And All the Ships at Sea….
Aircraft carriers are ‘vulnerable to attack’, per the news story. No! Really! Like, we don’t know that already? Yes, I know, that’s the USS Mahan, but I couldn’t find a bird farm photo in the bin.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-carriers-specialreport-idUSKBN16G1CZ
From the article: “Trump’s expansion plans come as evidence mounts that potential enemies have built new anti-ship weapons able to destroy much of the United States’ expensive fleet of carriers. And as they have been for decades, carriers remain vulnerable to submarines.
In a combat exercise off the coast of Florida in 2015, a small French nuclear submarine, the Saphir, snuck through multiple rings of defenses and “sank” the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and half of its escort ships. In other naval exercises, even old-fashioned diesel-electric submarines have beaten carriers.”
The ignorance of this reporter and others is glaringly obvious in this story. A task force is built to deal with these kinds of things.
Ships at sea are and always have been vulnerable to attack and to damage, as is shown in the WWII damage report on the Enterprise CV-6.
Go to page 51 in the report, photo #2 J2. This was shot during the Battle of (Midway). Sorry, that should be the Battle of Okinawa. My bad.
The 9-ton elevator door was blown skyward by kamikaze pilot’s suicide strike, after the bomb his plane was carrying exploded in the hangar deck. The elevator door is at the top of the explosion column in the still photo, which is a frame taken from a 16mm film being shot at the time. While you’re at it, look at some of the damage Japanese bombs did to that old girl. Note in the damage report how many times Enterprise suffered damage throughout the battles in which she was involved and still hung in there, no matter what.
The lesson is that the press seem to insist on being uninformed and/or misinformed, as an excuse for writing sensationalist articles like this. Frankly, in a real war, I would expect diesel subs to be used because not every country has nuclear subs. Russia has five nuclear subs, but only one aircraft carrier.
As indicated in the article, the Chinese are claiming they have missiles that can go 10 times the speed of sound, which is 761.2 mph (1,227.74 km/h). That means their missiles are, per their claim, able to move at 7,612 mph.. That’s their claim, no evidence that it’s true is available to date.
Fastest missile speed to date is BrahMos. between Mach 2.8 (3,400 km/h; 2,100 mph; 0.95 km/s) and Mach 3 (3,700 km/h; 2,300 mph; 1.0 km/s). These are for ship, submarine, aircraft (under testing) and land-based mobile launchers. BrahMos is a cruise missile of Indian/Russian origins.
Peak speed for ICBMs is 6 to 7 km/sec, which is 13,392 mph or 21,600kph. Any faster, and the missile launches into space.
Unless there’s something under development that can move that fast and track a Nork ICBM, what is our alternative? Anyone have the answer? Anyone? Bueller?
With Fatty Kim da T’ird getting jiggy on his side of the Chinese-Norkiland border, and the Chinese showing a bit of angst about it (because they don’t want to be bothered with him, either), it’s logical to ask if we, meaning the USA, have anything that can track and destroy an ICBM moving at 13,392 miles per hour. Thugboy is leading up to the intercontinental stage of missile development and if he gets a hair up his ass, he’s going to launch ‘em. He won’t just be shooting at the South, or the Chinese or Japan. His aspirations go much further than that. It would be no real loss if he accidentally took out some part of SoCalifornia, instead of Foggy Bottom.
But to return to the story itself, the reporter misunderstands the purpose of war games, which is to test the vulnerability of your own armaments as well as those of your opponents. His quivering, panicky prose indicates a lack of information.
It may be that he likes to be that way. It stokes his little adrenaline rushes, or something. Perhaps he should watch ‘Down Periscope’ a couple of times.
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Navy
Remember the august members of 4th estate back in the lead up to Desert Storm? The M-1A1 Abrams will only be able to travel a few miles before the sand ruins the entire power plant?
The Mig_____(insert your favorite model) will fly rings around the F-16/F-15/F/A-18/F-22.
We are blessed with reporters who are experts on all subjects military, and are only too happy to share their ‘expertise’ with us, even if they aren’t asked to do so.
I find it a pleasure to deflate their balloons as often as I can.
Regarding M1’s, I remember at Basic/AIT with A-1-1 at Ft Knox marching out to the Holder Complex and learning how to do various things tanklike. In the Summer of ’79 we would hear the awesome sound: Jet engine with the clank o’ track. Needless to say we were all pretty envious of our more ummm mature armored brothers riding in high in the saddle as the M1 went flying by on its workout for the day. As we dragged our sorry asses home to Disney land for the day, the ground would shake and then this armored apparition would pass us at its steady pace…an M88 towing the M1 back to the motorpool as SOMETHING had broken down on the wonder tank. Im glad those breakdowns happened as there was a whole lot of knowledge gained for the 19K’s of the world and when the M1A…’s went to war there was some serious ass kicking done.
I just deleted a whole comparison paragraph about combined arms aground and afloat and how everyone needs what their buddies bring to the fight. Made me think I was trying to teach you all your biz. But I do think the story about the M1 getting dragged back home just about every day that summer is pretty damn funny…:) But then I was a 19E.
HAVE AN AWESOME WEEKEND!!!
I think I could do a write-up on tanker crews if I could figure out where to get that info. The best I can come up with is the (strictly) informational movie ‘Tank Girl’.
Don’t forget the Apache would not fly and all our rifles would jam.
As well as the “accounts” of the Iraqi Army being hardened by eight years of war with Iran and they were ready to make our Army be awash in its own blood.
And the hundred thousand body bags or was it a million of them being ordered?
We were in for a serious ass kicking there and every reporter in America knew it…
Oh ye of little faith.
If one believes everything a reporter writes, one is either (a) the reporter, (b) his/her editor, (c) a schoolchild, or (d) willfully ignorant.
Some combination of those is, I suppose, likely.
I think more and more that reporters are willfully ignorant, as an excuse to write this kind of drivel. I don’t know whether it’s driven by a need to draw readers or simply a negative attitude, and frankly, I don’t care. They should be glad we even have a military so that they can write that drivel.
It is their negative attitude and anti American bias.
I remember the days when the Exocet missile was a ship killer that was going to cripple the US Navy.
Owning them are not just enough. You have to have the nuts to use it. Pretty sure one missile is not going sink the entire fleet. So good luck with that.
I remember plenty of times playing war games and seeing the flare our submarine let loose to show us the gotcha moment.
Getting rid of the S-3’s put a pretty good dent in our air wings. I’d like to see them make a comeback…war hoovers were awesome.
“…Go to page 51 in the report, photo #2 J2. This was shot during the Battle of Midway…”
One minor correction, Ex-PH2; the photo of the CV-6 elevator being blown upward referenced in photo #2 J2 actually occurred on 14 May 1945, during the Okinawa Campaign. CV-6 USS ENTERPRISE made it through the Battle of Midway (4-6 Jun 1942) relatively unscathed.
As always Your Humble Servant,
Combat Historian
Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.
Spent some time aboard the USS Mahan; then DLG-11.
Different time, different ship… Only mentioned ’cause the name rang bells.
Fine post, BTW.
Thanks, Zero!
Actually, building a Mach 10 missile is eminently possible. The US had one in the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)
The Sprint reputedly did 0-to-Mach 10 in 5 seconds.
Of course, the Sprint wasn’t exactly an anti-ship missile. (smile)
Yes, but in the world of high-end rocketry, which Thugboy is trying to reach, we don’t (right now) have anything that matches what the Sprint was designed to do. If he builds something that can reach MACH 17.59, we’ll have to match it to down it.
Or, the CIA can do something useful for a change and steal the damn blue prints for that wunder weapon?
My money is on this being a disinformation campaign to make us spend mor’money trying to catch up.
small comment – it normally isn’t a tail chase; if something is fired at a ship it needs to be INTERCEPTED, not chased down. Whole different technology – a missile moving at that speed running into an ordinary steel net at a differential of Mach 17+ is probably going to sustain critical damage. The trick is placing the net…
I still have all the faith in the world of our military, I don’t care what branch. I will always say, My Dad can beat up Your Dad! We will always kick the enemies ass in Spades! And I won’t accept anything else!!
Exercises are scripted scenarios, and the sub drivers love to bring periscope pics of the High Value Unit (HVU) like an aircraft carrier, to the debrief.
Real world is a bit different. Anyone here know how fast an aircraft carrier can go? Bueller?
…faster than a sub?
Perhaps.
*grin*
…faster than a torpedo?
Nope.
If it floats, you can sink it. If it flies, you can knock it down. If it bleeds, you can kill it. What’s their point?
Every weapon has a countermeasure. That’s nothing new. Subs are not superweapons, or else we wouldn’t bother having a surface fleet. If carriers are so useless, why are the Red Chinese building them?
Carriers are not solo assets. They are the centerpiece of a battle group, which includes destroyers, frigates (whenever we get frigates again), and subs whose job it is to kill those hostile subs. Sure, in some wargames the subs do great. In others, they get their ass kicked.
Aaaahhh! Don’t think like that! Think like a pirate!
Okay, seriously, who doesn’t love that movie?
Yar!
It’s in my secret stash.
My last CMC was an HMCM Bubblehead. He was fond of saying there were two types of seagoing vessels in the Navy:
Submarines (known as boats)
and
Targets (known as ships)
Having been flying in Navy ASW aircraft for many a year, it’s true there are more airplanes in the sea than submarines in he sky. What goes up must come down.
But what goes down doesn’t necessarily have to come back up again.
Submarines are my targets.
The art of ASW is fading away. Diesel Electric subs are the biggest threat to our fleet, there has been too much focus on digital technology and video game like displays to make millineal operators more comfortable we have lost our acoustic advantage. I have deep concerns if we have a real war.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20170325.aspx
STGC – Concur 100%! Before cross-rating to Master-At-Arms I was once an STG1(SW). I know, I know……When I read the excerpt from the above article that referenced D/E boats, all I could do was nod my head in agreement. When I attended Advanced Acoustic Analysis (NEC 0450), I already had a really good idea what boats on the battery were capable of but what I learned in class and later on blew my mind. ASW is most definitely an art and that art seems to be going by the wayside.
@MAC where you on the Shiloh by chance before you converted to MA?