Chinese carrier weapon

[Steel_Tomb]

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.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

Skyval (sp?)

Shkval

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

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.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

I remember reading that a South African diesel sub managed to "sink" a US carrier in exercises without being detected by the escorts.

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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Y

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".

Wasn't that an old 206? I thought it was so embarrassing because it was one of the oldest diesel boats we use.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Wasn't that an old 206? I thought it was so embarrassing because it was one of the oldest diesel boats we use.

Imagine then what a Type 212 can do.

[CaptainHaplo]

Is it a problem - no.

Why you ask. 2 reasons.

First, you do recall we have an ABM system that can hit "evading" ballistic targets.... Its the Aegis Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense System (or some such). There are something like 6 cruisers at this standard of the Aegis system. You can bet if we send a carrier group toward China it will have one with them.

Second - they may have a system they think will work - on paper. But - did you notice they said that the sources USUALLY only talk about systems that are past the test phase. Its not been tested - because to test it, the chinese would have had to send up a missile on a ballistic trajectory, then have the dummy warheads hit a "target" area. Think our missile watchers are so asleep they would miss such a thing?

"Oh - china just launced a ICBM. Thats nice - I'm gonna go get more coffee. Its probably a test anyways. See you when I get back - maybe..."

Its a nice theory - but take the Shkval torpedo - we knew about it right after the test. And that test ground was a lot more PRIVATE than the wide open upper atmosphere.