Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
I think you greatly underestimate how easy it is to avoid such measures. There are many means of communication, some impossible to jam, and good planning will effectively defeat any amount of jamming since there's not as much need for communication.
Also you fail to consider that there would not be 100 aircraft in the air. There could actually only be 24. That's very easy to coordinate and with naval, coastal, and perhaps sub-based system assisting you might be able to cut that further.
Here is how it works, the amount of payload an aircraft carries is inversly proportional to its fuel capacity, hence range. Unless you have superb logistical (aerial refueling) capability and practice it on a routine basis, this endevour will be very difficult. Also, the "carrier killer" missiles that one would need to punch through the carrier defence is very very large and very very heavy. A single Backfire bomber from the cold war days can only carry 2 AS-Kitchen missiles.
Secondly, if you lauched this attack without electronic support the carrier will spot you at 1,000 miles, assuming open ocean. Plenty of time to plot intercept from the airwing. This will undoubtedly require escorts, fighters, which will further complicate you logistics problem.
"Catching up"? This assumes a great deal. In particular it assumes the CSG is moving at high speed, not making many stops, and is following a random path. It even seems to assume they know they're being followed.
In a wartime footing, a carrier moves in a randomly and does not follow a certain predisposed track. Its first line of defence is not being found, remember. At the outer ASW ring (100 miles from carrier) the 2 LA class subs will prowl at your SSN moving at flank speed to catch up.
During military exercises USN carrier follow a predetermined racetrack pattern. Allied SSK's who claimed to have sink the carrier know where and when the carrier will be at a given point due to the pattern. This information allows them the time to approach the area quitely (at 5 knots) and wait for the carrier to arrive.
A state of the art SSK has a maximum endurance of about 400km at about 4 knots on its batteries. You don't get anywhere at 4 knots and you certainly are not going to be very successful chasing your quarry at that speed. You also do not typically run your batteries 95% flat before a recharge. Rather you tend to do it at conventient times when you don't think there is anyone around to find and kill you. When you surface to run your diesels you have very little stealthy on your side. You are noisy and at periscope depth. In fact, every other thing aside, running fast and near the surface is doubly bad acoustically because your screw cavitate like hell near the surface whereas at depth the water pressures migates the formation of vaccum pockets on the trailing edged of your screw reducing or eliminating cavitation. Radars can find your snorkel, SSNs and ASW ships can hear your from a long way off and aircrafts can literally see you at that depth. You are basically exposing yourself!
There is always the option of AIPs. The problem is that firstly AIPs, probably with exception of the Fuel Cell, is not as silent as motors on batteries. The sterling is a reciprocating piston engine running of separately heated working gas. The Close cycle diesel is exactly that a diesel engine running on diesel fuel, oxygen and part of its recycled exhaust. The MESMA is a steam turbine running on the products of alcohol-oxygen combustion. They all make more noise than a battery does and they all have exhausts to get rid of. The worst thing howeveris that power density is in usually horrible enough that cruise speed on AIP is no better than 5-6 knots and there is every little power left over to recharge the batteries in a timely manner. The Fuel Cell which is the quietest AIP setup also happens to have the worst energy density by a long shot... large PEM stacks, large LOX tanks and huge LH2 tanks, all for less energy yield than the combustion type AIPs. In the end what it means is that AIP boats usually transit or maneuver tactically by running their diesels and running on the surface or at snorkel depth to get close to their quary. In a real war with a massive navy like the USN, a lot of them will be picked off while doing this by ASW aircraft and a forward screen of SSNs.
The other fallacy is that batteries and electric motor equals total silence. This is nonsense. In fact, it is frequently not flow noise and propeller noise which shows up most prominently on a sonar system when an SSK is picked up. It is frequently the inverter buzz from the switching inverters which the SSK uses to convert its DC battery power to AC current to run its motors with. Just about all high power motors are AC induction motors.
The last thing when cosidering using diesels against a major surface action group is that all the silencing advantage is useless against active sonar which is routinely employed on ASW helos and once they catch a glimpse of you, an SSK has neither the speed on the endurance to slip away. Once found you are usually dead meat.
Sorry, it is, in fact, the cheapest and easiest. Coordinating large amounts of assets requires a great deal more than jamming and firing a single missile. While the electronic systems are expensive, you need far less of them. Unlike the hundreds of missiles necessary to overwhelm a carrier's defense, a sufficient electronic system would be plenty to allow for a single missile to kill a carrier. The missile itself can be horribly unadvanced. Also, the electronics don't have single-use lifespan like missiles.
You also don't address using ARMs against ships.
A Burke destroy roughly cost $1 billion. The bulk of that cost is not the hull nor the weapons suite but the Aegis system.
A EA-18 Growler cost 6 times as much as an Super hornet although they share the same airframe. Why? Electronic systems.
An E-3 cost about 20 times than a Boeing 767 even though they share the same airframe. Why? Electronic systems
Need I go on.
Which is why I said it's not something just any country can develop.
Do you think any nation would be willing to play that game? Do you think any nuclear nation would automatically respond to a nuclear attack on a purely military target with nuclear attacks? If this was another nation with carriers or some kind of naval fighting group that might be possible. However, if we're talking about Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, or maybe Iran, any response against military installations would almost definitely involve significant civillian casualties.
You need to read the current US nuclear doctrine. It is the most aggressive of the current five nuke powers. They made it clear that using a nuke on any of its armed forces is equivalent to using a nuke on US soil. In doctrinal terms it is called MASSIVE RETALIATION.
Here are the finer points
The doctrine cites 8 reasons under which field commanders can ask for permission to use nuclear weapons:
An enemy using or threatening to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.
To prevent an imminent biological attack.
To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target US or its allies.
To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.
To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.
To make sure US and international operations are successful.
To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.
To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against US and international forces or civilians.
(CAP) 