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
elcid    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   1/22/2005 7:20:56 AM
I do not expect PRC to initiate nuclear warfare. China has the closest thing in history to a moral nuclear policy. It went into the NW business after TWICE being threatened with nuclear attack, and its goals were always limited to deterring such threats in future. It explicitly called for an end to nuclear weapons, and it (long unilaterally) committed to not use nuclear weapons (or threaten to use them) against non nuclear armed nations. The program was too expensive for China to afford, and it compromised, building a decidedly minimal nuclear force with strictly limited capabilities (and corresponding low costs). There has been some consideration given to evolving from minimum deterrence to limited deterrence, but the price tag has on every review been regarded as too high to pay. Instead, vast sums are being invested in thoroughly CONVENTIONAL forces, forces lacking even in chemical weapons capability. Chinese ideas about nuclear weapons are driven, as always, by American ones. China thinks about EMP weapons and neutron bombs because WE think about them. But it is all very academic and not particularly feasable in terms of fielded forces, even if the USA were not a major nuclear power. Given that USA IS a major nuclear power, I don't expect any nonsense. China's military leaders are conservative and pessimistic. They are not likely to take risks of that sort. IMHO.
 
Quote    Reply

jarkeld    Mines   1/23/2005 2:24:08 PM
Mines are best option in my view I dont see any torpedo being able to hit a nimitz. The challenge of shooting down a anti ship missile is much harder in my view then building a counter torpedo torpedo. Nothing is talked about publicly in regards to these systems but I would be stunned if US carriers were not equiped with them. A mine has advantage of being stealthy where as a torpedo rattling through water at 40+ knots isnt and if torpedo is going less then 40 knots carrier can just simply out run it.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   1/23/2005 9:09:17 PM
Okay Folks, Lets look at what would be needed: 1. large number of attack aircraft to overmatch the carrier and its airwing plus more to overcome the CVBG airdefense. 2. a nuke has limited affects on such vessels only a hit would destroy aircraft carrier 3. overmatching subsurface forces and surface forces 4. all would need to be coordinated in a single attack 5. enemy losses would number ten to twenty subs; 300 aircraft; and unknown number of ships 6. These are estimates of a single CVBG fighting over Taiwan Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

andyf    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   1/23/2005 9:47:35 PM
done it plenty of times in Harpoon. the trick is to make a hole in the defences..nail the aegis defences with a couple of long range torp shots. then attack with air stand off or sit a diesel , running silent, in the path of the carrier group. when they get close, fire at the carrir and its aegis escorts. mop up with air
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Mines   1/23/2005 11:50:21 PM
Jarkeld - Your theories do sound reasonable, but they are not informed by history or operational realities. Ironically, you have it exactly backwards. It is mines that cannot hit a carrier (basically) and would surely not sink one if they did hit it. It is torpedoes that have the best chance because torpedoes can be used in numbers, and only a number of hits might sink her - probably by capsizing. You are, however, on the right track in one respect: mines and torpedoes DO let water into a ship. It is water that sinks ships. Guns, bombs and missiles mainly let air into a ship - and air does not sink a ship! But a big carrier is too well protected even for the biggest single mine or torpedo to sink her. She can even fight after such a hit, unless there were secondary explosions (say the ships magazines go up in sympathetic detonation) or severe structural damage occurs (the back is broken, the propeller shafts are thrown so far out they cannot be used any more, etc.). The other problem is that mines are not laid in really deep water and supercarriers operate in really deep water - meaning they automatically avoid minefields without even trying. [There are exceptions to this: in WWII IJH had mines with cables 20 km long, but they accomplished nothing, and no one does this any more. The deep water part of the sea is too vast and you have no way to know where to put the mines. But shallows are different - you can mine harbors, straits, beaches, etc. Places the enemy might go.] Torpedoes are more mobile (although some mines are also torpedoes of a sort today). They can catch a target. And most of the time, the target does not have the option to run. Usually the target is closing the submarine, to some degree, and it takes a very long time to turn a supercarrier a great amount. To even try to make such a turn presents her broadside to the attack, MAXIMIZING the chances of a hit. Tactics are to "comb the wakes" - to present the minimum target area - even if that means turing towards the torpedoes. Regretfully, it is the Communists that have developed anti-torpedo weapons - although there are today a few submarine type anti-torpedo weapons in the west. Most of the things we call "anti-submarine rocket launchers" are MAINLY anti-torpedo weapons - in communist based ships. They may have some ASW value, but they mainly kill torpedoes! We ignore that, and limit ourself to devices like noisemakers, which mess up sonar guided torpedoes, but not other kinds (wake followers, strait runners, etc). And usually there is only one noisemaker - so when it goes there is no more. I know one CVN commander who thinks about putting an escort in his wake to take the torpedo hits, but that also is not going to do a lot of good for an attack on the forward quarter - the most likely threat (because it has the best chance of success). Submarines also can sometimes launch silent torpedoes and guide them by wire rather than active sonar. This is a very complex subject, but the best chance lies with a submarine. This is because of a conjunction of several factors: 1) It is hard to detect a submarine. It may reach a launch position undetected. Then it gets a free die roll, in effect. It no longer matters if you get the sub before the battle has ended - its shot is make - it gets to roll the die. 2) Torpedoes carry lots of explosive and use it where it matters - underwater. They may cause fires and explosions or terrible structural damage - all a matter of luck and not something defenders can do much about. However, if they do NOT do ANY of these things, torpedoes still floos compartments - one or two depending on where the hit is. Do this about four times on one side the carrier may be in real trouble - aside from the fact it had to roll the die four times for the other kinds of damage described above. 3) The USN has decided the submarine threat "no longer exists" and has stood down most of the systems and aircraft and ships that used to hunt them. What is left is mainly dual purpose ships - ships with ASW as a SECONDARY duty - ships that notoriously are lousy at ASW. And ALL ships - even the sub hunters - get little practice. There are no subs left to play with (we need conventional ones to do a good job - they are the kind hardest to hear when on batteries alone). Our lack of expertise matters even more than retiring so many ships helos and planes. This increases the chance for a sub to get to firing position. It can be done. A collins did it. Maybe even a Han did it once. It certainly got closer than the navy "allows" a sub to get. If it could do that, the potential is there for real trouble.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   1/23/2005 11:57:56 PM
These estimates are wholly wrong. A carrier stalked by a single sub needs good luck to get it. If the sub has the luck, the carrier is hit, period. Put 10 to 20 subs on the hunt, there is zero chance of getting them all. The carrier either figures out it is a trap and leaves them in her wake (if that is even possible at the moment she figures out the trap), or she is going to be hit. Once hit, other subs have a much greater chance of more hits. This is a formula to lose your carrier, and I suggest it is one to avoid no matter the cost - even if you must decrease your air ops in support of friendly forces. Put 300 aircraft on a carrier, it will surely be sent home smoking, unfit to fight. China estimates 70-100 missiles are sufficient - and it only takes HALF that many planes to launch that many missiles. [The H-6X fires four missiles, supersonic ones, not two - so it takes even fewer if they are in the fight]. There is nothing wrong with the PLAN estimates - 70-100 cruise missiles are indeed likely to obtain multiple hits on the carrier and half her escorts. Fire and antenna damage will send them home. If you are willing to allow 300 aircraft in a contest, against a single carrier, there is no chance anyone is going home, except a statistical fluke. And this assumes junk pilots. Skilled ones greatly decrease the numbers. It is close to perfect arrogance to give numbers of this order - and not one carrier captain I ever talked to would voluntarily face such odds.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   1/24/2005 12:01:28 AM
Harpoon cannot SINK a carrier. Not enough warhead. Harpoon is not particularly popular in the USN any more - and many ships do not carry it as a primary weapon. Planes do, though. It is useful for smaller targets, not big ones. And there is a problem with "putting a diesel in the path of a carrier group." WHERE will the carrier group go? No one knows. The admiral may not know ahead of time and even then he can change his mind. It is HARD to know WHERE to be to do an ambush with a sub that must remain slow or be detected. It is a horse race, and it is not clear the sub will win it. I said the sub has the best CHANCE to win it. Not that any given one WILL win it.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   1/24/2005 10:48:43 AM
I athink we'll have to think alternatively: 1.Take a marine down to the keel and bring spade! 2.Tell marine that the captains very private beer storage is under the floor. 3. Marine will dig up ship bottom!
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:How would you sink a Nimitz class carrier??   1/24/2005 12:25:06 PM
Except that you cannot get to the keel on a ship at sea. It is a structural member far below the lowest deck people can get to. What you can get to is shaft alley - or one of them as a big carrier has no less than four. And there is a way to do something there - although I won't say what.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Attacking the Nimitz   1/24/2005 6:00:51 PM
Those estimates are not wrong. If caught by complete surprise then the Carrier is in trouble. But I mean complete suprise. An Alert Nimitz Class Carrier, e.g. one sent to Taiwan in response to Chinese assault. Has an excellent chance of defending herself. No modern Navy today can pose a missile threat of the magnitude of 1980's Soviet Union. Sure there are more advanced, faster missiles. But not deployed in the numbers necessary to really threaten a Nimitz. 10 or 20 of them ina salvo is not going to be enough. Let take a look at some scenarios(Taiwan) to put things into perspective. 1) Chinese SAG with two Sovremenny class, two Lanzhou class and four Type 051 destroyers. For the Chinese this would be a very powerful force. In support they have the 48x H-6X, 24x SU-30, J-5(UAV) and a Y-8AEW from land bases in support. Snce this fight is in the deep waters a pair of Chinese SSN is also hunting the Carrier. The Objective is to demonstrate US vulnerablity in the hope that by seriously damaging or destroying the Carrier, the US will not risk a general war over Taiwan. Contrary to popular belief there was no massive Ballistic missile strike on Taiwan. Also Chinese ballistic missiles have proven far more accurate and have temporarily grounded the Taiwanese AF with limited but very effective strikes. China is waging a vast psyop campain to win popular support of the Islanders. Also having learned from the mistakes of Tienamen Square, are doing every thing possible to prevent civilian deaths. Most nations have called for diplomatic resolutions but have done little to help the seiged sland. Two CVNs are en route with 2 more being readied.Taiwanese Aegis ships have repositioned themselves in the open ocean in a wise move of self preservation. Other than an occational Mirage/F-16 taking off, and being quickly swarmed by Chinese fighters, China has local Air superiority. Obtained at great cost however. The sailing of amphibious ships is only hours away. For the Chinese time is not on their side. They must act before the United States can assemble a force large enough to oppose them. A CSF approaching from the south is chosen. The American OOB is 1x CVN, 2x DDG, 2x CG, 2 FFG and an AOE. USAF is deploying to Philipines and Okinawa but other than long range Bombers are not yet prepared for offensive opperations. Attemps to coordinate the SSNs with the Chinese SAG and Bombers have been complicated by lack of operational experience and US jamming. SIGINT/ELINT has mabe the US CSF aware of the presence of multiple SSNs, number unknown. Beneath the CSF, two LA Class boats are aggressively searching for enemy SSNs. In the last few 1000 NM from the Chinese mailand the CSF speeds up and begins making seemingly random course changes. With millions of sq km of ocean the Chinese SSN is unable to pridict the US course. A decision is made in the interest of time to close to within firing range of the CVN. Having not recieved any updates from PLAAN for some time the Chinese SSN simply begins to carry out his last instructions. Unknown to the Chinese SSN a Seawolf Class SSN is silently stalking them. The US sensor suite having little trouble detecting the relatively noisy Chinese boat as it attempted to make up ground on the CSF. Many tens of kilometers away and much closer to the CSF another Chinese SSN would hear what the crew of the first Chinese SSN would not. Two loud underwater explosions followed shortly after by the sound of a hull reaching crush depth. Although the second Chinese SSN would not know the "exact" reason for the two underwater explosions, the sound of MK-48 pinging away would be unmistakable. American Submarines were hunting them. Having studied old Soviet doctrine for stalking CSF this particular Chinese SSN captain managed to get within 30km of the CSF. With his relatively noisy boat it wouldnt be very long before he was discovered is he tried to move in much closer. The US FFG could be heard using active sonar in an attempt to drive any stalker away. The sound of the two MK-48 explosions blew away any thoughts of a glorious torpedo attack on the CSF. To be effective he would have to get within 5km to 10km to have a realistic chance at a hit on the CSF. And even then care would have to be taken to prevent the Carrier from outrunning the torpedos. But the overwhelming concern, and what made this different than all the training excersise. Was that immediately after firing, the Carriers escorts, ASW A/C and SSNs would know exactly where he was and have a precise firing solution. So while he may well hit the carrier, escape would be nearly impossible unless he could deal with the escorts. The escorts wouldnt be worth the effort as there are many more to replace them in the American Navy. So
 
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