

You fight in war like you practice in peace...


3) It's budget time

Which is likely why the story got leaked. The diminishment of ASW capabilities has been bemoaned and lamented for some time now.

sidishus
13 Nov 06,, 14:34
... sinking a carrier requires a hell of a lot more than 1 ADCAP sized torp. Its a hell of a gamble to assume a mobility kill of sufficient order to knock out a carrier with one torp. lots of torps means more time for the rotors and skimmers to get angry

Given the "zero casualty" mentality of the US military (not to mention political leadership) of today, ANY hit on a carrier will force its retirement from the scene.

Also, Freidman in his design study Aircraft Carriers-An Illustrated Design History, makes note of the fact that the Nimitz class actually has less underwater protection and internal subdivision than the Forrestals
(and I include the Kitty Hawks here) or, in particular, the Midways

From what I have seen gf, I would not be so sanguine that a single ADCAP or similar would not take a carrier out of the fight -along with a substantial part of the remaining offensive assets in order to protect her- in very short order.

Officer of Engineers
13 Nov 06,, 16:41
You fight in war like you practice in peace...

I was not under the impression that they were practicing anything. They kept up a normal screen but was not actively looking for threats.

sidishus
13 Nov 06,, 17:33
I have serious doubt that killing one would be "much easier than the USN wants to admit".

Mind you, I was talking about "mission kill".


It was an excercise, dude, an excercise!

And in this case the "exercise" for the Chinese apparently came out quite well...


I was not under the impression that they were practicing anything. They kept up a normal screen but was not actively looking for threats.

It is always practice. Especially against a real world threat. To be fair though, it may have been a situation that they had had her earlier and it had gone cold datum.

However, this illustrates what gets usually missed in these discussions. Carriers don't get surprised by diesels in open ocean transits. It is during their presence role when carriers routinely stake themselves about a point conducting flight ops to make a point (When the president asks, "Where are the carriers?"...etc.).
It makes it mighty easy for a diesel to find its way into the MODLOC-undetected- and simply wait for the carrier to come barging along on Fox Corpen overhead.

I've seen the Russians do it, the Dutch do it, the Brits do it, the Israelis do it, the French,... Looks like the Chinese are in on the act.

And that is most worrisome.

gunnut
13 Nov 06,, 20:23
How does a diesel sub shadow a CBG while submerged? I thought diesel subs usually have a top submerged speed of around 20 knots and a range of less than 200nm at that speed. After that, it has to surface and recharge the batteries.

sidishus
14 Nov 06,, 02:06
How does a diesel sub shadow a CBG while submerged? I thought diesel subs usually have a top submerged speed of around 20 knots and a range of less than 200nm at that speed. After that, it has to surface and recharge the batteries.

Again, you are thinking of an open water transit scenario and yes they would be hard to catch with a diesel...Except in an opposed breakout from a port like how the Onslow bagged the Vinson on the previous page.

However, due to the overarching Presence missions (or currently, continual support to forces ashore a la Dixie Station of the Vietnam days), carriers stay in relatively constrained geographical areas for extended periods conducting flights ops.

They are not hard to find and catch up with in a diesel once "on station".

gf0012-aust
14 Nov 06,, 07:24
From what I have seen gf, I would not be so sanguine that a single ADCAP or similar would not take a carrier out of the fight -along with a substantial part of the remaining offensive assets in order to protect her- in very short order.

We'll have to disagree. I've seen the proximity data for an ADCAP based on the BL7 mods. Unless its a golden BB, one ADCAP sized torpedo will not kill a carrier. (mobility kill is another issue altogether)

Pulling a carrier from the LOC is a tactical decision - and then its up to someone to decide whether presence while mobilility impaired is still a greater deterrent than giving them the first string. (ie west of and incl guam)

FWIW, my view is that this is a continuation of the string of pearls philosophy - they are attempting to push back the US as close to Guam as possible so as to reduce response times in the event of a move on taiwan.

the PLAN has been more than active over the last few years west africa, the indian ocean, sth china sea etc... they had some boats sniffing around during Talisman 06 (and everyone could hear them) - so I seriously doubt that the cousins (ie the US) are oblivious to the "lift" in blue water tempo by the PLAN - in fact I know they aren't.

