War in 4 days?

[frizzfreeling]

Also remember that it only takes ONE battery to survive and ONE missile to get through the barriers to hit and destroy/permanently disable a Capital warship/Aircraft carrier.

This is often said by many, but completely incorrect. Modern aircraft carriers are 100,000 tons of steel with literally hundreds of watertight bulkheads. A ship of that size could probably take on 20,000 tons of sea water without sinking, but the bulkheads stop that from happening. You are looking at probably 10 or more cruise missiles hitting a carrier to essentially "destroy" it, and even then, the missiles will probably not penetrate the topside all the way down to the waterline or below. One missile, if lucky in placement, could put a large hole in the deck and cause chaos a level or two below over a limited area, but probably wont put a carrier out of action for long periods. Im not sure, but I believe there was good precedent set for this aboard a carrier in vietnam that cooked off a bunch of its bombs accidentally (anyone else recall this?) and still stayed afloat.

It has also been said that carriers are highly vulnerable to conventional torpedos, which they are not, once again due to compartmentalization. A hole 30ft wide on a ship a thousand feet long and 150 ft wide with a hundred+ armored compartments wont ruin its day by any means. Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft. Precedence for this is the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Even though torpedos are shaped to do much more damage on a per weight basis, they also contain much less explosive than what was used against the cole, so it more or less equates. Remember also, that the Cole is only 1/12 the size of a carrier and thinner armored.

One of the reasons our carriers are so large is to take a pounding and stay afloat. Theres no way a one-ton conventional warhead is going to put a 100,000 ton compartmented warship out of business. When you hear the contrary, its typically just rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design, which obviously accounted for missiles and torpedos getting through.

[frizzfreeling]

However, Gen. Paul van Ripen did have a good strategy, and I also side with the other article Dr. Strangelove linked to that said the Carrier was no longer the capital ship. Subs are definitely the way to go. Problem is firepower volume and masking your position once you launch.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
When's this going to start? We're already four days past due!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ninjabumper in training?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
This would cripple US Naval power in the region, cause horrific death tolls and likely cause a massive backlash fom The US Public.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm sure that's the Iranian assessment. gg.


I guess this could be hashed too pieces, but I see four scenarios:

1) Iranian regime change - best outcome.
2) Change of agenda with current regime - 2nd best outcome.
3) War.
4) Nuclear Iran.

Considering the current state of affairs, option 1 & 2 are probably factored out of the equation, though there is still some hope.

I really doubt Iran will allow the Western world (U.N.) to justify war, so in all likelihood, we're looking at #4, but more to the point Israel is looking at option #4.

So while war with Iran is a possibility, we're probably looking at a nuclear Iran that has their way with the Persian Gulf. Whether that leads to war - who knows? They will push the envelope, but who knows how far.


So can Iran "cripple US Naval power in the region," as TeaBag suggests? Not a chance. Yeah, we will get a black eye, like everyone who's been in a fight, but that's more of the start of a fight (war) than the end of it. When push comes to shove the United States is invincible, and it's really not open to debate.

I figure the body politic decides and evokes our will, and by "our will" I'm referring to the full force and might of the U.S. Military. From my perspective, I only feel certain about one other poster on this board that's been under fire - and he's from my dad's generation, i.e. Nam.

Personal attack deleted

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
But to the poster's who have suggested that different elements of the military are "ithching for a fight," (F!U!) You're clueless. I'm itching for peace.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa there cowboy, don't go off half-cocked telling me F!U!

If they aren't itching for a fight, why the build up of forces? Please review your military history books and tell me the percentage of times that the US military has built up large amounts of forces and not used them.

You're itching for peace because you realized you were lied to by the recruiter man, and now you know you're cannon fodder to them. Your bosses don't feel the same way.

[lozen]

George Bush World cop at it again. If he really wanted to bomb the terrorists and the ones funding everything He would go after Saudia Arabia. At least my oil stocks are gonna go up more

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Please review your military history books and tell me the percentage of times that the US military has built up large amounts of forces and not used them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just since you asked ...

Europe, 1945-present (some Balkans skirmishes in 1990s).

Korea, 1953-present.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But to the poster's who have suggested that different elements of the military are "ithching for a fight," (F!U!) You're clueless. I'm itching for peace.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa there cowboy, don't go off half-cocked telling me F!U!

If they aren't itching for a fight, why the build up of forces? Please review your military history books and tell me the percentage of times that the US military has built up large amounts of forces and not used them.

You're itching for peace because you realized you were lied to by the recruiter man, and now you know you're cannon fodder to them. Your bosses don't feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
If they aren't itching for a fight, why the build up of forces? Please review your military history books and tell me the percentage of times that the US military has built up large amounts of forces and not used them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well we could start and end with the, "Cold War." I doubt anyone would argue that it was the greatest build up in human let alone US military history. As far as the civilian population is concerned, we didn't fire a shot. And that pretty much nullifies your whole point.


