You guys don't get my point. You always depend on the carrier surviving. Which is not too likely in a war against an equally strong and advanced enemy, like Russia has been, and china is becoming. All the things an airwing can do, is just dust and shadows, if the carrier gets taken out. The threat potential and diversity of mission profiles of a carrier airwing is only an undisputed reality during peacetimes, or in wars against inferior enemies for whom carriers are simply out of reach. In a real tough war, however, carriers are primary targets. If the carrier is on the bottom of the sea, all diversity of mission profiles possible for an airwing is just history.

A submarine is superior in remaining undetected, eventually it has a strategic capability, it has the advantage in duelling with a carrier battle group, it is a great intel gathering platform, and it leaves you the option to deny responsibility for a strike you conducted.

I am aware of all the nice things a carrier airwing can do - as long as the carrier is alive. If there would be a hot war and me being your enemy, I would bring all heaven and hell into motion to take out your carriers at the very beginning, if not even before the beginning. and if my submarines can achieve that, it means they are sophisticated enough to duel it out with your subs on equal terms as well.

What I imagine is a submersible carrier full of autonomous intelligent drones that beat me in chess every time I play against them! ;)

You forget the ocean is a pretty big place to look. Even the Soviets had trouble tracking them during the height of their power. And in the event of war, both sides space based assets are not untouchable as they once were.

PD

Clancy's book, Red Storm Rising had a great tactical assessment of carriers in a relatively modern era.

The difference between a CVBG and a submarine is that a CVBG can actually CONTROL a large area of sea AND land, whereas a sub can only control a small area of sea. Sure, that control is negated if the carrier is destroyed, but so goes the fortunes of any weapon in any war. However, carriers are quite heavily protected and somehow my gut feeling is that the capabilities of this Chinese missile are a bit overstated.

The point is (IMO) they greatly reduce the effectiveness of the CSG without even being fired. Drawing a 2000KM circle around Chinese ASBM sites and saying a carrier can't go there would render the sortie rate of a carrier pretty near useless for fighting a near peer opponent.

The ASBM may be effective, it may not be. But the same can be said of SM-3, and my bet is we aren't going to gamble with a carrier.

PD

I remember reading that a South African diesel sub managed to "sink" a US carrier in exercises without being detected by the escorts. The Iranians have Skyval (sp?) am I correct, I honestly can't see a viable deterrent against such a fast weapon for the moment. In a narrow straight like the Gulf a carrier is a very vulnerable asset, but subs are in shallow water there so any aicraft with MAD's can pick them up no matter how quiet they are.

Remeber in Red Storm Rising the USS Enterprise gets its arse kicked by a squadron of Bears after they go chasing decoys. Carriers are good for peacetime, but in war against a well equiped foe I quite seriously doubt the ability of them to survive a sustained attack, especially against say multiple submerged contacts.

Shkval

Yes, but during an exercise each team has a specific area to search. There is no predefined area targets can be in during a real war. In a real war against Iran, the CSG would be staying well south of the Straits of Hormuz. There just isn't a reason to stick your <insert name of an appendage you value> into a hornet's nest.

PD

The ASBM is an interesting twist in carrier warfare, though it isn't the carrier killer its made out to be. At max range it still takes 12 minutes to target, and a carrier in war time should be moving at quite a clip. This kind of weapon requires a direct hit to be effective, and thusly with the ranges involved would require some advanced guidence in the terminal phase. From what I've read this requires some form of sensor being placed on the carrier from another asset - likely which could easily be removed by force with everything a CVBG has available.

Carriers bring to the table a whole host if abilities that a SSN doesn't. They both have their uses in an even sided knock down drag out fight between superpowers. Yes carriers are prime targets, but they are also very highly defended.

About the most interesting development that I expect will come out of the refinement of ASBMs is the decentralization of the supercarrier. By that I mean we might see new smaller carriers (kinda like the escort carrier of WWII) or possibly carrier/sub combos. These, if built and utilized as a network, would bring the same capabilities of a single larger carrier but not be as vulnerable to detection/loss. But this all hinges upon how much a threat these missiles are seen to be, which all boils down to their reliability and effectiveness.

Yes. A whole flotilla of over a dozen ships was "sunk" by that boat. But I never have read about the excercise conditions, though.

A German 212 also "sunk" a carrier while it cruised somewhere in the North Sea, which made some high-ranking Navy-heads rolling, it was said, although the owners of these heads probably are not responsible for the "disaster". And the last time I heared of that Swedish Gotland that the Navy had "leased" with it's crew is several months ago, but back then the Swedish captain said they were running circles around the Yanks without them being able to even note it, not to mention to fight it off. That means: at that time the US Navy had been chanceless against it.

These new ultrasilent SS boats like Gotland, 212 and the like, are real beasts. Your only advantage as a skimmer is that they depend on you running into them, since they lack the speed of SSNs.

The Chinese system includes live data tracking via a network of satellites, I learn from the article. And 12 minutes the missle only takes at maximum firing range.

Don't minimise that system too early, else eventually you might learn a nasty surprise.

Sounds expensive. Thus sounds unrealistic in present America's harsh financial reality of debts over debts over debts.

You're assuming the Chinese don't have the chutzpah to nuke a CSG. But yes, a sensor cueing the ASBM is the weakness of the system. A good discussion of that took place here:
http://www.informationdissemination....velopment.html

PD

An Australian Collins class was also credited with the same success on a joint exercise involving the US a year or two back.

Submarines can launch TLAM with tatical nuclear warheads no ?
Its more cost effective to have a sub launch 20 TLAM from somewhere in the pacific undetected.

TLAM-N was taken out of service in the early 1990s and is no longer carried by US subs. However, I don't know whether taken out of service means:
1) Either warhead and/or cruise missile may have been destroyed to comply with treaties governing tactical nuke cruise missiles.
2) They may have been stored. In who knows what condition/shelf life and whether the warheads are still on them or elsewhere.

PD

I wasn't aware they still had them...as far as I was aware, the BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Nuclear (TLAM-N) with a W80 nuclear warhead was withdrawn from service as part of the Intermediate - Range Nuclear Forces Treaty :hmmm: