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:Attacking the Nimitz   1/25/2005 3:45:51 PM
Kitty Hawk - the heart of 7th Fleet - has two AGEIS type cruisers, two Burke type destroyers, two Spruances and two OH Perry FFGs. Typically 5 of these will be available for sea, sometimes all. This force spends HALF its time at sea!
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:how effectively we'd be able to link our defenses    1/25/2005 3:46:40 PM
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Attacking the Nimitz   1/25/2005 3:49:52 PM
eclid, if necessary, the USN could surge far more than that. Dont be an antagonist. The USN has on numerous occations sent far more force than that. And those Burkes have Aegis too. Are you in the USN?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    Nuclear (clausewitz)   1/25/2005 3:50:53 PM
I think a nuclear war at sea is possible. That is, a nuclear war at sea need not become a general nuclear exchange. Senior officers (four star type) all disagree with me, but many strategic studies types say I might be right - just lets not find out for real. And while I think it is an attempt to deter US intervention by bluff, China says it WILL use nuclear weapons on any US CBG that approaches Asia during a Taiwan operation. FYI>
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Nuclear (clausewitz)   1/25/2005 3:55:22 PM
No they wont.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    cbg defense   1/25/2005 4:00:46 PM
We have not been seriously attacked by air in two generations. We do not take such attacks very seriously post cold war. And DURING the cold war it was common to respond to Soviet military aircraft inadequately. They would run through an ASCM drill - light off the missile radar and all - and we would not go on alert - put gear on standby - anything - as a fairly common thing.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    the American subs would be travelling at roughly the speed of the battlegroup   1/25/2005 4:04:14 PM
This is wholly stupid. Traveling at such a speed means even the Chinese would likely detect them, and then could choose to engage or evade. Traveling at speed is noisy. And the ONLY boats available in the Western Pacific are Los Angelus class. These are not as quite as the newer classes at speed. Real submarine captains in a real contest with enemy submarines creep most of the time. For sound tactical reasons.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    CSF vs Chinese Nukes   1/25/2005 4:14:37 PM
The Chinese can not, and will not, Nuke a US Carrier. This claim often made by the PLA is a PSYOP of the highest level. First of all to do this, they would need to use missiles. Either ICBM/IRBM or ASM. To fire ICBM/IRBM would bring immediate US ICBM sorties. Bejing is gone as are other Chinese cities. And the trade off is 1 Carrier. No sane nation would consider this resonable. And then there are 11 other carriers. So we lose less than 10% of the force. They lose trillions of dollars and millions of lives. Get real, not going to happen. Nuclear ASM. To get through the CSF AA defense. At least 200 to 400 missiles necessary from 100+ bombers. They do not have this. And as Jim said 5 to 10 years to get it and become operationally proficient. If they aquire it the USN will upgrade accordingly. You will see a new long range AAM. Upreaded SM-2. And do you think they will fire 200+ nuclear missile at the carrier? No. A small percentage of these will be "special". And there is no guarantee they will be the ones to get through. And if the USN finds out one of the warheads was special. What do you think will happen? US just sit back and say "wow, that was close".
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:the American subs would be travelling at roughly the speed of the battlegroup   1/25/2005 4:18:22 PM
Who suggested this? You must be mistaken. Or maybe your having a hard time with English. Please provide a link. And have you ever heard of sprint and drift?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    bits n pieces   1/25/2005 6:20:14 PM
theres some really bad baseline assumptions occurring in here. 1) subs are lurkers and hunters, they're not nursemaids 2) The CSF disposition numbers quoted are peacetime footings. At a minimum each CSF has 1 Tico and 2 AB's as part of the complement. This is a peacetime loading only. 3) IIRC all Spruances are demobbed 4) The Russians thought that a limited nuclear exchange at sea was possible without escalating to continetal strikes. If the Chinese have adopted a lot of the Soviet response doctrine, then they may well think that its achievable as well. 5) The CSF doesn't have to travel lit up - there are other assets available it can use whilst in transit without rendering her defensively blind. In some exercises entire CSF's have "disappeared" whilst being hunted. 6) When commenting about how ineffective a capability is through "personal" experience, It's useful to timeframe it. It then allows others to establish what systems were most likely in play at the time. 7) When assets have been buzzed without intervention, there has often been a "method to the madness". I haven't seen too many post action reports of occurrences like that which could be attributed to negligence or operational indolence. The fact that the press gets hysterical about things like this is an invonvenience, but thats poor PR if anything. At the end of the day, you don't need to correct sloppy journalism either. When China starts to parallel Soviet capability across the spectrum in a combined and integrated fashion I'll start to panic, that also assumes that some moron in black shoes hasn't been able to at least insist on parallel development. The USN/USAF won't exactly be in a development vacuum while China is building up. - That would be the height of complacency - and again, nothing I've seen demonstrates that US Forces are fat and happy and in the tertiary stages of some military bacchanalian decline. They might not get all the platforms and options wanted, but they aren't in a stage of operational crippling - far from it.
 
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