I'm not being sanguine - but there is a need to pause and be able to recognise deliberate shows of colour and movement. The PLAN are nowhere near the skillset of the Soviets, and my personal belief is that they're nowhere near the technical capability and competency of the singaporeans. (who are a very professional and technically proficient outfit)

sidishus
15 Nov 06,, 16:50
We'll have to disagree. I've seen the proximity data for an ADCAP based on the BL7 mods. Unless its a golden BB, one ADCAP sized torpedo will not kill a carrier. (mobility kill is another issue altogether)


Actually we do agree. My point has not been about sinking a carrier. It has been about an opponent mounting a credible sea-denial capability.
In that regard, an opponent need not worry about sinking a carrier, just deter that crucial Presence mission, or, at the initiation of the fight, keep the carrier from flying at the most critical time.

The Chinese are getting mighty close to being able to do that was we speak.

sidishus
16 Nov 06,, 01:10
A cogent and insightful analysis of the Chinese Song's little dust up with the Kitty Hawk...which has significant pertinence to this thread since it concerns the viability of pitting a "crummy little" diesel boat against a "mighty" aircraft carrier...written by somebody currently in the business (which explains his inability to discuss in depth) can be found here:

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_cdrsalamander_archive.html


Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Stalking of the KITTY HAWK
Like Lex, I have held off putting anything down on the Chinese Sub that interrupted the USS KITTY HAWK's games. You see, there are some things you just don't talk about. Bubblehead has some interesting thoughts that I am mostly in line with, but TheSubReport has a percentage of the smart thinking as well. Being that, Admiral Fallon has spoken, I will dip my toe in the water some.

First let me say this; cocky arrogance based on your archaic POV of ASW is a recipe for getting your ship sunk and your Sailors killed. Period. A lot of the "bunch of primitive Chinamen" bravado crap has to stop. Now. That same kind of talk was made about the fighting ability of Iraqis and the cake walk we would have. Not so funny, or true, now - is it? Stow it.

The Chinese know what they are doing. They are playing the Long Game - an ongoing story here that long time readers are aware of. They are smart, large, and growing stronger by the WalMart shopping day. They have a history and culture that makes our upstart post-colonial melting pot look like the long-legged, klutzy teenager that it is. Sure they have challenges, but I ask you - where is their trend line?

Enough of the Chinese. Let's talk about us. I am not going to talk about what did or did not happen with the Sh1tty Kitty. I am going to talk in more general terms.

1. Sitting in your chair in confidence of Foxtrot Mike technology making everything easy? Nice tools, but you are a fool.

2. How familiar are you with the waters around China?

3. Do you really understand the time-distance challenges of the Pacific? Seriously, get the map out with your circular slide rule.

4. Assume your subs are as perfect as you think. Fine. Can they be everywhere? Of course not. ASW is a numbers game in wartime. Look at the proficiency of our SH-60 series of helos in ASW. Ditto what little is left of our fixed wing ASW. S-3 is long gone, and what few P-3s we have left are trying to stay together long enough to preserve their community's Major Command billets till the P-8A shows up ~ half-way through the next decade. Ship ASW? Harumph. DD's - gone. FF(not so G)'s - might as well be gone. DDG-51s? Nice bit of kit - but those MK-41 cells have employment elsewhere outside ASW. As for the training and tactical sustainability of the above units? Don't BS a BS'r. I know where the money has gone over the last 15 years. ASW sensors and training has not been it.

5. Assume you have found your "Made in China" SS. Ready to kill it? Really? 'Nuff said there.

6. Ready for sustained ASW prosecution? Read what I have about the Falklands War? Magazine and lockers ready to go?

7. Like your LWT? What if they don't quite work like you want, or you run out after a few days attacking ghosts? What then? Have a back-up plan? Have a back-up weapon? Where are all your eggs? It isn't hard to figure out how things can twist in war. It really isn't. Arrogance and wishing your problems away will only get you killed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is hard to laugh at that non-nuke submarine that sank that USS ASHLAND 36 hours ago when you only have one SSTT MK-46 left and your helo is down until you can get another engine. To think that crew sailed all the way from Norfolk just to go like that. What was it, around 60 out of 800 or so Sailors and Marines the LASSEN and CARR managed to pluck out of the water?

You know she is out there. 8 hours ago the P-3 flying out of Guam thought she saw her and dropped two MK-54 on a POSSUB contact over a 45 minute timeframe with nothing to show for it; and that was 15NM away from where everyone else thinks the SS is. Well, where the LASSEN attacked her. Thinks she attacked her. At least she still has a helo and 6 LWT left. The nearest US SSN, the HOUSTON, is another 8 hrs or so away...you think... You can't sleep because every 90 minutes or so someone thinks they saw something or there is something interesting on the UYS-1 that they just have to tell you about. You don't know if it is the caffeine or the pain in your stomach that is keeping you awake...but you are bolt awake.

So, here you are. You, the REUBEN JAMES and the HOPPER are limping your way back to Guam at 5 knots with only one mission - get the NEW ORLEANS and her 1,000 plus Sailors and Marines back in one piece while the rest of the STRIKE GROUP keeps heading west. There she is. Still a 10 degree port list.

5 knots. You swear she is going backwards. Lucky ship though. They say that Yuan-class (they think) fired four torps at her. Only one hit. Lucky ship. How many dead? Don't know. Forgot. Missing? They don't know. We aren't looking. Something tells you we left someone behind. You'll worry about that later.

Why can't she go faster. Why? Two up helos that have even a prayer of doing ASW. 4 hours of P-3 time a day.
the more reliable P-8s are all going west. Why didn't they give us more to fight with knowing we are on our own?

"Unlikely to follow... possibly sunk... mission kill... better water for ASW..." Is it because you are so tired that you laugh everytime you hear someone say that?

With the ESG running as fast as the slowest Gator Freighter to the waiting arms of the NORTH CAROLINA, and the BUSHSTRIKEGROUP; it is you and the Pacific. Cold, dark, quite Pacific. It doesn't look so peaceful anymore. A cigar on the helo deck isn't a time to relax. Every wave top looks like something it shouldn't be. There is so much that needs to be done.

5 KTS. Days away. ASCM, even with less than a minute warning, you are comfortable with; but their torpedoes. The impotence. When you put your last MK-46 over the side and listen until its motor runs out of Otto fuel, what do you do then? Throw bug-juice at her? Have another P-3 chase a ghost in the middle of the night keeping your little ambulance service on edge? From what you are reading of message traffic, the odds are they will be out of sonobuoys by tomorrow anyway at the rate they are throwing them out to the west. So, you will that going for you. You'll take the radar though.

You are sick of contact reports that mean nothing. Intel that takes 3 pages to remind you that there are known unknowns out there. This morning you watched a 18-year Navy AD1 break into tears because he couldn't fix your helo's broke-a55 engine and he was convinced that hundreds were going to die because he could make it happen. All he needs is sleep, but he won't. You won't. You can't.

5 KTS. If you could get another 100NM away from the flaming DATUM you would feel better. 20 hours. No way that Chinese Skipper is still stalking our poor wounded girl. You would know. You should know. You don't know, do you. Our active sonar is so good and our tails are the best in the world - buy why did we miss her after the attack a day and a half ago? It isn't supposed to happen this way. You are so tired.

5 KTS. 20 minutes of sleep, that is all you want. 20 minutes of blessed slumber.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[W]e don't need to panic now. This Chinese SS thingy isn't a crisis...but it is an opportunity to think. Be humble. Do a little ORM. It is sleeping now while a potential challenger slowly reaches the tipping point that makes me worry.


// posted by CDR Salamander @ 16:08

gf0012-aust
16 Nov 06,, 08:32
I do enjoy the Salamander Blog....

The issue is that if this is supposed to be representative of systemic command malaise (as its not a craft competency issue - it is a commanders local doctrine isssue) - then the wake up call should have kick started off of Angola.

Are you suggesting that this operation is a continuation of systemic command indolence?

I think it is grossly negligent to continue to see the PLAN as a backwater greenwater navy as they will change - and they have the political will and intent to make that change. Similarly we know that they've been making concerted efforts to fast track development of their own tech and divorce themselves of copied western equipment like arrays, sonars and transducers - after all they blatantly offer them for sale at Western UDT events.

I do question what amounts to a polarised change in their overall competency though as its not as if they aren't monitored. Not everything hits the press.

sidishus
16 Nov 06,, 17:47
I do enjoy the Salamander Blog....

The issue is that if this is supposed to be representative of systemic command malaise (as its not a craft competency issue - it is a commanders local doctrine isssue) - then the wake up call should have kick started off of Angola.Are you suggesting that this operation is a continuation of systemic command indolence

Sure this is a matter of malaise. The USN's operating patterns have fundamentally remained the same since Vietnam days.

Care to share (as best you can) what happened off Angola?

Also, in the matter of how much damage a carrier can sustain from a torpedo hit, I'm sure much imperical data has been obtained from the America sinkex, but ANY kind of hit on a carrier is going to force its retirement regardless of notional studies.



I think it is grossly negligent to continue to see the PLAN as a backwater greenwater navy as they will change - and they have the political will and intent to make that change. Similarly we know that they've been making concerted efforts to fast track development of their own tech and divorce themselves of copied western equipment like arrays, sonars and transducers - after all they blatantly offer them for sale at Western UDT events.

Excellent point.