Dutch Subs "Sinking" US Carrier and many ships

**Praxus** · 27 Feb 04, 19:51

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, 02:08

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

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

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

Originally Posted by geurtjalink

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

old subs potent weapons

**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

Originally Posted by geurtjalink

old subs from former USSR sold customers: rogue nations real danger for new ships

old subs potent weapons

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

**geurtjalink** · 10 Aug 06, 11:41

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

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.

**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

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?

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...ze-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,,...305-P1,00.html

**~~AntiSatellite~~** · 02 Oct 06, 03:27

Originally Posted by geurtjalink

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/...do_testing.jpg
and has some top class Sonar Systems.

**sidishus** · 02 Oct 06, 03:43

Originally Posted by Praxus

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/pictu...cope_shots.htm

A picture paints a thousand words...

**YellowFever** · 02 Oct 06, 09:26

We have pictures of Mars.
It doesn't mean we can blow it out of the sky.

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

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Dutch Subs "Sinking" US Carrier and many ships

subs is ultimate weapon

vintage subs

introduction

walrus sub

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions