Question for my surface ship buds...

[O.P.]

Hi All,

A bud just showed me a BS kinda article about how cessnas and fishing boats and a large cruise missle strike is supposed to take out the larger components of a Carrier Battle Group.

In trying to explain to him how this seemed far fetched, I tryed to explain just how much space one of these groups cover. One analogy I've heard before is, If the carrier is off of the coast of South Carolina, it's forward elements are somewhere in Nebraska, and it's aircraft can strike outside of that.

I've tried the google, but I still haven't read anything outright that says just how big the space these groups occupy.

Any adult guidance would be apprieciated.

Thanks,
Orvis

[Tim Landers]

Interesting topic, I did find this

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/552.pdf

Tim

[O.P.]

Cool, Thanks Tim! I'll look at it.

Here is the article in question,

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3793



It's was forwarded to me, these cats seem a little kooky to me......

[airnutz]

Cool, Thanks Tim! I'll look at it.

Here is the article in question,

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3793



It's was forwarded to me, these cats seem a little kooky to me......

I can't read Tim's PDF from this computer O.P., but I have a feeling it confirms
the true story of Gen. Paul Van Riper, USMC, laying waste to technocrats "dreams".

Improvise...Adapt...Overcome. If you're attacked by hundreds of tundra flies,
the only safety..especially in a low-tech situation, is equal numbers or better. General Van Riper's
solution is analogous to what's happening in Iraq now.

The dude's old school Semper Fi, and one of the generals who aided in "taking out" Rummy. Good riddance.

My boat succesfully killed a carrier(I think Enterprise) in an exercise masquerading as a Mexican
fishing boat.
We surfaced at the outer edge of the Op-area at the Mexican border. We strung some white lights
just fore and aft of the sail. Ran one diesel and alternated turns on the shafts and intentionally
cavitated them making a lot of noise....like a fishing boat going about its business.
We did that all night and edged toward the target...staying near the coast. They screwed-up and got used to
us being there. Hee...Hee...Hee...Imagine plotting hundreds of "traffic" in various guises?

[O.P.]

Hey Airnutz, long time no talk!

Dude, that stuff is old school, heheeee.

In my day, On a 688 boat, we put a green combo on the after deck of the Ranger. We weren't trying to, we were just that close. Loaded it in the 3 inch launcher, it floats to the surface, fires, and everybody totally spazzes! Heheheeee

Put out the ole "Oscar-Oscar-Oscar", and all h3ll broke loose. You wanna get the ole sphicter all clenched up, have about 4000 helicopters do some dipping sonar on you. It's about a 12 hour bummer man. Very low, and very slow baby, no noise. Everybody hit the bunky.

There are ways to take out one of those capital ships in those task groups, but, I really honestly think, that it takes the kind of technology that pretty much, only we posess. I think a well crewed boat could put a fish in a carrier, but it probably will not sink it, and they will be dead men for trying. It was shown in the Falklands war.

As far as "Light Aircraft" "Small Boats" and an "Overload of cruise missles" , Thats just bullsh1t. Flat out.

I am a boat sailor. So you know that I wouldn't say super duper nice things about skimmers unless I totally believed it.

[Joe Scheil]

I would like to point out that Cessna 152/172 aircraft have been crashed into the White House in the USA and landed in Red Square. The B-1 or the B-2 has done or could do neither. In both cases the actual crash or landing was unopposed and was a SURPRISE.



Regardless of the array of technology a carrier battle group has, it is only impregnable against the threats planned for it. Unfortunately, due to the political nature of the entire business even the planned scenarios are designed to bolster confidence and verify purchasing rather than test the mettle ect...

As for sinking a carrier....I would bet a diesel boat will get inside on us soon. The spirit of Guenther Prien lives on in every sub skipper. Even Chinese ones.

[JDK]

Hi OP,
Good question. First point is any group are restricted by the searoom and how far offshore they need / want/ can stay, I presume.

Interesting discussion. I have no knowledge of US carrier group systems etc, but there's some interesting things in the article, which are relevant to our interests...

It's a nice idea, but kinda naive. Most war games aren't neutral at all. They're supposed to showcase a new weapon or doctrine.

Thought there were more reasons than that...

The fact that big surface ships are dinosaurs is something that's gotten clearer every decade since 1921.

That was the year Billy Mitchell finally got the chance to prove what he'd been saying for years: large surface ships without air cover had no chance against aircraft. Mitchell had made himself the most hated man in the Armed Forces for saying this, but he wouldn't shut up. Finally, thanks to the huge surplus of military vessels left over from WW I, he got his chance. A German battleship, the Ostfriesland, and three surplus US battleships were anchored off Virginia to see what Mitchell's rickety little biplanes could do to them. You have to remember how big and tough these "dreadnoughts" seemed to people back then. They had the thickest armor, the biggest guns, the deadliest reps of any weapon on land or sea. The idea that aircraft could sink them was a joke for most people. Of course, the Navy brass knew, and tried everything to stop the tests. They knew all too well what was going to happen--and it wasn't good for their careers.

The little biplanes buzzed out...and sank every ship. First a destroyer, then the huge German battleship, then all three US battleships.

Err, no.

1. Mitchell's targets were anchored, and it needs to be said, entirely undefended.

2. (Not a lot of people know this) The first sinking attempts failed. Go on, look it up. The famous photo of the big-bang on the upperworks - was a phosphorous bomb (IIRC) hardly going to take out a battleship, but it looked good.

3. For all the heat Mitchell took after he was given a completely unrealistic chance to 'prove' something that no contemporary bomber could do. In 1921 bombers weren't capable of sinking a battleship, except in this 'arms tied behind the back eyes-closed' manner. (Maybe a torpedo could do it, by the 1921 flavour of torpedo 'plane was not very good, and, yes, dive bombers were getting there in terms of weight carrying, but again not to carry a AP bomb in '21 - but a high-level bomber? The B-17s in the Pacific adequately proved they couldn't do it a decade later.) That Mitchell 'proved' his case remains bizarre, and we are lucky as a result.

The British didn't pay any attention to Mitchell's demonstration. Their battleships were better made, better armed, and better manned. With an impregnable British stronghold in Singapore and the RN patrolling offshore, what could those little Japanese monkeys do?

Three days after Pearl Harbor, the British found out.

Err, wrong again. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was inspired by the revolutionary attack by the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm at Tarranto sinking the cream of the Italian fleet. Given the loss of two aircraft and one crew, it has to be one of the most cost effective raids in history; and destroyed the Italian fleet's credibility as a 'Fleet in Being'. Bismarck had been sunk, after being slowed by a torpedo hit. The Brits had been the first people in history to sink a ship by dive bombing, with Koningsberg sunk by the under-rated and misunderstood Blackburn Skuas.

The Prince of Wales and Repulse were meant to have air cover, but there was a screw up, and to that degree, the Admiral in charge was tactically foolish to continue.

The signs have been there all along. In the Falklands War, the Argentine Air Force, which ain't exactly the A Team, managed to shred the British fleet, coming in low and fast to launch the Exocets. And they did all this hundreds of miles off their coast, with no land-based systems to help.

The British task force wasn't 'shredded' and the Argentinean pilots were a darn sight more dedicated than the A Team, and did a job any air arm would be proud of. But hey, a quick swipe based on inadequate research is fine, eh? I'm no expert on the Falklands War, but the lessons on air-ship engagements were hard for both sides.

Only thing is, it won't be the brass who die. It'll be the poor trusting kids on those carriers who'll die, the poor suckers who thought they'd get free training and a world tour, or even get the chance to "defend America."

Again, cheap and inaccurate. A carrier task force is one of the few places where a senior officer really is in the 'front line'. The Admiral in the Prince of Wales and Repulse group went down with his ship.

Finally I'm no expert, as I say, on current US carriers and tactics. But in W.W.II the British, Japanese and Americans all proved (in different ways with armoured an unarmoured, CAP and no CAP, deck park and no deck park etc) how you could fight a carrier under unbelievable air and surface attack. The loss rate was bad, but not everything went down, and very few were sunk with a 'lucky' hit. (Possibly the most intense 'compressed' fighting was HMS Illustrious in the Med. Again - look it up.) I presume modern carriers as well as being a LOT bigger are tougher built, too.

I may be wrong, and I hope there's a discussion here...

[corsair166b]

Try posting this question on the naval thread over at the Key publishing forums, they have some pretty good naval info over there....they'll give you some interesting responses.

mark

[IRONHORSE]

I'd like to see what a Cessna would look like after getting hosed by a CIWS.
Chuck

[airnutz]

Hey Airnutz, long time no talk!

As far as "Light Aircraft" "Small Boats" and an "Overload of cruise missles" , Thats just bullsh1t. Flat out.

Hola O.P.! Van Riper also used chemical weapons in the exercise. As for the BS..
Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. You asked and I passed on to you that the
Millenium Challenge outcome did in fact occur. I didn't get too caught up in the
details with the blogger War Nerd as JDK went for. WNerd was extrapolating his
opinion from original articles.

Your original question a scenario stretching perhaps 1500 miles or so. In the case of Millenium Challenge
the battlegroup entered the Persian Gulf which is roughly about 600x175 miles surrounded
by muslim or Arab states with traffic of their own to clutter the scenario. I don't believe
the details of the exercise have yet to be de-classified, nor will they be for some time to come.

Here's one of the links which I thought Tim Landers' PDF link may have referred to last night..
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020906-iraq1.htm

Another from Army Times, from which the story originated back then..the E-mail from Gen Van Riper
is referred to in this piece, but curiously is not in the AT archives, that I could find, anyway..
www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-1741726.php

Another link..
www.slate.com/id/2080814/

Later Bro!

EDIT..Slate link fixed
A rather important point I forgot to add O.P., tho it's in the Global Security link,the
General blitzed and killed the 3 carriers at the 35 mile wide entrance to
the Persian Gulf.

Last edited by airnutz on Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Mark Nankivil]

A Cessna meeting the output of a CIWS equals aluminum chaff

As for whether a Cessna/Piper or whatever can make it thru the battle group to the point of hitting a carrier, that's a different scenario than the White House lawn or taxiing on Red Square though it always boils down to people and the level of vigilance that they achieve/don't achieve. If the level of effort put into vigilance/security is lax or the rules of engagement are so restrictive (and for that you can blame the politicians, NOT the Admirals/Generals) then a sailboard can make it thru. I cannot believe though that in this day and age of terrorism, that a carrier group on the open seas would run around with their security "pants" down, no matter where they may be in the World.

As for aircraft carriers being dinosaurs, a fixed airfield with long runways which everyone and their kid sister has the GPS coordinates for surely is more vulnerable than a moving target at sea. Add to that countries not allowing overflights or combat missions to be flown from bases in their countries is a real thorn for fixed bases. Take a look at what France and Spain did to complicate the '87 F-111 Libyan Raid launched from Great Britain, something that can be worked around more readily with a Carrier Battle Group.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

[airnutz]

I'd like to see what a Cessna would look like after getting hosed by a CIWS.
Chuck

Funny you should mention Phalanx, IRONHORSE. The one time Phalanx was used in
anger in the 1st Gulf War it failed to lock-on to a Silkworm, but did lock-on to
USS Missouri's expended chaffe. Four rounds went on through the chaffe to strike Missouri.
A missile from a Brit boat took out the Silkworm. They are phasing out CIWS in
favor of missiles now, I believe.

But for the sake of discussing the scenario in "Van Riper 2002 thought"...How about 10..20..or so Cessna's
using Silkworm as their primary weapon, but using chaffe and RPG rounds to overload
Phalanx's fire control computers? And that's Cessna's PER target, PLUS fast moving waterbourne
contacts with their own solutions to challenge the technology!