Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades!

Are you suggesting that A-mad-in-de-head's missiles aren't firing?

Last year , Mr. Ahm-a-dinner-jacket's forces claimed a mass launch of 14 missiles at once. They launched 3, but the photo showed 14 ( some of them without contrails , some with miss-matched). It confirmed an ugly and feared truth. The Iranians have Photoshop and are not afraid to use it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.

I have heard the subs in operation today have the ability to sneak undetected w/in torp range of any CVBG and place torps into the screws of any capitol ship. So I figure the CV will go the path of the BB. I expect this to happen w/ in the next 3/4 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Also achieved by the Australian Collins class of submarines. Not so certain that a sub would definitely be sunk in return as the Australian sub was able to penetrate the CV ASW screen which was actively looking for the sub.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 

They need to add to each carrier groups escort a helicopter carrier and give the USN some Apaches or Longbows to put on them. That might solve the problem

quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 

They need to add to each carrier groups escort a helicopter carrier and give the USN some Apaches or Longbows to put on them. That might solve the problem

During the recent Libya conflict British ship-borne Apaches took out quite a few small fast boats - which were laying mines or inserting raiders near Misratah. They were the weapon of choice for the job – although they relied upon other assets to initially detect their targets for them (RN helos and surveillance aircraft).

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.

I have heard the subs in operation today have the ability to sneak undetected w/in torp range of any CVBG and place torps into the screws of any capitol ship. So I figure the CV will go the path of the BB. I expect this to happen w/ in the next 3/4 years.

This already happened before. A German Type 206-class diesel-electric sub managed to penetrate the USS Enterprise's battle-group while it was on maneuvers in the Caribbean and got close enough to photograph it through its periscope, which is as good as saying it got close enough to fire a likely fatal spread of torpedoes if this was not an exercise.

You may be right that carriers are too large targets to be effectively protected against swarms of cruise missiles and/or subs, but at least on the sub front, the only ones quiet enough to do this are the diesel-electrics, who have their own obvious limitations, as well as practically being a one-shot weapon. That is, you might be able to get it to sink a carrier, but you'll pretty much have to write-off the sub completely after that single attack from all the ASW attention it's going to attract. It's definitely a trade-off that would be massively in the sub's favor, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thank you guys, this thread is an extremely interesting read!!

I got some questions for the sub/sonar guys in here:

IIRC there are 3 ways to detect a sub, passive sonar for long range and stealth, active sonar, and MAD.

Have new technologies gained importance?

MAD, when I last checked, was mainly implemented on airborne ASW and surface vessels. What is the reason for not using it
on subs extensively?

Has MAD become useless due to antimagnetic coatings for subs?

What are the up to date ranges for successful MAD detection?

How much have detection ranges dropped since the cold war with the implementation of all that stealth tech?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thank you guys, this thread is an extremely interesting read!!

I got some questions for the sub/sonar guys in here:

IIRC there are 3 ways to detect a sub, passive sonar for long range and stealth, active sonar, and MAD.

Have new technologies gained importance?

MAD, when I last checked, was mainly implemented on airborne ASW and surface vessels. What is the reason for not using it
on subs extensively?

Has MAD become useless due to antimagnetic coatings for subs?

What are the up to date ranges for successful MAD detection?

How much have detection ranges dropped since the cold war with the implementation of all that stealth tech?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I just remember what the Argentine AF was able to do with Exocet missles 30 years ago. I would expect there is a lot better stuff out there now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thanks for the explanations Steve.

Easier detection in Carribean and Med, is it because the limited dephs compared to the Oceans, more light is reflected from
the sea floor and so a dark shape is better visible or is there another reason? Swell is also less I assume.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

For all the hotshot submarine stud Captains that get their photos of a CVN's screws, I wonder if they're detected coming in. For these wargames, I wonder if the ROE allow the submarines to be hit by active sonar from dipping helicopters or blasted by concerted ASW attacks. In the case of that Collins' class submarine pictured above, that's a dead sub by my reckoning. I wonder if the submariners realize that they just got greased in their quest for fame. In real life, any submarines detected in the CVNBG region would be treated with the utmost hostility. In peacetime, the risk:reward just isn't there for these guys, so they can shoot the moon.

Also, there's a benefit for CVNBGs to lament how open they are to attack by submarine. "Oh, look how easily our screen can be penetrated! Please, oh please Mr. enemy man, please don't try to track us with your submarines! Look how closely you can get! We're defenseless!" I wonder whether these same vulnerabilities would be echoed in wartime or whether the ASW is-perhaps-more formidable than letting on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

I saw her pass through the Straits of Gibraltar yesterday

quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat


I think she passed Gib on 3rd Feb to go back into the Atlantic on the way home to Severomorsk. The Russian task force spent most of January on exercise in the Med. It also visited the Russian Navy’s ‘supply and maintenance centre’ near the Syrian port of Tartus. The Russians have been expanding their naval facility near Tartus into a base for a permanent Russian naval force in the Med. But if the Assad regime falls they will probably lose it …

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Thanks for the explanations Steve.

Easier detection in Carribean and Med, is it because the limited dephs compared to the Oceans, more light is reflected from
the sea floor and so a dark shape is better visible or is there another reason? Swell is also less I assume.

quote:


British warship escorts Russian aircraft carrier passed UK waters

HMS Liverpool, a British warship, was dwarfed by a Russian aircraft carrier as it passed UK waters.


HMS Liverpool (front) escorting Russian Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov:




The destroyer sailed alongside the 50,000-tonne Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov as it made its way north.

The Portsmouth-based Type 42 warship was acting as fleet escort as it followed a carrier-led Russian task group from the Channel off south-west England to the seas off south-west Ireland.

The task group of two warships and five support ships were making their way home to the northern and Baltic fleets of the Russian navy. The images were released by the Royal Navy.

HMS Liverpool's commanding officer, Commander Colin Williams, said: ''As an island nation, it is essential for the UK to maintain a military presence in our waters.

"HMS Liverpool is well-placed to carry out this duty after her extremely successful Operation Ellamy and Nato contributions off Libya last year."

n December, the Portsmouth-based destroyer HMS York was sent to shadow the Kuznetsov group as it sailed south from Russia - the closest that a Russian naval task group had been to the United Kingdom in 20 years.

A Royal Navy spokesman said: "Liverpool is due to decommission at the end of March but has already gone through a maintenance period in Portsmouth and a visit to London, where thousands of members of the public stepped aboard.

"On leaving London she was activated as Fleet Ready Escort."

"When her escort duty finishes, HMS Liverpool will conduct training exercises in the UK and Norway, before a final visit to her home town of Liverpool. She decommissions on March 30 in Portsmouth."

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE