What's the protocol if a carrier group detects 30-40 torps

>>34672244
Laugh

Torps has shit range it won't get that close. China has ballistic ASROCs that has more range and harder to intercept because America has bad ABM naval defense.

>>34672252
Torps can have 50km range.

To expand on the question,

Does the CSG have enough countermeasures to reliably deal with the threat, keeping in mind 30-40 torps are inbound right now with only a short time to react.

In a worst case scenario would we see Burkes and Ticos sacrificing themselves to protect the carrier?

>>34672252
>they'll totally fire that many torps outside range

>>34672277

Hahaha no. Expect a mutiny.

>>34672277
I don't think you realize what a ridiculous number 30-40 torpedoes is. Half the submarines in the world would have to be chasing the fleet.

>>34672347
>His navy does not use torpedo mines

What sirr if underwayer counter measures exist? Could you send a current through the water to fry the guidence systems on the torps? Water bound chaff?

>inb4 someone posts my cap

>>34672244
Take off every "ZIG".

>>34672244
Announce loss of CBG to nation
Twist story to show that it was north Korea
Invade north Korea by the end of the day
Replace CBG by end of the year with 2 more

>>34672674
Loss of a CBG would be a massive opportunity, so many jobs to replace the lost ships and huge patriotic wankery about remembering&avenging the fallen, it's probably even better than 9/11

>>34672244
Go sit down on a toilet and urinate.

>>34672244
Drop decoys and launch ASW aircraft.

>>34672252
Trouble with torps is that subs can deliver them

>>34672244
If they detect the torpedoes, then there would be quite the spectacle. All the sailors would immediately jump ship and swim as far away from the vessels as they can. This is because they know how destructive just one torpedo is against their poorly built vessels. Then all the ships sink. This causes massive unrest in the United States with riots in every major city and the loss of power of the central government. Likely that this collapse causes a civil war or permanent break up of the nation. Also they are turned upon by every nation as punishment.

The consequences are so huge because the United States has massive hubris. Vulnerability of their ships is such a covered secret right now that the shock of them all sinking from such a small attack would cause massive unrest.

>>34672252
>america has bad ABM naval defense
SM-3 's can even intercept satellites, aegis is better than what any other country has.

>>34672244

They will initiate self-destruction. Its better to suicide than give enemy easy frags

>>34672244
>>34672244
1/2
Torpedoes are not missiles. 40 Torpedoes is a fucking massive number. Russian Akula-type subs have 8 internal and 6 external (single shot) tubes so to launch that many torps in a single salvo (tubes take minutes per wep to reload) would take 3-4 subs in close coordination. This makes it more likely that any one would be detected and attract asw attention to the wolf packs general vicinity.
Torpedoes also travel quite slowly, 40-50kts is typical. A CVN can do 30 kts at flank speed and it's the slowest ship in CBG outside of tenders. Attacking subs would use as many 65-76 torps as they have 650mm tubes for, with 533mm tubes firing UGST advanced torps, to be generous (and lazy, I'm at work) lets rate both at 50kts/50km range*.
Let's also assume both are multi sensor capable with active/passive homing and wake homing, and a modern guidance suite that combines this data and classifies targets (no spoofing/decoys effectively, especially for wake homing).
30kts = 55kph, 50kts=92kph, 50/92 = 0.55hrs, ~33mins (time to run). 92-55=37kph closing speed, 37kph*0.55hrs=20.5km effective range.

Given that the primary target is the carrier, not the Burkes and frigates and SSNs running picket duty, this is getting very unlikely. Furthermore, the launching sub might be stealthy, but the act of launching torpedoes is loud as fuck, and running torps are loud too. Sitting still to wire guide your fish when you are literally inside a CVBG and they know exactly where you are is suicidal, so the sub will cut his wires and the weapons will need to acquire by search. Torp sensors can only effectively see in a cone ahead of the weapon, are limited in sensitivity by the diameter of the weapon, and further limited by the flow noise from going at such speeds. They are only going to acquire the carrier when they are a few km away at most, or if they travel through a wake.
*better data: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_Main.php

File: obj.png (138KB, 334x238px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 334x238px

>>34672931
>A CVN can do 30 kts at flank speed and it's the slowest ship in CBG outside of tenders.

