Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??
Herc the merc    1/19/2005 11:00:27 AM
Which torpedoes or cruise missiles could do this effectively, or would it require several. Some of the ASHM simply do not have the fire power to do it alone, torpedoes are also small, and the subs can be detected. Whats the best plan??
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31   NEXT
fitz    RE:Nagato and Belgrano - elcid   2/4/2005 7:04:50 AM
1. Plenty of highly sophisticated modern systems have come in on time, on budget and in proper working order. 2. None of that changes the fact that you made multiple statements that were completely unsupported by the evidence you used to justify them. If you do it for something as minor as the relative merits of Tigerfish, where else has this happened? 3. Your still doing it. Who said Tigerfish was useless? In your last post you keep using the term "useless" to describe my opinion of Tigerfish. Where did I ever use this term? Did I ever once say Tigerfish was "useless"? Please don't try to distort my arguements this way. This is why some people don't like to play with you. Tigerfish's inadequacies are legendary and well documented. It suffered from an unbelievably long development period resulting in a weapon of inadequate performance and reliability. In 1980 Tigerfish was not "brand-new" it was 21 years old and 11 YEARS BEHIND SCHEDULE (quite a lot today, an eternity in 1980). It failed its fleet acceptance trials but was procured anyway because there was nothing else! Tigerfish never hit a STATIONARY surface ship target until Sir Galahad in 1982, and then 2 out of 3 missed!! Tigerfish's production run was cut dramatically short of original plans and a replacement was concieved even before Tigerfish hit production. That GEC Marconi's sales team found 2 suckers to buy very small batches of the weapon before reality set in is testimony to the skills of the marketing department, not Tigerfish. That Tigersfish lasted in RN service until 2004 is not testimony to the effectiveness of the weapon but rather an indicator of how long it took for sufficient numbers of Spearfish to be procured for war stocks to allow its withdrawal. Nothing more. Let's hit some historical highlights. Project begun in 1959 and Project ONGAR for a BIDDER replacement. An order for 100 placed in 1967 with the RNTF. Acceptance trials in 1969 went so badly the project was re-assigned to GEC-Marconi with production by Plessey. The torpedo Tigerfish is supposed to replace is withdrawn in 1970. A second set of trials in 1973-74 showed reliability ranging wildly from 20-80%. In 1974 GEC-Marconi takes over full control of the project. In 1978 a redesigned specialist anti-ship version (Mod 1) passes trials but the primary Mod 0 vresion does not. It failed trials again in 1979 but was accepted for fleet service in 1980 anyway with a contract for 2,000 weapons. By this time its reliance on passive homing and its low speed, stemming from the original 1959 requirement were already tactically obsolete. In 1982 Tigerfish scores its first success (in trials or otherwise) against a surface target, with just 1 weapon out of 3 fired at the LSL Sir Galahad scoring a hit. In 1983 a contract is awarded for a "get-well" program. The 600 "war-stock" weapons in service were modified between 1985-87. Production would have ceased somewhere in the mid-1980's (certainly before 1987, probably before 1985) with some 788 weapons (including exports) out of a planned total of 2,000 built, the vast majority for the RN. Beyond all that, nobody I've talked to in the RN has anything kind to say about Tigerfish so I have to wonder, why do you defend it so vigorously? Is it because you buried yourself in a hole by defending it so strongly based on bad data initially that now you can't back out? Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Nagato and Belgrano - elcid   2/5/2005 1:44:43 AM
Not sure what you think I was wrong about - much less multiple misstatements about. I said Tigerfish was not used on Belgrano because the skipper of Conqs lacked faith in it - and indeed it was not used. I said I was surprised the Belgrano went down so easily - a Brooklyn should not have sunk to bow and stern hits. I was surprised. I said that modern, complex systems often have teething trouble, they do. I said that as far as I knew, Tigerfish was still operational, and cited a 2002 book, which said it was. It does. Most of all, I said that the way to sink a Nimitz is with a submarine, if you want to have a good chance. SINK is the operative word: even a great missile strike is not likely to sink her. It might send her home unfit for action, but sink is not likely. And you might prefer to use old fashioned strait runners for the job too - provided you were confident of your fire control solution. You need multiple hits, and at close range you could get them. Submarines are hard to detect. Harder than most non-specialists realize. Torpedoes are the best weapon to let water into a ship. Mines are similar, but only torpedolike mines are as likely to hit. It is rare a Nimitz will be in waters suitable for mines, unless somehow you are willing to mine her port of call. I do not know what there is more to say: Nimitz is pretty hard to sink. But I bet Tigerfish could sink her.
 
Quote    Reply

puffngrunt    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   2/5/2005 5:59:45 PM
Sad to say, all naval vessels today, with thr exception of the battleships in mothballs, are one-hit ships. It's not necessary to sink them, just hit them once to wreck the sensitive electronics gear, radios and radar. Then they are out of action for as much as three months to a year. None of the carriers can avoid a determined enemy submarine force. The navy dislikes talking about it but in nearly every exercise involving subs against carriers it wasn't the ship carrying 5000 sailors that won.
 
