Killing Carriers

[Targan]

Another one I was reading just today:

http://rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/

[Silent Hunter UK]

Another one I was reading just today:

http://rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/

It is generally the quieter diesel subs that are better at this sort of thing. Nukes, especially the earlier Soviet ones, could be very noisy due to the reactor; when an 'Alfa' powered up for the first time off Kola, SOSUS picked it up in Bermuda.

[Canadian Army]

-1981 NATO exercise Ocean Venture, an unnamed 1960s vintage Canadian diesel submarine oesank the carrier USS America without once being itself detected, and a second unidentified vintage sub oesank the carrier USS Forrestal.

The Submarine was one of three Oberon-class submarine the Canadian Navy operated at the time.

[RN7]

Was this not discussed on this thread..

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=4079

[pmulcahy11b]

It is generally the quieter diesel subs that are better at this sort of thing. Nukes, especially the earlier Soviet ones, could be very noisy due to the reactor; when an 'Alfa' powered up for the first time off Kola, SOSUS picked it up in Bermuda.

Remember also that it is believed by some scientists that noise from nuclear subs are responsible for some whale and dolphin groundings -- they're being deafened.

[jester]

Paul, some of it also is being blamed on the active sonar "pinging" which to those animals I would imagine is like being inside a ringing bell which would scramble anyones brains.

HOWEVER, the archealogical record shows that beachings of such animals goes back thousands of years at some of the same locations they occur today.

Now, that brings the following question to mind. If an active sonar blast can confuse marine animals. What would a concentrated blast do to divers

[pmulcahy11b]

Now, that brings the following question to mind. If an active sonar blast can confuse marine animals. What would a concentrated blast do to divers

I'd have tio research it more, but my first impulse is...not as much. Sonar pings not only in the audible range, but mostly in ranges that a human cannot hear.

Additional question: Does sonar have sort of a concussive effect, especially at short ranges

[Webstral]

RE: French sub attacks on US carrier group in war games.

This sort of thing separates the professional forces from the rest. An embarrassment at the hands of an allied "enemy" is a golden opportunity for learning. Units that get beaten at NTC and JRTC enter combat with a more realistic sense of their vulnerabilities. Overconfidence is very, very dangerous. We can't replace carriers in a reasonable timeframe, and we can't treat them like battleships (i.e., keep them out of harm's way). The only other alternative is sober, professional leadership that appreciates that the enemy may find ways to do the unlikely.

[Matt Wiser]

Concur, Web; and though there were some embarrassed admirals, this is a valuable lesson learned, from which the mistakes made can be dissected, analyzed, and not repeated. Though I'm sure the Navy is wishing they hadn't retired the S-3 Vikings from the ASW role.....

[pmulcahy11b]

Concur, Web; and though there were some embarrassed admirals, this is a valuable lesson learned, from which the mistakes made can be dissected, analyzed, and not repeated. Though I'm sure the Navy is wishing they hadn't retired the S-3 Vikings from the ASW role.....

History shows that one type of plane can't do it all, though the US Navy seems to think their Super Hornets can do just that...

[Matt Wiser]

Thank the Clinton Administration for pulling the ASW mission off the S-3s....it happened during their tenure.

[Targan]

Interesting article on the late Cold War power (or lack thereof) of the Soviet Navy:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/03/06/question_just_how_powerful_was_the_soviet_navy_107707.html

[RN7]

Interesting article on the late Cold War power (or lack thereof) of the Soviet Navy:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...vy_107707.html

Good article but I think to much speculation about what the Soviets expected of their navy rather than raw data

[swaghauler]

I wonder if the Soviets would even try to attack a task force unless forced to. Assuming that they are reasonably intelligent and are considering the consequences of their actions; I think that most US naval casualties would be the result of hunter/killer operations against Soviet Navel assets.
When the Russians begin their campaign against China (presumably over the Mongolian oil reserves under both countries' soil); they would have to know that that action would have a major impact on the US economy. Even in the early 90's, 40% of our imports came from China. They would also know we wouldn't sit by and allow this to happen. As sanctions against them began to tighten, resources in Russia (but with no obligations stemming from Western aid rendered in our real life timeline) would become scarce. This might prompt the Soviets to offer Iran and Iraq military hardware in exchange for oil and open the stage for a plot to tie up US navel assets in The Gulf. They would give these countries more advanced hardware and "encourage" them to "harass" oil tankers in the Gulf.
They could "negotiate" with India to clandestinely allow the transit of oil and military hardware through their country in exchange for upgraded military hardware. India agrees because they are upset with a build up of the Pakistani Military using US financial support (in exchange for allowing US forces to "stage" in Pakistan). The Pakistan/Indian War occurs as a result of the US pressuring Pakistan to "close down" the overland supply route and India reacting to an "Invasion of it's soil."

While all of the above is occupying the US in the Gulf AND squeezing off the Middle East oil supply; the East and South China Seas would be under "attack" as well. The Soviets would most likely declare those areas "War Zones" and attack all commercial shipping in Chinese waters. They could use their very fast but noisy nuclear attack subs as "commerce raiders." No commercial ship could escape them or the long range bombers that Russia could send so far out to sea that the Chinese couldn't intercept them. The combination of fast nuclear subs and ships operating in conjunction with long range bombers and orbital surveillance would dramatically increase the effectiveness of such raiders. These raiders would be very difficult to track down and destroy. Millions of tons of commercial shipping could end up on the bottom of the East and South China Seas and the Indian Ocean before these raiders were stopped.
The US carriers would be unintentionally "split up" to protect shipping in the East and South China Seas as well as the Malacca Straights. Ever growing "skirmishes" between the US Navy and Russian "Commerce Raiders" could end up costing the US a couple of carriers before general hostilities begin (and could "accelerate" such hostilities). The loss of large numbers of tankers could cripple the US conventional carriers (turning them into "static airbases"). When the big naval battles finally come, the NATO fleets could already be of reduced strength.

[stormlion1]

Honestly, I always figured the Russians kept track of the various Carrier Battlegroups and tasked a few of there more accurate ICBM's to deal with them. Even if the ships weren't sunk, they would be to irradiated to be able to operate for long as resupply would become a major issue much less putting guys on the decks to actually launch and recover aircraft. And ships at sea are nothing but a military target.