Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

Hypothetical Scenario - If Russia has to face a modern NATO aircraft carrier protected by a standard carrier battle group  either in the Black Sea or the Pacific ( apart from other areas) how daunting a challenge will it be for the Russian Navy or Air Force ?

As it looks here you wont need much.
The dutch submarines did it!!

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.

Shkval Torpedo with nuclear warhead and you can take care of any vessel.

You would need a combination of about 150-200 X-22s, P-700s, P-270s, P-500s, Kalibrs, etc. striking a single carrier battlegruop simultaneously in order to destroy some ships

KomissarBojanchev wrote:You would need a combination of about 150-200 X-22s, P-700s, P-270s, P-500s, Kalibrs, etc. striking a single carrier battlegruop simultaneously in order to destroy some ships

Thats crazy Thats way to Much missiles for one strike group i personnaly think 3-4 yasen class could do the job.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:You would need a combination of about 150-200 X-22s, P-700s, P-270s, P-500s, Kalibrs, etc. striking a single carrier battlegruop simultaneously in order to destroy some ships

Thats crazy Thats way to Much missiles for one strike group i personnaly think 3-4 yasen class could do the job.

well thats the least you can use against a battlegruop that carries around 500-700 sm-2s plus hundreds of more sea sparrows. And the russian attack would be combination of cruisers, oscars, and tu-22s.

Deep Throat wrote:
Hypothetical Scenario - If Russia has to face a modern NATO aircraft carrier protected by a standard carrier battle group  either in the Black Sea or the Pacific ( apart from other areas) how daunting a challenge will it be for the Russian Navy or Air Force ?

According to  the conventional wisdom (in the professional sectors) sinking the carrier and its escorts would not be a challenge for the Russian navy or for the Russian air force; it would be an extremely easy task for them to perform.

The US/NATO would only find out about the action after the battle group has been fatally hit.

well thats the least you can use against a battlegruop that carries around 500-700 sm-2s plus hundreds of more sea sparrows. And the russian attack would be combination of cruisers, oscars, and tu-22s.

And each M16 magazine carries 30 rounds... did US soldiers in Afghanistan kill 30 enemy per magazine fired?

A US carrier group in the Black Sea would be fish in a barrel and subject to targeting from land based AShM batteries as well as air and sea based forces.

The Russians would not attack with conventional weapons, and they would not just send in the Air Force or the Navy... it would be a combined effort for such a critical target.

the US would run out of ships before the Russians ran out of missiles... they could start with all their old missile stock and just make the USN carrier group run out of SAMs.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:According to  the conventional wisdom (in the professional sectors) sinking the carrier and its escorts would not be a challenge for the Russian navy or for the Russian air force; it would be an extremely easy task for them to perform.

No disrespect . But it's not an easy task , certainly not against a US carrier fleet that have way too many countermeasures including EW tactics that will render at least half the missiles fired at them useless .

My back of the envelope calculation suggests that if 10 Oniks/Brahmas type missiles are fired at a US carrier at least 5 to 6 will be intercepted . Torpedos present a different challenge but even then their chances of hitting are less than that of an Oniks .

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The US/NATO would only find out about the action after the battle group has been fatally hit.

Seriously   In these days of C4ISR   

Deep Throat wrote:
My back of the envelope calculation suggests that ...

Can you show the members of this forum your "back-of-the-envelope calculations"?  

[quote="Deep Throat"][quote="Morpheus Eberhardt"]Torpedos present a different challenge but even then their chances of hitting are less than that of an Oniks .

[quote/]

Torpedoes would have a huge chance of impact and 4 yasen class al carrying around 20 torpedoes could the job thats 80 torpedoes i guess you want to be sure the carrier will sink so lets say 15 torpedoes for the carrier and the rest for the strike group.


BTW if 6 oniks will hit their target it will sink atleast when it is an carrier

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Can you show the members of this forum your "back-of-the-envelope calculations"?  

Sure , once you shed more light on "the conventional wisdom (in the professional sectors)" that Carrier Groups can be sunk easily   

Coz , if carrier groups can "easily be sunk" that raises some important question -  Why is Russia  ( China , India among others ) building carriers & escorts ?

Do they have better protective mechanisms than US carrier groups ?

Flyingdutchman wrote:Torpedoes would have a huge chance of impact and 4 yasen class al carrying around 20 torpedoes could the job thats 80 torpedoes i guess you want to be sure the carrier will sink so lets say 15 torpedoes for the carrier and the rest for the strike group.

