LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteNo, 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.
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:Originally Posted by YellowFever
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/Ma...-0800C-003.jpg
...Well that's all she wrote as your carrier will look like this:
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.
Last edited by sidishus; 02 Oct 06, at 16:44.
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.
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.
View of the Carl Vinson from HMAS Onslow as she unsucessfully attempted a high speed breakout from Pearl
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navyn...0898story5.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.
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.
Last edited by sidishus; 02 Oct 06, at 16:52.
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
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.
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.
Last edited by sidishus; 02 Oct 06, at 17:59.
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
Last edited by Dreadnought; 02 Oct 06, at 19:05.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
[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...
I think Dutch made subs are the best in the world .
I love the dolphin class they made especially for israel .
Since RDM bankrupt...
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.
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 .
Muslim terror groups aren't the only threat in the world today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: