Navy's Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks!

reply to post by rogue1


Rogue1

From page 4 of this thread.

The funny thing about your argument is that the US Navy were given the positions of the submarines during exercises and still managed to lose them. What chance do they have against a foe that isn't going to radio in their position.
The US Navy has leased a Swedish sub to practice countermeasures against it, none of which have been effective to date.

Neither you nor I know what are the ROE (Rules of Engagement) of these exercises. Some of the ROE are simply for safety considerations which is understandable.

Nonetheless in an actual engagement these ROE are not in place and the gloves come off.

I have read the accounts of these exercises posted on ATS and I am not impressed with the accounts. These accounts are very limited and unspecific in their explainations.

Well come on list a source which aren't Tom Clancy books.

Been onboard both 637 class boats as well as 688 class and also Virginia class boats at this location..

www.nn.northropgrumman.com...

I have also worked the overhauls of several Nimitz class carriers. My sources are not Tom Clancy novels.
I am familiar with how these ships are built both in the inner bottoms as well as certain critical damage control areas. They are built pretty tough and well thought out. I have been able to contrast this with commercial shipbuilding as I have also had the privilege of working this arena as well.
I also know why the Russians use the jump ramp..verses catapults...having worked catapults as well as jet blast doors. Arresting gear as well. This informations is known in the trades but not well known outside of this arena. The Chinese will follow suit and use the jump ramp.

Many of her escort ships cannot maintain 30 knots indefinately. Therefore stripping her of her protective screen.

Indeed many cannot do so indefinately..but the most important escorts can do so.

If the CBG is travelling at 30 knots then their passive sonars would be uslesss in detecting submarine traffic, they can barely track AIP atm, well actually they can't really.

Think this through carefully.

Actually she is probably more vulnerable than most people think. Fact is the carriers have never been engage with an adversary which has a significant Navy since WWII. This IMO has bred a certain arrogance about their survivability.

Think this through carefully as well. There are people out here trained specifically as to where when and how to make the sacrafice of any ship or combinations of ships and crews for the purpose of achieving objectives.
While it is not popular to make such choices I can assure you that there are people specifically trained in making these decisions. Neither you nor I will ever be privy to such details. We will only see tell tale signs that they have been made. You will not find this informations in any history book.


Springheel Jack,

So you used to run the distillers. Great!! I have worked on them but never got into the operational side of them in the Yards. Would have liked to do so but most of the operations were run on the day shift and I was often on the Graveyard shifts. They are quite a unique machine and capable of high volumes of water distillation. But then you would need such on a Nuclear Carrier...if for nothing else...hotel services.
Took me awhile to realize that under such vacuum principles ..how effecient would be the ability to flash off water into vapor for condensing...stage by stage.

Also worked alot of Lube oil systems ...in the varoius compartments. Purifiers ..etc..etc. Engine rooms, pump rooms ..yada yada yada.
Alot to learn down there. Its been a learning experience.

Thanks for your years of service.

And no ..carriers are not as easy to find as some out here would think.
It is indeed a large ocean out there. There is much more to this than meets the eye.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Mod Edit: BB Code.






[edit on 17/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]

Interesting thread.

My thoughts it doesn't matter if a carrier is sunk the end result for the country who did it, would be catastrophic, their home infrastructure would be left destroyed and put back 20 years at least and this with conventional weapons. If the political will was mustered to invade and occupy Iraq based on fake WMD, just imagine if an American Carrier was sunk with tremendous loss of life. All conventional options would be on the table, and the President would be forced to give the joint chiefs a free hand so it wouldn't be open season on all American carriers.

It would be like a pearl harbor mentality for the 21st century.
The military, political, and infrastructure cost would be way to high for any country to try it. Even if they felt they had nothing to lose, and were stupid to do it, the cost would be higher than they thought.

Submarines are the greatest threat to a carrier group, they can track it from a distance, then either attack or advise where the missile's need to be fired from. Carrier groups are well defended, but I don't think one has ever come under attack by multiple missile's and submarines simultaneously.
In that scenario I don't think the carrier would still be afloat by the end of the battle.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

My thoughts it doesn't matter if a carrier is sunk the end result for the country who did it, would be catastrophic, their home infrastructure would be left destroyed and put back 20 years at least and this with conventional weapons.

Perhapsed in the past this may have been true..but I dont think so today.
Our military has become the experimental grounds for new social programs..not for defense of the public. A political hot potato for politicians and social experiments. The buisness of the military is being ceded to political correctness..not the protection of the country.

Sooner or later this will also mean politics in the case of an attack on one of our carriers or carrier battle groups....with hardly a blink by our politicians verses whatever is the current social/political line.

This has already happened ..albeit small scale and ceded to the vanities of changing political winds.

It happened in Lebanon with the bombing of our Marines baracks.

It also happened in Somalia during the Clinton Presidency.

In both cases ...a leadeship totally unprepared for the consequences.

In the nature of human interaction and events it will happen eventually on a larger scale and on larger costs.

Do current administrations look like they are really interested in our citizenry over politics...really interested in our military over politics???

Think this through. It is known in certain circles/among the trades as to what actually happened with that pirated ship and the captain recently rescued. So think carefully on this.

The silence on this speaks volumes.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 17/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by orangetom1999


The difference is they never, had a solid target to go after, in those cases.

But if China where to sink a carrier, there would be a solid target, and outrage amongst the public against said target, it's physiological. There would be tremendous political pressure to do heavy damage back to a country that did that.

Seriously, if 9/11 was an inside job and the US invaded 2 countries over it.
in a false flag masterpiece. What would happen to hard target that really did attack the US?
My worry is they will take an older Carrier and false flag kill it, to accomplish the same goal anyway.
Gulf of Tonkin incident X 10

Originally posted by FredT
OH MY GOD Hypothetical weapon A has doomed the carrier yet again :shk:

1) As Zaphod points out a carrier at sea is a moving target. Even IF you used a RORSAT they can still hide. Lets say the ChiComs use UAV's and subs, you making an assumption that they are going to be simply allowed unmolested to loiter around a CBG?

www.youtube.com...

Did their missile pass the CIWS/ Goalkeeper test?

I think not

[edit on 9-5-2009 by TheEndofEvolution]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by TheEndofEvolution]

There is a significant threat to US Carriers from 1) submarines, 2) fast cruise missiles and 3) ballistic missiles, I would guess in that order of danger.

Now think about it in the other direction.

What defenses does the Chinese (surface) Navy have against 15 B-2's and 40 F-22's? ***

In longer distance attacks the Chinese would likely have to employ nuclear weaponry with ballistic missiles in order to get range and make up for accuracy.

The USAF could likely sink many ships from above with guided conventional weaponry with < 5m accuracy, more likely to be used politically.


*** other than nuking Okinawa, Diego Garcia and Pearl Harbor. In which case, "what happens next?"
[edit on 13-5-2009 by mbkennel]

[edit on 13-5-2009 by mbkennel]

I watched a documentary about the US carrier and they showed a computer animation of the different missle defence systems.Even with all that I think that other countries have developed weapons to destroy the US carrier a long time ago.The US has a lot of propaganda.

Originally posted by dingyibvs
reply to post by StellarX

 

1)Carriers are offensive weapons in nature. Even when they're in a defensive position, they're in a forward defensive positions, so I agree with you here.

2)Their intents, which is world dominance, the same as just about any powerful nation, is aggressive, but they tend to like to accomplish it passively(i.e. not through warfare). One of the best known Sun Tzu's Art of War quotes is "If you know your enemy and you know yourself, then you will win 100 battles out of 100," and the Chinese government certainly isn't oblivious to the U.S. technological dominance in many areas, so they do not want to fight a war that they cannot win. That's why they're focusing on asymmetric weaponry and economic growth. Economics isn't a zero-sum game like power is--everybody can get rich and happy, but they only care about them being the richest, which may happen in as little as 25 years. So I believe that to the Chinese government, economy is a mean, not an end. Also, while you may well point out that there are many deficiencies in many Chinese systems, you should know that developing asymmetric weaponry is one of their keys to world dominance, it's something that should deter warfare while their economy catches up. So you shouldn't underestimate the Chinese' expertise in areas such as missiles, ASatW, etc.

3)But China hasn't been a cold war enemy since the late 70's, that's about 30 years now, and it wasn't one until '49 when the Communists took over. I'd say the most recent 30 years of thawing relationships and VASTLY strengthened economic ties trumps the earlier 30 years. Also, I don't believe the attack will be out of the blue, the Americans will receive plenty of warning(though obviously nothing specific such as timing and location, etc.). Keep in mind that they want to DETER warfare, at least right now, they're not preparing for a secret attack. So I believe that once the next ~7-10ish Beidou satellites are up in the next couple of years, we'll see the weapon tested and shown to the world. Thus, we should see if it'll work pretty soon. We'll likely still have debates about its ability to track, but we shouldn't have debates about whether it could hit a maneuvering target anymore.

4)The Germans surrendered when their armies were annihilated, it'll take a massive land invasion to do the same for China. The Chinese simply do not believe they would be the aggressors, the state media will make sure of that. The same can't be said about the U.S. public opinion.

5)You can drag the American public into a war, but the American public can drag you out of a war. The Chinese government won't back down for the sake of its own survival, they've whipped up the nationalistic sentiments so they have to leave up to it.

