How to sink an AirCraft Carrier

[Penguin]

Why we need to sink the ship. A small attack on the control tower or flight deck will make it just useless.

A wake homing torpedo taking out propulsion and/or rudder would suffice to render the unit incapable of combat (unable to launch aircraft). See the 'Tom Clancy scenario' ;-)

 

[nightrider_saulat]

Hi,

It is the job of only one sub or two at the most---multiple subs like 4 or 5 cannot do it---they will be too evident.

I am pretty sure the you guys have heard about the hole in the ocean sonar---this sonar can easily detect the silent ones as well.

The a/c carrier can only be taken out by a tactical nuke---I believe that this point was made by my buddy QSAARK on the very first page---.

The carrier may sink or not sink---if it is disabled by an air burst kind of tactical nuclear strike.

Here is how the scenario will work---the first nuc missile would be made an air burst weapons in the viccinity or on top of the carries group---which will result in massive loss of life and infrastructure---all defencive weapons systems will be disabled by this strike---then the second nuc would hit the carrier itself---sending it to kingdom cone.

Anything in the 5 to ten miles radius on the surface will be floating upside down----the sub by herself would have to be atleast ten miles out to launch the nuc, otherwise the concussion would flatten the sub.

Other than that, there is nothing that can take out the ship---only the wrath of God.

The second strike may also be an air burst nuc---that will take out the remaing surface vessels in the carrier battle group and whatever is left of the carrier---but before you do that, you have to decide if the strike is worth it---are you ready for the retaliation.

so you mean that AShMs and torpedoes can't bring down an aircraft carrier

 

[MastanKhan]

so you mean that AShMs and torpedoes can't bring down an aircraft carrier

Hi,

That is true---you won't fire an under sea nuc torpedoe---because the resulting concussion would crush the submarine----remember in water the sound is amplified many a times---even if you do---it would be a reduced charge---the output of the nuc explosion would depend on the subs distance from the carrier---closer the sub---the lesser output nuc weapon would be used---an in the air burst would make all the communication and anti jamming equipment useless---plus there will be massive damage to anything that is exposed---the resulting concussion / shock wave may do horrible things to the carrier group.

The first strike would make the adversary impotent---the second strike would completely take out what is left---it won't be a pretty picture.

 

[Penguin]

Hi,

That is true---you won't fire an under sea nuc torpedoe---because the resulting concussion would crush the submarine----remember in water the sound is amplified many a times---even if you do---it would be a reduced charge---the output of the nuc explosion would depend on the subs distance from the carrier---closer the sub---the lesser output nuc weapon would be used---an in the air burst would make all the communication and anti jamming equipment useless---plus there will be massive damage to anything that is exposed---the resulting concussion / shock wave may do horrible things to the carrier group.

The first strike would make the adversary impotent---the second strike would completely take out what is left---it won't be a pretty picture.

A couple of heavy weight torpedoes should to just fine. No nukes needed.

 

[gogbot]

Still think you need a carrier to defeat a carrier.

those subs only got close because the fleets were busy engaging other fleets.

 

[MastanKhan]

A couple of heavy weight torpedoes should to just fine. No nukes needed.

Hi,

Please kindly explain the approach of the sub---launch distance---the time tracker--ability and capability of the torps---and the point of impact.

 

[PAFAce]

Still think you need a carrier to defeat a carrier.

those subs only got close because the fleets were busy engaging other fleets.

Hypothetically, maybe you are right, but that idea makes no sense in the practical Pakistan-India scenario. A carrier is a ship, it's objective is to provide air-power from the sea using movable airbases. If you want to destroy a ship, why would you try to match its functions? Destroy a ship like you would a ship, let the Air Force worry about countering the air-power.

An Indian carrier consists of a carrier, an aviation wing, two destroyers and two frigates. Unlike a US carrier group, it doesn't travel with a submarine, whereas the aircraft on-board aren't the most capable when it comes to air-combat. Hence it is quite vulnerable to attack from above and below. Feign an attack on two flanks (aerial and surface, for example), then quickly retreat, while a silent sub underneath blows the sh*t out of, first, the supporting ships and then the carrier itself. Heck, once the support ships are gone, the carrier is helpless, you could even keep it from returning home and capture the ultimate war-trophy, an aircraft carrier.

Oh, and we haven't even spoken about the most obvious way of killing a carrier, and a carrier commander's worst nightmare, an accurate missile hit.

It's not easy, obviously, but a Carrier Battle Group is certainly a very large target to aim at with many vulnerabilities, even a slightly successful attack will do major damage.

 

[hboGYT]

Let me try:

Against an US CBG: 1. another equally capable CBG
2. ASBM
3. a monsterous cruise missile barrage
4. submarine fired torpedos with air cover
5. suicide bombing dolphins/squids
6. sea mines by luck

Against anyone else: 1. cruise missiles


What is the composition of an Indian CBG?

If it doesn't include an AEGIS equivalent, then submarine launched cruise missiles can cut it.

 

[pak-yes]

Hypothetically, maybe you are right, but that idea makes no sense in the practical Pakistan-India scenario. A carrier is a ship, it's objective is to provide air-power from the sea using movable airbases. If you want to destroy a ship, why would you try to match its functions? Destroy a ship like you would a ship, let the Air Force worry about countering the air-power.

An Indian carrier consists of a carrier, an aviation wing, two destroyers and two frigates. Unlike a US carrier group, it doesn't travel with a submarine, whereas the aircraft on-board aren't the most capable when it comes to air-combat. Hence it is quite vulnerable to attack from above and below. Feign an attack on two flanks (aerial and surface, for example), then quickly retreat, while a silent sub underneath blows the sh*t out of, first, the supporting ships and then the carrier itself. Heck, once the support ships are gone, the carrier is helpless, you could even keep it from returning home and capture the ultimate war-trophy, an aircraft carrier.

Oh, and we haven't even spoken about the most obvious way of killing a carrier, and a carrier commander's worst nightmare, an accurate missile hit.

It's not easy, obviously, but a Carrier Battle Group is certainly a very large target to aim at with many vulnerabilities, even a slightly successful attack will do major damage.

Good idea.instead of destroying capture carrier.

 

[Penguin]

Hi,

Please kindly explain the approach of the sub---launch distance---the time tracker--ability and capability of the torps---and the point of impact.

Let's apply that question to the nuke missile scenario too, please

The danger from even “obsolete” World War II-era torpedoes was dramatically illustrated when the Royal Navy submarine HMS Conqueror fired two MK 8 torpedoes, sinking the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano during the 1982 Falkands war – the first time torpedoes had been fired in anger against a warship since 1945.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_32/antitorpedo_2.html

Wake-homing torpedoes are expected to remain the primary torpedo against surface ships throughout
the next 20 years.

http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/transcripts/Sept15/worldwide_maritime_challenges.pdf (page 7)

As indicated, a wake homing heavyweight torp (such as the russian 53-65 family, UGST) could very effectively take out propulsion and rudder control, if not sink it.

e.g. 53-65KE
Calibre: 533mm
Length: 7,945mm
Weight: 2,100kg
Warhead: 300kg
Propellant: Kerosene-Oxygen turbine
Speed: 45kt
Range: 18km
Guidance: Wave-homing

The 53-65KE is designed to engage surface ships and can be launched from submarines and surface combatants. The torpedo is fitted with a unique wave-homing system, which enables the torpedo to chase the tail marks of surface ships. This provides the torpedo with very high jamming immunity to conventional means of torpedo-defence countermeasures. The torpedo’s course, depth, and roll control system provides for two-plane manoeuvring of the torpedo and steers it into the proximity fuse actuation zone or ensures a direct hit on the target. Its turbine-type thermal propulsion system ensures a considerable operating range and running speed. The 53-65KE is reliable and easy to operate, requiring no maintenance even when stored in torpedo tubes, on carrier racks, or in arsenals for a long time.

Chinese Defence Today - 53-65KE Anti-Ship Torpedo

e.g. UGST wake-homing torpedo. This torpedo weighs 2,200kg with 200kg explosive charge. It has a range of up to 40km, and a depth of search of up to 500m.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/

Drawing on its accumulated experience, the Morteplotekhnika Institute offers the international market, among other things, a multipurpose deep-submergence homing torpedo, designated UGST which, in terms of combat characteristics, is highly competitive with the best similar foreign armaments. The torpedo is fitted with a low-noise-level mono-propellant axial-piston engine and pump-jet propulsor. The torpedo employs a combined homing and wire tele-control system which ensures highly effective search and destruction of surface and underwater targets at great distances and within a wide range of submarine operating depths.

http://milparade.udm.ru/security/27/075.htm

The Navy Searches for a Way to Detect Antiship Torpedoes Well Before Impact

2006-09-06

Article from Navy League of the United States
By Richard R. Burgess, Managing Editor

...
The antiship torpedo — a century-old weapon — remains the most dangerous, stealthy threat to a surface ship in hostile waters. That threat has risen with the proliferation of a new generation of diesel submarines, which are difficult to detect. Countering incoming torpedoes is a serious challenge for ships unlucky enough to get too close to a hostile submarine. They must determine the range and direction from which the torpedoes are approaching, and respond rapidly enough to outmaneuver or destroy them.

Effective detection, classification and localization of torpedoes are critical to protecting high-value ships from torpedoes.
...
Wake-homing torpedoes are guided by sensors that detect the turbulence of a ship’s wake. The torpedo snakes from side to side within the cone of the wake and follows it to the ship’s stern before detonation.

Many navies today, including those of China, North Korea and Iran, arm their submarines with wake-homing torpedoes.
...
Hill said the Navy has tactics to defeat wake-homing torpedoes, but stressed that the focus of antisubmarine tactics is to avoid submarines so as to “not get shot at” before the submarine can be attacked.

“We also still have to deal with the straight-running torpedo from the World War II era,” he said.
...
A torpedo-defense system designed against a wake-homing threat failed its operational evaluation in 1994.
...
The only torpedo detection system for surface ships currently in use by the Navy is passive acoustic software on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. However, it is not used by other Navy ships and lacks an active acoustic feature necessary for the rapid and accurate location of an incoming torpedo.

Even when torpedoes are detected, the Navy currently has no dedicated means of destroying them, though an antitorpedo torpedo is under development (see Seapower, June issue). The only countermeasure system currently available to surface ships is the SLQ-25A Nixie, an electro-acoustic decoy designed to deceive acoustic torpedoes which home in on a sound source such as the ship’s propulsion plant.

Advanced Acoustic Concepts - News Article

 

[Penguin]

Meanwhile, an interesting scenario was put forward by Tom Clancy in the novel Debt of Honor (1994): During a joint military exercise, Japanese ships "accidentally" launch [lightweight ASW] torpedoes at two of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers and two submarines at the conclusion of a joint U.S.-Japan naval exercise, destroying both submarines and crippling the carriers.
Debt of Honor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MastanKhan]

Let's apply that question to the nuke missile scenario too, please


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_32/antitorpedo_2.html


http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/transcripts/Sept15/worldwide_maritime_challenges.pdf (page 7)

As indicated, a wake homing heavyweight torp (such as the russian 53-65 family, UGST) could very effectively take out propulsion and rudder control, if not sink it.

e.g. 53-65KE
Calibre: 533mm
Length: 7,945mm
Weight: 2,100kg
Warhead: 300kg
Propellant: Kerosene-Oxygen turbine
Speed: 45kt
Range: 18km
Guidance: Wave-homing


Chinese Defence Today - 53-65KE Anti-Ship Torpedo


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/


MILITARY PARADE MAY-JUNE


Advanced Acoustic Concepts - News Article

Hi Peguin,

Would you kindly care to elaborate on your statement of torps taking out an air craft carrier again----kindly give some guidelines at least---launch distance etc---.

An a/c carrier is not going to be alone by itself---any other support ship may intersect the torp and sacrifice itself---first of all too much liberty is being taken at taking a rudder shot---.

Taking a rudder shot by the subs---would it be assumed that the a/c carrier is taking a NAP---is asleep---nobody at the helm---everone on break---a rudder shot is launched---and the ship will take it in the a--. Interesting.

But if the hit becomes inevitable---the ship will show its profile and turn so that the side taking the hit is tilted towards the ocean---which means that the hit maybe taken above the waterline and once the ship starightens out, the damage repaired.

Secondly---an a/c carrier is so much compartmentalized that there will be many many hits taken at critical areas to sink it---which basically means that you are fighting with an impotent carrier and eternally asleep crew.

You see the problem over here is PASTE AND POST---.

 

[Penguin]

Hi Peguin,

Would you kindly care to elaborate on your statement of torps taking out an air craft carrier again----kindly give some guidelines at least---launch distance etc---.

Using UGST, launch at max range (40km), initially wire guided, then wake homing on the final run. Or, depending on scenario/location, wait, sneak in and kill at close range. The primary problem for a sub is locating the carrier in the first place.

An a/c carrier is not going to be alone by itself---any other support ship may intersect the torp and sacrifice itself---first of all too much liberty is being taken at taking a rudder shot---.

Intersecting of wakes does not matter untill such time as there is a switch from wire-guidance to autonomous wake homing. In as far as the latter is concerned, I would assume a four-screw carrier of 100,000 tons has a detectably different wake than a twin-screw CG/DDG of 1/10th that displacement, or a smaller single screw 4,500 ton FFG, and it is quite possible that the UGST is smart enough to distinguish. Alternatively, fire a spread of 4 torps rather than 1. That makes the sacrificing by escorts more difficult and costly. Then reattack with another spread of four. Repeat as necessary. Chances are, by the 2nd attack, there won't be (enough) escorts left to sacrifice themself, at least not without leaving the carrier wide open to subsequent air, sub- and surface attacks.

Taking a rudder shot by the subs---would it be assumed that the a/c carrier is taking a NAP---is asleep---nobody at the helm---everone on break---a rudder shot is launched---and the ship will take it in the a--. Interesting.

Wake homing is not the same a rudder shot with a straight runner or wire guided torp: evasive manouvres will still leave a wake for the torp to follow. Besides, as indicated in a posted excerpt from an article, the only ships with suitable detection gear are the Burkes and even they have no active or passive defence against wake homing torps.

But if the hit becomes inevitable---the ship will show its profile and turn so that the side taking the hit is tilted towards the ocean---which means that the hit maybe taken above the waterline and once the ship starightens out, the damage repaired.

I'm pretty sure a 7-8m torp can corner faster than a 100,000 ton carrier. The wake homer will keep on the tail of the carrier. And since it has a proximity fuze, it doesn't actually have to hit the carrier to (mission) kill it.

Secondly---an a/c carrier is so much compartmentalized that there will be many many hits taken at critical areas to sink it---which basically means that you are fighting with an impotent carrier and eternally asleep crew.

Once propulsion or rudder is reduced or gone, the carrier becomes a big slow target (unable to launch aircraft, just rotorcraft, of which they gave few) that even a non-nuclear SS or SSK can run circles around (and that invites additional air, sub- and surface attacks).
Besides, do you think the cruiser Belgrano, formerly USS Phoenix (CL-46), a Brooklyn class light cruiser, wasn't highly compartmentalized? Nonetheless, two torps sank her.

The design of the Brooklyn-class light cruisers was validated through wargaming. The result was very sturdy ships that survived many kamikaze attacks during WWII.

CL-40 Brooklyn

You see the problem over here is PASTE AND POST---.

We shall just post opions here then, rather than coherent argument backed up by source material?

Cleveland class light cruiser (nb: 9 Cleveland class hulls were converted to CVL-22 class light carriers to meet the demand for small fast aircraft carriers to escort attack forces and convoys):

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Are you thinking that the carrier is stationary---because if the launch is made at 40 km---what does it take 25--30 minutes to get to the target---why would the carrier not turn around and head the other direction at dash speed---.

With 45 max knots speed and a range of 18 km according to your post---the torp that you launched from 40 km away---would already have fizzled out---seems like the stationary carrier didnot have to move at all---. Why this disparity in your post---did you miss something---or wanted to write something different.

Now what if the carrier launched a short range nuc tipped missile fromthe origination point of the torp---the cocussion / undersea shockwave would take our the sub and the torp as well.


Originally Posted by Penguin
Let's apply that question to the nuke missile scenario too, please


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...torpedo_2.html


http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hea...challenges.pdf (page 7)

As indicated, a wake homing heavyweight torp (such as the russian 53-65 family, UGST) could very effectively take out propulsion and rudder control, if not sink it.

e.g. 53-65KE
Calibre: 533mm
Length: 7,945mm
Weight: 2,100kg
Warhead: 300kg
Propellant: Kerosene-Oxygen turbine
Speed: 45kt
Range: 18km
Guidance: Wave-homing

 

[Comet]

Why do you need to sink the AC? if is crippled and cannot function, the objective will be reached. Modern wars don't last long. sooner there will be intervention from outside world (in case of India Pakistan). In order to get rid of the AC manace, try to make is non-functional.