OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov

[wdolson]

I would expect satellites would be among the first targets in a serious shooting war between major powers. Blind the surface ships to location info on enemy ships.

CVNs are tough, but there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship. It's been claimed for a number of ships in the last 100 years and every time it's been proven false. The Chinese and Russians have been working on missiles capable of disabling or sinking a CVN and some of the technology is pretty good. I believe Iran has a handful of the top of the line Chinese anti-carrier missile they have mounted on some of those small boats they have.

I have read that China wants to be capable of fighting the US on equal terms in the Western Pacific within 20 years. Who knows how well they can do it, but they are modernizing fast and unlike the USSR, they built a solid economy before they started modernizing their military, so they have the funds to do it.

Of course they may fall apart from within before they get to military parity. They have a major generational struggle between the older generation who grew up in the Cultural Revolution and those born under the one child policy. The two generations have very different attitudes about just about everything. They also are contaminating their environment on a scale nobody has ever done before and using up all their fresh water at a staggering rate. At their rate of ground water usage, their major water aquifers will be gone by 2020 and they depend on that water to a large degree for their agriculture.

India is facing the same water problem in about the same time period.

I'm not so sure China is all that interested in fighting the US though. It's bad business to go to war with your best customer.

Bill

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 

They need to add to each carrier groups escort a helicopter carrier and give the USN some Apaches or Longbows to put on them. That might solve the problem

During the recent Libya conflict British ship-borne Apaches took out quite a few small fast boats - which were laying mines or inserting raiders near Misratah. They were the weapon of choice for the job – although they relied upon other assets to initially detect their targets for them (RN helos and surveillance aircraft).

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 

They need to add to each carrier groups escort a helicopter carrier and give the USN some Apaches or Longbows to put on them. That might solve the problem

During the recent Libya conflict British ship-borne Apaches took out quite a few small fast boats - which were laying mines or inserting raiders near Misratah. They were the weapon of choice for the job – although they relied upon other assets to initially detect their targets for them (RN helos and surveillance aircraft).

While everyone here is too young to recall it, during the "Tanker War" and in desert shield US Army Apaches,USMC Cobra's and TF160's "Little Birds" operated off FFG's and DDG's in the Gulf for pretty much the same reason. A USN SH-60 would locate and Target the boat, then the gunships would solve the problem. AV-8s got involved occasionally from the PHIBRON as well.

And of course during "Praying Mantis" more than 1/2 of the Iranian Navy was wiped out by the Enterprise Strike group, some detached DD's and a couple of sticks of wayward Seals. That was a weekend project. [:D]

[LoBaron]

Thank you guys, this thread is an extremely interesting read!!

I got some questions for the sub/sonar guys in here:

IIRC there are 3 ways to detect a sub, passive sonar for long range and stealth, active sonar, and MAD.

Have new technologies gained importance?

MAD, when I last checked, was mainly implemented on airborne ASW and surface vessels. What is the reason for not using it
on subs extensively?

Has MAD become useless due to antimagnetic coatings for subs?

What are the up to date ranges for successful MAD detection?

How much have detection ranges dropped since the cold war with the implementation of all that stealth tech?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.

I have heard the subs in operation today have the ability to sneak undetected w/in torp range of any CVBG and place torps into the screws of any capitol ship. So I figure the CV will go the path of the BB. I expect this to happen w/ in the next 3/4 years.

This already happened before. A German Type 206-class diesel-electric sub managed to penetrate the USS Enterprise's battle-group while it was on maneuvers in the Caribbean and got close enough to photograph it through its periscope, which is as good as saying it got close enough to fire a likely fatal spread of torpedoes if this was not an exercise.

You may be right that carriers are too large targets to be effectively protected against swarms of cruise missiles and/or subs, but at least on the sub front, the only ones quiet enough to do this are the diesel-electrics, who have their own obvious limitations, as well as practically being a one-shot weapon. That is, you might be able to get it to sink a carrier, but you'll pretty much have to write-off the sub completely after that single attack from all the ASW attention it's going to attract. It's definitely a trade-off that would be massively in the sub's favor, though.

In my much younger days , whenever my P-3 squadron had to do "CORD-OPS" (coordinated ops) with a carrier group (We generally called them OPS with the Uncoodinated!) we would frequently be tasked by the CV ASW commander to search ahead of the group. If at any time were "given our head" were to go , we would beeline for BEHIND the carrier, where upon dropping our sonobouys 9 time out of 10 we would find the sub! Sometimes he'd be laying there (especially in a cruise missile equipped sub) lining up for a shot. Usually he'd be trying hard to catch up with the carrier. (As the old Naval saying goes, "A stern chase is a long chase!").

