OT: Seven US aircraft carriers have been sunk in the past 30 years.

[Anna Elizabeth]

I used to love GDW's Harpoon, I still have Harpoon 4.1 and the High Tide box set that covers the Cold War with declassified Soviet weapons. Did you know that the USSR had a 100 knot Nuclear-tipped torpedo

I'm wondering lately whether CVNs are pretty much the modern version of BBs in 1941 I've heard so many stories and rumors of diesel submarines getting perfect killshot opportunities, and the US Navy seems to have drawn down their surface ASW capabilities.

[unkated]

Firing position does not necessarily make a kill from a sub...

Three points.

1. These Diesel-electrics are Western - quieter than their Soviet-made or Chinese contemporaries.
   
   
2. Torpedoes themselves are loud; firing torpedoes provides, giving time for a carrier to react.
   
   Yes, carriers are large, and are unlikely to evade all of a spread of torpedoes. But, not knowing the nature of the evasion before hand, a spread of torpedoes would be necessary to hit. Wire guided torpedoes provide a better chance of a hit, but most subs can only guide one or two at a time.
   
   Which brings us to my next point.
   
   
3. Aircraft carriers are REALLY big. A hit from a modern torpedo or two, is probably not going to kill one.
   Ruin it's ability to continue operations Probably.
   Cause it to leave the area of operations Probably.
   But probably not sink it.
   
   A nuke warhead is a different proposition, but if you are opening WW III with nuke strikes on carriers... having a tactical navy won't matter much. This will become strategical level nukes strikes before the 11 o'clock news.

Until then, aircraft carriers are useful for projecting (national) strength by
providing an airbase that can be moved as needed (however expensive to operate).

Uncle Ted

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Fact is, exactly zero carriers have been sunk in the last 30 years, ever. The Argentinians had the best shot (no pun intended) at hitting one in the Falklands and they couldn't pull it off. We parked MANY in the Gulf and the Iranians and Iraqis - armed with the vaunted Silkworm missiles - didn't do shit.

The reality is that (surprise!) the US Navy actually knows about how to defend against symmetric threats to its carriers! Aegis and other systems are designed specifically to deal with the air threat, and if you don't think the USN would prosecute every transient around a CBG until they knew down to the rivet what it was, you're damn wrong.

Anything else, this "OMG CARRIERS ARE SO DEAD AGAINST GLORIOUS RUSSIAN SUBS" is young pioneer masturbatory fantasy.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think you missed the point...
Fact is nobody who has carriers has been in a full-scale war with an enemy who could sink carriers in the last 30 years.

The Falklands War is not a good example to use. the Brits knew that the Argies had limited time on station once they reached the islands and so the carriers were kept out of reach of Argie aircraft. That wasn't any special "carrier defence", it was common sense and smart tactics.
If the British carriers had been within the range of the Argies, then results such as Sir Galahad and Atlantic Conveyor were very possible.

[Legbreaker]

[*]Torpedoes themselves are loud; firing torpedoes provides, giving time for a carrier to react.

You know, you'd think that would also be able to be simulated in an exercise, otherwise what's the point Why not just sit back in a classroom
I know there's plenty of options for battlefield simulations used on land, why not at sea We probably don't hear about it because a) it's not as "sexy" as the real weapon systems, and b) there's this thing called "classified" that prevents the dissemination of information which may be deemed sensitive.

Edit: A quick search online found multiple references to simulated shots. The simplest being expulsion of water from the tubes - "The force of the blowback of air from two simulated torpedo launches from Canadian Navy submarine HMCS Victoria sends hats, cameras and notebooks flying."
Now if that can't be detected by modern sensors, somebody somewhere has royally screwed up.

[Legbreaker]

Is the US Navy Overrated

A thesis (draft) that's well worth a read!

http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm

And you can buy the book https://play.google.com/store/books/...earch_viewport

[rcaf_777]

Tom Clancy describes an attack on a us carrier in red storm rising, if I remember correctly missile decoys lure away the carrier air wing while Tupolev Tu-22M bombers launch a large barrage of anti ship missiles. While it dose not sink the carrier it dose cause enough damage to take the carrier out of action.

wish I could remember the carrier name

[dragoon500ly]

Wasn't it Nimitz, Saratoga and Foch

And the score was Nimitz badly damaged and Foch sunk

[Legbreaker]

The article above actually mentions Tom Clancy and devotes about a page or so to him. They suggest he's the perfect PR man for the US Navy as he does more to cover up the inadequacies than anyone else.
Not bad for an ex-insurance salesman with no military experience whatsoever.

[Cdnwolf]

I used to love GDW's Harpoon, I still have Harpoon 4.1 and the High Tide box set that covers the Cold War with declassified Soviet weapons. Did you know that the USSR had a 100 knot Nuclear-tipped torpedo

I still have the Harpoon books and their supplements including one of their review of the fleet books. I also still have kicking around on through a Steam sale, SCS Sub Command, 688(I) Hunter Killer and Fleet Command. Diesel subs are a nightmare on their electric motors and I got lucky and killed one by hiding over a ship I already killed and waited until he had to recharge his batteries.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I think you missed the point...
Fact is nobody who has carriers has been in a full-scale war with an enemy who could sink carriers in the last 30 years.

And I think you missed what I said when I said the USN knows how to deal with symmetric threats.

[Legbreaker]

And I think you missed what I said when I said the USN knows how to deal with symmetric threats.

Actually, they don't.
Read the thesis I linked to for a brutally honest assessment from those who should know why not.

[RN7]

A thesis (draft) that's well worth a read!

http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm

And you can buy the book https://play.google.com/store/books/...earch_viewport

I think a lot of what I stated at the start of this thread is in this thesis, which also greatly expands on what I originally stated. Diesel submarines are undoubtedly a major threat to aircraft carriers, particularly AIP submarines. But as Unkated said these are Western submarines/or navies that have beaten US Navy ASW defences, and these were in exercises.

The US Navy and US submarines would be focused on tactics of rivals such as the Soviet/Russians and maybe the Chinese now. Smaller Western allies can also specialise more in particular fields which the US Navy can't due to its much broader task. AIP submarines seem to excel in choke points and littoral naval warfare, but in deeper more open waters I doubt they could tackle the big US Navy nuclear attack boats so successfully.

As I see the major threat to US Navy carriers are....

Other Carriers. None at moment. Russian carrier too limited. French and new British ones are allied. Chinese and Indians also too limited, although some potential threat in future from new Chinese and possibly Russian ones.

Nuclear Attack Submarines: Only Russia is a threat. Britain and France are US allies, Chinese submarines are untested and likely much noisier and less advanced, while India is just entering this field with Russian assistance.

AIP Submarines: Mainly Western navies and certainly NATO and allied navies have the best of them. Possible Russian and Chinese threat in near future

Anti-Ship Missiles: Really only the Russians could still threaten the US Navy in this area with Tu-22M Backfire launched supersonic missiles. Other navies except the British do not have anti-ship or cruise missile with the range to launch outside of US Navy carrier aircraft protection, or in most cases US Navy ship based SAM.

Land Based Aircraft: Would depend on how close to shore US Navy carriers are and who the opposition would be.

Land Based Missiles: Don't get me started about the Chinese DF-21D carrier killer, please don't!

[Legbreaker]

I think a lot of what I stated at the start of this thread is in this thesis, which also greatly expands on what I originally stated.....

Did you read the entire document

[RN7]

Did you read the entire document

As a matter of fact Leg I did read the entire document and it was very entertaining. I started this thread and my comments over different posts by and large said the same thing about the US Navy's modern ASW capabilities (although in less detail). That was 8 posts I made earlier on the thread, did you happen to read any of those 8 posts

Obviously I didn't say anything about the US Navy's ASW capabilities in WW2 or the early Cold War, or too much about US Navy aviation like Thompson did. But I think Thompson is being a bit overly critical of the US Navy as according to him it is a basket case. I mean according to him the US Navy was so bad it was lucky to survive WW2, and was just lucky the Japanese weren't a bit more canny or the US Navy would have bought it. No mention of the fact that the US Navy had its back up against the wall after Pearl Harbor, fought the Japanese across the Pacific Ocean against the odds, and then annihilated them as a naval force all on their own. Also despite its earlier inexperience in ASW operations and the questionable attitude of senior officers like King it did a very good job of eliminating the Japanese submarine threat in the Pacific, and played a major role in doing the same to the German submarine threat in the Atlantic with the British.

Is Thompson proposing that the US Navy should scrap its nuclear submarine fleet and aircraft carriers because of the threat posed from diesel submarines There are only about 30 countries in the world that have effective submarine fleets, in fact there may be less than 30 and most of them are US allies. There is a reason why the US Navy is focused on aircraft carrier operations and prefers nuclear submarines. Carrier's are extremely powerful and mobile platforms that have a greater strike capability than most countries entire air forces. Nuclear submarines are twice as fast and have twice the war ordinance of a diesel submarine, and they also have unlimited range and are big enough to be fitted with long ranged land attack cruise missiles. US Navy combat aircraft are primarily strike aircraft and were the air-to-air duels between US Navy and other airforces at BVR ranges With budget cut backs you cant have it both ways. The US Navy can't have a big carrier fleet and a nuclear sub fleet and then spare extra money to improve its ASW capabilities. Does Thompson's precious RCN and RCAF have anywhere near the capability of the US Navy or the USAF