Chinese sub surfaces undetected behind USS Kitty Hawk

BLUEJACKET said:

That's exactly my point! But even without those clues picked up from the net, a few subs, planes, underwater sensors, commercial shipping/fishing vessels & sattelites can pinpoint CSG location within a reasonable radius.

Click to expand...

We disagree on the ready ability for a belligerent to discover the whereabouts of a CSG on the high seas within a reasonable (ie. actionable) radius.

BLUEJACKET said:

Even in peacetime, ALL NAVY SHIPS ARE DARKENED WHEN UNDERWAY. So, I don't think anyone on them will like to discover that someone or something sneaked up on them without their knowledge ahead of time.

Click to expand...

I know the ships themselves are...but the info about their movements which can give tips and aids to potential enemies would be curtailed too...proabably should be anyway IMHO, because the US is at war, even if it is not with a maritime power.

coolieno99 said:

Modern wake-homing torpedoes can hit speed of 60 kt at terminal velocity. I also believe they are variable speed. They can cruise at slow speed toward their targets(making minimal noise), and then kick in at 60 kt for the kill at close range. The carrier can turn as much as it wants, but it does little good, the wake-homer just follows the ship's wake wherever it's turning.

Click to expand...

This one of those "wonder weapons" that is marketed to be a carrier killer. Launching a torpedo is very hazardous to a submarine's health if it is near its hunters. Here is why:

1.) To lauch a torpedo you have to flood the torpedo tubes (let water in). This is very loud.
2.) Launching a torpedo uses compress air to eject the torpedo out of the tube. This is louder still.

Using an SSK, with its low speed and endurance, means you are dead.

Firing a wake homing torpedo and hitting anything are two diffrent things. There are many anti- torpedo soft kill systems that a carrier group possess.

Furthermore, wake homing torpedoes travel near the water. A hit on the carriers hull, with its many honey combed watertight bulkheads, will not do much damage. The best way for a torpedo hit a ship is to expload underneath the keel, causing it to break.

Like this

Nice pictures! Visual is always so nice. that had to be a MK48 or Mk50 ADCAP torpedo.

Like IDonT sez the trick is to break the hull in half with an under the keel explosion. It would be difficult to sink a CVN.. But damage would be severe. An LPH could be sunk like that. In fact the ex-USS Okinawa was sunk with an MK48 ADCAP after being pummelled with PGM and missiles..Well the PGM of 1992.

bd popeye said:

Nice pictures! Visual is always so nice. that had to be a MK48 or Mk50 ADCAP torpedo.

Like IDonT sez the trick is to break the hull in half with an under the keel explosion. It would be difficult to sink a CVN.. But damage would be severe. An LPH could be sunk like that. In fact the ex-USS Okinawa was sunk with an MK48 ADCAP after being pummelled with PGM and missiles..Well the PGM of 1992.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

It was an MK-48. Mk-50 is probably not large enough to do that type of damage...but the MK-48 is. It is big, mean, smart, and FAST!

Those pics are actually of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) HMAS Torrens being disposed of by sinking on June 14th, 1999. A single Mk48 wire guided torpedo fired from the Collins Class submarine Farncomb did the deed.

Still, the greatest reminder of the power of modern torpedoes since WW2 is the sinking of the heavy Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano, conducted by an RN SSN.

The Falklands is a fascinating conflict, one which both sides found many problems and a testiment of modern naval engagement in deep waters. Hope PLAN learnt from it.

Anyhow, though a few torpedoes could easily take down a ship like the General Belgrano, and even a carrier with half a dozen torpedoes, technology has changed much since the Falklands. Including torpedo decoys, and the USN is well drilled in damage control...and the General Belgrano (and her two destroyer escorts) lacked ASROC o had no ASW choppers patrolling around.

Sinking a CVN will be quite difficult using one submarine alone these days. A well positioned 'wolf pack' is more appropriate to better the chances of the survival of any submarine attack force or the improved probability of a torpedo hit.

Anyway, more directly related to the topic...go the PLAN submarine...

To say something about the point were the torp hits.
I don't think you need a catastrophic kill to disable a carrier. If you fire a wakehomer after it - admitted from close distance due to the carriers speed - (or any other type of torp) and the torp explodes just close enough to render the rudder or the screw useless will make the hole carrier just many tons of stell drifting over the ocean. It can't manoeuver any more and though might not even be able to launch AC. Meaning you have to bring in to a port to repair and take a lot of other vessels out of combat ops just to prevent further attacks.

chicket9 said:

Still, the greatest reminder of the power of modern torpedoes since WW2 is the sinking of the heavy Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano, conducted by an RN SSN.

The Falklands is a fascinating conflict, one which both sides found many problems and a testiment of modern naval engagement in deep waters. Hope PLAN learnt from it.

Anyhow, though a few torpedoes could easily take down a ship like the General Belgrano, and even a carrier with half a dozen torpedoes, technology has changed much since the Falklands. Including torpedo decoys, and the USN is well drilled in damage control...and the General Belgrano (and her two destroyer escorts) lacked ASROC o had no ASW choppers patrolling around.

Sinking a CVN will be quite difficult using one submarine alone these days. A well positioned 'wolf pack' is more appropriate to better the chances of the survival of any submarine attack force or the improved probability of a torpedo hit.

Anyway, more directly related to the topic...go the PLAN submarine...

Click to expand...

The Belgrano was a Brooklyn Class light cruiser with a displacement of 12,000 tons.

The Belgrano was hit by 2 Mark 8 straight running torpedoes (unguided). Poor damage control and the loss of electrical power that prevented the pumps from working doomed her. She listed to port and sank.



Note how the bow was blown off the ship by the first torpedo.

I personally think PLAN aim is to hinder or stop USN intervene. Sinking of carrier is not neccessary but the phsycological effect will be devastating. Imagine ,few thousands US sailors are killed with a single sinking...

I believe a single torpedo will be more than enough to put a CVN out of action. That will be enough to serve the purpose of PLAN.. IMagine a torpedo ram and explode in cross-sections towards the propeller. More than enough damage done.

I personally think PLAN aim is to hinder or stop USN intervene. Sinking of carrier is not neccessary but the phsycological effect will be devastating. Imagine ,few thousands US sailors are killed with a single sinking...

Click to expand...

If such a sinking did occur the sinking would hardend the hearts of Americans. The want and resolve to extract blood from the attackers would be great.

Your assumption that a "few thousand" would be killed is an uninformed statement. The ship would more than likely be at General Quaters when such an attack occuried. Buttoned up tight. All watertight doors and hatches closed. Those sailors on board when the strike occured would put all their damage control and fire fighting training to work to save their ship. If the ship did sink many sailors would surive. Most infact.

The retaliation by the US would be extremely severe. The US would bring it's full might to bare on the PLAN.

I hope that no war evers occurs between the PRC and US.

Because war sucks.

The USN has an excellent damage-control record, comparred to, say, the Japanese in WW2 was terrible at it.

I'm not convinced that PLAN subs with torpedos is going to be able to stop the USN. Even if they get lucky and "mission kill" a couple, the USN has 10 more to send.

If I were doing the planning for PLAN subs, I'd prolly allocate more funds toward SSBN's and SSG/SSGN's. The US doesn't have "no first strike" policy, so the PRC can only hope to deter the conflict from going nuclear with true MAD capability. A fleet of 8-12 SSBN's, each armed with 16-24 SLBM's with MIRV warheads, would offer that level of MAD deterrance by sea. For the PLAN to hit a USN carrier and cross their fingers in hope the US wouldn't retaliate is sheer folly.

For sinking a carrier at sea, I'd go with SSG/SSGN's. The USN Ohio-class SSGN with 154 missiles is a good example. They replaced each SLBM with 7 x Tomahawk missiles.

The new Type 94 SSBN is said to carry 16 x JL-2 SLBM's. If each SLBM is replaced by 6 AShM's, that's 16 x 6 = 96 missiles. Borrowing specs from the 3M-54E1 specs, each missile has 300km range and carries 400kg warhead. If the SSGN is able to fire its 96 missiles payload at distance, you only need a small % to penatrate the defenses and score a hit. Something on the scale/size of a 100,000 ton super carrier would prolly require multiple hits to disable it.