How many carriers would the USA lose in a war against Russia or China by submarines?

>orbitals
Do you mean suborbital ballistic missiles? If so, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty whether or not a ballistic reentry vehicle can properly target a maneuverable ship while it’s encased by a plasma sheath.

Might get two damaged in a ambush/surprise attack. Unless nukes are used both will be back in a few months. No CSG will be surprised again for a long time.

Its pretty much an open secret that all surface ships are torp bait

>How many carriers would the USA lose to submarine torpedo attacks in a war against Russia or China?
FTFU

It depends on how ballsy the US and the enemy are being. If the US takes their time, they ought to be able to pick apart the enemy submarine fleet slowly before the carriers are risked.

Note that I am assuming the US isn't going to just feed a carrier into the effective operational range of a SSK willingly. The only credible long range submarine threats to a carrier is an SSN of some sort. SSKs just don't have the legs for it (yeah, I know some SSKs with AIP have submerged operation capabilities measured in days but that has to include speed limitations that preclude catching something like a carrier unless it literally walks into their lap). The US has the most effective SSNs right now so advantage US I guess?

Frankly, long range ASM spam seems like a bigger carrier killer to me.

while the russians are just incompetent, i'd be afraid of the chinese. because of their stupid looking squinty chink eyes, i doubt they can see that well, which would mean that they need to have developed other ways to augment their other senses. i have a strong suspicion that every chinaman can see through echolocation, and that it's highly integrated into their submarines.

>chinks use echolocation because slant eyes
Are you my grandpa?

Probably none, they might get one if they try really hard but it wouldn't really matter since by that point the war would escalate to nuclear.

Just don’t let Sweden get involved. They’re very good at sinking carriers

Guess people don’t want to talk about this

Either no one cares or knows what you're talking about. When has Sweden ever sunk a carrier?

All.

Yes in wargames. Very easily. With a stupid little sub that costs pennies compared to a carrier. Demoralized the crew as the scores hit after hit. I guarantee Russia and China own these stupid little subs now too.

Oh yeah, I remember that one. Didn't the Svens more or less sail unhindered around the carrier group, simulating torpedo shots?

The Sweden thing is overhyped massively.

It says more about how quiet SSK's are and how bad an ASW enviroment the loud, shallow and confined waters of the Baltic are.

Not even a burger.

>Ha! We just made you aware of a vulnerability! Whatcha gonna do now American?
Way to play your hand early

They've sunk them in wargames. Though people don't seem to understand that these exercises aren't actually conducted with the full capabilities of the equipment and are designed to come up with solutions to things like this from happening in an actual war.

Attached: Carrier group w Albany.jpg (1892x1506, 1.78M)

So basically carrier groups are loud and a quiet sub can score easy shots and sail around with no worries of detection while nailing the carrier again and again

Were the US carriers escorted by SSNs in the exercise? That seems like the only reliable way to counter a diesel boat that's running on batteries.

no.

Carriers in confined waters can't use their main advantage of constantly moving at high speed in deep water.

SSK's in that situation cant hope to get into an attacking position undetected (whereas an SSN could).

SSK's need luck to sink fast fleet formations, the fleet needs to sail right over them, which isnt going to happen IRL without the water being searched first.

People always forget how difficult it is to sink a CVN. A successful attack might cripple one, but sinking one is a different matter.

You damn near have to obliterate one into a million pieces.

>sunk them
>in wargames

You only need to get a firing solution on a carrier and they would call that a sinking.

All of them. It would be a massacre.

What difference would it make. If the support destroyers can’t detect it why would an ssn be able to.

True.

>If the support destroyers can’t detect it why would an ssn be able to.

Because SSNs have more sophisticated sonar.

Let me guess. Closing bulkheads. Then a Swedish fag nails you 5 times.

It was multiple hits.

People fail to remember that the United States has never gone toe to toe with a modern military. Doing so would cause heavy losses. They’re always attacking 3rd world dictators in charge of 60s hardware and still can’t finish off a war. See Vietnam, Iraq. Afghanistan.

Why not put that sonar on ships? Smells like bullshit

I mean, compared to all the other military powers on earth, the US has more combat experience against competent opponents in recent history.

Which competent opponents?

>Just put a sonar sphere on ships ships
>Just do it

You made a dumb post user.

Attached: 1408029726515.jpg (689x400, 50K)

Well, a sonar is much more effectively isolated when traveling below the layer. On top of that, a submarine is usually designed around the principal of maintaining an incredibly quiet hull, whereas a destroyer keeps hull quieting as a secondary design goal.

American destroyers don't have very advanced sonars

>the US has more active Carriers than Russia has submarines

pathetic

That you know of. Attack subs are cheap, quiet and effective.

Conventional submarines would be quite efficiently in China's first island chain.

>quantum hypersonic submarines.
They’ve been doing it for a while. With plasma stealth sheathing, even. Now if they could just get their reading comprehension up to First World standards.

The Iraqi military was modern and was the 3rd biggest in the world at the time.

There was literally just an article the other day about some admiral complaining that they've only got 5 active SSNs.

And North Korea has the 4th biggest. Big whoop

>Iraq had a modern military
Sure thing user

All of them

What is propaganda

If America is entering into a war with either Russia or China they will be expecting subs from the get go. There is no "sneak attack" when it is their only viable naval force.

this

I just checked. Russia has 17 SSN and 22 SSK

Do some reading on the Thermocline and its affect on surface sonar readings when searching for deep submarines

The Tl:dr is that the heat at the surface makes a large amount of surface sonar reflect and echo in the lit area of water due to density differences in the salt water
That means that a deep sub, below the Thermocline in the dark will get a true reading and hear passive sonar readings while a destroyer would be screaming on active sonar and still have a lesser chance of finding a target

>operational

>expecting to easily find 39 attack subs armed with modern anti ship missiles.
Let us know how it goes user

>They’re very good at sinking carriers
Well, go ahead and bust out the list of carriers sunk by Sweden. I want to compare it to the list of carriers in service today, see if there’s any overlap. I suspect Sweden is inflating their kill count.

You’re telling me there were no subs in the carrier group during a war game? Imagine being this stupid

>i-i-it wasn't as modern as Am-Americas!
If that is the metric than America doesn't have a modern army to go up against you faggot

>I guarantee
Do you? Do you really guarantee that’s the case? What’s backing your guarantee?

You can't be this dumb - The second tensions raise the Attack subs will be out tracking and shadowing each other with the americans having much more experience

I mean, it's definitely a possibility. Do we know the parameters of the exercise?

Easily find =/= expecting and taking appropriate measures you dumbass. America spys on everyone on the planet, to suggest that the military would enter into conflict against an enemy that can really only launch effective naval attacks via sub without focusing on defending from that type of attack is retarded.

Not the same user - I was only answering the question posed here

>the United States has never gone toe to toe with a modern military
Same could be said about anybody

Didn't a German submarine pretty much do the same at another occasion?

Strange, none of the carriers sunk in WW2 exploded to tiny bits.

IJN Taiho

Modern CVNs are also 4-5 times larger than ww2 carriers

This is likely true to a certain degree. Look at the USS America sinkex. A carrier would be pretty trivial to mission kill (assuming you get a hit on it), but actually sinking the thing or causing enough damage to keep it out of action for too long takes a lot of ordnance.

Taihou had a fireball and burned out, she didn't even break in half for all we know.

Depends. A carrier carries much of ammo and fuel with it. Many carriers back in WW2 actually were destroyed from secondary explosions or fires when their bomb/torpedo storages or aviation fuel depots blew up. One or two hits on the right spot can turn a carrier into a burning wreck, and i pretty much doubt a modern carrier would be that much different.

So? More targets for submarines.

>Then a Swedish fag nails you 5 times.
Doubtful. Torpedo run time is measured in minutes. They’re also noisy, as is launching them. When that Swedish fag fires his first shots, he just put up a big-ass neon sign marking his location. Every SSN in the same hemisphere heard him, as did every escort ship in the CSG. He’s going to have a flock of ASW helos shitting sonobuoys and dipping sonar all over his position. Sure, he can abandon his torpedos long before they get into autonomous homing range and make a run for it. He might even get away. His shots sure as hell won’t get any hits, though.

You have a highly unrealistic impression of what torpedos can do. Their travel time is measured in tens of minutes.

>Vietnam
>60s hardware

Vietnam was in the 60s, you absolute fuckwit.

>Sure thing user
What, you too stupid to crack open a copy of Jane’s from 2002-2003? They were modern, and at the time they also had a lot more peer-to-peer combat experience than we did.

>You have a highly unrealistic impression of what torpedos can do

This is ironic given the stupidity you have just uttered.

>but muh exercises!
Exercises mean exactly jack and shit.

Sure they do. Germany, Russia, France, China, India, hell even turkey

Clearly not if the Swedefags can sink a carrier with ease

>Russia
>China
>India
>Turkey
>Modern

>and i pretty much doubt a modern carrier would be that much different.
Ah, ok. So you’re one of the active stupid types. Did you ever stop to consider that modern carrier design might have actually taken into account the lessons learned from historical mishaps? You apparently are still under the impression that flight decks are wooden, and that naval aircraft use avgas-fuelled piston engines.

Yet the Swedes still got the hits and evaded detection. SAD. LOW ENERGY

So they say.

Prove me wrong

For one thing the Swedes were inside the carrier group. I’d say that’s less than a minute in run time. Measured in seconds.

Still waiting on that list of carriers sunk by the Swedes.

Without ever opening outer doors, which is noisy as hell, or firing any torpedos. You’re trying to claim game results as irl results. SO SAD. DELUSIONAL. MANY SUCH CASES.

I said prove me wrong. I didn’t say post your uneducated opinions.

>torpedos
>noisy

Maybe Russian models

It was during war games. A Swedish sub was able to evade the carrier group, enter the group and get off several shots. All to demonstrate how hopelessly outclassed a carrier group is against a modern, non nuclear attack sub. The subs will always rules the seas and the ships will always be nothing more than sub targets.

>war games
Which mean nothing

Face it, in a war against a military with modern, non nuclear attack subs, the carrier groups are hopelessly outclassed and poor $12B carriers are going to be sent to the bottom by a few doesn’t fags on a $100M sub.

Couldn’t detect the Swedish sub. It got into firing position multiple times from multiple angles without detection. That’s something. Imagine wasting so much money on carriers that are hopelessly outclassed

OP actually shows a German submarine penetrating an US carrier group.

The Germans did it too? Wow. Pathetic. Who knew carriers were so helpless

So they say. But of course, you weren’t there, so you can’t prove it

I suggest you look at what most American carriers in that conflict went through before they sank.

They don't have the mobility or endurance to pursue CSGs.