What's new

INS Vikramditya, India's second aircraft carrier, out at sea again

Man recently i am having second thoughts about effective carrier battle groups really will be in future conflicts.Here read this.If US navy is having problems what about us?Granted our adversaries are way weaker and chinese diesel subs can't operate in IOR due to range and nuke subs are way noisier.
This article.
News
It seems carriers are way vulnerable to diesel subs atm.:undecided:

@AUSTERLITZ, check this out - how an Australian sub defeats the USN.

Australian Sub defeats US Navy in exercise - YouTube
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Really USN can't detect them,and we will pop them up like lightbulb?Did u even read the article mate?



What every exercise from the 80s to current were rigged?
Then how was relatively old chinese song submarine able to pop up in between us kitty hawk carrier group undetected in 2006?In war thats would be dead carrier.

In reality, it may have also been a dead sub (clearly, if USN detected it during peactime, it couldn't very well kill it ...). Point being: who said the sub was NOT detected (maybe it merely wasn't killed/chased away)?
 
.
In reality, it may have also been a dead sub (clearly, if USN detected it during peactime, it couldn't very well kill it ...). Point being: who said the sub was NOT detected (maybe it merely wasn't killed/chased away)?

That was assumed from us reaction which was shock and outrage.Acc to one nato official 'it was as shocking as soviets launching sputnik'.
 
.
Those WW II diesel 'subs' were not true submarines but really surface vessels capable of being submerged for short periods of time. So yes, technically speaking, any diesel sub can be out for any duration and for any distance. But for today, in any shooting war against US, any diesel sub running under snorkel in open ocean will die before the boat's skipper know where the torpedo came from.

That "not true submarines" is totally besided the point. Plus, only Nuke and AIP equipped subs would be any different. And AIP is a relatively recent phenomenon, which is not currently employed by the vast majority of conventional submarine users. So: balony.

Also, it is clearly NOT the case that any diesel sub can be out for any duration and for any distance. Not even surface ships can do that without RAS support from oilers and stores ships. So that too is balony. Dinky 750 ton diesel subs managed to venture all the way out to NYC, Caribean from Europe. Todays SSKs as 2- 4 times larges, and should have no trouble.

You last statement is also incorrect. As I pointed out, a SOSUS like network of sensors can detect snorting subs over 500 mi away. But who - what countries - has that kind of network? And where would that torp come from? Would an SSN magically appear nearby (taking into account the range of ASW weaponry available)? Consider that a nuke running at speed is essentially BLIND and also generates a lot of noise (but is too fast for a SSK to catch up with - or run away from) so is easily detected. Against a slow running SSN the SSK has advantages though, as we've discussed. And in mid-Ocean, what other threats does a sub encounter? Carrier aviation (heli's) and fleet escorts (DDGs), perhaps an occasional BEAR (but who has those?). So thrice balony.

Walrus SS >
Speed surf/subm 13 kts / 21 kts
10000 nm at 9 kts (more than enough to sail from Amsterdam to NYC and back 'on one tank')

How do you think Dutch boats get from NL to the Netherland Antilles islands, surfaced? These boats do better submerged than at the surface esp in rough weather so that 10 nm would mostly be submerged (incl brief periods snorting).
 
.
That was assumed from us reaction which was shock and outrage.Acc to one nato official 'it was as shocking as soviets launching sputnik'.

There is an old example precisely when Soviet subs popped up in the midst of UK boats when they were heading to the BOB during the 71 war.

@Capt.Popeye, how does one solve this conundrum, a silent still diesel sub can take down an ACC, even a nuke sub and a few destroyers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
We have the whole Indian ocean to police so SSN and SSBN are a very important arm for the submarine force. Above all the Diesel electric sub if it lays silent it can ambush but in active sonar detection it will show up like a light bulb. No need to worry about it.

If you are just letting a sub lie in wait, then it is cheaper and more effective to use mines. Put differently, a good submarine service will not [solely / mostly] operate in that fashion.

0843.jpg


lsm.jpg
 
.
There is an old example precisely when Soviet subs popped up in the midst of UK boats when they were heading to the BOB during the 71 war.

@Capt.Popeye, how does one solve this conundrum, a silent still diesel sub can take down an ACC, even a nuke sub and a few destroyers.

There is a difference,the soviet sub was titanium hull alfa class which was noisy high speed interceptor.It passed right under nato ships and they could do nothing about it as no torpedo could match its speed and no anti sub rocket its depth.This recent incident was due to stealth.
Alfa was detecetd easily but invulnerable,it was SSN,this was SSK.USn problems with ssks are not new.Just about everybody from peru,chilie,dutch,swiss,aussies,israel have given them major problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
There is an old example precisely when Soviet subs popped up in the midst of UK boats when they were heading to the BOB during the 71 war.

@Capt.Popeye, how does one solve this conundrum, a silent still diesel sub can take down an ACC, even a nuke sub and a few destroyers.

We have more specialized ASW equipment to deal with diesel subs and IN specifically prepared for that since 1965.Weapons like RBU ASW mortars are specifically designed to defeat ambushes and kill diesel subs.Many IN ships carry 2 ASW helicopters.Also the ultra new P-8I will be a great asset in this regard.
But most important we potentially have only 3 diesel subs that we will face currently.The 3 agosta 90B of PN.
PLAN diesel subs don't have the endurance to operate in IOR without detection.And SSNs are noisy and IN has picked up all PLAN SSNs that have intruded so far.Infact USN and IN exchange data on this.Most chinese subs transit through malacca chokepoint and are thus easily detectable-another factor.

IN has sufficient size and can allocate massive ASW assets per PN sub due to very small numbers.If they had around 10 modern subs we would be stretched.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
We have more specialized ASW equipment to deal with diesel subs and IN specifically prepared for that since 1965.Weapons like RBU ASW mortars are specifically designed to defeat ambushes and kill diesel subs.Many IN ships carry 2 ASW helicopters.Also the ultra new P-8I will be a great asset in this regard.
But most important we potentially have only 3 diesel subs that we will face currently.The 3 agosta 90B of PN.
PLAN diesel subs don't have the endurance to operate in IOR without detection.
And SSNs are noisy and IN has picked up all PLAN SSNs that have intruded so far.Infact USN and IN exchange data on this.Most chinese subs transit through malacca chokepoint and are thus easily detectable-another factor.

IN has sufficient size and can allocate massive ASW assets per PN sub due to very small numbers.If they had around 10 modern subs we would be stretched.

Don't get me wrong but then one wonders why IN requires 30+ ASW aircrafts if we are to face just three diesel subs technically.
 
.
Don't get me wrong but then one wonders why IN requires 30+ ASW aircrafts if we are to face just three diesel subs technically.

IOR is huge region and needs to be covered from SSNs which can be anywhere.And ASW aircraft are for detection of ALL submarines,not just SSKs.Primary targets also include visiting chinese SSNs.
 
.
IOR is huge region and needs to be covered from SSNs which can be anywhere.And ASW aircraft are for detection of ALL submarines,not just SSKs.Primary targets also include visiting chinese SSNs.

So obviously the IN would indoctrinate a much bigger threat than 3 subs. So the concerns you raised are quite valid of the IN too in all respects.
 
.
That was assumed from us reaction which was shock and outrage.Acc to one nato official 'it was as shocking as soviets launching sputnik'.

Well, perhaps they played along (so as not to reveal true capability) or shock and outrage were in order because other navies ships would normally steer clear of a US task group (i.e. is was a provocation). You, I, WE do not know.
 
.
Well, perhaps they played along (so as not to reveal true capability) or shock and outrage were in order because other navies ships would normally steer clear of a US task group (i.e. is was a provocation). You, I, WE do not know.

Were they also playing along on all those exercises over 2 decades?Seems a bit of a stretch to me.Some outspoken retired us commanders have actually skeptical about carrier survivability.

''Congressional Budget Office revealed in 2001: “Some analysts argue that the Navy is not very good at locating diesel-electric submarines, especially in noisy, shallower waters near coastal areas. Exercises with allied navies that use diesel-electric submarines confirm that problem. U.S. antisubmarine units reportedly have had trouble detecting and countering diesel-electric submarines of South American countries. Israeli diesel-electric submarines, which until recently were relatively old, are said to always ‘sink’ some of the large and powerful warships of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in exercises. And most recently, an Australian Collins class submarine penetrated a U.S. carrier battle group and was in a position to sink an aircraft carrier during exercises off Hawaii in May 2000. Thus, if a real opponent had even one such submarine with a competent commanding officer and crew, it could dramatically limit the freedom of action of U.S. naval forces in future conflicts.”

“My own experience (in war games) is that I never have any problem getting a carrier…those fleets are going to get ground into peanut butter in a war.”
– Anonymous U.S.N submarine commander on how easy it is to find and sink a U.S.N. aircraft carrier.

Earlier, I discussed how easy it is for foreign diesel submarines and air forces to attack U.S.N. carriers. But it’s not just the Russians, Chinese, Canadians, Chileans, Dutch and Australians who think the U.S. Navy’s carrier battle groups are overrated, expensive and extremely vulnerable. Admiral Hyman Rickover himself didn’t think much of his own 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. The well-known and atypically out-spoken American retired submarine commander, Captain John L. Byron, also intimated in the early 1980s that even noisy American nuclear submarines had little difficulty operating against U.S. Navy carriers. “Operating against a carrier is too easy,” he quipped. “The carrier’s ASW protection often resembles Swiss cheese.” Another former U.S. Navy officer and columnist, the late Scott Shuger, said pretty much the same thing in 1989: “I’ve seen enough photos of American carriers through periscope crosshairs – most sub crew offices feature one – to become a believer. Despite all the antisubmarine warfare (A.S.W.) equipment that carrier groups take with them to sea, in my own experience most exercises against subs ended up with my carrier getting a green flare at close quarters, the standard simulation for a successful torpedo or cruise missile attack.” Former C.I.A. director Admiral Stansfield Turner, U.S.N. (ret.) has also complained that the U.S. Navy’s continuing policy of building and deploying “big, over-powered aircraft carriers” is “ill-advised.”
 
.
Again posting the link,its long and heavy on the eye but very informative read.And this was written a year before song incident.
News
 
.
Were they also playing along on all those exercises over 2 decades?Seems a bit of a stretch to me.Some outspoken retired us commanders have actually skeptical about carrier survivability.

Haha, now you are trying to make me - an advocate of the conventional sub - into a stark defender of carriers. Nice try but: fail!

Do you grasp the fundamental difference between an exercise involving NATO members only (with sub not revealing themselves any more than they have to for their mission), and a Chinese sub popping up in a US carrier group (making itself known deliberately, rather than staying hidden).... ? The latter situation has little to do with capabilities but everything with power-politics and 'face'.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom