Talk about sitting ducks (all 5 of US Navy ALT Aircraft Carriers in port)....

reply to post by Zaphod58


One point you may wish to consider and it has to do with hide-bound thinking.

The old guard do things in a certain way because, well, its always worked. New ideas and new methods are always slow to take root.

The new kid on the block is not hampered by old stale thinking and can come up with new ways of doing things.

Any way you look at it and irrespective of how it was done, the Chinese, lacking all this experience still managed to surface an attack sub in the middle of a US Carrier Battle Fleet. I would suggest that in a war time scenario that would be 1 dead Carrier and possibly the loss of another ship or two before the Chinese sub was destroyed.

Frankly, China can swap attack subs for carriers all day long and have a celebratory drink at the end of it.

The problem with modern US Carriers is the sheer time it takes to replace one. They are assets that you cannot afford to lose for that reason and that is a major vulnerability in that they cannot be deployed where they may be sunk.

China is new to force projection, but make no mistake, she has had years to get her defenses to a high standard. I would not want to take Carriers anywhere near China and the fact that they would be vulnerable means you don't deploy them there.

And the dog chases its tail.

P

reply to post by pheonix358

Well thought out post and very true in my opinion only.

Makes me think of one fly swatter you have in your hand but if there are 1000 flys at once you are going to lose.

I keep thinking why oh why are there so many targets in one place and I have not read a satisfactory answer to that in this thread.

My layman's mind says get two or three out of there even if you have to tow them don't leave all your hens in the house when there might be a fox about.

That being said more or less there is major war happening right now x20 and yet there they sit for all to see?

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

China is new to force projection, but make no mistake, she has had years to get her defenses to a high standard. I would not want to take Carriers anywhere near China and the fact that they would be vulnerable means you don't deploy them there.

But we DO deploy them there. The USS George Washington is "forward deployed" to Sasebo, Japan on a permanent basis along with the Expeditionary Strike Group Bon Homme Richard. It is not at all unusual for a Carrier Strike Group to visit South Korea on its way to the Persian Gulf. These ships also frequently pay a port visit to Hong Kong. That's about as close to China as you can get without being in China. Oh, wait....I guess Hong Kong is China.

All this talk about "carriers being vulnerable" and "China has a carrier killer missile" is all so much hot air as far as I can tell. The carriers are very well protected on the first place, and if anyone did manage to take one out, or even try to, the consequences would be severe. I don't get the sense that the US Navy is afraid of being anywhere in the world their ships can float.

reply to post by schuyler


The big difference here and now is that the US is not at war with China. If it ever is the Carriers become vulnerable. As far as I m aware, no ship is protected from a missile coming straight down. China has these missiles.

Cold War thinking differed between the Soviets and the US. The Soviets decided that Carriers were vulnerable to small Nuclear Attack and had no intention of putting so many eggs in one basket.

The US thinking was formed around their Ego such that 'we have the best, most modern weapons' type of thinking. Many US citizens have been taken in by that thinking and it is still as prevalent today as it was in the cold war.

However all that tech failed to impress in Vietnam and is just as lacking in Afghanistan. Then of course there was 911.

The west has no idea what China or for that matter what Iran has developed on their own. As long as high tech weapon manufacture is only undertaken by a select few all military can safely know what each other is likely to have.

Yes, the US may have weapons as yet unseen. Historically when these have emerged they only have a handful that will not make a great difference in a major conflict.

The US has not been tested against a well armed opponent and has been fought to a stalemate by guys in PJs using bicycles as transports.

P

Sinking a carriers is not necessary. Taking a Carrier out of commission would be the goal, not sinking it. Its the same war strategy as wounding a soldier and not killing them. Killing a Soldier removes one solder from battle, wounding him removes 3-4 soldiers from battle along with all the resources to attend the soldier. Extrapolate this to disabling a carrier, the entire group would be forced to circle wagons and attend to the carrier instead of completing the mission, or conversely sinking own carrier to cut losses if required. Either way it diverts resources away from battle.

The US Military is geared to fight certain types of war and outfitted for certain types of Battle, but a shrewd enemy fights on their own terms, not their opponents. In the last 40 years The US Military has fought small wars with relatively inexperienced and ill equipped opponents, technology and tactics reflect this. For example the B2 bomber is a technological wonder but highly impractical in other than controlled environment like Iraq or Afghanistan due to extraordinary amounts of maintenance and delicate nature of the plane itself. In a sustained war with capable opponent the B2 is drain on resources and vulnerable.

Robotics will affect War in a manner that cannot be predicted. A few dozen drones or robots can damage entire fleets, disabling instead of sinking half the carrier group with the other half forced to recover its wounded. The same for Submarines, there are underwater drones under construction that use advanced high speed propulsion systems, fire and forget just like air to air missiles.

It would cause far more damage to send several small drones to a carrier with pathogens than to launch anti ship missiles against it. A simple dirty bomb will disable entire ship yard or base of operations, there is no need to use complicated explosives or an invading force.
The next regional war will be an unpredictable nature, this is what keeps military strategists awake at night.

reply to post by pheonix358


The biggest problem with the Chinese carrier killer is finding the carrier. A strike group under EMCON is like finding a needle in two haystacks. Once you find them, it's a different story, but a group that is trying not to be found is extremely difficult to find. Especially if they have access to USAF tankers to extend the range of the strike, and to help hide the direction they're ingressing and egressing from.

As for a diesel hitting the carrier, the USN has always had problems with diesel boats. That's why they hired a Swiss SSK for something like two years and trained like hell with it. It's one of the quietest boats in the world, and an excellent training tool.

reply to post by JackMack


I accept your point of view. It has a great validity. I would like to point out that sinking = forcing the opponent to replace where as damaging = forcing the opponent to withdraw / repair. WW2 showed quite clearly that the US was capable of very quick repairs.

Damaging wins the battle

Sinking adds to winning the war.

Against Carriers with their enormous construction times and only one dock capable of building them, sinking is a much better option. You will still have 4 to 5 thousand sailors in the big blue ocean. Should keep rescue operations busy for a long time! Enough time possibly to sink some more of the battle groups ships.

P

reply to post by pheonix358



I understand WW2 presented example of extraordinary repair capability, but that was 70+ years ago. US Manufacturing and more importantly the talent base has evaporated since then. Workers are just not available to repair ships as they were then, unfortunately. More importantly US military is heavily dependent on a few suppliers which is a dangerous choking point for supply chain logistics, this is one aspect of sustained war that will bite the US in the rear once it starts.
We have high maintenance delicate weaponry that works fine in limited theaters like Iraq, but in open regional war will not last long. This will be the main issue, the system itself is our own worst enemy.


Finding a carrier group is not at all the difficulty as being made out on this thread, that is WW2 thinking, we can never fight the last war again. Russian, Chinese, Israeli, British, French, German, and other Governments keep close tabs on where US carrier groups are, its not a secret and openly shared among allies and enemies alike. There is very little they do not know about US military operations and we should not pretend otherwise.

reply to post by JackMack


Finding a carrier in the middle of the Pacific that doesn't want to be found is not going to be easy. A carrier group has two choices, they can turn into a black hole, and shut everything down, or they can crank everything up, and try to kill anything that comes close. With everything radiating, it's going to stand out to anything with a sensor. With everything shut down, there's nothing to give them away, and an ocean is a really big place to hide a small group.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Last time I checked they were tracking whales from space, maybe that's because whales leave wakes or maybe that's because whales have a hollow lung signature.

reply to post by Cauliflower


Last time I checked, aircraft carrier battle groups don't have satellite tags attached to them. You're talking about finding an object the size of the Empire State Building (and smaller), in an area that is roughly 63 million square miles.

The scientists at Opération Cétacés and CCRC have placed satellite tags on 20 humpback whales and we are now receiving regular updates from the satellites on the whales locations as they travel along the 'Great Whale Trail'. The satellite data isn't just for the scientists though, you can follow the whales with our interactive google map.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder

 

The Gulf has never really been unbreachable, just extremely difficult. After Japan sold the Soviets the tech to build new screws, along with I believe plans for them, the Soviet boats got much quieter. But their plants have always been loud, and SOSUS usually has no trouble finding them. The newest boomers I believe will turn out to be somewhere between a 688(I), and an Ohio in terms of noise. Once they build an SSN along the same design lines, things will get much more interesting out there.

A Carrier group from the USN is supposed to be un breachable or the whole thing may be a waste of money or even worse a waste of lives.

That Rubber Chinese sub in the gulf which popped up is indisputable......So either the USN never anticipated that action or they actually did anticipate it and failed to locate a real potential game ender.

Makes me wonder how many stripes and bars were involved in the situation and just how many of those chose to call it a one off lucky thing?

Now are these same people the ones in charge of protecting the fleet in Norfolk right now?

I hope to hell not.

The Russian sub in the Gulf did happen and why would the Russians admit to that transgression?
Not exactly strategic to admit that you breached enemy territory with such and such a sub now is it?

My point is the Chinese incident should have been anticipated and measures taken, from what I have read it was not and thus a real screw up of mega magnitude.

The Russian sub incident was actually worse and that is why you are calling it hearsay instead of addressing the real issue that a Russian sub went undetected for who knows how long in the gulf.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


This is my third attempt at a reply, maybe this one will work.

The Chinese SSK incident was an embarrassment to the navy. That's one reason why they hired a Swiss SSK and crew for something like two years, so they could relearn how to find diesel boats. A diesel boat that doesn't want to be found isn't going to be. It used to be that you could detect them snorkeling, but the newest boats rarely have to snorkel anymore. They still have to, but nowhere near as much as before, and without the huge acoustic signature they used to have. A diesel boat doesn't have pumps to radiate noise like a nuclear boat does, so unless they screw up there's very little to radiate noise from them.

The only people that think a carrier is untouchable are people that don't follow military technologies, have never served, or are fanboys. Everyone on the carrier and in the group knows that it's the biggest target in the region, and that anyone that's going to fight us is going to give everything they have to kill one. That would be the biggest coup imaginable for anyone. That's one reason why they are surrounded by the best equipment they can be, and their weapons systems are being upgraded.

As for the Russian sub, says who? Have you noticed the timing, and the source for this? Right after the White House announced budget cuts, a conservative website says they have an anonymous source that says an Akula cruised around the Gulf undetected. Then starts saying that the Navy can't even secure our back yard, and Obama is cutting their budget even more, so they won't stand a chance if a war starts. Amazing that.

In November of last year, a Sierra-2 was detected and tracked off the east coast. The Sierra-2 is equivalent to a 688, with significant improvements to noise reduction. It's probably at least as quiet or close to an Akula in radiated noise. You're telling me that the navy was able to find, and track this one, but somehow an Akula snuck past SOSUS (which as far as I know hasn't happened before), any carrier groups at sea in the area, the P-3s that were patrolling, as well as our SSNs that were in the area? Possible, but not probable with the noise levels that the Russian subs are currently at. They've improved immensely over where they were, but they still have more room to improve.

As for not talking about it, the Soviets couldn't even keep quiet that they killed Scorpion, at the height of the Cold War, but they're going to keep quiet about pulling off a coup by sneaking a sub into our back yard, and keeping it there without us detecting it? That's somehow more secret than killing a US sub?

It just means there is no credible threat to those carriers at port. Whom has the cabability to launch an attack by conventional means? North Korea? Iran? Cuba? Sure there would be the possibility that infiltrators strike while the carriers are at the dock, but what would there to be gained?

Here's a really good reason why sneaking a sub into Norfolk won't happen. The harbor is 50-55 feet, you can't sneak a sub into that depth.

As for not talking about it, the Soviets couldn't even keep quiet that they killed Scorpion, at the height of the Cold War, but they're going to keep quiet about pulling off a coup by sneaking a sub into our back yard, and keeping it there without us detecting it? That's somehow more secret than killing a US sub?

reply to post by Zaphod58


One sentence for your question above, and one answer Mr. Putin holds his cards close to the chest.
Just think the Georgia Conflict which sent the US backed and supplied forces to their graves.

I was not happy about the loss of life but there you go, another coup de grace by someone who knows how to keep things quiet.

Does this man seem like the kind to crow over getting a sub into the Gulf undetected?

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Here's a really good reason why sneaking a sub into Norfolk won't happen. The harbor is 50-55 feet, you can't sneak a sub into that depth.

They do not have to sneak into Norfolk they just have to be within range.......big big difference.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


It doesn't have to come from him. The Scorpion talk came from Admirals, and anonymous sources that bragged about how they killed her in revenge for losing their boat near Hawaii. Not just the President/Prime Minister has access to media to talk about things.

As for being in range, they had boats off Norfolk for years, and every one was caught. Even in the 90s after they got quieter, they were all caught.

reply to post by Zaphod58

As for being in range, they had boats off Norfolk for years, and every one was caught. Even in the 90s after they got quieter, they were all caught.

But you see the above statement is like me "being a farmer" and saying that I shot all the foxes in the area of the hen house.

Every fox was caught and shot says me........Now is there still a fox in the neighbouring woods that abuts my hen house?

I will say no......and I hope you wonder how I can be so sure of that.

After all I only reported every fox I spotted and killed, but what about the ones I never saw?
Or maybe the ones I did see but got away?
Or maybe the ones that I had no clue were even there?

Being a chicken farmer I can never say every fox was caught.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


Until very recently Russian subs have been very noisy. The Sierra-2 entered service in limited numbers and in capability is equivalent to an LA class. The Akula didn't successfully sneak up on an LA until the mid 1990s, and it is still noisier than a 688, although not by much. Their newest SSBN is probably between an LA and an Ohio in noise levels and is by far the quietest boat they have made.

Between SOSUS and random SSN patrols, I am willing to bet that every "fox" has been tracked. From what I have heard, until Seawolf and Virginia came along the only boats to sneak past SOSUS were Ohio class, and even then there were some random hits that could have been them sneaking along.