Dutch Subs "Sinking" US Carrier and many ships

**ArmchairGeneral** · 04 Oct 06, 08:02

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Muslim terror groups aren't the only threat in the world today.

Amen to that.

**urmomma158** · 04 Oct 06, 22:51

Originally Posted by YellowFever

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...ze-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!

Seawolf vs Virginia

Downsides of a diesel sub

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,...305-P1,00.html

**zraver** · 23 Oct 06, 22:48

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** · 24 Oct 06, 00:02

Originally Posted by YellowFever

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, 01:35

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.

Originally Posted by sidishus

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.

Originally Posted by sidishus

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.

Originally Posted by Francois

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.

Originally Posted by YellowFever

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.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

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

Originally Posted by neilmpenny

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

Originally Posted by YellowFever

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

Originally Posted by BIGAL

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

Originally Posted by BFD15

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.

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.

**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/20...1539-3317r.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

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

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

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust

... 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.

Thread: Dutch Subs "Sinking" US Carrier and many ships

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

RE: Dutch Subs "Sinking" US Carrier and many ships

gf0012-aust

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions