Raging Dragon PBEM

[Darius871]

Ah, well from what I picked up during that year I agree.

[Darius871]

Come to think of it though, I see the Navy as run by similar ideologues, who think the supercarrier is the only ship we have that's worth a damn. Maybe they're useful against some armpit countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, but against a modern enemy carriers are a classic case of putting all your eggs in one basket. They have no defense whatsoever against high-tech cruise missiles AFAIK, and of course a carrier is a sitting duck to a nuclear blast (whether at 2,000 feet to disentegrate her, or 200 miles to fry her electronics with EMP). Even North Korea could destroy our theater carriers if they chose them as targets rather than Japanese & Korean cities.

This is why I'm a submarine man; they're invulnerable to all these things because the enemy doesn't know where they are. Anyway, let's just pray there aren't any wars against real powers anytime in the next century, so our doctrine blunders don't come to the fore.

[Case]

Originally posted by Darius871
They have no defense whatsoever against high-tech cruise missiles AFAIK

That's what the carrier battlegroup is there for US Carriers are best though of a a giant box full of aircraft. The work of protecting them is delegated to other ships, and this makes a fair bit of sence - defencive systems take up a lot of space which would be better used to squeeze more aircraft in.

BTW, IMO the USN's real weakness is it's astonishingly lame minesweeping ability. The British Navy has a much larger and better equiped minesweeping force then the USN, and even the Australian minesweeping force isn't far behind the USN's (it's ships are better for starters).

Even North Korea could destroy our theater carriers if they chose them as targets rather than Japanese & Korean cities.

Dunno, they'd be a rather hard target to hit, even with nuclear missiles. The Soviets used to earmark an entire ICBM regiment to go after the USNs carriers, so I imagine that the USN has worked up some decent defencive tactics.

You are right though in that carriers are vunerable to lots of things: hell, in it's last ever patrol a couple of years ago, one of Australia's 1960s era Oberon class submarines 'sank' the USS Enterprise in an exercise off Hawaii.

This is why I'm a submarine man; they're invulnerable to all these things because the enemy doesn't know where they are.

...but they're so claustrophopic. Have you ever been on a submarine? I've been on several (at various museums) and they're all awful.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Case
That's what the carrier battlegroup is there for US Carriers are best thought of a a giant box full of aircraft. The work of protecting them is delegated to other ships, and this makes a fair bit of sence - defencive systems take up a lot of space which would be better used to squeeze more aircraft in.

Of course I know that, but you can't guarantee our AEGIS systems will down two dozen Exocets, Brahmos, Shipwrecks, Switchblades, Styx, or C-701's launched simultaneously. There's just no way.

IMO the -->only<-- reason we've never lost a supercarrier is because we've never used them against a country worth a damn at sea.

Originally posted by Case
Dunno, they'd be a rather hard target to hit, even with nuclear missiles.

Why would it be a hard target to hit? It of course depends on what theater, what enemy, distance from shore, etc. Odds are even if air recon, radar, buoys don't pick up a carrier group, they'd still have a submarine or two trailing it to radio in its coordinates. A detonation wouldn't have to be accurate anyway; the EMP from a high-altitude blast would disable any ship within miles.

Originally posted by Case
hell, in it's last ever patrol a couple of years ago, one of Australia's 1960s era Oberon class submarines 'sank' the USS Enterprise in an exercise off Hawaii.

Details!

Originally posted by Case
...but they're so claustrophopic. Have you ever been on a submarine? I've been on several (at various museums) and they're all awful.

Well, it just takes a certain kind of man to tolerate them. I don't think I'd be affected, as long as I have something good to read.

[Case]

Originally posted by Darius871
Of course I know that, but you can't guarantee our AEGIS systems will down two dozen Exocets, Brahmos, Shipwrecks, Switchblades, Styx, or C-701's launched simultaneously. There's just no way.

I guess the argument is that the aircraft and battlegroup will keep those things out of range of the carrier, and the carrier will never go within the range of land based weapons. The ships are pretty tough though - the Enterprise and another super carrier (the Forstall?) both survived massive fires and the cook-off of ordanence.

Why would it be a hard target to hit?

Balistic missiles can only really be targeted at a fixed spot. They take time to prepare and fire. Meanwhile the carrier would be manueuvering at 25+ knots. That makes for a hard target.

Details!

I can't find any at the moment. From memory, the Aussie skipper correctly analysed the Enterprise's operating pattern, picked his position, turned off everything in the sub that made a noise and waited. Sure enough, the Enterprise lumbered along, the Australian skipper lined it up in his periscope, took a photograph and released a bouy. Scratch one carrier.

Aparently it's not unusual for the USN to 'lose' carriers in this way in exercises - that's why they're quietly freaking out over the Iranian Kilos.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Case

I guess the argument is that the aircraft and battlegroup will keep those things out of range of the carrier, and the carrier will never go within the range of land based weapons.

Out of curiousity, how wide is the standard battle group?

Originally posted by Case

The ships are pretty tough though - the Enterprise and another super carrier (the Forstall?) both survived massive fires and the cook-off of ordanence.

I'm not talking about sending them to the bottom with all hands; simply disabling them would suffice. EMP wouldn't sink a carrier, but it'd sure stop any sorties being flown from it, and same goes for a gaping hole in the flight deck from an AS missile.

Originally posted by Case

Balistic missiles can only really be targeted at a fixed spot. They take time to prepare and fire. Meanwhile the carrier would be manueuvering at 25+ knots. That makes for a hard target.

It doesn't depend on the generation of missile? I'd imagine if we could design targeting systems that could put a Harpoon right into the side of a ship despite the ships maneuvers, we (and therefore an enemy as well) could design a missile which would detonate a nuclear warhead within a few bloody miles.

