Aircraft-carriers VS Submarines -- strategy for the next generation warfare

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by A.V., May 2, 2009.

  1. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    "The bigger they are the harder they fall" is a principle that doesn't just work in heavyweight boxing; it also applies to nuclear-powered aircraft carriers faced with swarms of attacking diesel-powered submarines
    .The myth that gigantic, 80,000 ton nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carriers are unsinkable is not believed by any serious naval officer or analyst, but it has become a deeply ingrained assumption

    This is in large part because neither the United States nor Britain has lost a major fleet aircraft carrier in action since the first half of World War II. During World War II, the United States did not lose a single one of its more than 40 fast Essex-class aircraft carriers to enemy action.

    This was in part due to the extraordinarily inept and passive combat operations record of the Japanese submarine force, in striking contrast to the magnificent gallantry and operational skill of Japan's aircraft carrier-based striking arm, and the cruisers and destroyers of the Imperial Navy's surface forces.

    But the main reason was that Essex-class carriers were fast and Japanese submarines operating in the Pacific Ocean were slow. The USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway in 1942 and the British aircraft carriers Ark Royal and Eagle operating off the coasts of Europe in 1941 and 1942 were both sunk by torpedoes fired by German U-boats.

    The fact that no U.S. aircraft carrier has been seriously threatened in combat in any of the wars the United States has fought since 1945 has added to the mystique of the carrier admirals. They continue to dominate the Navy, greatly influencing its procurement decisions to this day. And arguably, in the 21st century, the political power and prestige of the carrier admirals is greater than ever.

    The presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States this year is Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a heroic carrier combat pilot during the Vietnam War and the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals. His grandfather in fact commanded one of the U.S. Navy's main carrier strike forces against Imperial Japan in the closing months of World War II.

    However, the real reason none of America's magnificent aircraft carriers has faced serious threat over the past 60 years is for the very good reason that the United States has never fought any war during all that time in which they faced any enemy with significant naval forces.

    North Korea and the People's Republic of China did not have them during the Korean War of 1950-53, and North Vietnam did not have them during the Vietnam War, where major U.S. ground forces were committed from 1965 to 1972. In neither of the Gulf wars -- in 1991 and 2003 -- did Iraq have significant naval or anti-ship air launched weapons systems with which it could threaten U.S. aircraft carriers operating in the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean.

    Through the Cold War, the only naval force in the world capable of potentially sinking U.S. aircraft carriers by hostile action was the Soviet navy from the late-1960s on. Even today, that threat is not widely understood, yet it greatly influenced Chinese naval planners who have developed 21st century asymmetrical responses to threaten U.S. carrier battle groups currently operating in the Western Pacific Ocean.

    earlier related report
    How aircraft carriers became vulnerable
    Not a single Essex-class U.S. fleet aircraft carrier was sunk by enemy submarines in World War II. But America's nuclear aircraft carriers have been sitting ducks for fast-attack submarines for the past 40 years. No one in the American or British public realized in 1940 that battleships had become sitting ducks for aircraft-carrier attacks. But in fact that capability had been demonstrated 19 years earlier when U.S. biplanes commanded by the legendary Gen. Billy Mitchell sank the former Imperial German Navy battleship Ostfriesland in a trial attack off Hampton Roads, Va., on July 21, 1921.

    One of the eyewitnesses of that event was Capt. Osami Nagano of the Imperial Japanese Navy who went on to command the aircraft carrier strike that sank eight U.S. battleships at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. 1941.

    Similarly, neither U.S. policymakers nor the American public realize the vulnerability of giant aircraft carriers to torpedo attacks from modern fast submarines was demonstrated in 1968 when a fast Soviet nuclear-powered attack submarine matched the USS Enterprise at top speed in the Pacific Ocean. That moment, vividly and thoroughly discussed in Patrick Tyler's "Running Critical," was as epochal a moment in the shift of the strategic balance at sea as Billy Mitchell's sinking of Ostfriesland.

    Nor was this a freak, or isolated incident. Since 1968, U.S. submarines have routinely scored disabling hits on American carriers in U.S. Navy war games, and the hits, Navy insiders know, are routinely unacknowledged in the official assessments of the maneuvers.

    The Russian Navy is now only a shadow of its former self, but China has emerged as the would-be challenger to U.S. naval supremacy in the 21st century. China has experienced repeated problems with building its ambitious and expensive nuclear submarines. These problems probably explain in large part China's reluctance to use its enormous shipbuilding capacity to try and build giant aircraft carriers to match the U.S. leviathans.

    Instead, China is investing shrewdly in a "string of pearls" strategy: It is using its great financial clout to buy influence in nations suspicious of the United States and India across around and across the Indian Ocean, in order to be able to construct its own naval and air bases there. These bases have been built, are being built, or are being contemplated in Myanmar, in the Andaman Islands, in Mauritius, in Pakistan and even on the eastern coast of Africa.

    Such bases would allow China to maintain or rapidly deploy fleets of combat aircraft and home-base their diesel-powered submarines, based on Russia's excellent Kilo-class at them.

    Diesel powered, Kilo-type subs cannot stay at see indefinitely and they lack the range of the nuclear-powered subs of the U.S. British and Russian navies of sailing anywhere in the world without refueling and still having full operational capabilities. But given a base a few hundred or even a thousand miles form their operational areas they are formidable weapons and China has invested big in them. In 2006, China built 14 diesel-powered subs while the United States built only a single nuclear one.

    The Chinese strategy in the event of any maritime war with the United States, most especially over Taiwan, in the foreseeable future, would clearly, therefore, be to use swarms of Kilo-type subs to overwhelm the anti-submarine warfare -- ASW -- defenses of U.S. carrier battle groups to torpedo the giant U.S carriers. Alternately, they could choose to surface briefly and even risk destruction in order to fire their formidable Hai Ying -- Sea Eagle -- HY2 anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles, copied with Moscow's approval from the Russian Moskit 3M80 Moskit -- NATO designation SS-N-22 Sunburn. These weapons were expressly designed to kill U.S. aircraft carriers.

    Kilo subs would be no match for state-of-the-art, nuclear-powered U.S. undersea attack subs one on one. But they would not be deployed that way. Just as Nazi Kriegsmarine U-Boat -- wolf packs -- operating on the surface -- sought to overwhelm Allied convoys escort ships by their sheer weight of numbers during the long Battle of the Atlantic ion World War II, Chinese diesel subs, remaining underwater, would seek to overwhelm a carrier battle group's defenses by their numbers as well. The much smaller size of China;s diesel submarines -- as they do not have to carry any nuclear propulsion plant -- automatically gives them a great advantage in this regard.


    Submarines Versus Aircraft Carriers Part One
     
  2.  
  3. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,230
    Location:
    BANGalore
    I think both Carrier and Subs are intrinsic part of any navy that aspires to be powerful. History has taught us that whenever we have written off a platform has obsolete in war, it has made a comeback with a bang. Tanks are a prime example. The good old Gattling gun is feared today by the enemy when it sees an A-10 or A-130.
    So its too early to write off a carrier. It will come back with a bang. China too is looking to make carriers though it has invested a lot in subs.
    Carriers present their own potency and power. Cannot be compared to subs which does its own job. chalk and cheese. No comparison.
     
  4. Sailor

    Sailor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    5
    Great article Invincible I read it all. One line needs pruning a bit mate...........The USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway in 1942 was sunk by torpedoes fired by German U-boats.
     
  5. kuku

    kuku Respected Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    2
    http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-xz/cv5.htm
    http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-8.htm

    it got hit by arial torpedoes launched from torpedo planes (and where do you think the torpedo planes were coming from?)

    Pearl harbor was left devastated because of Japanese aircraft carriers.

    Every ship is at risk, if they can sink a aircraft carrier they can also sink a modern ASW corvette, it is about what capability the ship brings to a navy.

    If someone is afraid to fight, he should just surrender in the first place.
     
  6. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    USS Yorktown, was seriously damaged by the dive bombers and Torpedo planes from , Japanese Aircraft Carrier HIJMS Hiryu but during the salvage efforts it was Japanese submarine I-168 that done the fatal damage by torpedoing her.

    Here is the image courtesy Wikipedia showing USS Hammann sinking( image taken from USS Yorktown) after struck by I-168 , Yorktown sunk 7:01 AM , 7th June , 1942 after USS Hammann sunk.(Source : Wikipedia)

    [​IMG]

    Regards
     
  7. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Regarding Submarine: Sea denial platform. In offensive operation vulnerable to enemy surface and aerial assets. So need some cover.

    Regarding Aircraft Carriers: As they don't go alone they are power projection and essentially an offensive platform.
     
  8. Shiny Capstar

    Shiny Capstar Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Against a proper CSG a sub (or realistic sub group) don't have a chance.

    Before anyone mentions the Kitty Hawk incident the ships were at (and I quote) 'a very relaxed posture. If there were some heightened state of tension, we would, believe me, we would not let them get that close.'
    Anyway even if the sub did fire in that incident what was fired would have been detected straight away (probably before it even fired the weapon), the torpedo or missile neutralised and the sub sunk. (Its position would have been given away).

    Against any other nations CVBG's subs will probably have a decent or good chance, but against a US CSG, no way.
     
  9. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    "Against any other nations CVBG's subs will probably have a decent or good chance, but against a US CSG, no way. "

    I echo this to the core! Maybe the Chinese can swarm their way around some other carrier, but not an American one. I mean the US CG is unbelievably well put together, and their layer of defences if good. The Whole Kitty Hawk incident, if had happened during Wartime, well we would have seen a Chinese sub sunk!

    I am a big admirer of the US navy ACs. I have read not that long ago, reports about Sunburn missiles digging graves for the US ACs. Someone went onto write that, Iran would Sink US carriers in the Persian gulf with the Sunburn. This writer is an American I remember, will try to dig out the article, but I am sure many of you have read it. What do you feel about the Sunburn/Supersonic threat?? Can the Aegis counter it? Isnt supersonice super hard to intercept?
     
  10. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Location:
    Bangalore
    What about this then?
    MADHOUSE THOUGHT: Chinese submarine stalked USS Kitty Hawk
     
  11. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    Nitesh, Shiny already mentioned this, if you read it clearly, he said that the Kitty was in a relaxed posture, I am sure if it was in Full Red Alert, then the Chinese Sub would have been detected long ago. Besides, is the Chinese song class subs that quiet? I dont know much, thats why asking.
     
  12. kuku

    kuku Respected Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    2
    Consider this:

    Even if the story is true and a Chinese submarine did stalk the USN CSG then there is nothing that USN could do about it in peace time.

    And by surfacing the Chinese submarine gives away its identity for sure, if its real quiet it will protect its identity to death (or atleast make it as impossible as it can)

    I dont much remember the cold war, (was only 8 when the soviet union disintegrated) however it seems these western allies and soviet allies were real busy at land, sea, air and space, ready to fight the battle anywhere at any time, it would seem that to the USN the current state of affairs would be quiet ordinary.
     
  13. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Relaxed posture hmmmm thiis is interesting so for some time are you saying me that USN was not worried about there carrier at all? Doesn't sound logical.
     
  14. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,669
    What does 'relaxed posture' means?. Do they turn off the radars/sonars?.
     
  15. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,230
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Yes as it doesn't want to gave away it's signature. As mentioned before the Chinese dub would have been history in a war time scenario. The Chinese were just trying to be smart in the game of one upmanship and gave itself away instead. Obviously the CCP would have used the incident for propaganda purpose and show it's people that it scared the Great Satan
     
  16. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    Nitesh -->Can you explain? I didnt quite understand, I never said that USN wasnt worried about their Carrier.

    Daredevil--> The Biggest Threat facing the USN is not by any other Navy, its their Lax attitude, I mean, they know that with their technology and their ships no one can do anything, or Dare to do anything. They clearly know that China or any other country wont attack them one fine day, like japan did. They closed down all the plugs, and their only enemy is the Al Qaeda and its Fundi Friends, and they are far from having submarines, but a USS cole type attack they expect.

    Why cant we assume that the Kitty Hawk was playing along the Chinese Sub? What if they had some other motive? We all know US loves to snoop around the seas. Havent you heard of the Chinese "harassing" a US survey ship or something? Was it just a survey ship or was it something more???

    I am not saying that the USN Aircraft Carriers are Indestructible, but in Real war time, no one can get that close enough to do it any harm without getting shot down or they gotta embark on a Kamikaze mission!

    The USN Carrier Strike Group has a ship for everything, and it includes Submarines also to smoke out other subs and threats. We shouldnt Discount the fact that they are formidable and can be "Swarmed" Out. I feel the Chinese are thinking like the Iranians, and that is certainly not good.
     
  17. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,230
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The survey ship was a snoop ship. If was out to "survey" Chinese navy boats for it's scent.
     
  18. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    * a carrier – The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government from simply showing the flag to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, its aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.
    * two guided missile cruisers – multi-mission surface combatants. Equipped with Tomahawks for long-range strike capability.
    * a guided missile destroyer – multi-mission suface combatant, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW)
    * a destroyer – primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
    * a frigate – primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
    * two attack submarines – in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines
    * a combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship – provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence: on station, ready to respond

    The Aircraft Carrier Battle Group
     
  19. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    ^^^^^Note in the Above post about what Comprises the USN CSG. We can clearly see Frigates, Destroyers, and Submarine are given Anti Sub role. This shows that they aint discounting the Submarine Threat.
     
  20. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Likes Received:
    11,230
    Location:
    BANGalore
    And a Chinese sub got there unnoticed through all that? I think the US sucked that boat into a a false sense of superiority.
     
  21. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    You might be correct, this might be a ploy to give them a false sense of superiority. I have read about Chinese Nuclear Subs being Noisy, dont know much about their Diesel Subs. Heard they got AIP now, someone shed some light?

    Then, we recently heard the IN Submarine trailing the Chinese Destroyer. Why is the Chinese Navy in conflict with other navies? Isnt it just a Press Job? I feel its just Propoganda, to show to the poor ill informed people that their Country can Take on USA and India anytime, anywhere!

    The Chinese subs, as far as my knowledge is concerned, is not that great a piece of tech.
     

Share This Page