>>34672942
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
>Speed: 30+ knots (56+ km/h; 35+ mph)

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer
>Speed: In excess of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph)

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawolf-class_submarine
>Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) (silent)[2]
>35 knots (65 km/h) (maximum)[2]

Which bote are you thinking of that makes him wrong?

>>34672960
>Flank Speed is Maximum Speed

>>34672981
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flank_speed
>Flank speed is a nautical term referring to a ship's true maximum speed

>>34672842
Chang plz.

File: c9188893d139356d17a5f9f514b56e0d5dc99a5d.png (3MB, 1623x1115px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1623x1115px

>>34672931
modern kittykami when

>>34672244
>>34672931
2/2
With that much warning they can just be dodged. The sub would have to fire with a modest spread to make sure there is no escape zone and that and means most weapons will miss the carrier. He can the spread more dense by getting even closer and setting his torpedo to snake, but man now you are getting pretty fucking unrealistic.
Especially if you want all 3-4 subs that close all undetected.
So it's not a threat because it's never fucking happening. But let's say one sub does get that close, that CAN happen, NATO boats have 'sunk' CVNs in exercises (gotten into range/firing position undetected). He fires his torpedoes at a carrier steaming straight at him from 21000m, with a moderate spread, closes the doors, cuts the wires and runs like fuck. He has fired 10 53cm torpedoes and 4 65cm weapons.
The spread means at most 2-3 torps acquire the carrier. 200kg warhead per ugst, 450 per kit. It's enough to mission kill a carrier, especially if it's running, because the props will get fucked, but not enough to sink one.
Further, this exists
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/102268/20160930/navys-anti-torpedo-protects-aircraft-carriers-torpedoes.htm
And it isn't going to be overwhelmed by a small number of Torps.
So what happens? Somebody loses a sub, a few of the carrier crew are killed, it gets towed home and 2 more take it's place.
The only wild card is the 65cm can be nuclear tipped, indeed it was intended to be. That could sink a carrier, potentially detonating outside the effective range of the PD too.
But then you're talking about nuking an aircraft carrier.

>>34672981
>the sky is blue

>>34672942
They can't cruise at that speed because it causes major wear on the mechanical systems, but in an emergency yes carriers can go that fast. Just not for long.
Also when cruising the CVBG will usually be going 20-25kts to give pickets time to sprint and drift ahead to search for subs.

>>34672277
This is a great question.

Would a ship sacrifice itself for a carrier, would a tank crew do it for a VIPs SUV?

I've heard that if a ship carrying nuclear weapons is mortally wounded, the captain has full authority to use said weapons against the attacker rather than have them be captured. Is there any official policy like that, or is that just naval hearsay?

>>34673080
It's highly impractical that they would get the opportunity, in practice the ships are so spread out. I can kind of see a crazy captain going for it, in some fit of desperation, ordering his men to jump in the water as the frigate steams on to cross the carriers wake.
But nah.

>>34673032


These are the kind of posts I come to /k/ for.

The board is divided into people who are into firearms like women are into any shit that promises to make them shine, and probably hav as many of them stacked around the house as cunts have girl-product stacked around the bathroom...

And then there's people who actually know shit - know so much shit that it actually clues you into geopolitics on the basis of "well...what follows from that then? Who is scared of who if their generals are telling their leaders the truth".

Speak more, wise sensei: So...was the plan for soviet subs to launch shittons of sea-skimming missiles from their tubes or what? I imagine you would STILL want to dump the maximum, so how would soviet subs actually gather together and COORDINATE that...did they stay at periscope depth / trail a wire or something and the attack was coordinated from soviet naval HQ? I can't imagine them fucking RADIOING each other from periscope depth? Surely that's just asking to die?

>>34673095
Probably bullshit.
The only nuclear weapons in the battle group are for the aircraft to drop.
There once was SUBROC but no longer. And SSBNs don't carry anything that is even remotely useful for self defence.

>>34672244
Destroyers will do an hero

>>34672931
Would the CBG evading torpedoes be likely to lead to collisions between vessels? Warships don't exactly have small turn radii. I imagine even if the carrier is the only target, most ships will be changing position as a precaution at the very least.

>>34673144
The Soviets built dedicated cruise missile submarines (Oscar Class being the main one) who would attack aircraft carriers with nuclear tipped cruise missiles. SSNs are for hunting US SSBNs or other roles, during the cold war missile defence systems were much less effective than now. They also intended to use air-launched anti ship missiles. Actually, Red Storm Rising had a nice battle scene that was fairly on point. Until Bunker Hill introduced vls in 1986, us warships had much lower rates of fire than today.
Even in 1989 most of the fleet used arm launchers. So they were far more susceptible to saturation than now.

Nowadays, the only thing I can think of that you could use to sink a carrier would have to be a kind of autonomous torpedo that could be deployed ahead of time and sit like a mine with a nuclear warhead. But it would need a really good power source, chemical propulsion isn't really good enough and batteries not efficient enough. And a huge warhead, to let it destroy a ship from outside the range of those anti-torpedoes.

OwO what's this bulge Khabarovsk-chan?

http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Russian%20Status-6%20aka%20KANYON%20nuclear%20deterrence%20and%20Pr%2009851%20submarine.html

>>34673186
These ships are kilometres from each other in real formation. Yes there is risk of collision but if everyone turns starboard then it's not exactly likely.

>>34673144
>wise sensei
Is this samefag or just stupid?
The guy just linked to a Chinese echo chamber and you think he knows facts? He's either a noobie shill or a high schooler with an inflated ego.

Anti-torpedo torpedoes are old tech and some are already in service. Even the Russians have already installed Paket-NK on their boats and subs. And Russians are very low on the naval tech scale.

And the US have Wake Homing torpedoes like the ones in Russia. You don't go full World of Warships like that.

>>34673228
Theoretically, you could use one of those nuclear tipped supercavitating torpedoes I keep hearing about.

>>34673228
>The Soviets built dedicated cruise missile submarines (Oscar Class being the main one) who would attack aircraft carriers with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

Fucking Summer.

File: 3022823B00000578-3397254-image-a-24_1452712261414.jpg (108KB, 962x613px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 962x613px

This is what happens when Americans face a few Iranian boats, imagine what would happen if they faced the might of PLAN.

>>34672989
Hull speed of the CVNs is around 50 knots. Don't know if they have enough power to reach it but they likely can outrun all of their escorts without a problem. I know fluid dynamics is hard.

>>34673276
Or you could just google to learn how Shkval is supposed to be used instead of posting shit like that.

>>34673254
>Paket
Yup. Don't see how this contradicts what I said though.
>Mk.48 wake homing
Ok.
>>34673276
SHKVAL is even more range limited than conventional torpedoes, so you still have to get in range. But it does have sufficient payload capacity for a good-sized nuke(700kg), even if it's not confirmed to have this capability.
Though, nobody can figure out how to guide the dang things, so there is that, not that it would matter much.

>>34673282
>the might of the PLN
>might
>PLN
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah please guys more jokes like this.

I got one:

America so behind mighty china. Every Chinese ship equal 4 American aircraft carrier. Mighty Chinese torpedo take out entire carrier strike group because American engineering is bad

>>34672842
Top notch shitpost right there.

>>34673283
>I know fluid dynamics is hard.
not sure what you mean by this; fluid dynamics is actually pretty hard.

File: 1500068580336.gif (4MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 359x202px

>>34673309
Chinese designs ARE better than US. It simple. Take US design, copy it, then improve it.

>>34673144
>into firearms like women are into any shit that promises to make them shine, and probably hav as many of them stacked around the house as cunts have girl-product stacked around the bathroom...
Wow.
>party aborts millions of girls
>those that survived marry successful men (i.e. not you) or gwailo
>can't get laid because girls are icky so fuck your guns and talk more about chinese supremacy

>>34672317

that won't happen, because:

KIA = family gets fuckloads of benefits after your death

mutiny = dishonorable discharge which means fucking NOTHING after you get home

nobody is stupid enough to mutiny, which is why naval personnel would just fuck each other in the mouth to deal with the stress instead of hurting their commanding officers

>>34673282
>if they faced the might of PLAN.

The same thing that happened to the Iranian Navy during operation Praying Mantis.

>>34673366
Yeah, buddy! Do it in commercial yards, to commercial specs, with special features like watertight doors installed backward.

>>34673623
This (You) ... mmhhhmmmm ... hnnnggg (You) hhnnnyeeeessssss... it sustains meeee...

>>34672942
>>34672960
>>34672981
>>34672989
Literally saw one going 59 knots four years ago; that's why it's listed as 30+, because the actual speed is technically classified.

>>34672317
Actually, most of the crew wouldn't know what the ship was doing up until the torpedo hit. Even then the captain can order all hands to abandon ship once they were on course.

>>34672347
there are 40+ LA class submarines alone. though probably only a third of them are actually out at sea at any moment.

>>34672896
>aegis is better than what any other country has
>I have no idea what aegis is

File: This_Thread.jpg (172KB, 1171x742px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1171x742px

In the grand scheme of things, I'm becoming to see that diesel-electric submarines are a meme. Only great in littoral waters (which is what they are good for)

You're never going to catch up to a CBG and be quiet doing it. Unless you just get lucky. We aren't just going to sit off the coast of a contested area and get sunk. Lmao

>muh stealth
>muh AIP
>muh slow speed
>muh shit endurance

The US has enough satellites gathering intelligence about submarines and ships, so if anything, they will be told to go 30kts the other way if they are that concerned about being btfo'd by submarines.

>>34676322
>tfw I know a guy who worked/s(?) on AEGIS and refuses to tell me anything about it

He's a huge dick about it too, he'll look at "official numbers" on wikipedia and chuckle like a goddamn anime character without saying anything.

>>34677942
Yeah, you get a lot of well read keyboard warriors thinking they know shit about something, but at the end of the day, it's classified. Only spouting conjecture based on anecdotal evidence, what wikipedia has to say, and assumptions. You'll get a clue, sure. But quite frankly, you don't get to know, have the reason to know or have the clearance to know what's going on unless you are part of the cool kids club.

Surely they have some measures against massive missile and torpedo salvos in place already.

>>34678019
Thing is though, a big part of the capabilities are theoretical anyway. Remember when the US anti-air missiles were supposed to be immune to flares and then it turned out that they loved the fuck out of soviet flares since they were only programmed to avoid US made flares? I feel like something similar could happen to AEGIS.

It's a very poor idea to underestimate the enemy's capabilities and overestimate yours.

>>34672842
Yes, all of this would happen.

>>34678076
Or when the S-300 in Syria got absolutely fucked by tomahawks

File: 1400431990922.jpg (15KB, 320x290px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x290px

>>34672244
>30-40 torps in the water
The fuck? You realize that would require a pretty big amount of enemy subs to be in the area? That's A LOT of noise, if the CSG can't detect those they'll get sunk anyways.

>>34672347
a shitload of torpedo boats could be assembled and set out in a quicker time.

>>34678132
Near the coast, sure.
A few hundred miles out, they won't have the endurance to do shit, they get lit up when they get close anyways.

>>34678132
What? Detecting surface ships is a lot easier than detecting submarines. They'll never get near the CSG. EVER.

>>34678132
No

>>34672842
>the loss of ONE (1) CSG would cause the collapse of the united states
I can't believe you took the time to write that
I can't believe I took the time to read that

>>34678115
Or that.

>>34672692
Remember the Maine.
Conquering is America's true past time.

>>34672842
If someone manages to gank a CBG, we'd likely go full Navy Seal copypasta.

Where would that many torps even come from?
Some kind of wolfpack? It would be detected long before they could launch.

>>34678578
I'm just spiralling here bug what about swarm tactics? A hundred or so small, fast drone boats with one torpedo each closing in and firing all at once might do it, even if a whole bunch get wiped out before they can fire.

I guess launching the drones and co-ordinating them would be the issue there but with the way technology is advancing I'm sure it's possible.

>>34679157
Sorry, *I'm just spitballing here*
>Is this why people hate phoneposters?

>>34679157
Why the fuck would you do that? It wouldn't work.

>>34679157
this isnt video games

>>34679844
>>34680559
I'm not the Anon you're replying to but I don't think this would be an unrealistic tactic in the near future:
>Have several hundred or even a thousand, remote operated, mass produced boats which are essentially an engine, fuel and explosive.
>Launch these from the coast, ships, submarines or air-drop. They could even drift at sea and be remotely activated when needed.
>Swarm towards carrier, potentially in conjunction with a torpedo and/or missile attack.

File: nimitz-model.jpg (254KB, 1836x1222px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1836x1222px

>>34679157
The mothership that launched them would get fucked into Davy Jones' Locker before it got its torpedo boats off.

Pic related: It's the mothership loaded with flying fucking torpedo boats that would push your mothership's shit in.

>>34681091
You should probably look at a nautical chart some time. And think really long and hard about scale.

You're talking about a huge effort, to deny a small coastal area, to a CSG that isn't actually going to be there anyway.

>>34672842
Stopped reading after the first line
Try harder next time.

>>34678076
>Remember when the US anti-air missiles were supposed to be immune to flares and then it turned out that they loved the fuck out of soviet flares since they were only programmed to avoid US made flares?

flares avoiding flares? What the fuck are you talking about retard.

>>34673297
>>34673280
>>34676322
You do realize these kind of comments are just useless trash right?

>>34678045
Missiles yes, torpedoes less so. The AEGIS system is very efficient at dealing with massed missiles, but it could still be overwhelmed.
There are towed decoys and other countermeasures for torpedoes, and there is this for US
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/sstd.htm
And an approximately parallel system is in service with the Russian Navy, and the bongs are working on it. But these systems are mostly in their infancy, not suited to saturation attacks. Which is fine because those a very unlikely anyway.
See
>>34672931
>>34673032

>>34681259
Okay, so.to clarify my post here is how what I'm talking about might go down:

>submarine spots carrier group, reports position to command
>anywhere between 100-1000 front boats are launched from Port
>drone boats are equipped with a small computer, some method of receiving orders by satellite and a torpedo
>drone boats are powered by an electric engine fed from a battery charged by solar panels on the deck/roof. They also have a diesel generator and enough fuel for 30 minutes or so of power.
>drone boats cruise in low power mode toward an intercept point designated by the sub
> once they reach the Carrier Group the activate go far mode and swarm in, moving erratically to minimise losses from enemy fire
>once they reach a certain range the whole swarm launches its torpedoes simultaneously, creating a mobile wall of fuck you too large for the carrier group to avoid
>surviving drones switch back over to solar mode and RTB.

The drones themselves will be very small and very low to the water since they have no need for a cabin and can be rendered completely watertight apart from the torpedo Bay, this means that they be hard to detect by radar until they are quite close, and since they are satellite guided you don't have to worry if they get scattered by a storm or rough seas. Finally, each individual drive is expendable, so there's no need to worry about losses beyond ensuring you have enough drones to actually land hits on the carrier group.

>>34681444
It's about an anecdote about Russian dogs with bombs going under Soviet tanks because they love the smell.

>>34682173
Fucking he'll my phone fucked me hard on this one, I'll try explaining this in more detail if there's a relevant thread up once I get my home internet back

>>34672244
realize its 1945 then time travel back to the present day where nobody uses torpedos because missiles are a thing

>>34681497
>useless trash
>faggot can't even be half assed to research about the technology before spouting drivel
>Expects everyone to spoonfeed him while he sips his Durian shake

You do realize you're cancer that's ruining this board right? Have you ever thought of lurking for 2 years before posting?

File: AHKdM.jpg (219KB, 2550x1650px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 2550x1650px

>>34673306
>Mk.48 wake homing
>Mk. 48
Because all US torpedoes are called Mk. 48 right? They can't possibly have other torpedoes right?

>Shkval
>Though, nobody can figure out how to guide the dang things
The new ones are guided, retard.

>>34673276

Shkval is a defensive anti submarine torpedo, it has limited inertial guidance where connection to the torpedo is cut after a few hundred feet, long enough to input the hypothetical proximity of the target.

Shkval is a measure that is used when a ship or submarine detects an enemy torpedo in the waters. The gist is to fire the torpedo at the enemy submarine, making them panic and cut off the wire to the torpedo.

The only 'rumor' of it being used offensively is through the rumored Medvedka-2, a Russian ASROC design, but was not accepted since Russia chose the Kalibr ASROC model. And the Kalibr ASROC can only carry 324mm to 350mm lightweight torpedoes.

>>34673059
The objection was probably because that anon knows that the CVN is the fastest ship in a carrier group

Here's what would happen
CVN would make a quick sprint away from the torpedoes
The rest of the carrier group would deploy nixie torpedo countermeasures and form a screen between the carrier and the torpedoes
Once in place all ships would begin evasive maneuvers.
Evasive menuevers cause everything not stowed away properly to start flying around
My monster gets spilled and I get super upset before a torpedo blows my destroyer in half

>>34672244

Depends

Outrun is usually workable if you detect them early; slow speed to fast on the last leg can be a problem, but that's not Chink or Slav torps yet

Torpedo countermeasures (Nixie and whatnot) also

Play Harpoon. When you detect incoming, just turn and go flank. You'll outrun them. This is using open source material, so the best we'll ever know.