6)I'm not so sure they won't start it. Their current military strategy is to allow its economy time to grow, but once it's matured and the U.S. would hurt just as much economically from a war with China as China would, then the military strategy should also change with it.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by dingyibvs]

Very brilliant conclusions from a chinese point of view!

You always hear americans boasting about how powerful their military is but then the only country they're willing to fight is a disarmed and sanctioned iraq or a country like samalia or afghanistan.. they # their pants anytime iran is mensioned because they know they can't make a war on iran w/o taking huge losses.. oh yea anyone who sinks a carrier wil have "their infrastructure destroyed" what a load of crap that is, if you ht a country with a nuclear weapon then they hit you with one, that leaves convensionally bombing the other country and america can't do that unless some gulf state orwhatever lets them use their bases and a country like china or russia or iran will just pumel those bases with missiles..

The USM is useless, theres not one real war situation that they can fight offensivly, the only thing they can fight is a guerilla war and spending at least 10 times what any other country would speand on it.. on things like too much bodyarmour because they're afraid of taking casualties, or fast food on bases.

Reply to post by ominous

I do not even know where to begin with this ill informed rant. Usually I ignore this level of ignorance.

Somalia, much like Vietnam was a political failure.

Infrastructure targets do not require nuclear weapons to take out. Targets like the Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by pgm etc.

At this point it would be a stretch that the Chicoms can crack a CBG. The only way they could do so is to saturate its defences. But its unlikely that a CBG will trail its coats off the coast of China and allow that to happen. Their offensive capacity is growing but people act like the navy has never upgraded its defenses since the seventies :shk: Offensive and defensive weaponry grow in cycles. the USN is looking as laser defences and other measures to protect the fleet. Its not a static force.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com


[edit on 6/14/09 by FredT]

reply to post by JanusFIN


They aren't helpless, first, but, even if they were, they're surrounded by huge battle groups, which can turn any attacking force into swiss cheese, way before they're within visual range.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You hate the US and The Navy? Ill make sure I stop protecting you freedom to use this site (hurts my feelings man I'm in the navy and american) I hate my government to bro but I'm a good guy none the less

Also just alittle add in ... around the air craft carriers there are 7 other supportships waiting for any immediaate threat we can stop then mirror and destroy who and whatever sent it.... The Navy is well aware of what is going on in, on, and outside the planet fellow believers

First, I'll admit to not reading every post, so if I repeat...

Several flaws with the OP. First, carriers never travel alone. They travel with a complete carrier group capable of handling any threat on the surface or under it. Any air threat can be handled by the onboard air wing. Second, carriers are still effective as they can put our air power within striking distance of any place on Earth. The Navy and Marines have more aircreft than the Air Force. I think recent conflicts have shown the importance of air superiority.

Click here for more information.

Glad to see billions/trillions more of our dollars are being thrown down the drain..



Do we really need a navy at this point? If we are attacked at sea- we're just gonna call in the air force to bomb enemies..not the navy.

Originally posted by Dallas87
Also just alittle add in ... around the air craft carriers there are 7 other supportships waiting for any immediaate threat we can stop then mirror and destroy who and whatever sent it.... The Navy is well aware of what is going on in, on, and outside the planet fellow believers

In theory, but America's Navy has only ever been tested since WWII against 3rd rate powers who barely have a Naval capability. Against the Russians or Chinese it would be a bloodbath, once those ships are gone they cannot be replaced.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
First, I'll admit to not reading every post, so if I repeat...

Several flaws with the OP. First, carriers never travel alone. They travel with a complete carrier group capable of handling any threat on the surface or under it. Any air threat can be handled by the onboard air wing. Second, carriers are still effective as they can put our air power within striking distance of any place on Earth. The Navy and Marines have more aircreft than the Air Force. I think recent conflicts have shown the importance of air superiority.

Yeah I can see how effective those defences are, seeing that Chinese subs can easily get within torpedo range and Australian subs constantly penetrate the carrier defences during RIMPAC and this is when the position at the start of the exercise to US Naval commanders and they still can't track the sub.

Originally posted by Dallas87
What do you call WWll ya idiot came in from all sides of europe and conquored one of the fiercest militaries of all time the Germans were not weak by any means and still aren't they are a strong nation

You didn't defeat the Germans the Russians did. The Western powers only ever faced 20% of the German Army strength in Italy and the Western Front. Even then it took over 5-1 superiority to defeat Germany's western army groups. If the Russians had been defeated, America would have never set foot on European soil, it would have been a massacre.
Even Westpoint studies who that either in attack or defense, the German arm was able to inflict 150% on opposing American Forces.