5 ms·

The Naval Gazing blog has a four-part series called "Why the Carriers Are Not Doomed" in which he makes the case: "Claims that US carriers are very vulnerable t

The Naval Gazing blog has a four-part series called "Why the Carriers Are Not Doomed" in which he makes the case: "Claims that US carriers are very vulnerable to missile attack, and will be sunk immediately in any upcoming war, are quite common. They’re also wrong. The carriers are surprisingly survivable, and the prowess of missiles is usually grossly exaggerated." I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the arguments, but it's worth a read before you fully swallow the "carriers are pointless because of anti-ship missiles" line. https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4

CamperBob2 7y ago
This guy seems to be under the impression that carriers can manueuver quickly enough to dodge and/or outrun submarines and/or the torpedoes they launch. Torpedoes are not that much faster than their targets. The Yu-6 is capable of 65 kts in attack mode, but the range figure is for cruise mode, which doesn’t have an associated speed. Even a 65 kt torpedo is only about twice as fast as a carrier, and the sound of the torpedo being fired is enough to alert any ship with a live sonar operator. This means that the target ship is likely to be running away... Not sure how credible that is. My guess is that sinking a US carrier would be treated as justification for opening a bottle of tactical nuclear whoopass. If so, that probably constitutes more meaningful deterrence than sonar arrays, Aegis defenses, ASROCs, and so on.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >My guess is that sinking a US carrier would be treated as justification for opening a bottle of tactical nuclear whoopass. A problem appears when you don't know who sank the CV. I think the possibility for such a scenario exists with submarines and torpedoes. The US can't exactly nuke someone based on circumstantial evidence. Combine that with disinformation campaigns by less-friendly nations and it's difficult to tell what the populace would think.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    I imagine that's one thing that sonar technology does guarantee. They'll have exquisitely-detailed acoustical profiles for everything in the water that's bigger than a tuna. The author is certainly correct in saying that as soon as a missile or a torpedo gets fired, the stealth game is over. There won't be any question about who did the deed.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      But there are delayed weapons and it's also possible to use weapons that other nations use. Even if the military thinks that know who did it doesn't mean the people will believe it, especially when there are disinformation campaigns. You can't fight a war if your own population doesn't support you/it. A hostile nation doesn't have to be able to do this completely undetected, they simply have to create enough doubt.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > The US can't exactly nuke someone based on circumstantial evidence. We went into several countries (Iraq) not just on circumstantial evidence, but in the face of active knowledge to the contrary. Why so sure?
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      And those weren't countries that people held in high regard nor did they run disinformation campaigns in the US. I really don't believe that the US could nuke someone as a first strike without there being overwhelming public evidence to give cause. The US populace probably wouldn't approve regardless who's in charge.
  - gwright 7y ago
    I would be surprised if signal intelligence was unable to discern who the guilty party was in this case even in the absence of hard data from the incident itself. I find it hard to believe any entity capable and willing of initiating such an attack could keep it quiet for long.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  why did you only quote that part of the paragraph? here's the rest: > Torpedoes are not that much faster than their targets. The Yu-6 is capable of 65 kts in attack mode, but the range figure is for cruise mode, which doesn’t have an associated speed. Even a 65 kt torpedo is only about twice as fast as a carrier, and the sound of the torpedo being fired is enough to alert any ship with a live sonar operator.7 This means that the target ship is likely to be running away, and the submarine has to close to within half of the effective range before launch. Furthermore, the target and its escorts are likely to counterattack, forcing the submarine to evade and cut the torpedo’s wires. A torpedo has limited space for sonar, and without guidance updates from the launching submarine, it can be evaded. All of this is likely to limit submarines to launch ranges of 8 nm or less. he's saying that the effective range for the torpedo is much shorter for a moving target, forcing the sub to get dangerously close. then after being detected, the sub would have to disengage and stop guiding the torpedo, at which point it could possibly be evaded.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    Why did you only quote that part of the paragraph? Because that's where it got seriously dumb.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      do you have some relevant expertise to offer? the basic claim that effective range is halved or more against a target moving half as fast as you seems to make sense. I have no idea to what extent torpedoes need guidance from the launcher.
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        No, I don't, but I'm pretty sure a carrier that's presumably not already "running away" can't hit the gas and accelerate meaningfully when it detects an enemy torpedo launch less than an hour away. Intuitively, evasive maneuvers don't seem to be a useful tool in a carrier's defensive arsenal, but I'd be interested in hearing otherwise.
- nradov 7y ago
  Carriers can move at about the same speed as submarines. And when transiting at high speed, submarines are very noisy and thus easy to detect. So if the carrier is operating in the open ocean it's tough for a submarine to get into firing position. If the carrier is constrained to operate in a restricted area then the submarine has a much better chance of sneaking up undetected. Carriers are frequently "sunk" in exercises like that.

CamperBob2 7y ago

This guy seems to be under the impression that carriers can manueuver quickly enough to dodge and/or outrun submarines and/or the torpedoes they launch. Torpedoes are not that much faster than their targets. The Yu-6 is capable of 65 kts in attack mode, but the range figure is for cruise mode, which doesn’t have an associated speed. Even a 65 kt torpedo is only about twice as fast as a carrier, and the sound of the torpedo being fired is enough to alert any ship with a live sonar operator. This means that the target ship is likely to be running away... Not sure how credible that is. My guess is that sinking a US carrier would be treated as justification for opening a bottle of tactical nuclear whoopass. If so, that probably constitutes more meaningful deterrence than sonar arrays, Aegis defenses, ASROCs, and so on.

Mirioron 7y ago
>My guess is that sinking a US carrier would be treated as justification for opening a bottle of tactical nuclear whoopass. A problem appears when you don't know who sank the CV. I think the possibility for such a scenario exists with submarines and torpedoes. The US can't exactly nuke someone based on circumstantial evidence. Combine that with disinformation campaigns by less-friendly nations and it's difficult to tell what the populace would think.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  I imagine that's one thing that sonar technology does guarantee. They'll have exquisitely-detailed acoustical profiles for everything in the water that's bigger than a tuna. The author is certainly correct in saying that as soon as a missile or a torpedo gets fired, the stealth game is over. There won't be any question about who did the deed.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    But there are delayed weapons and it's also possible to use weapons that other nations use. Even if the military thinks that know who did it doesn't mean the people will believe it, especially when there are disinformation campaigns. You can't fight a war if your own population doesn't support you/it. A hostile nation doesn't have to be able to do this completely undetected, they simply have to create enough doubt.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > The US can't exactly nuke someone based on circumstantial evidence. We went into several countries (Iraq) not just on circumstantial evidence, but in the face of active knowledge to the contrary. Why so sure?
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    And those weren't countries that people held in high regard nor did they run disinformation campaigns in the US. I really don't believe that the US could nuke someone as a first strike without there being overwhelming public evidence to give cause. The US populace probably wouldn't approve regardless who's in charge.
- gwright 7y ago
  I would be surprised if signal intelligence was unable to discern who the guilty party was in this case even in the absence of hard data from the incident itself. I find it hard to believe any entity capable and willing of initiating such an attack could keep it quiet for long.
leetcrew 7y ago
why did you only quote that part of the paragraph? here's the rest: > Torpedoes are not that much faster than their targets. The Yu-6 is capable of 65 kts in attack mode, but the range figure is for cruise mode, which doesn’t have an associated speed. Even a 65 kt torpedo is only about twice as fast as a carrier, and the sound of the torpedo being fired is enough to alert any ship with a live sonar operator.7 This means that the target ship is likely to be running away, and the submarine has to close to within half of the effective range before launch. Furthermore, the target and its escorts are likely to counterattack, forcing the submarine to evade and cut the torpedo’s wires. A torpedo has limited space for sonar, and without guidance updates from the launching submarine, it can be evaded. All of this is likely to limit submarines to launch ranges of 8 nm or less. he's saying that the effective range for the torpedo is much shorter for a moving target, forcing the sub to get dangerously close. then after being detected, the sub would have to disengage and stop guiding the torpedo, at which point it could possibly be evaded.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Why did you only quote that part of the paragraph? Because that's where it got seriously dumb.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    do you have some relevant expertise to offer? the basic claim that effective range is halved or more against a target moving half as fast as you seems to make sense. I have no idea to what extent torpedoes need guidance from the launcher.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      No, I don't, but I'm pretty sure a carrier that's presumably not already "running away" can't hit the gas and accelerate meaningfully when it detects an enemy torpedo launch less than an hour away. Intuitively, evasive maneuvers don't seem to be a useful tool in a carrier's defensive arsenal, but I'd be interested in hearing otherwise.
nradov 7y ago
Carriers can move at about the same speed as submarines. And when transiting at high speed, submarines are very noisy and thus easy to detect. So if the carrier is operating in the open ocean it's tough for a submarine to get into firing position. If the carrier is constrained to operate in a restricted area then the submarine has a much better chance of sneaking up undetected. Carriers are frequently "sunk" in exercises like that.