U Sank My Carrier!

[el freako]

Sub Carriers

Why not just fill the Subs with Cruise missiles instead?

If you were to replace the Nuke silos in a boomer with vertical-launch Cruise missiles instead then the capacity would be huge - I'm guessing that it could launch 3-4 salvo's of 60+ missiles each which is probably enough to overwhelm most ships defences.

The only problem would be tracking the target, but with satellite or awac's type uplinks that should not be a problem.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by el freako


The only problem would be tracking the target, but with satellite or awac's type uplinks that should not be a problem.

Isn't the problem for most subs that such uplinks increase their detectability by quite a lot??

[Dis]

I wish the original article went into details how they sunk the carriers. Is this really true?

I imagine it is true. The carriers are targets. But as the war in afghanistan showed, we really needed them. We can't always rely on ground based landing strips. We need to get our planes to remote locations. Sure we had bombers in Diego Garcia, but they aren't enough.

or the article is suggesting we go away from manned aircraft completely, and rely on missiles. That may be the way to go. but how would hollywood come up with movie ideas for unmanned missiles? Great movies like the upcoming movie: Stealth, would never happen. I was being sarcastic, that movie looks like crap.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Senethro
hay guyz surface navy pwns amirite we shud spend more $$$ on big boats nothing to learn from wargames at all

WOO AMERICA NUMBER ONE!1

I'm not American so patriotism (blind or otherwise) is not part of this for me. Sure they need to learn from the wargames.

I still think if a carrier group is cruising 500miles offshore and seriously is willing to enforce an exclusion zone, nothing non-nuclear should get them.

But if you start dinking around among islands with hostile weapons or allowing vessels a few miles off, most of those surface ships are just big fat targets

[Frankychan]

The Japanese were in the process of making sub carriers in WW2. I'm not really sure if one was built.



But yeah, the practicality of sub carriers is probably nil. But would get an 'A' for creativity.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Flubber

Isn't the problem for most subs that such uplinks increase their detectability by quite a lot??

I would think it would increase their detecablility slightly if they are recieving data and only by a lot if they are also transmitting
Bear in mind that this would be over 100nm from the carrier group anyways.

AFAIK the Japanese sub-carriers were designed for recon work not for attacking.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Flubber



I'm not American so patriotism (blind or otherwise) is not part of this for me. Sure they need to learn from the wargames.

I still think if a carrier group is cruising 500miles offshore and seriously is willing to enforce an exclusion zone, nothing non-nuclear should get them.

But if you start dinking around among islands with hostile weapons or allowing vessels a few miles off, most of those surface ships are just big fat targets

you can't always have the luxery of being 500 miles offshore. The persian gulf is the best example here. Since most of our wars involve the persian gulf.

I've been there many times on the USS Enterprise and the USS Guam.

First of all you have to travel through the Suez canal. We were nothing but targets there. The Egyptians run things pretty well there. Then the Straights of Hormuz. I'm not sure if that's the correct name. I can't find it on a map. There are 2 straigths. One by Yemen and Ethiopia we passed by. And then another by Iran and United Arab Emrites. Not to mention the persian gulf itself is not that big.

edit: and I didn't count the straihts of Gibralter. it's by europe and N. Africa- a little more peaceful region of the world. But it's still a vulnerable spot.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Frankychan
The Japanese were in the process of making sub carriers in WW2. I'm not really sure if one was built.



But yeah, the practicality of sub carriers is probably nil. But would get an 'A' for creativity.

I'm thinking they were supposed to attack the Panama channel, take it out of use for some time, thus hampering US naval actions.

Originally posted by 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.

Don't they have training torpedoes? Torps without warheads, that go PLONK! and release color or smoke or something when they hit?

[DanS]

I wish the original article went into details how they sunk the carriers. Is this really true?

As I recall (hazily), mostly it was using boats similar to the one that got the USS Cole operating in or near the Straight of Hormuz.

At the time, this war game and its outcome got considerable play in the Washington press. The protest seemed to be treated seriously in the Pentagon.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dis


you can't always have the luxery of being 500 miles offshore. The persian gulf is the best example here. Since most of our wars involve the persian gulf.

I'm aware of that. The Gulf gives you nowhere to move, lots of traffic around and only one small exit. A carrier group in there should perhaps commadeer a bunch of supertankers (preferably empty) to serve as a screen


I'm betting the naval commaders hate being within range of so many ground based radars; it must be nearly impossible to hide

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lancer
Should we switch to cessnas and fishing boats? I'd say doctrine does have to change. Keep the big ships out of a body of water like the persian gulf. I think they would do just fine in the open ocean. They like the sexy platforms for launching airstrikes, and they are good platforms, but only when the enemy doesn't know where they are. That means you need alot of water to get lost in.

yeah but we need to go to the persian gulf for our wonderful port calls of Bahrain and United Arab Emrites. .

hey, at least Bahrain had alcohol in the hotels.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Patroklos


When manned up for point defense we (a DDG) have two 25mm, 4 to 6 .50cals, 3 M60s, one M79, and 2 topside rovers with M14s.

Then there are the two phalanx mounts for point aircraft/missile defense (some are modified to be manuelly trained on surface targets) and the 5" turret.

And lets not forget the various Standard Missiles for air defense as well...

I'm sure things are different now (after the Cole), but when I was on the Enterprise, our ship was completely defenseless. No one manned .50 cal guns. I don't even think the gunners mates knew how to shoot them. No one on board has any weapons of any sort (except the marine detachement which has now been disbanded and security division which keeps their weapons locked up at all time except when loading money in the vending machines- I know because I did TAD in security division)

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They're still useful in Civ.

not in civ3

[Shi Huangdi]

IIRC(and I might not), this wargame was conducted prior to the Invasion of Iraq in preperation from it. And IIRC, our fleet was not sunk.

[Tattila the Hun]

That's just what Pentagon wants you to believe.