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 ...
The aircraft carrier gained ascendancy over the battleship in WWII, as signalized by the attack on Pearl Harbor, now almost 70 years ago. Although it maintains an impressive aspect, just as the battleship did at that time, its vulnerability to new weapons and capabilities is obvious. One can only hope that the proof of this will not be given in some vain display of imagined invulnerability.
I think that AEGIS can off set this threat a little.
Yeah. I shouldn’t be so vain as to believe that my thinking is ahead of the USN ! But I am a worrier.
I have great trust in our intelligence and technology.
During Viet Nam, the Russians had, IIRC, five COMARS. They were subs that targeted carriers.
Four of them were despatched immediately, with the fifth finding it’s ultimate fate a tad later.
I believe we will be able to take care of those threats.
I do not blame you for worrying at all. China may have a operational DF-21 carrier killing missile.
Well then we have to determine and knock out the guidance systems that support it.
I do too have complete faith in our technology and intelligence, but as of right now there is no proven defense against it. The SM-3 is touted to be the antidote but it has not been tested for this type of warfare. the SM-3 is only rated for ballistic missiles. This new missile that the Chinese has the capability to manuver around defenses.
These missiles are independent. All the guidance is in the nose of the missile. The only thing, in the case of the Chinese DF-21 carrier killer would be over the horizon radar stations.
Posted yesterday...
From what I have read, the DF-21 will be dependent on guidance for both ground and sea based tracking. Otherwise they would be packing an awful lot of systems into a warhead.
So...how did the Chinese get this technology? Is it considered stealth?
I know...dumb question, I just want to make sure of what you are talking about. ;o)
We lost six carriers to enemy action {sank} in WW2. The Langley, Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, and Princeton. The threat was always there and always will be. The more modern systems built by enemies to sink one the more modern system we should build to detect and counter. The Pentagon needs to get on the ball about defense programs. We played cat and mouse with Russia for years with carriers and subs. Of course we had helos and S-3 Vikings devoted as carrier based anti-submarine {detection} aircraft.
A carrier is still the fastest way to get a fully equipped/operational and supported multitask air response from one part of the word to another in the shortest time frame. When a carrier arrives the airbase is there and ready to go as is about 70 aircraft. The Air Force is great at getting long range bombers from here say to the Middle East in short order. We've made some huge strategic blunders Navy wise including fleet reductions. We are well below 300 ships the lowest since before WW2
. One mistake was ending the two carrier 24/7/365 presence in the MED SEA. Another is the decrease in available west coast carriers in the event Suez is blocked. Yet another was downgrading the Navy Fighter program by ending F-14 production. We had the perfect mouse trap. Now we have a compromise. BTW we went from 1967 to 1981 without a carrier transiting the Suez canal.
There is no such ship as an unsinkable ship or an undetectable one either for that matter. It is a matter of lack of national will to rebuild our defense forces. Try to design a new aircraft and 50 idiots in congress will hold it up a decade deciding who's state gets the contract.
Good question.I really do not think what the chinese have right now stealth technology. Stealth is not a single technology. Stealth comes from multiple technologies. Varying degrees of stealth can be achieved. I think that the Chinese had multiple sources. The biggesr source was the F-117 being shot down over Serbia. This gave the Russians and the Chinese the rudementary basics of stealth technology.That was their roadmap. We have pictures of Serbs picking at the wreckage. Personally, I really do not think there is a 100% Stealth plane. You can pick up the plane through its exhaust, there are new radar techniques out there that can pick them up on radar.There this theory out there that geomagnetism or magnetism can pick up planes.
This is why we need to constantly refining our technology to be one step ahead.
The DF-21 carrier missile may resemble a Pershing missile.
The Chinese do not have a stealth plane. They only have the rudimentary basics of stealth.
We need to turn out some diesel subs fast and train the crews. We need to expand the Nuke sub program afterward.
At a minimum we need two conventional carriers built on the knowledge obtained from SINKEX of CV 66 as a new class conventional. Again this is a matter of addressing mass causalities and training replacements fast.
Last thing and important. We need another carrier shipbuilder located somewhere besides Tidewater Ops area. Our current carriers also need to be dispersed to places like Mayport or build at least one berth in another city besides Norfolk, Virginia. Rosie Roads perhaps? Never place all your eggs in one basket and NEVER berth 4-5 carriers in a row at the same base.
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.