September 1st, 2004  
This is why a Supercarrier fleet comes complete with a good compliment of Destroyers. Try sneaking up on them at your own risk. I don't know what detection methods that the most modern destroyers use. Do they have something to foil stealth technologies?
September 1st, 2004  
dude carriers when not at war are at their own to fight.
September 3rd, 2004  
Submarines would seem to be the way to go against a carrier battle group.
According to the following report well trained crews even in diesel subs can create havoc, whether it would work as well in a real shooting war is another question.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

The Author
Roger Thompson is Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.

In 1981, The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.
They were quite impressed.

The Russians mug the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk

These examples provide ample evidence of the vulnerability of U.S. Navy carrier battle groups to attacks from diesel submarines, but of course there are other ways to sink a carrier, as the Russian Air Force knows well. In October 2000, the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Kitty Hawk was mugged by Russian SU-24 and Su-27 aircraft, which were not detected until they were virtually on top of the carrier. The Russian aircraft buzzed the carrier s flight deck and caught the ship completely unprepared. To add insult to injury, the Russians took very detailed photos of the Kitty Hawk s flight deck, and very courteously, provided the pictures to the American CO via e-mail. In the December 7, 2000 edition of WorldNetDaily, Jon E. Dougherty said that the Russian photographs made it clear that there was panic aboard the Kitty Hawk. As one U.S. sailor quipped, The entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them.

Russia's air force is now only a faint shadow of what it once was, but even now, they can demonstrate that they can, if necessary, do significant damage to the U.S. Navy. It's little wonder then that a Russian newspaper gloated that If these had been planes on a war mission, the aircraft carrier would definitely have been sunk. Perhaps they are right. But it s not just the Russians, Canadians, Dutch and Australians who think the U.S. Navy s carrier battle groups are over-rated, expensive and extremely vulnerable. Admiral Hyman Rickover himself didn t think much of the American carrier-centered Navy, either. When asked in 1982 about how long the American carriers would survive in an actual war, he curtly replied that they would be finished in approximately 48 hours.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
September 3rd, 2004  
I think a sub could do it the most modern diesel's are quieter then nukes.

Just to make sure let's throw in a sub squadron of say 15 Nuclear Virginia Class attack submarines.
September 3rd, 2004  
In a wartime situation though, that move would be pretty impossible. The ocean surrounding a Supercarrier in a war zone would be loaded with all the players within the chessmatch vying for naval superiority. A sub group may have a lot of destroyers and other subs to get past to get into position to kill the carrier.
September 3rd, 2004  
As far as I know Russia has submarines that are dedicated to sink aircrafts carriers.
Remember, one of them so called Kursk had sunk by a big explosion at Baltic.
That class submarines have 12 or 24 missiles that are not nuke.
Think about that missiles are fired at the same time, what will happen to a aircrafts carrier.
I wonder whether a carrier can handle missiles by close weapons or not.
I think aircrafts carrier can not be success to respond for all of missiles.
September 4th, 2004  
A carrier can easily handle shooting down 24 missiles. Try again, Russia.
November 30th, 2004  

Topic: How to sink an aircraft carrier

Two things about an aircraft carrier. First is an under-reported weapon called a bubble mine. It is very simple. Bubble-ize the water under the vessel. With bubbles of any gas in the water, the water's density goes down. When the density goes down the buoyancy goes down. This is a complex way of saying the boat don't float anymore.

You could sink it quickly and cheaply with a single mine or torpedo. Or worse, the enemy could bubble-ize the water under the bow only and it would capsize. This would give the enemy weapons, secrets and prisoners.

Lastly, if a carrier were to have the catapults damaged it, would become a next to defenseless, massive, very expensive target. Given that two successful strikes on several locations would disable the catapults, only a statistically few number of rounds would do the job.

As ending comment, the Navy knows about the issues around the carrier. They are emotionally attached to it. It is the height of Naval weaponry. The Navy doesn't like any threat to policy about the carrier. Look at how fast the Sea Dart program was subverted then buried.
December 2nd, 2004  
Well you should take out the weak points the front,sides,and back at least 2 times
December 2nd, 2004  
LOL, the front of a carrier isn't weak in the least. No one wants to sit in front of a carrier thats moving at 35 knots for long enough to get a firing solution and shoot, while they themselves are moving at a good 20-30 knots.