While I freely admit that a diesel sub is extremely quiet on batteries, that's because it pretends to be a "hole in the water". Problem is , a hole doesn't move very far or very fast. That's why a diesal sub depends on hiding in "choke points" and hoping the target will blindly run over it. In the past , this problem has been nuetralized by "beating the hell out of the bushes" , or what the Russians used to call "Mobbing tactic's". Before the CV goes through the coke point , you saturate the area with small ASW assets (Soviet style) of Dipping Helicopters (Western style) with active sonar. Anything there , sub , fish.whale or whatever is going to come off the bottom and dash in the opposite direction as fast as possible.

The same goes for a bigger scale , in blue water ops. Before a carrier goes into a contested area , you heavily sweep it , 1st with MPA (Maritime patrol aircraft like P-3's or Nimrods) , then the Carriers own fixed wing intermediate assets (like S-3 Vikings , now retired) , then surface ships and their embarked helicopters (like FFG's and DD's with SH-60's , or Westland Lynx's). And lastly the carrier's own dipping helicopters , sweeping with active SONAR. Yes some good SSN skippers could penetrate that screen by using "sprint and drift" tactics to stay ahead of the "Dippers". But then they would have a surprise by running into the SSN's that would be accompanying the CV group.

Great tactics, which pretty much worked (with modification) from 1945 till the late 1990's. Then the politicians (both in and out of uniform) got cheap. They make the CV escort much smaller, pealed off the SSN's, cut back on P-3's (by 2/3's and started using them for everything BUT ASW....like gunfire spotting in Afhghanistan!) and the biggest cut of all, they retired the S-3 Viking with no replacement. That's like re-equipping a police department with high powered rifles and mace , but taking away their pistols!

So I agree , that sooner or later a fat bird farm is going to collect a couple of fish in the fanny. But it is absolutely , totally avoidable. Then will learn. Again. [:(]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thank you guys, this thread is an extremely interesting read!!

I got some questions for the sub/sonar guys in here:

IIRC there are 3 ways to detect a sub, passive sonar for long range and stealth, active sonar, and MAD.

Have new technologies gained importance?

MAD, when I last checked, was mainly implemented on airborne ASW and surface vessels. What is the reason for not using it
on subs extensively?

Has MAD become useless due to antimagnetic coatings for subs?

What are the up to date ranges for successful MAD detection?

How much have detection ranges dropped since the cold war with the implementation of all that stealth tech?

MAD is a very short ranged (Classifed , even now) device. In our aircraft I used to refer to it as "The bombsight" , as if you got repeated MAD contacts, you didn't need a homing torpedo (our main weapon) you could kill it with a WW2 depth charge , or even an iron bomb. The downside? If you are using MAD, you are VERY close , and while you know where he is, he also knows where YOU are.

The biggest counter to MAD is mother nature. Solar flares. Ocean pinnacles and ship wrecks.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thank you guys, this thread is an extremely interesting read!!

I got some questions for the sub/sonar guys in here:

IIRC there are 3 ways to detect a sub, passive sonar for long range and stealth, active sonar, and MAD.

Have new technologies gained importance?

MAD, when I last checked, was mainly implemented on airborne ASW and surface vessels. What is the reason for not using it
on subs extensively?

Has MAD become useless due to antimagnetic coatings for subs?

What are the up to date ranges for successful MAD detection?

How much have detection ranges dropped since the cold war with the implementation of all that stealth tech?

Another two devices not mentioned are ESM (electronic support measures---sort of an airborne "fuzzbuster" RADAR detector) and Infrared/low light TV. And a very often , over looked but VERY effective device is the human eyeball. I've caught several subs that we didn't have on SONAR , or RADAR , (they were laying pretty much still) but I looked down and saw them in the water. In the Med , or Carribean it's possible to see a sub several hundred feet down. [:D]

[crsutton]

I just remember what the Argentine AF was able to do with Exocet missles 30 years ago. I would expect there is a lot better stuff out there now.

[LoBaron]

Thanks for the explanations Steve.

Easier detection in Carribean and Med, is it because the limited dephs compared to the Oceans, more light is reflected from
the sea floor and so a dark shape is better visible or is there another reason? Swell is also less I assume.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I just remember what the Argentine AF was able to do with Exocet missles 30 years ago. I would expect there is a lot better stuff out there now.

There's great new stuff on both sides. But it's amazing how much of the old stuff is still 1st line. But no matter how good your stuff is , you can't work around stupid, or lucky. An awful lot of the stuff that happened in the Falklands war was STUPID AND LUCKY!

Launching a missile at one of the most advanced air defense ships in the world at the exact moment that this particular ship shuts down it's RADAR so it can talk on it's SATCOM? That's pure luck. Shutting down that RADAR in a combat area with no one to cover so that you can talk on the SATCOM? That's just stupid. USS Stark would do a similar "DS" during the tanker war and catch an Exocet the same way.

If the systems had been working the way it should have , neither Exocet would have gotten through. But there is no system in the world that can overcome "The Stupid Factor". [:(]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thanks for the explanations Steve.

Easier detection in Carribean and Med, is it because the limited dephs compared to the Oceans, more light is reflected from
the sea floor and so a dark shape is better visible or is there another reason? Swell is also less I assume.

You'd have to speak to an oceanographer. But I'd guess lots of sunlight, minimum swell. I recall flying into Bermuda once and commenting that there was a sunken landing craft near the edge of the runway and I could see every detail. It looked like it was 30 feet deep. So I told the navigator we should go snorkeling on it. He told me that I'd better have damned good lungs because according to the chart it was at 90 feet! [:D]

[Chickenboy]

For all the hotshot submarine stud Captains that get their photos of a CVN's screws, I wonder if they're detected coming in. For these wargames, I wonder if the ROE allow the submarines to be hit by active sonar from dipping helicopters or blasted by concerted ASW attacks. In the case of that Collins' class submarine pictured above, that's a dead sub by my reckoning. I wonder if the submariners realize that they just got greased in their quest for fame. In real life, any submarines detected in the CVNBG region would be treated with the utmost hostility. In peacetime, the risk:reward just isn't there for these guys, so they can shoot the moon.

Also, there's a benefit for CVNBGs to lament how open they are to attack by submarine. "Oh, look how easily our screen can be penetrated! Please, oh please Mr. enemy man, please don't try to track us with your submarines! Look how closely you can get! We're defenseless!" I wonder whether these same vulnerabilities would be echoed in wartime or whether the ASW is-perhaps-more formidable than letting on.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

For all the hotshot submarine stud Captains that get their photos of a CVN's screws, I wonder if they're detected coming in. For these wargames, I wonder if the ROE allow the submarines to be hit by active sonar from dipping helicopters or blasted by concerted ASW attacks. In the case of that Collins' class submarine pictured above, that's a dead sub by my reckoning. I wonder if the submariners realize that they just got greased in their quest for fame. In real life, any submarines detected in the CVNBG region would be treated with the utmost hostility. In peacetime, the risk:reward just isn't there for these guys, so they can shoot the moon.

Also, there's a benefit for CVNBGs to lament how open they are to attack by submarine. "Oh, look how easily our screen can be penetrated! Please, oh please Mr. enemy man, please don't try to track us with your submarines! Look how closely you can get! We're defenseless!" I wonder whether these same vulnerabilities would be echoed in wartime or whether the ASW is-perhaps-more formidable than letting on.

In my experince the USN in wargames generally has a DILLIGAF attitude. A great many of the officers I've known tend to resent games as a intrusion on training and maintenance. Games are generally so choreographed and orchestrated as to be useless. What makes the games interesting is when other nations play. Especially those nations in the British Commonwealth. They tend to play to win, and have the opinion that "if your not cheating, your not trying hard enough!". I've had the privaledge a couple of times of playing on the RED side when the Brits were leading. Good lord was that fun! [:D] And I watched the Ozzies do the same thing in the Pacific once. They are like a bunch of little kids playing war , and they play to win! Usually by making a shambles of the carefully planned US plans.

But by and large , the US reaction when it's doing something like airops is "yeah ok, that's fine, we're busy here launching planes.....we'll get serious when it's serious". That's when a lot of those photo's are taken, or steaming back and forth from port. When a CV is trying to get into a congested port (like say Norfolk) they generally don't have a battlegroup, they aren't looking for subs, and are really more interested in trying NOT to run over other ships then worry about getting their picture taken.

And on several times I seen USN subs that were supposed to be in an exercise , and just not show. One time I saw a surface group and a couple of P-3's spend a fortune in fuel , sonobouys and steaming/flight time only to find that the SSN skipper was bored with the exercise, made port and gave his crew early liberty! He tied up even before the exercise was to begin, and could not be bothered to tell anyone! Your tax dollars at work!

So by and large , massive war games really don't reflect reality. Now ELECTRONIC ones! That's different! [:D]

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: cantona2

I saw her pass through the Straits of Gibraltar yesterday

Quoted 2/3. By now Probably hanging off Lebanon to support the Syrians. This is a weird situation. The US pulled out of Iraq just in time to redeploy into Syria or Iran.. my experience in the desert taught me the best time of year to fight was in the spring or fall. We had a hard time wearing a flak vest and a mopp suit at the same time during the summer. Does anyone know if the troops pulled out of Iraq are still in Kuwait?

[redcoat]

I think she passed Gib on 3rd Feb to go back into the Atlantic on the way home to Severomorsk. The Russian task force spent most of January on exercise in the Med. It also visited the Russian Navy’s ‘supply and maintenance centre’ near the Syrian port of Tartus. The Russians have been expanding their naval facility near Tartus into a base for a permanent Russian naval force in the Med. But if the Assad regime falls they will probably lose it …

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: redcoat


I think she passed Gib on 3rd Feb to go back into the Atlantic on the way home to Severomorsk. The Russian task force spent most of January on exercise in the Med. It also visited the Russian Navy’s ‘supply and maintenance centre’ near the Syrian port of Tartus. The Russians have been expanding their naval facility near Tartus into a base for a permanent Russian naval force in the Med. But if the Assad regime falls they will probably lose it …

Well, this seems a sad political move by the russians in support of their Syrian friends. They bail out just as the ---- starts to hit the fan.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Thanks for the explanations Steve.

Easier detection in Carribean and Med, is it because the limited dephs compared to the Oceans, more light is reflected from
the sea floor and so a dark shape is better visible or is there another reason? Swell is also less I assume.

You're mostly correct, yes. The Royal Navy learned this the hard way in WWII when they lost many a submarine to air attack - most of their subs were larger "fleet boats" designed for long-range operations in the Pacific and were unsuited for operating in the relatively confined and visually revealing waters of the Med

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Small Russian Task Force left Medditeranean long ago and is going home... it passed UK few day ago...


From one other forum:



http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/datash ... =273543910

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/defaul ... pe_color=3


From "The Telegraph UK":

British warship escorts Russian aircraft carrier passed UK waters

HMS Liverpool, a British warship, was dwarfed by a Russian aircraft carrier as it passed UK waters.


HMS Liverpool (front) escorting Russian Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov:




The destroyer sailed alongside the 50,000-tonne Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov as it made its way north.

The Portsmouth-based Type 42 warship was acting as fleet escort as it followed a carrier-led Russian task group from the Channel off south-west England to the seas off south-west Ireland.

The task group of two warships and five support ships were making their way home to the northern and Baltic fleets of the Russian navy. The images were released by the Royal Navy.

HMS Liverpool's commanding officer, Commander Colin Williams, said: ''As an island nation, it is essential for the UK to maintain a military presence in our waters.

"HMS Liverpool is well-placed to carry out this duty after her extremely successful Operation Ellamy and Nato contributions off Libya last year."

n December, the Portsmouth-based destroyer HMS York was sent to shadow the Kuznetsov group as it sailed south from Russia - the closest that a Russian naval task group had been to the United Kingdom in 20 years.

A Royal Navy spokesman said: "Liverpool is due to decommission at the end of March but has already gone through a maintenance period in Portsmouth and a visit to London, where thousands of members of the public stepped aboard.

"On leaving London she was activated as Fleet Ready Escort."

"When her escort duty finishes, HMS Liverpool will conduct training exercises in the UK and Norway, before a final visit to her home town of Liverpool. She decommissions on March 30 in Portsmouth."

Leo "Apollo11"

[LoBaron]

Interesting pic!

What I find weird is that there is a fighter visible on the stern which look like
it has either just landed or is preparing to launch, yet Kuznetsov seems to neither
go to full speed nor turn into the wind - at least it looks by the smoke and wake.

Any ideas? I didn´t know they are performing flight ops without doing so.

Edit: a second one is next to the isle, both with their landing lights on.

Edit2: on second thought it could just be fighters ready for alarm scramble?

[castor troy]

do modern carriers have to turn into the wind for flight ops? What are the catapults for?