Quote    Reply

ronseiden    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   2/5/2005 10:29:45 PM
Nuclear cruise missile, with the added fuse such that it detonates if/when it's being destroyed. Therefore, even if it gets shot down, it's already close enough for both EMP and blast to render the ship(s) crippled, the electronics toast, and the surviving crews psychologically crippled (unless they're the kind to figure they'll die anyway, so might as well fight like rabid wolverines). 'Course, with crippled ships, even motivated crews cannot do much... The defense against this is to hope we are the only ones who can lauch nuclear cruise missles from hidden submarines far enough away. Otherwise, hope that AWACS &/or Aegis can pick up a sea-skimmer early enough...
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   2/6/2005 1:29:08 AM
The real killer of operational ships is fire. It always was the big enemy of carriers - they carry huge tanks of aviation spirit. It may be surprising, but they also carry gigantic quantities of fuel oil - even if nuclear powered! [For the escorts]. And just a fire in a pyrotechnic locker killed about 120 pilots in 1968. There are also weapons. Fire gets to the weapons, or the pyrotechnics, or the fuel, or God forbid the avgas, and you may lose the entire ship. After the 1968 fire, 1/3 of the Navy petty officers had to go to damage control school - because too many had not acted in time to save the ship. It is not quite true that submarines always win, but they are much harder to stop than is usually understood, and the statement that a determined submarine hunt would win is true, if "determined" were by an enemy with enough submarines. Another factor is what is the carrier doing? If it manages not to be predictable, it may survive. But not being predictable may mean it cannot perform its mission. If submarines cause US carriers to stand off too far East of Taiwan, they win, even without damaging a thing. So "winning" can be subtle - in Navy talk it means "perform your mission" - and that does not always require sinking ships.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   2/6/2005 1:33:03 AM
You propose a Russian concept (Ronseiden). It is called "salvage fusing." It is not guaranteed to work, but it should work often. The amount of damage you do also is not guaranteed. At a great enough range, nothing much will happen, except maybe to lookouts eyes. [The army has glasses that turn black in a nuclear situation, but the navy does not, so far as I know]. The only reason it is not a problem is that nuclear warfare is way too risky. Most - well all - officers I know with stars think it cannot be contained - that I am wrong about limited nuclear war at sea. So no one ever starts one. Lets hope no one ever does. Some things I don't want to find out who is right and who is wrong?
 
Quote    Reply

fitz    Elcid - What you got wrong, one more time, with feeling   2/6/2005 1:37:08 PM
“Not sure what you think I was wrong about - much less multiple misstatements about.” Well OK, if you want a list... Here is the quote from the 2002/03 edition of Combat Fleets, which you used as the basis for some of your arguements. A statement which you had to be prodded to reproduce I might add; MK 24 Tigerfish. Bldr: BAE Systems A wire guided torpedo for submarines. It entered service in 1980; 2,000 were on order by 1986, but its total production for the Royal Navy is said to bhave been ony about 750. Originally known as ONGAR. To improve reliability, the 600 Mod. 1 units in service were updated to Mod 2 from 1968 to mid-1988. Licences to assemble the weapon have been granted to Chile, Indonesia, and Turkey. There's the quote, so what were the arguements you based off of it? “It (Tigerfish) is produced under licence in Chile, Indonesia and Turkey.” "And it is still in production in three countries, according to the latest material I have, which I cited." No it isn't, and the above paragraph doesn't say that it is. It only mentions that production licenses were granted, not that production ever took place, which it didn't. Indeed, if you look in the respective sections of the same reference for Chile and Indonesia, you will find that not only did they NEVER produce Tigerfish under license, they never even procured it. “Certainly (Tigerfish) is listed as a current weapon by the US Naval Institute's Combat Fleets of the World" “Tigerfish is, as far as I know, still active in RN, not withdrawn." You may be excused for using outdated source material but it took me all of 30 seconds of internet browsing to determine that Tigerfish was withdrawn from RN service 1 year ago. "Combat Fleets says (it is in) production." No it doesn't. Where in that paragraph does it say Tigerfish is in production? "Plans to buy thousands as late as 1986 testify to some confidence in the system." Actually, it seems that NOT PRODUCING the weapon in the planned thousands and procuring the replacement for Tigerfish from 1988 testify to a decided LACK OF CONFIDENCE in the system. Your own source indicated a total production run of ONLY 750, far short of the 2,000 weapons planned. Successful weapons are often procured in GREATER quantity than originally planned, not dramatically less. And no you can't blame the end of the Cold War because Tigerfish production for the RN ceased at the height of it, not after it ended. Other points fleshed out from the same discussion; "It would not have remained in RN service until 2004 were it useles either." Nobody ever said it was USELESS, so why did you make this arguement? This was not a point of discussion and its a bit deceptive for you to try and twist your opponents arguements in that way. As for why it remained in service until 2004 that might have more to due with the time needed to procure sufficient replacement weapons rather than any confidence in Tigerfish itself. Though not related to the above source material, you made some other interesting arguements as well. For example, depending on your mood apparently you are prone either to argue that simnple weapons (ie: unguided) are best and at other times that "modern" (ie; sophisticated) weapons are. “I was taught by the Marines not to be too impressed with fancy technical things, and to trust simple and reliable weapons.” "It is hard to evaluate the claims for modern torpedoes, in the absense of combat tests. But so far, as a class, they have been disappointing. I am not particularly surprised Tigerfish shares this fate." "They (unguided torpedo's) may not be as good as their advocates believe, but they will rarely fail 100% as they did fail the Argentines in 1981." As I pointed out, it was not a torpedo problem that plagued San Luis in 1982 (not 1981) and the problem would have had the same result on old, dumb, reliable unguided torpedo’s as it did on fancy modern ones. "It is not yet clear that modern torpedoes are combat effective. But I bet some of them are." "If Tigerfish indeed was fixed, I bet it will work today. And I bet it is a lot more effective than a dumb torpedo ever was." And lastly this strange little gem, from a discussion in which I stated Tigerfish’s performance specs were obsolete by the time she was introduced, and which I found especially odd coming from a guy who claims to have been (or is still) an engineer; “Just being old and big and slow does not mean it has no utility, if you use it with skill.” So being too slow to CATCH THE TARGET is OK, as long as you are clever about it? And using a detection method inappropriate to the target being engaged is OK too, so long as you are skillful while failing to find the target? Yeah, that works. You play loose with your facts, trust dubious sources and believe everything you read, so long as it supports your pre-concieved notions.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Elcid - What you got wrong, one more time, with feeling   2/6/2005 2:38:28 PM
I don't have the current editions of reference books because I find the internet an acceptable substitute. In spite of the fact that sometimes the data is not perfectly current, or perfectly accurate. I don't think that it makes sense to have a production licence you don't have the slightest intention to use and I am not sure if you know what you are talking about in that respect? But I have more experience with electronics, aircraft and missile systems than with torpedoes, so you might be correct. I see no reason to be insulting, as you are doing. "With feeling" no less. The point of this thread is long lost by this tangent. Who cares if Tigerfish was finally withdrawn after more than two decades of service so reciently it has not yet made the standard USNI reference? It is neither a great nor a terrible weapon, as weapons systems go. You are the one being unreasonable not to admit that. Many (not all) weapons have problems, for a while. Many naval and other weapons have been cut back, and had their lives shortened, in the post Cold War era. Are we to believe they all are terrible? I don't mind being given more current information, or the benefit of experience about practice if you have any of either. But that does not mean that the things I said were wrong in the sense you are trying to say they were wrong. I see little point in mentioning the production arrangements if they were of no significance, particularly in a brief item. I see no point in saying such mention probably meant something is horribly wrong - even if it is wrong. It is not an unreasonable understanding of the material. Why are you so defensive? Have you lost so many points in argument you must win one or two or three from me? Let me give you at least one: I never doubted you were honest. I never checked beyond Combat Fleets for the data - instead I believed you found what you said you found. And you said Tigerfish was withdrawn at the beginning of 2004. I did qualify what I said - according to the most current data in the most current reference of USNI - and that means I did not misstate the fact. But you did give me a more current fact which I had the good grace to accept and believe without requiring verification. Happy?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Elcid - What you got wrong, one more time, with feeling   2/6/2005 2:45:18 PM
I do not accept your opinion of San Luis problems. I have the data from the horses mouth (the captain) and from his enemy's mouth (Sandy Woodward). I don't know why you don't think the people who were there - or people like me who have collected almost everything written about that conflict - know what happened? But odds are, we do and you do not. However, I would read any material you care to cite. Since you demanded citation verbatum from me - and didn't then apologize {YOU said it didn't say Tigerfish was operational, and it did] - it is interesting you didn't even offer the cite. I did that unasked up front, and then in detail on demand. I don't think the material in several books and articles and papers is all wrong - but it might be. It is hard to evaluate based on your assertion alone. I was trained by a US Army historian to believe the eyewitnesses, so I do. But all evidence is relative. If you have any, other than rumor, how about citing it?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Elcid - What you got wrong, one more time, with feeling   2/6/2005 2:49:58 PM
Double standard. YOU cited an older edition of Combat Fleets. I cited the current one. We used the same source, only mine was more current. How is that "dubious sources?" Or perhaps the interview with San Luis captian in the USNI Proceedings is a "dubious source?" Or perhaps the various British and Argentine histories, half of which I cited by name? I have yet to see YOUR undubious sources cited, except the out of date Combat Fleets. I think you have a chip on your shoulder and I am not impressed. Back down. You are throwing charges without justification. You got sources, impress everyone and cite them. Don't just insult on the basis of "if you disagree with me you must believe junk." And while you are at it, get back to the thread topic.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics