Submarine first, Carrier second

Submarines may be cost effective against carriers in certain conditions, but they cannot replace carriers. They can't protecting shipping, and they always lose to aircraft.

Missiles are very capable today, but you need to throw out a lot of them to take out a carrier. While you try to do that, all your launch platforms are vulnerable to the carrier's own strike capability, which will always outrange yours (except land based air). Therefore if you want sea control beyond LBA cover, you must have carriers.

goldenpanda said:

Submarines may be cost effective against carriers in certain conditions, but they cannot replace carriers. They can't protecting shipping, and they always lose to aircraft.

Missiles are very capable today, but you need to throw out a lot of them to take out a carrier. While you try to do that, all your launch platforms are vulnerable to the carrier's own strike capability, which will always outrange yours (except land based air). Therefore if you want sea control beyond LBA cover, you must have carriers.

Click to expand...

You can use fight-bombers, ballistic missiles, air-to-surface missiles, and cruise missiles against carriers. Then you use submarines to fire cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and torpedoes.

If you can get ballistic missiles to hit a carrier, that changes a lot of things. You can buy a 50 missile salvo for $500 million, to take out an $8 billion carrier.

goldenpanda said:

If you can get ballistic missiles to hit a carrier, that changes a lot of things. You can buy a 50 missile salvo for $500 million, to take out an $8 billion carrier.

Click to expand...

A nice idea, except Ballistic missiles have a serious drawback. The moment you launch a salvo of them, regardless of their warheads and intended targets, you will have just started World War 3 because everyone else won't wait to find out you are only shooting conventional warheads at a single CSG. They'll assume it's a pre emptive nuclear strike and retaliate, and we'll all be glowing in the dark come nightfall. As much as any other reason I believe the risk of mistaking the nature and intention of a ballistic missile is why they have never been seriously considered as 'conventional' anti ship weapons. We haven't even gotten to the problems of targetting a moving ship thousands of miles from the launch point....

50 missiles is obviously not enough for first strike. I think you can play a lot of bluffing games, but in the end you'll get to use the conventional salvo. Otherwise we get into a situation of, hey don't come close with these tomahawks, how do I know they're not nuclear tipped?

I posted this link a while back about a new anti-ship missile:


There just isn't that much information about this type of weapon right now.

Ryz05 said:

Aircraft carriers are sustaining platforms, and China is more likely than not to built them. However, submarines are the kings of the ocean. The truth is carriers are too vulnerable to the high tech missiles of today.
....

PLAN will have CVs, but submarines are the future, and I think China will focus more on its submarine program. The best deterrance is not CVs, but missiles.

Click to expand...

sorry - without airshield subs ar useless (remember WW II - the loose of german wolf packs?)

every ASW helo will kill the subs in the ocean, and every cargo ship can carrie helos ....

today the PLAN could only use subs in home water, protect by land based fighters

My English is too poor but I'll try to explain my idea. Submarines are going to a progressive reduction of size, displacement and a crew. Countries are loking for submarines who did the best work but also with a cost reduction. By example: Tango Bravo Project Concept is is a signaal of the way that USA is selecting in order to obtain- in the post-Virginia future - one SSN with equal capacities and funcionalities of the Virginia with a half of displacement and crew of this submarine.
I think that perhaps - the ex-URSS Typhoon - will retain the tittle of "big submarine never constructed". Submarine Carrier is really one interest and amazing concept, plenty of technological challenges....but I think that is only this: one technology concept.
In this era of miniaturization, were the big nations are looking for dooing more but reducing costs at the same time, I don't think that China or otrher country are thinking in that kind of project.
Bye the way: too interesting the discussion and very exciting de artist pictures that post Jeff Head. The picture of the entire submarine force with a carrier and a SSGN are beatiful!

Like I said before, the idea of Sub CV is last studied by the U.S in the 90's. What the USN did not tell the public is the finding that if you have a surface CVBG, it would take a lots beating and still floats and fights on. Underwater is whole different ball game, one well placed torpedo will sank the boat, along with 1,000 men and women, well over $10 billion worth of EQP, if you are the military chief, you just can not put such a Sub CVBG in harms way. But, if the military EQP and men are meant to be used in time of national need, then a SUB CV is useless if you can not afford to lose it.

Obi Wan Russell said:

A nice idea, except Ballistic missiles have a serious drawback. The moment you launch a salvo of them, regardless of their warheads and intended targets, you will have just started World War 3 because everyone else won't wait to find out you are only shooting conventional warheads at a single CSG. They'll assume it's a pre emptive nuclear strike and retaliate, and we'll all be glowing in the dark come nightfall. As much as any other reason I believe the risk of mistaking the nature and intention of a ballistic missile is why they have never been seriously considered as 'conventional' anti ship weapons. We haven't even gotten to the problems of targetting a moving ship thousands of miles from the launch point....

Click to expand...

You can use my pet invention, the Ballistic Torpedo. Fire a ballistic missle with enough accuracy to drop a torpedo from 100 feet into the water within range of the carrier. It's the accuracy of a torpedo with the launch platform-reach and survivability of a ballistic missle!

Finn McCool said:

You can use my pet invention, the Ballistic Torpedo. Fire a ballistic missle with enough accuracy to drop a torpedo from 100 feet into the water within range of the carrier. It's the accuracy of a torpedo with the launch platform-reach and survivability of a ballistic missle!

Click to expand...

Also known for anti-submarine usage as ASROC. Assuming that the torpedo actually finds the target anyways...