MOVING TARGETS




 
--
 
August 6th, 2010  
Yossarian
 
 

Topic: MOVING TARGETS


Okay there is enough theoretical evidence and enough common knowledge to know the effects of U.S. Aircraft Carriers over seas, and there was a time and place a super Carrier off your coast line was a strong exhibition of the "big stick" But there are enough planners and even more cost effective means to get rid of this expensive military component, if it can not currently be done, even admist a CSF right now.

The means are there, it's funny to see that a carrier can survive a nuclear blast, yet the simple cold war era missile may be it's downfall.

What I am saying, is I think that like expensive plate armor and highly trained horsemen of the days of yore came to victim to the lowly trained gunman, the advent of gunpowder's uses as we know it to fashionable suits of shiny armor then. This with many other examples shows that expense is not everything spared or not. Carriers may be in the same.

Now to the thread topic, this is not focused on HOW a carrier will be taken out (lord forbidding that situation never arises). BUT how ware fare and U.S. foreign diplomacy will have to change in a world that holds absence of these mighty warships being used in the fashion they are now, I am not saying they will be completely obsolete, looking at WW ll carriers being lost were expected, now however one carrier down would be much more impactive.

Times are changing, until forcefield technology or Super Carriers flying into outer space occurs, their uses may go the way of the battleship, when you stick a of cost 4.5 billion to your big sitck, you kinda don't wanna risk in combat, and if you can't use a weapon in combat? Then what use is it at all? Carriers may go the way of the battleship, fine display of military budget, nothing more.


For those who just skipped to the end of the thread, it's simple, American carriers are becoming more and more vulnerable, and expensive, missile technology is empowering more and more regional powers to strike at carriers, even in the midst of CSFs, either the carriers go, and U.S. policy changes, or they adjust majorly operating procedures, until point defense weapons technology closes the gap, then again, thats a cat and mouse game in it's self between offensive, and defensive technologies...
August 6th, 2010  
c/Commander
 
 
It's a non-issue. Do you honestly think that we have no anti-ballistic missile capability?
August 7th, 2010  
Yossarian
 
 
What about waves of cost effective anti ship missiles, some traveling at dizzying speeds, if you throw enough in the air, in say bad weather, or actually catch the crew non a combat stance (PRECEDEING an act of war or international incident)

. You can launch a variety of missiles from platforms such as mobile ground platforms, and low flying aircraft. I'm sure somewhere this is being put into big consideration, it feels kind of wrong saying this, but if I was a on the drawing board or in the war room of an enemy combat, I am sure the one thing on their minds would be how much would it take to overwhelm AEGIS?

Punch through the protection screen, and overwhelm any CWIS or RAM platforms on board the screening ships and the target itself. Is it cheaper to built newly developed fast attack missiles, or build a Super Carrier?

WW ll has proven that the U.S. Navy has an uncanny ability to find those and blow them out to the water, but finding dozens, of hard to find launch platforms, some of them moving platforms to take out, is almost futile.

All I am saying, is that the security of any Super Carrier, even if the U.S.N. did not have the monopoly on them, is entirely permissible.

Have enough dodge balls thrown at you, one's bound to scrape you.
--
August 7th, 2010  
c/Commander
 
 
Each SPY-1 can track at least 100 targets simultaneously, and you generally have two or three (sometimes even four) sets in a battlegroup. The CVN-78 class carriers will also have the SPY-3 radar, which carries enhanced ballistic missile defense systems.

What Aegis does is link all of those sets and allow engagement by any of the linked ships. We can also use Link-11 and Link-16 to send targets to non-Aegis platforms (for example, Taiwanese DDGs and FFGs) so that they can engage them.

RAM, SeaRAM, and CIWS are totally separate systems - they cannot be Aegis-controlled. SeaRAM is a very good counter to supersonic sea-skimming cruise missiles if detected, and is hitting the fleet now - first mounted on USS Independence (LCS-2).

The point is, the DF-21 is not nearly as scary as the media is representing. The aforementioned cruise missiles are, but they've been around awhile. Carriers will be fine.
August 7th, 2010  
Yossarian
 
 
"Carriers will be fine"

Thats all I wanted to here
August 9th, 2010  
KJ
 
 
I think you are looking at the wrong end of the spectra.
The air threat isnŽt the carriergroups weakspot.

There are some submarine types the USN have a documented unability to defend against.
Given, the situation would have to be just right for the agressor, but it would only take one getting into range to spoil the day.

The enemy only have to be able to deny the carrier freedom of movement to render it alot less effective.

This thinking that the carriergroups are invincable is a very dangerous mindgame.
In war youŽll have to be ready to sometimes loose some of your own weaponsplatforms or the shock when one goes down will break the will to fight..
August 9th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
I think you are looking at the wrong end of the spectra.
The air threat isnŽt the carriergroups weakspot.

There are some submarine types the USN have a documented unability to defend against.
Given, the situation would have to be just right for the agressor, but it would only take one getting into range to spoil the day.

The enemy only have to be able to deny the carrier freedom of movement to render it alot less effective.

This thinking that the carriergroups are invincable is a very dangerous mindgame.
In war youŽll have to be ready to sometimes loose some of your own weaponsplatforms or the shock when one goes down will break the will to fight..
The US Navy does not have a believe that Aircraft carriers are invincible. Why do you think the US has so many? I have no idea where that idea comes from.

Aircraft carriers are war ships, they have to not only be able to attack but defend. In an all out war the US Navy would expect to lose some carriers. It is highly doubtful that any country could eliminate all the carrier groups before having their navy neutralized by combined US military forces, not just carriers.

"There are some submarine types the USN have a documented unability to defend against." quote KJ

Please supply documentation or sources for these submarines that the US can not defend against.

No navy is invincible against submarine attacks, but the US also has Fast Attack submarines that are effective against other submarines, and has more of them.
August 9th, 2010  
KJ
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
The US Navy does not have a believe that Aircraft carriers are invincible. Why do you think the US has so many? I have no idea where that idea comes from.

Aircraft carriers are war ships, they have to not only be able to attack but defend. In an all out war the US Navy would expect to lose some carriers. It is highly doubtful that any country could eliminate all the carrier groups before having their navy neutralized by combined US military forces, not just carriers.

"There are some submarine types the USN have a documented unability to defend against." quote KJ

Please supply documentation or sources for these submarines that the US can not defend against.

No navy is invincible against submarine attacks, but the US also has Fast Attack submarines that are effective against other submarines, and has more of them.
Yes there is a theory running wild in the US Navy that nothing short of a huge seabattle can touch a carrier group.
That is just not the case.

This is a transcript of the report.. The online soundfile has been taken down.As you can see the Gotland class has during exercises sunk both fast attack subs as well as the USS Ronald Reagan.

------------
SAN DIEGO, Calif. -- The Pentagon said it believes the greatest undersea threat facing the U.S. Navy since the end of the Cold War has arrived.

Pentagon: New Class Of Silent Submarines Poses Threat

POSTED: 6:54 pm PDT October 19, 2006
UPDATED: 6:15 am PDT October 20, 2006



file photo

The threat involves a new a new class of silent submarines -- subs that the U.S. Navy is having trouble finding under water. In this exclusive investigation, NBC4's Chuck Henry looked into one of those submarines in San Diego.

Following is a verbatim script from the on-air report.

CHUCK HENRY: The threat is real. And it has the Navy so concerned that it's turning to Sweden for help. That's because the Swedes have those silent submarines.

And right now, one of them is stationed at Point Loma. Earlier this month, NBC4 had unprecedented access to the Swedish sub and its crew.

What NBC4 aired few people have ever seen and certainly not in the United States.

On the surface it looks like any other submarine, but the U.S. Navy said it could be the most dangerous sub in the world.

FREDERICK LINDEN: Being noisy is something that is dangerous for us.

HENRY: Fredrick Linden is the commander of the HMS Gotland. He and his crew of 29 call the sub base at Point Loma home. They came to San Diego because the Navy is worried about this new generation of silent subs.

The Pentagon leased the Gotland for one year, but now has extended the lease for a second year, as they try to learn why this submarine so difficult to find underwater.

Subs have always had two weaknesses: they make noise and can't stay submerged very long. But the Gotland runs on a high-tech system called Air Independent Propulsion -- or AIP.

LINDEN: With AIP, I can stay submerged for weeks.

HENRY: Not only can the sub stay submerged for up to a month, the AIP technology also makes it quieter than other subs, and almost impossible to pick up on sonar.

When the Gotland wants to be silent and undetectable, especially along coastal waters, there's not a place it can't go. And that's one of the reasons it's here.

Since last summer the Navy has spent months playing a game of cat and mouse with the Gotland off San Diego, and time after time the Swedish sub has eluded its pursuers.

HENRY (TO COMMANDER): As an adversary, how good are you at what you do?

LINDEN: Very good.

HENRY: Can you tell us about your accomplishments?

LINDEN: We are satisfied with being good.

HENRY: According to Swedish newspapers, in training exercises the Gotland has sunk our most sophisticated nuclear submarines. But perhaps even more disconcerting, it reportedly sunk our largest aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Reagan.

NORMAN POLMAR, NAVAL ANALYST: She's really run rings around our carrier groups.

HENRY: Norman Polmar is a military analyst specializing in naval intelligence. He says since the end of the cold war, funding of the navy's anti submarine warfare program has been scaled back dramatically.

As the U.S. funnels billions into the war on terror, countries like North Korea, China and Iran are building or trying to get submarines like the Gotland.

Two months ago in the Persian Gulf, Iran tested a new anti-ship missile fired by one of its subs.

If the Iranians are successful in getting a Gotland-class submarine, it could pose a new silent danger to vital oil tanker traffic in the region.

POLMAR: With more of these submarines being bought by countries that don't particularly like us, Iran being a good example, yes, there is a potential. There is a threat.

HENRY: And the commander of the Gotland knows just how vulnerable the United States could be if a sub like his fell into the wrong hands.

HENRY: If you look at our coast, North America, is there any place that you can't go?

LINDEN: No.

HENRY: No place?

Linden then shakes his head.

HENRY: Although this emerging undersea threat is a top priority for the U.S. Navy, the U.S. is committed to its nuclear submarine force, and has no plans to develop subs like the Gotland.

The Navy says it just wants to know how to detect and kill them.
August 9th, 2010  
c/Commander
 
 
That story is four years old - I have no doubts that we've progressed in that field. No one is saying we're invincible, but the truth is that we do not sit still as people develop counters to our ships.
August 9th, 2010  
Yossarian
 
 
Best thing to kill an airplane, another airplane, so it is said the same with other Submarines. Carrier groups usual have an entourage of at least one Fast Attack boat with them, to guard against such threats, or do reconnaissance on target vessels. I suppose they can in a very rough sense be seen as an underwater CWIS, just one that targets the weapon platform not the projectiles. But with new stealth technology, the Attack Submarine puts on a cloak of invisibility that can translate into almost invincibility, not unlike for say, a carrier battle group.

What about trying to come up with ways to better equipped attack boats to handle quieter adversaries?And assigning them to carrier groups on bouncer duty?
 


Similar Topics
UN chief moving ahead with probe of Israeli raid (AP)
Japan to pay 60% of costs of moving US troops to Guam
German agents played no role in selecting Iraq bombing targets says FM
US envoy sees peace moving forward in Sudan's Darfur (AFP)