Originally posted by Case

I can't find any at the moment. From memory, the Aussie skipper correctly analysed the Enterprise's operating pattern, picked his position, turned off everything in the sub that made a noise and waited. Sure enough, the Enterprise lumbered along, the Australian skipper lined it up in his periscope, took a photograph and released a bouy. Scratch one carrier.

So modern navy exercises assume that 1 or 2 torpedoes will always sink a supercarrier?

[0hwell]

Is it my turn?

[Darius871]

It's Choke's, and I haven't seen him in ages.

[Case]

Originally posted by Darius871
Out of curiousity, how wide is the standard battle group?

The unclassified figure is up to 100 km. As for the real figure: who knows? The USN is rather tight with that kind of information. For instance, the maximum speed the Nimitz class carriers can sail at is strictly classified (the smart money is on about 40 knots without cargo aircraft and ordenance and less then 35 knots with a full load of equipment).

It doesn't depend on the generation of missile? I'd imagine if we could design targeting systems that could put a Harpoon right into the side of a ship despite the ships maneuvers, we (and therefore an enemy as well) could design a missile which would detonate a nuclear warhead within a few bloody miles.

Any cruise missile would have to first be fired within range of the carrier (easier said then done), pass through the fighters which would be desperatly trying to hit them, pass through the missile envelopes of at least two AEGIS equipped ships before facing the Carriers (weak) point defence guns and missiles. It's a lot easier said then done - Soviet doctrine for attacking carriers seems to have called for massed attacks with around 100 missiles!

So modern navy exercises assume that 1 or 2 torpedoes will always sink a supercarrier?

1 or 2? Most subs have at least 6 torpedo tubes, and modern torpedos generally hit. While they may not sink the carrier, they'll definetly make it too slow to be able to carry out flight operations and will put it in the yards for at least a year.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Case
Any cruise missile would have to first be fired within range of the carrier (easier said then done), pass through the fighters which would be desperatly trying to hit them, pass through the missile envelopes of at least two AEGIS equipped ships before facing the Carriers (weak) point defence guns and missiles. It's a lot easier said then done - Soviet doctrine for attacking carriers seems to have called for massed attacks with around 100 missiles!

Nonononono, you totally misunderstood my post. I wasn't talking about putting a nuke on a sea-skimming cruise missile. I meant that if they are able to design guidance systems SO precise that a missile can independently keep itself 20 meters above the surface, pull down to 6 meters before impact, and slam itself into the side of a ship, then designing a conventional ballistic missile that can detonate within a few miles of a carrier should be a breeze, comparatively.

Also, that's assuming they want to destroy the carrier; if you wish to disable it with EMP you don't have to be even remotely accurate. When we tested a bomb in the atmosphere over Johnson Atoll IIRC, streetlights and televisions some 1400 miles away burned out in Hawaii, which prompted the atmospheric test ban treaty. Some scientists theorize that a 20 megaton warhead detonated 200 miles above Kansas would cause blackouts across the entire United States. Long story short, a nuclear attack on a carrier group wouldn't have to be accurate at all.

Originally posted by Case
1 or 2? Most subs have at least 6 torpedo tubes, and modern torpedos generally hit.

Meh, I just scaled it down because I wouldn't know what an Oberon's armament is. They could launch waterballoons full of rotten coleslaw for all I know.

[Case]

PM sent to Choke...

...however, he hasn't posted since mid September, so I'm close to declaring him another victim of the zombies/Syrians/Euro (chose the factor you consider to be your current national enemy )

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Darius871 Nonononono, you totally misunderstood my post. I wasn't talking about putting a nuke on a sea-skimming cruise missile. I meant that if they are able to design guidance systems SO precise that a missile can independently keep itself 20 meters above the surface, pull down to 6 meters before impact, and slam itself into the side of a ship, then designing a conventional ballistic missile that can detonate within a few miles of a carrier should be a breeze, comparatively.

AFAIK, there's never been a balistic missile capable of being effectively retargeted after launch. The whole 'balistic' nature of the weapons tends to act against altering their targets I think that the US and USSR both had plans for re-targetable warheads in the late 80s, but I don't think that anything came of them. This is why nuclear bombers were kept on for so long - whatever their ability to realistically penetrate the other guys defences, at least they could be recalled after launch, something which just wasn't possible with ICBMs and, to a lesser extent, submarines.

Also, that's assuming they want to destroy the carrier; if you wish to disable it with EMP you don't have to be even remotely accurate.

I take it that you're working on the assumption that the USN doesn't harden its warships electronics? All the carriers were designed to fight World War Three, and AFAIK, they'd be hardened, as are the aircraft. I vaugely recall reading something about the costs of hardening the USS George H. Bush being greater then expected, so I guess that this is still ongoing.

[Choke]

Ok...I need to read the thread a bit and then I'll play my turn, my ISP cut me off, that's why I was MIA but I'm back and better than ever

[Case]

Good to see you Choke. All the game files are now uploaded at: http://apolyton.net/upload/files/Case/Dragon.zip

[Choke]

Under the new consolidated administration of Saddam Hussein, the Arab League would like to assure our allies of continued support. However the President would like to express his concern at the violence along the border with Russia and would like to see the war come to an end acceptable to all parties involved. Therefore this month a cease-fire was signed with field officers of the Russian armed forces, President Hussein hopes President Putin will ratify a permanent peace treaty, of course terms of said treaty are negotiable.

This month Arab positions along the border with Russia were heavily fortified in case President Putin makes poor choices.

[Darius871]

We congratulate the new Arab government for its devotion to peace. Surely the NATO will not continue their war alone.