[ QUOTE ]
You're itching for peace because you realized you were lied to by the recruiter man, and now you know you're cannon fodder to them. Your bosses don't feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

In for twelve, out for six. I'm not going to die, so once again your half-cocked assumptions are wrong.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
Also remember that it only takes ONE battery to survive and ONE missile to get through the barriers to hit and destroy/permanently disable a Capital warship/Aircraft carrier.

This is often said by many, but completely incorrect. Modern aircraft carriers are 100,000 tons of steel with literally hundreds of watertight bulkheads. A ship of that size could probably take on 20,000 tons of sea water without sinking, but the bulkheads stop that from happening. You are looking at probably 10 or more cruise missiles hitting a carrier to essentially "destroy" it, and even then, the missiles will probably not penetrate the topside all the way down to the waterline or below. One missile, if lucky in placement, could put a large hole in the deck and cause chaos a level or two below over a limited area, but probably wont put a carrier out of action for long periods. Im not sure, but I believe there was good precedent set for this aboard a carrier in vietnam that cooked off a bunch of its bombs accidentally (anyone else recall this?) and still stayed afloat.

It has also been said that carriers are highly vulnerable to conventional torpedos, which they are not, once again due to compartmentalization. A hole 30ft wide on a ship a thousand feet long and 150 ft wide with a hundred+ armored compartments wont ruin its day by any means. Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft. Precedence for this is the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Even though torpedos are shaped to do much more damage on a per weight basis, they also contain much less explosive than what was used against the cole, so it more or less equates. Remember also, that the Cole is only 1/12 the size of a carrier and thinner armored.

One of the reasons our carriers are so large is to take a pounding and stay afloat. Theres no way a one-ton conventional warhead is going to put a 100,000 ton compartmented warship out of business. When you hear the contrary, its typically just rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design, which obviously accounted for missiles and torpedos getting through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I reply to this let me give a quick synopsis of my background. I served in The US Navy for 13 years. 6 years as a submarine officer and 2 years as a Battle Group Submarine Liason Officer (embarcked on a carrier) including a deployment through the Pacific and The Persian Gulf. I also sepnt 4 years assigned as an exchange Officer to the British Military for Submarine Operations. I am extremely well versed in Anti-Sub, Anti-Surface, Anti-Air, and missile strike combat principles and planning. That ought to cover the

[ QUOTE ]
...rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct in that modern aircraft carriers are massive ships with significant robustness and an extensive defensive screen. That said they are still highly vulnerable to even individual torpedo or missile attacks.

It would take several missile hits in vital locations (perhaps 2-5) to set off a chain of events leading to the sinking/complete loss of a carrier.

It would take 2-3 well placed advanced torpedos to sink/cripple beynd repair a carrier.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is widely inaccurate. There is no ship, ever built, in the history of mankind that will survive 4 modern torpedo hits. I sugest you do a bit of research on torpedo technology and their specific method of destruction. The only semi recent example would be The General Belgrano, and Argentinian BattleCruiser sent to the bottom of the Ocean with ALL HANDS lost after being hit by 2, YES just 2 torpedos from HMS Conqueror during the Falklands war.


It only tales ONE well placed missile or ONE wellplaced torpedo to cripple/take out of action a carrier.

Size and compartmentalization are only two factors in the equation. FIRE is a huge factor. Given a missile strike, even assuming it hit in a semi non essential area of the carrier, flight ops would be curtailed immediately and for at least days as the fire and resultant damage was put down.

The Vietnam era carrier you are refferring to was The Forrestal and they suffered a jet crash which lead to a fire which lead to a bomb cooking off sympathetically which lead to an even greater fire and more damage. That ship didn't sink but it was combat ineffective until LONG after it was returned to port and repaired over a period of months. (As an interesting side note, the future SEN John McCain was the pilot of the plane that had the bomb cook off on deck)

Combat effectiveness. In order for a carrier to be combat effective it needs to be able to conduct flight ops (which entails numerous things including: near full propulsion capabilities, effective combat control center. effective flight control, a clear sea area to conduct one way steaming during flight ops, an effective (not dead defensive screen of cruisers/destroyers, oiler support). Cripple any one of these requirements and you limit or curtail a carrier's comat effectiveness. Hit the carrier directly with a missile and it is near guaranteed that at least several of these RQMTS will be degraded significantly.
Hit a carrier in the propulsion spaces or directly in one of it's main engine shafts and you immediately limit its propulsion ergo limit or curtail flight ops. Hit a carrier with a modern torpedo in the propulsion spaces and that ship is at best limping home not to conduct any flight ops for quite some time.

There is an old saying about why cariers are the best defended ships in the Naval arsenal. It's because they HAVE to be. They are mighty ships and hard to sink, no doubt, but you don't have to sink them to end there mission/threat.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also remember that it only takes ONE battery to survive and ONE missile to get through the barriers to hit and destroy/permanently disable a Capital warship/Aircraft carrier.

This is often said by many, but completely incorrect. Modern aircraft carriers are 100,000 tons of steel with literally hundreds of watertight bulkheads. A ship of that size could probably take on 20,000 tons of sea water without sinking, but the bulkheads stop that from happening. You are looking at probably 10 or more cruise missiles hitting a carrier to essentially "destroy" it, and even then, the missiles will probably not penetrate the topside all the way down to the waterline or below. One missile, if lucky in placement, could put a large hole in the deck and cause chaos a level or two below over a limited area, but probably wont put a carrier out of action for long periods. Im not sure, but I believe there was good precedent set for this aboard a carrier in vietnam that cooked off a bunch of its bombs accidentally (anyone else recall this?) and still stayed afloat.

It has also been said that carriers are highly vulnerable to conventional torpedos, which they are not, once again due to compartmentalization. A hole 30ft wide on a ship a thousand feet long and 150 ft wide with a hundred+ armored compartments wont ruin its day by any means. Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft. Precedence for this is the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Even though torpedos are shaped to do much more damage on a per weight basis, they also contain much less explosive than what was used against the cole, so it more or less equates. Remember also, that the Cole is only 1/12 the size of a carrier and thinner armored.

One of the reasons our carriers are so large is to take a pounding and stay afloat. Theres no way a one-ton conventional warhead is going to put a 100,000 ton compartmented warship out of business. When you hear the contrary, its typically just rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design, which obviously accounted for missiles and torpedos getting through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I reply to this let me give a quick synopsis of my background. I served in The US Navy for 13 years. 6 years as a submarine officer and 2 years as a Battle Group Submarine Liason Officer (embarcked on a carrier) including a deployment through the Pacific and The Persian Gulf. I also sepnt 4 years assigned as an exchange Officer to the British Military for Submarine Operations. I am extremely well versed in Anti-Sub, Anti-Surface, Anti-Air, and missile strike combat principles and planning. That ought to cover the

[ QUOTE ]
...rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct in that modern aircraft carriers are massive ships with significant robustness and an extensive defensive screen. That said they are still highly vulnerable to even individual torpedo or missile attacks.

It would take several missile hits in vital locations (perhaps 2-5) to set off a chain of events leading to the sinking/complete loss of a carrier.

It would take 2-3 well placed advanced torpedos to sink/cripple beynd repair a carrier.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is widely inaccurate. There is no ship, ever built, in the history of mankind that will survive 4 modern torpedo hits. I sugest you do a bit of research on torpedo technology and their specific method of destruction. The only semi recent example would be The General Belgrano, and Argentinian BattleCruiser sent to the bottom of the Ocean with ALL HANDS lost after being hit by 2, YES just 2 torpedos from HMS Conqueror during the Falklands war.


It only tales ONE well placed missile or ONE wellplaced torpedo to cripple/take out of action a carrier.

Size and compartmentalization are only two factors in the equation. FIRE is a huge factor. Given a missile strike, even assuming it hit in a semi non essential area of the carrier, flight ops would be curtailed immediately and for at least days as the fire and resultant damage was put down.

The Vietnam era carrier you are refferring to was The Forrestal and they suffered a jet crash which lead to a fire which lead to a bomb cooking off sympathetically which lead to an even greater fire and more damage. That ship didn't sink but it was combat ineffective until LONG after it was returned to port and repaired over a period of months. (As an interesting side note, the future SEN John McCain was the pilot of the plane that had the bomb cook off on deck)

Combat effectiveness. In order for a carrier to be combat effective it needs to be able to conduct flight ops (which entails numerous things including: near full propulsion capabilities, effective combat control center. effective flight control, a clear sea area to conduct one way steaming during flight ops, an effective (not dead defensive screen of cruisers/destroyers, oiler support). Cripple any one of these requirements and you limit or curtail a carrier's comat effectiveness. Hit the carrier directly with a missile and it is near guaranteed that at least several of these RQMTS will be degraded significantly.
Hit a carrier in the propulsion spaces or directly in one of it's main engine shafts and you immediately limit its propulsion ergo limit or curtail flight ops. Hit a carrier with a modern torpedo in the propulsion spaces and that ship is at best limping home not to conduct any flight ops for quite some time.

There is an old saying about why cariers are the best defended ships in the Naval arsenal. It's because they HAVE to be. They are mighty ships and hard to sink, no doubt, but you don't have to sink them to end there mission/threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good and informative post.

Is it at all surprising that China has been rapidly modernizing its submarine capabilities? The day is coming when U.S. aircraft carriers will be significantly vulnerable to Chinese subs.

Also, I recently read that the role of sub warfare is gaining increasing importance in military thinking. When China has a full, nuclear-powered, modern blue-water submarine fleet, U.S. carriers could potentially be in much greater jeopardy than conceived by some posters on this board.