U Sank My Carrier!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Theben
I think that the exercise should prompt some sort of review of current doctrine.

Of at least keep us from sending cariers into the PG.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
you can sink a carrier if you want to...enough zealots that want to kill them self will do the trick...but for the rest it is pretty safe execpt from close by shot missiles...where nobody has enough time to react. cruise missiles from diesel subs

Canadian subs have sunk US Nuclear Carriers in wargames.

[Theben]

Goody for you.

[Asher]

The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

1960s vintage subs, at that...

[Theben]

It's not hard for a sub to sink a ship, including a carrier w/ escort.

[Saras]

Aren't Oberons nuclear?

[Asher]

Nope: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/rn/submarine/oberon/

[SpencerH]

Can anyone tell me what weaponry a 'fishing boat' carries that could sink a carrier?

[Asher]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Can anyone tell me what weaponry a 'fishing boat' carries that could sink a carrier?

Bombs? Explosives?

[DeathByTheSword]

diesel subs ARE quieter then nuclear ones...and except if the entire fleet is on ASW patrol then it can get near a carrier with ease...just like the what the canadians did...although the oberon submarines are not the quiestest in the world IMO

[Patroklos]

But if in the Gulf they could employ F&Fs. Can't jam those, and can be fired from relatively close range.

The only real missile threat are 802s, and they are countered very well ny Standard IIs and IIIs.

It is volume that may win, which is why Iran needs suprise otherwise we will have closed ranks on that as well.

Right now the biggest threat from Iran is small boats and jet skis, but that is because on our current footing it is easy to swarm isolated vessels.

If we are on a combat footing and killign everything that comes withing 500 yards this is not a problem.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Patroklos


HAHAHAHA

And what was the lesson from that war? That the British needed full scale carriers.

This article is ridiculous.

The British fleet was not 'shredded', but the losses during the Falklands war clearly identified the threat to surface fleets (which had not been previously recognized) posed by the exocet-type missles. It was only after the Falklands that the radar-controlled gatlings were fitted in order to provide ANY defense (at that time) against that threat.

The second lesson was the lethal flammability of the modern warships. IIRC nobody expected that a strike by a single exocet would sink a modern warship (and they did not - the resulting fire did).

I'm guessing that the strikes against the fleet in this wargame were provided by silkworm-type attacks from small patrol craft. You may downplay the results, but based on my experience I would not. Sure they might be bogus, but I've had too much first hand experience with the ostrich-like behaviour of the command staff to discount them.

PS we have a poster here who was there but I cant remember the name.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Asher

Bombs? Explosives?

It was a rhetorical question. The answer is nothing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm guessing that the strikes against the fleet in this wargame were provided by silkworm-type attacks from small patrol craft.

Aren't those missiles rather large to fit on a small craft?

[Patroklos]

It is also notable that the carrier battle group in most excersise did not have its own submarine for defence.

They are also not actually firing torpedoes, which means all the sub does is get in range and then declare the target dead, and they tell you this hours or days later so if you kill an escort everyone just goes on its merry way instead of hunting you down and you just go to the next ship. Such excersises only confirm the ability of subamarines to sneak up on the target. They do not simulate the fact that once you fire you are probobly going to die, and the fact that torpedoes are not the hardest thing for surface ships to evade.

The biggest threat from subs are actually sub surface launched anti-ship missiles.