SinoDefence Forum

Kampfwagen · 09-30-2006

Hey there guys. I realize this is an extremely strange question, but hopefuly it will generate some discussion. Also, it helps, because I am a complete and utter n00b when it comes to the navies of the world.

Anyway...On to the question: How does one sink a modern Nuclear-Powered carrier, like The Enterprise or H.M.S Invincible get sunk by conventional means? An Aircraft sortie seems quite risky, if not impossible. Are there any unconventional means of going about it? I apologize if this seems vague, but the basic question is in the topic.

Oh, and one final word. PLAY NICE KIDS!

bd popeye · 09-30-2006

Play nice is right!!. I'm going to let this thread stand but if this thread is turned into an "I will nuke your country" or anything but the posted subject this thread will be closed. We had a sink your carrier thread last year it was closed because... well read for yourself.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=848

That thread is full of examples NOT to follow.

Heed my warning or we mods will close this thread .

bd popeye moderator

Kampfwagen · 09-30-2006

Hey! Wait a minute! Would you mind giving me some info here?

Thanks for the elaborated warning, by the way.

Gollevainen · 09-30-2006

Well like I said in the earlyer thread, the only navy up to it migth have been the Soviet VMF. Thougth there are many uncertain and changing factors involving the question, but it think the best way of aproaching this question would be to assume that the carrier travels with high-tech task force backed with latest Aegis-type Air defence network. Assumptions to otherway brings too many "what ifs?" (thougth we cannot remain totally clear from those in the 'ideal scenario' either).

There also many examples of who the magic behind this have been questioned, we propaply hear the famous incident of couple of Russian Fighter-bombers overflowing the US carrier task group and how some chinese Sub penetrated close by japanese soil inspite the latest japanese ASW capapility...and yeas, the famous examples of how friendly SSKs have 'sunked' US carriers in the wargames....
These all have been taken place in the peacetime and we cannot predict or make basis of the carriers defences solely by taking account these little incidents. However, in real combat situations, for example in 1982 HMS Shefield sails with its sensors partly disconnected to avoid interfere with friendly fire and buys a price of it by getting sunk by Exocet...awfully similar thing happens this summer in near Beirut.....

So to destroy the carrier one needs strong enough weapons that can penetrate trough the defenceline and the past has shown that submarines are the far most best to do that. Modern AAW net with full allert on is quite unbeatable and Americans claim that in theory, their Aegis system is unpeneratable. Even when we know that that migth not be true in real combat situation, we can assume that missile or air attack would have small change to succses. Thougth if there is salvo of multible supersonic missiles flying by migth prove out to be bigger nut to crack....And against that, The Aegis is untested. But even with most modern thecnologies, there isent any Aegis-comparaple net-work against submarines. there are always change to sort of 'brake' trough by thisway, but relying to it would need massive armada of submarines commanded in tactically innovative way in order to get to the aiming point.
Also element of suprise is the key element wheter aproached from air or underwater, and to exploid that, one needs to have communication network between the units, the foward targeting and the actual weapons in order to conduct the attack under strong EW conditions an to face serious jamming from the carrier task force.
So to summ it up, you need a world class navy with really dedicated to the task of sinking carriers, the occasional dilettantes have little to say in this matter.

but then again we can set all that aside and think two important realityes of maritime warfare. 1) Chokepoints. Narrow straits and arhipegaloes. there arent single operational theather where US task force could enter whitout crossing atleast some sort of natures "line of defence". And even if there would be a one, the fact number 2) sea mines of today can lurk at the deep bottom of the ocean and give unpleasent suprise. Now, USN and all other major western navyes have been runnig their MCM forces down in the last decade and currently USN has lest than thirty MCM vessels and of these only 14 or so are ocean going type. So if you want my ultimate answer to the one and only weapon that can sunk carriers I would say mines. Even if they wouldnt sink the carrier, they can do lot to harm to the task group, stop it or destroy its AEGIS ships and thus allow the chainreaction where your other forces can begun exploiding this unexpected turn.

bd popeye · 09-30-2006

Just follow the forum rules. No the PRC will nuke the US! Or vice versa. No country bashing or unsubstaniated post. Like "I know 10 moskits will sink a carrier" Or the US Navy is over rated. Or the worst it can turn to is the PRC invading the ROC with the US intervining and the PLAN attacking a USN CSG. Just state how it could be done without to much political & country bashing "BS"

Read the above thread and in the below link.Which is the old forum. Click on one of the carrier threads you will see what I mean for what not to post.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fsinodefenceforumfrm8

Finn McCool · 10-01-2006

I think that it would be possible to sink a carrier with an air and surface assault. A large cruise missle attack from surface ships and a three part air assault could do it. This scenario is much more feasible if you allow for both sides to have a carrier/s.

1. Surface ships in the carrier-sinking fleet fire a large barrage of cruise missles. If you are the USN, at this time you would also fire a few SM-2s in ASM mode to fly out ahead of your cruise missles and hit the enemy escorting DDGs and FFGs to mess up their defences, or at least distract them.

2. Wave 1 of aircraft would consist of planes carrying anti-radar missles (HARMs, basically) and escorts. These would probably target the carriers escorts, for the purpose of clearing a way through the defences for the cruise missles.

3. Not far behind is wave 2 of aircraft, carrying ALCMs (Air launched cruise missles) and escorts. These would be used to put even more strain of the AEGIS system. Enough missles from different directions will overwhelm it, especially if wave 1 was succesful.

4. After the aircraft have returned to base and the cruise missles have impacted, assuming that the attack was quite succesful (majorly damaging or sinking all or most of the carriers escorts, and/or the carrier itself) another wave of aircraft is launched to finish the job with torpedos.

All of the air groups would have to very large, which is why this is really a plan for multiple carrier groups to take on each other or a single carrier. But it has a good chance of success if you have enough resources.

Obi Wan Russell · 10-01-2006

I think this thread is procedeing from the wrong premise. Sink? Unnecessary. HMS Sheffiel wasn't sunk by an Exocet, she was TOTALLY DISABLED, but remained afloat. She sank six days later under tow to South Georgia for slavage as a result of worsening weather which lead to water flooding in through the missile hole in her starboard side. Most modern Warship designs (especially Carriers) have a lot of passive protection built into the design, witness HMS Nottingham having her keel torn out when she ran aground in Australia, opening FIVE compartments to the sea (far greater damage than any torpedo attack could hope to achieve) and yet she stayed afloat, and was returned to service after a major reconstruction. An Invicible class CV is that much harder to sink and by extension, a CVN is much harder still. WW2 American carriers could absorb a lot of damage before they sank, but were easier to disable (due to their wooden flight decks admittedly). Modern carriers are vulnerable in other areas, eg Radars and communications, so a different form of attack should be considered.

My point is sinking is an old fashioned and in many cases unachieveable objective. Disabling, and putting the target ship out of the fight for even just a few days or weeks is a more realistic goal and can mean the difference between winning or losing a battle.

Finn McCool · 10-01-2006

Yeah Obi Wan, your right. My little strike plan above was really oriented towards a mission kill too. Really the objective of an attack like that is to put enough missles in the carrier that it isn't launching planes anymore. I included the final torpedo strike once enemy air and surface protection had beeen destroyed to meet the criteria of sinking the carrier.

bd popeye · 10-01-2006

Obi Wan sez;

Quote:

An Invicible class CV is that much harder to sink and by extension, a CVN is much harder still. WW2 American carriers could absorb a lot of damage before they sank, but were easier to disable (due to their wooden flight decks admittedly). Modern carriers are vulnerable in other areas, eg Radars and communications, so a different form of attack should be considered.

Wooden flight decks? Jeez you woulda thunk they knew better..They did but prabally were saving money. Of the original 8 USN Cv's only Ranger, Enterprise and Saratoga were not sunk during WWII.

I agree that sinking a CV would be difficult. A strike to mission kill the ship would be the best way to take the ship out of action. Attacking the flight deck is of course the best way to mission kill the carrier. If you disable the flight deck you have taken the ship out of service.

Recently the USN tried to sink the ex-USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3) in a sinkex excersise. Although hit many times with missiles and naval gunfire the ship was finally sunk by explosives placed on the ship by a USN EOD team.

http://navysite.de/ships/lha3.htm

Quote:

The photos below were taken on July 13, 2006, and show the BELLEAU WOOD being sunk by EOD set off bombs. On July 12, 2006, the ship had already taken Harpoon hits and gunfire from the USS MOBILE BAY (CG 53) but refused to sink. Thanks to Mario Silva-Hernandez for contributing the potos.

eecsmaster · 10-01-2006

assuming you're attacking a US CVBG, before you can get into missile firing range of the escorts, you'll have to contend with CVBG's aircover first. You can be sure that things aren't going to be pretty. Mind you, this is talking about an isolated case where the CVBG has no ground based assets at its disposal.

Kampfwagen · 10-01-2006

Obi-Wan, I'm not here to argue that sinking is what one should do to a ship or just disable it.

I was just curious as to what it would take to sink/disable/render inoperable a carrier, not as to what is the most effective means to handling a carrier. In other words, the how-and-why of disabling it, not if it is a wise descision to do so.

eecsmaster · 10-01-2006

A nuke. Seriously. Soviet SSNs were equiped with nuclear tipped heavy weight torps just for that purpose alone. The Backfires were equiped with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, and the Sunburn had a 250kt nuke payload.

DarkEminence · 10-01-2006

Well, cvbg are usually deployed away from the shore to avoid land based fire (no person would harbor his cvbg on the shores of any hostile country unless he is sure he would win. Absolutely sure). I would have to agree and use submarines. I mean sure, if a submarine that was hidden in the water fired anything, within 5 minutes ASW would send the submarine to the repair dock at the bottom of the sea, but if the submarine used Skivals (sp, those fast Russian torpeodoes) not only would the cvbg be more preoccupied about dodging those rounds (there are no SM-3 missiles to use underwater

) there is a good chance that another sub could fire a more devestating and more precise round. I know, Carrier battlegroups routinely use submarine evasive procedures, but it is still worth a try.

bd popeye · 10-02-2006

Quote:

Well, cvbg are usually deployed away from the shore to avoid land based fire (no person would harbor his cvbg on the shores of any hostile country unless he is sure he would win. Absolutely sure). I would have to agree and use submarines. I mean sure, if a submarine that was hidden in the water fired anything, within 5 minutes ASW would send the submarine to the repair dock at the bottom of the sea, but if the submarine used Skivals (sp, those fast Russian torpeodoes) not only would the cvbg be more preoccupied about dodging those rounds (there are no SM-3 missiles to use underwater ) there is a good chance that another sub could fire a more devestating and more precise round. I know, Carrier battlegroups routinely use submarine evasive procedures, but it is still worth a try.

The first concern of any sub is how to penatrate the CSG AWS shield. No easy task. If one did penatrate the ASW it would them most likely be on a sucide mission as soon as it released it torpedo.

I too think that a torpedo such as a Russian Skvals or USN Mk48 or MK50 ADCAP could seriously disable a CV or sink a smaller CV or LPH. In fact in a 1992 USN SINKEX the ex-USS Okinawa after being pumlled with air launched weapons and surface naval gunfire was finally sunk by a MK48 ADCAP torpedo.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sinkex.htm

renmin · 10-02-2006

One way could be to take out the escorts with several anti ship missile with incresing #s to bypass Aegis defenses. Then move in with the Submarines. Seriously, attacking any carrier group requires special planning and alot of weapons! Thats why a carrier has escorts!

SinoDefence Forum

How Do You Sink A Carrier?

How Do You Sink A Carrier?

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster