Posted on 01/31/2011 10:41:10 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
On the American ballistic submarine USS Maine in waters off the Florida coast not too long ago, two submariners eyed a U.S. aircraft carrier through their periscope in the roiling sea. “I think it’s the Washington,” one submariner said. “It doesn’t matter — it doesn’t know we’re here,” the other replied, eyeing the carrier through the scope. “Bang,” he said. “You’re dead.”
In the submarine world, carriers, like other surface ships, represent targets. But lately U.S. aircraft carriers have appeared to be growing more vulnerable to threats deployed from under the sea and in the air.
And those threats have to be taken even more seriously, given recent U.S. government reports about the advancements made in some of those weapons and questioning the carrier fleet’s ability to protect itself.
For example, a report released this month by the Pentagon Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) calls into question development of the self-defense systems for carriers and other surface ships. If a missile or torpedo were to break through a carrier group’s other defenses, the carrier itself could be quite vulnerable (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 25).
So, what are the chances of getting such a shot on a carrier? One of the biggest threats for carriers — and most other surface ships — is a submarine, and the old maxim says the best way to best a sub is with another sub. But the DOT&E report raises questions about the newest U.S. Virginia-class attack subs when they operate in the same waters as diesel-electric Kilo-class subs, one of the quietest and most popular submarines in the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at aviationweek.com ...
Avionics are the mainstay of stealth. A slick airframe combined with super radar detection computers.
Your tagline is cousins with mine ...
In a pinch couldn’t you pull nuke qualified sailors from the swap out crews on the Ohio class boats?
I think the answer has to be, "eventually, yes." Why not have UAV refueling craft and a whole array of smaller UAV's able to loiter where a carrier goes now?
Our aircraft carriers have been in the periscope sights of communist submarines since...oh, I don’t know, the early Sixties when the Soviets made a big splash about following the USS Saratoga with one of their subs for a few days.
All surface ships are vulnerable to submarines...all of them. It boils down to how much resources are being applied to protect those surface ships via ASW technology.
If anything, we are letting ASW wither, and that is the danger.
I have seen that first paragraph of the article printed over and over and over again in a multitude of different ways for the last 40 years, but surface ships still find a way to be useful.
Yep looks like it.
The US Navy has been facing this type of threat for years. Anti-ship missiles are nothing new, especially missiles that are dependent on external guidance (such as an aircraft or ship to illuminate the target)
The threat is real, but what is more of a threat is our determination to water down our military capability to the point if a shooting war comes, our personnel, equipment readiness, technology and training will be inadequate, and people will die.
Or current administration and Democrat party is more interested in turkey basters for lesbians and bailing out unions than it is in providing funds to develop, deploy and use advanced ASW assets.
If a shooting war comes, and our military and the systems used are incapable of meeting the threat, there won’t be time to “catch up”.
Interesting... I could swear I saw the Washington 4 hours ago here in Japan! That must be a powerful periscope if it can see from the Atlantic all the way to the Sea of Japan where the Washington is stationed.
Possibly but for how long? It takes minimal 18 months for Nuke school alone then you have to do PQS for watch. In that time you can take an 18 year old with no A school and do On Job Training and have an experienced BT or MM. I read a few years back that the Boiler Tech rating is gone. Going back to both Nuke and conventional operation allows for more ships and faster training.
There is also an issue of our nuke fleet being ran ragged. The idea a nuke powered ship can deploy indefinately is a myth. It can't go much longer than a conventional without needed downtime in the yards. The only real advantage is fueling issues for the most part carrier wise. Both ships are actually still steamers as far as turning the screws go. Nuke power is simply the means to generate heat like a DFM boiler was. The reactor might take the abuse of skipping needed yard time but the auxillary systems won't.
I hope our nuke fleet isn't being done like our conventional fleet was. Meaning shorted on funds for yard time and corners cut. Rickover was a PITA but he insisted on high standards in his program. We have a 50 year old nuclear powered carrier. That's pushing the envelope in all respects reactor wise and hull wise.
Message to bubbleheads: If you start an exercise in perfect position near a cvbg then yes you have a good chance. In the real world how did you "sneak" into position at a quiet 7 knots from 1000 NM away?
In other words, all the things I said
You are so right. Sending ships out for long cruises will really show later down the road. The JFK was a prime example of cutting out yard periods and the poor girl had to limp out of port on its last cruise, after the head shed got the axe for not having it ready for deployment. Those officers paid the professional price for a bunch of bad decisions made at the flag level. A totally raw deal.
Thank you for your posts! After watching the Chinese Olympics, I will believe nothing that comes from that country...not economically and, especially, not militarily.
That is one huge “photoshopped” country.
“The biggest source was the F-117 being shot down over Serbia.”
That’s the incident of which I was thinking. However, that was eons ago, technologically speaking. Things have changed dramatically since then.
There was no excuse for the Pentagon or congress shorting the ships the way congress and the Pentagon and even several presidents did from 1989-even through the present. I wish links in my Bookmarks still worked many of them tell the story about the deliberate gutting of our Navy and lack of funding for required for readiness upkeep.
My late uncle was a Gator Freighter C.O. back in the late 60's. He and I discussed the Kitty Hawk and JFK issues following 9/11. He put it in terms I understood as well as he. "How can a ship flunk INSURV and Fail Lite Offs? The Navy won't let you flunk."
Meaning several things. Even in the problems of the late 1970's carriers stood mission ready. We might have been missing some non mission critical parts but the ships got underway and Readiness Inspections were passed. Yard repairs were done like clockwork. You were due you went. Only one exception I remember and that was late October or November 1979 in the Iranian Hostage Crisis. All ships in port went on alert. We were to head into Portsmouth in a week or so for a year long overhaul. We had already lost a MMR and #5 electrical switchboard from a DFT water line rupture. It sprayed the switchboard and melted it sometime I think on the 79 MED. A bad event with a no injury outcome.
It took half the evening to decide which carriers would deploy. It came down to JFK drawing the short straw IIRC and we hit the yards. We could have made the deployment likely but it would not have been wise. What finally did the AMERICA in was being ran ragged in a little over three years time on three six month deployments to the IO/PG. Third time the came back there was an explosion in The Hole pierside. The third deployment withour repairs should not have ever happened, The Command Master Chief I was told by a fellow Freeper and a U.S. New and World Report article states senior enlisted had written his congressman that conditions were deplorable. Two of six generators operational, Fuel pumping issues, no radar, to name a few. This was in early 1993. I know with two of six generators operational indeed there would be no electronics. No cooling no electronics. Two generators operational underway=no cooling. Cooling spaces was my job.
Our Navy and I'll go as far as saying our military immediately after Reagan left office went on a fast downward turn from which it has yet to recover. I don't mean this against the service member I mean it related the downsizing and funding cuts made in maintenance and key programs. Added to that came the low End Troop Strengths of which we are still at 1996 levels and running two wars.
It was as much the doing of Poppy Bush administration as it was Clinton and congress. The numbers don't lie and I've checked the ships in service losses in those time frames. The downsizing continued all the way though W's term as well. The GOP two house majority did nothing to help either. If things don't turn around fast what military we do have left will be ran to death.
Stimulus to create jobs? Here's one. Require all defense needs from socks, jeeps, trucks, weapons, rounds, to electronics and planes etc be manufactured in the USA by American owned companies. Only rare metals etc and needed earth elements only available in outside nations be the exception. Foreign outsourcing of our own defense needs is national suicide.
Anyone conviced of giving away or selling defense technology or technology which could be used against us in war to nations like China should do life in prison without parole. If their sale or giving of information is critical systems info which would aid them to develop that equipment I say death penalty. The way the Dems and GOP have ran things national defense and military wise the past 20 years is not working nor can it stand much longer.
I agree here, if the carrier is becoming so outmoded, why are the chins planning on building five of them, not to mention that they would more than likely be quite inferior to those of the USN.
As I understand it, the soviet subs took quite a beating during the cuban missile crisis. None lost but nevertheless a beating.
The aircraft carrier rules the sea, so it won’t be outmoded anytime soon. Subs are great for underwater stuff, but their range is limited. Carriers have planes that can be very far reaching.
China has a propaganda machine that is in full overdrive right now. They want to distract us, IMO.
I might even be so bold as to say they are a Paper Tiger...but, then, maybe not. ;o)
I agree about them being a paper tiger, they have a bad track record. The last action was against Viet Nam and they got sent packing. And when you watch their propaganda of their viscious J-10 shooting down old film clips of USAF drone aircraft and movie action, it doesn’t exactly make one run for the bathroom. They haven’t gone after Taiwan yet because they know that the Taiwanese will take the war to them if they start something. And that they are not prepared for.
To figure out the Chinese, all you have to do is look at the way they spruced up the city for the games. The store fronts weren’t as pretty and modern as they led us to believe. They had facades on them...it was all propaganda, and they weren’t smart enough to think that we would be able to figure out that stupid attempt at deception.
To tell you the truth, I’ve found it interesting that, under our present regime, they haven’t gone after Taiwan yet in a serious way. This is their perfect opportunity, just as it is in the middle east for the Islamofascists.
The chins nor the islamfacists haven’t made a move because both the Taiwanese and the Israelis are motivated by a common denominator, Survival! I liken it to one of the scenes in Rocky II when apollo asks his trainer why he thinks that he should pass on a rematch. “I saw you beat that man the way no other man has been beat, And he just kept coming after you. We don’t need that kinda man in our life”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.