• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How vulnerable is an air craft carrier? ***OFFICIAL*** & ***CONFIRMED***

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< I think its doable with 1 CBG. >>


Why would you want to send one when you could send three. I know you are not saying we would only send one ( I don't think) but there is a reason we have 12 CBG. Overwhelming force is the answer, not the minimum required. Don't forget we also have bases or infrastucture in Japan, Guam, Korea, PI, etc.
 
No, I'm not saying we should only send one. :In a real war, I think we should send the 4 carrier the Navy wants and planned for. 😀 This grew out the carrier argument and just what 1 CBG can do. Not including support from ground based fighters in Japan or Taiwan's military, if you absolutely had to, we're trying to figure out if 1 CBG could defeat both the Chinese Navy and AF (not a land war).



<<

<< I think its doable with 1 CBG. >>


Why would you want to send one when you could send three. I know you are not saying we would only send one ( I don't think) but there is a reason we have 12 CBG. Overwhelming force is the answer, not the minimum required. Don't forget we also have bases or infrastucture in Japan, Guam, Korea, PI, etc. >>

 


<< "To everyone's surprise," the New York Times reported, "China defeated the US in both." >>


Sure if we're talking about a land war. Of course how many of the Chinese soliders would actually fight? Those guys are conscripts and would probably surrender faster than a Frenchman. Well maybe not faster, but at least as fast.
 


<< With the arrival of large numbers of Essex-class carriers, Saratoga was surplus to postwar requirements, and she was assigned to Operation Crossroads at Bikini Atoll to test the effect of the atomic bomb on naval vessels. She survived the first blast, an air burst on 1 July, with only minor damage, but was mortally wounded by the second on 25 July, an underwater blast which was detonated under a landing craft 500 yards from the carrier. Salvage efforts were prevented by radioactivity, and seven and one-half hours after the blast, with her funnel collapsed across her deck, Saratoga slipped beneath the surface of the lagoon. She was struck from the Navy list on 15 August 1946. >>




...Wow....it survived an Atomic blast only to be taken down by an underwater one.....wow..
 


<< your assumption is more accurate than the US Navy prediction? >>


The US Navy would predict it would take 100 CBGs to hold off the Chinese (not even defeat them) if they felt it would get them more carriers. It's all about the funding.

As for the 80 aircraft on a carrier taking on the 4000 of the Chinese air force, there are several items to remember:

1) The 80 aircraft will all be in an air-to-air configuration. Many of the Chinese planes will be in an air-to-surface configuration and vulnerable to air-to-air attack.
2) The Chinese are still flying aircraft they were flying in the Korean War. They do have modern planes, but it is a small percentage of the overall total.
3) While the Chinese would likely break through the 80 aircraft, they still have to penetrate the SAM envelope of the CBG. Lacking standoff weapons, the plans themselves have to breach the SAM envelope to launch.
4) A lot of the planes would never get off the ground as the CBG can loft plenty of TLAMs at bases that are in range (and any bases that are not in range of the TLAMs mean they are not in range for the aircraft to hit the CBG).

Would 1 CBG suffice? Tough to tell. The big problem is the Chinese can turn around, land, and re-arm, while the CBG is limited to the stores on hand. It would be foolish to send 1 against the entire Chinese air force. They could augment 1 CBG with a second carrier and another AEGIS ship and they would probably feel safe.
 
Read my response to the Chief above and Cerebrus' post. The Navy prediction is going to be conservative and there are a lot of other issue that would effect why they arrived at 4, some of it political.




<<

<< I think its doable with 1 CBG. >>



your assumption is more accurate than the US Navy prediction? >>

 


<< (10-15 aircraft, preferbly vertical take off/landing, and less than 1000 men). >>




Should make it men and women, to be accurate of todays Navy.
 


<< what if the one CBG was CBG Ditka? >>


Mini Ditka or full sized Ditka?

Mini Ditka v China = Mini Ditka 573 China 2

Full size Ditka v China = Ditka 2,001,238,951 China 0
 
Has anyone here ever read the book "Nimitz Class" by Patrick Robinson? Its a VERY VERY good read and spawned a good series of books that he has written.

"Nimitz Class" is about the destruction of a US Aircraft Carrier. If you are in the library or at the book store just read the first 2 chapters. It explains how it could "plausibly" be done. In the book its done using a Kilo Class Russian sub which uses a deisel engine and when running at under so many knots is completly silent and I forget how they avoided sonar but it couldn't be detected. Anyway.. If you can READ it its really good.

Anyone heard of it?
 
Never heard of it, sound good. A Kilo running on batteries at less than 4 knots would be pretty quiet. But thats what we have active sonar for. 🙂
 
Yeah... I forget exactly how it was done... at first I considered trying to post the first 2 chapters on here but then I realized that you really don't fully know till the end how he got by. DAMMIT I wish I freakin could remember... it made sense whatever it was. Plus there were some fortunate circumstances.
 


<< Anyone heard of it? >>


Yes. I thought it was horrible. Nothing is completlely silent.


<< But thats what we have active sonar for. >>


Not the sensor of choice.
 
The other problem is at 4 knots it will take him a while to get in position. He'll have to recharge his batteries sooner or later, and when that snorkel goes up, he likely be counterdetected. Also, it will take more than 1 torp to kill the carrier. As soon as he fires the first one, he'll be detected.
 
Well I think he got in the CBG's path and lay in wait for them.... that way he didn't have to run his engines all that much. Plus the torpedo was fitted with a nuke so I think he only needs one of those 😉

But yeah now that I'm thinking of it more... it IS a fiction book after all... I'm sure there are plenty of flaws that I just didnt' think about.
 


<< Chief, do you have an book recommendations? Esp. any dealing with ASW tactics and strategy? >>



Searching.............................................................. Sub Stuff Decent article some other links at the bottom.
 
Carriers of the future will be located in earth orbit. They will be able to strike any place on the planet within mins.
 
Didnt we sell Tiawan 2 older AEGIS class destroyers that were pulled from mothballs.. Because Chinese started raising a stink a couple of years ago and were threatening to do the nasty on em.
 
No, China raised a huge stink over this and we sold them older non-AEGIS destroyers.



<< Didnt we sell Tiawan 2 older AEGIS class destroyers that were pulled from mothballs.. Because Chinese started raising a stink a couple of years ago and were threatening to do the nasty on em. >>

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top