American carrier sunk in the Pacific

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm pretty sure that modern torpedos have a range greater than 10,000 yards. I think that 30,000 is more usual.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Arrian
One would hope that, given that this was a joint excercise, that exactly how the sub evaded detection has been analyzed by the US Navy. That way, in 15 years or so, after multiple cost overruns, we will get a countermeasure.

-Arrian

There is no countermeasure. Carriers are noisy beasts. No attempt is made to decieve their presence. It's up to the other ships and helicopters to find the subs.

But really, naval warfare is so 20th century.

[Dis]

Re: Re: American carrier sunk in the Pacific

Originally posted by BeBro


I heard similar stories with German subs. These stories say as well they sent the US ship pics made through the periscope that indicated they were in "strike distance". Not sure if it's true or legend

I'm no expert, but I read some of those diesel subs are more difficult to find than the big nuclear subs.

diesal subs can be quieter if they are run properly. As an electric motor and battery produce no noise. The only noise they make is the sound of the screw in the water (and water rushing over the hull). But with a nuclear plant you have reactor coolant pumps, steam turbines, various seawater pumps, and of course the big ass main feed pumps.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm pretty sure that modern torpedos have a range greater than 10,000 yards. I think that 30,000 is more usual.

30000 yards comes to about 17 miles. I doubt that

1. you would have much of a lock on your target at that range OR
2. that a torpedo fired at the limits of its range would have much of a chance. If the torpedo was detected at all early ( and I understand they can be quite noisy at top speed)-- The torpedo would end up in a stern chase when already near the limits of its range. I would think a sub would have to account for a few miles the target could run

[Flubber]

Oh and I looked up specs on torpedos . .. Thios is wiki so take it as such

General characteristics
Manufacturer: BAE Systems Underwater Systems
Speed: 81 knots (150 km/h) at high speed setting
Range: 54 km (30 nautical miles) at low speed, 23 km (12.5 nautical miles) at high speed
Length: 7 m (23 ft)
Diameter: 533 mm (21 in)
Weight: 1850 kg (4075 lb)
Warhead: 300 kg (660 lb) directed energy
Power plant: Sundstrand gas-turbine
Fuel: Otto fuel II
Guidance system: Wire guided with active terminal homing sonar
First deployed: 1992
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearfish_torpedo"


The range at low speed and the overall top speed were impressive. It seems if you can just locate the general location of a carrier group at a range of 15-20 miles, you could send a bunch of these at low speed in the general direction before going for a high speed run.

[Patroklos]

There would definitely parameters to the exercise.

This is no slight against the Swedish sailors, I am sure they are very good.

However, there is nothing to gain from a Swedish/US meeting exercise, what good does it do if every one ends with the attacking sub/plane/surface ship dieing at the limit of someone’s torp/missile/gun range every exercise.

Naval commanders are not very coy about using the best weapon every time, so if exercises were always unregulated meeting engagements there would never be a chance to test secondary or tertiary weapon systems (point defense, overboard torps, chaff). Usually you are trying to test a specific aspect of a unit or forces capability. The scenario will be tailored, with either handicaps or advantages given to units, to ensure the thing being tested actually happens.

See the Daring thread, the Brits made us operate without radar for a day so the York and ANZAC could have a turn shooting down planes. I spent a month in the Bahamas in November going back and forth between islands, same route, day after day, to make sure the sub captains had chances to practice firing torpedoes (that was the point of the exercise).

It gets really frustrating because you sit there in CIC shouting "I can see the ****er, let me shoot him," or conversely "of course the ****er got me, I couldn't use my damn radars."

My favorite was a few weeks back when a training team member walked onto our quarterdeck while I was on watch and told me an my team we were dead, and soon after four other guys with red guns ran across the brow. The idea was to test the reaction of our security forces, ie the ones that would man up if a forced penetration of the ship was made, which they can't do if I waste all of them on the brow (which is the likely outcome). It is understandable, but frustrating.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Flubber

Fuel: Ottok fuel II

[Patroklos]

I'm no expert, but I read some of those diesel subs are more difficult to find than the big nuclear subs.

On average, the newer European diesel subs are more quiet than the American nukes, as well as their own. The problem is that diesel subs are very limited in range while being that quiet, basically restricted to the litorals, and all but the very newest have to spend significant time on the surface recharging batteries and swapping air.

The American fleet projects power to foreign litorals and the blue water, diesels are good at what they do but the wrong tool for this. If you look at Europe during the cold war, which is where their diesel tech edge comes from, diesel subs were perfect for their needs. The Brits and Americans were worried abou the Greenland/Iceland/UK gap and keeping the flow of forces moving while most of the other NATO allies were worried about operations in the restricted waters of the Baltic/Med/Norwiegen coast.

I believe the Seawolf and Virginia class submaries are just as quiet or more quiet than the new diesels. They are not the bulk of the sub fleet though, and they are also a generation ahead in many aspects so not a fair comparison

[Unspeakable Horror]

Submarinos

[Dinner]

The US has bought one or two Swedish diseal electric subs and has them being tested at the submarine base here in San Diego. The US isn't going to deploy any diseal subs but most of our likely enemies will and since the Swedes make the best diseal subs (most other powers that can have switched to nuclear power) they get a lot of face time.

[Asher]

All sailors are gay -- especially submariners.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flubber
2. that a torpedo fired at the limits of its range would have much of a chance. If the torpedo was detected at all early ( and I understand they can be quite noisy at top speed)-- The torpedo would end up in a stern chase when already near the limits of its range. I would think a sub would have to account for a few miles the target could run

It also depends on how fast the carrier group is moving. If they move at a respectable speed they can't hear anything until it's too late. Esp if the torpedo can go at 81 knots

[Dinner]

The helicopters can drop sonar bouys in rings around the carrier group so that it is nearly impossible to sneak up on them. I suspect there were restrictions in this war game designed to even things out for the Swedes.

[Verto]

Swedes sink American carrier during game; fail to make up for centuries of insignficance.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos


It gets really frustrating because you sit there in CIC shouting "I can see the ****er, let me shoot him," or conversely "of course the ****er got me, I couldn't use my damn radars."

I've heard somethingsimiliar shouted over Net15 when we realised a Kaman had been following us in the GOO.