No , not quite . The present day US carriers have a  system that consists of a Torpedo Warning System Receive Array which is launched from the winch at the end of the ship . Basically  a towed sensor or receiver engineered to detect the presence of incoming torpedo fire. The Receive Array sends information to a processor which then computes key information and sends data to interceptor projectiles — or Countermeasures Anti-Torpedos attached to the side of the ship.
The towed array picks up the acoustic noise.  The processors filter it out and inform the crew. The crew then makes the decision about whether to fire a Countermeasures Anti-Torpedo .

Flyingdutchman wrote:BTW if 6 oniks will hit their target it will sink atleast when it is an carrier

Yes, that's a given . The corollary to this is that Russian carriers are equally vulnerable to US cruise missiles including the up coming LRASM .

russia wont field 4 yasens against a lone carrier group in the middle of the black sea(land based ashms and aviation will take care of it) or anywhere else really. two yasens imo is enough to finish the job.
Regarding torpedoes, afaik the russkies have a newer version of Skhvall that is manueverable, could be enough to complicate interception attempts.
Also, you dont need to sink the carrier, just a single hit in the middle of the deck and the whole operation stops. I dont care if all the sailors know how to conduct fire fighting duties- a burning hole in the deck isnt something you can patch up in time and the enemy will not wait. Also, nobody mentions the possibility of sabotage- have the catapult set to overload and watch it rip the aircraft and the catapult itself to shreds. nasty stuff.

Deep Throat wrote:once you shed more light on "the conventional wisdom (in the professional sectors)" that Carrier Groups can be sunk easily  Twisted Evil

I believe that you wouldn't have never made this statement if you would had lost some minutes reading in this same forum the thread about "Russian aircraft carriers"   


https://www.russiadefence.net/t2631-future-russian-aircraft-carriers


If you are intersted in a very quick recap of what US Navy's officials believe behind closed doors about the survivability of theirs aircraft carriers in a war against an advanced opponent you can see and hear that.




As you well know it is by now, at least 15 years that in US Navy is present a very heated debate on the utility and convenience in continue to rely on such absurdely expensive and growing vulnerable behemoths such as aircraft supercarrier and the reason is not that a conventional conflict against Russia or another highly advanced opponent (against which the fleets of carriers was very vulnerable since at least the latest 40 years ) is more probable today than 20 years ago ,but simply because a lot of smaller nations ,(the real target of the carrier-enabled power projection capability) can today equip itself, in limited numbers, with that kind of sophisticated anti-ship  weapons one time only in the arsenals of high end opponents

Deep Throat wrote:if carrier groups can "easily be sunk" that raises some important question -  Why is Russia  ( China , India among others ) building carriers & escorts ?

For the same exact reason of the US Navy   : project military power and expand national influence at thjousand of km of distance from national shores .
Naturally none of those nations expect to exert that capability over the shores of US for the same exact reason up-explained but at inverted sides.

Russia is not building US type carriers.... their carriers are air control carriers that has a primary mission of dealing with enemy air power first and foremost.

Mindstorm wrote:I believe that you wouldn't have never made this statement if you would had lost some minutes reading in this same forum the thread about "Russian aircraft carriers"   


https://www.russiadefence.net/t2631-future-russian-aircraft-carriers  

The answers that you gave in the above thread are basically in reply to the questions that were asked . Nothing wrong with it but the questions related to jamming of cruise missiles were not asked .


Russian / Chinese cruise missiles will use  terrain contour matching (TERCOM) Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) to home in on a target , just like NATO cruise missile. Now DSMAC will compare between sensed images and stored  reference images to determine position  measurements through the best match location  of the image, and TERCOM  will obtain the measurements through correlating a sensed terrain profile to a stored map terrain profile. Ergo, Electronic Countermeasures like End Game Countermeasures can be used against missile seekers during the last few seconds before target intercept.

The submarines of the adversaries will be hunted down by the P8A Poseidon .

AFAIK the TU 142 is out of production as on this date so the task for the Russian Navy to hunt for enemy submarines is going to be difficult .

Mindstorm wrote:If you are intersted in a very quick recap of what US Navy's officials believe behind closed doors about the survivability of theirs aircraft carriers in a war against an advanced opponent you can see and hear that.

This guy is from the US Army . What will he know about the Navy ? His comments are frankly  sophomoric in nature .

Deep Throat wrote:

This guy is from the US Army . What will he know about the Navy ? His comments are frankly  sophomoric in nature .

Andrew Marshall never served a day in his life in the U.S. military, but look what position he holds in national defense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist)

This guy is from the US Army . What will he know about the Navy ? His comments are frankly sophomoric in nature .

Are you trying to discredit every single person that doesn't fit your views?

The point is he is not a farmer from the land working with tractors, he is a military advisor with a high reputation.

There is a guy called Vasiliy Fofanov, he didn't spend a single day in the russian/soviet army, but is considered as a soviet/russian tank expert even among such as Richard Hunnicutt and Steven Zaloga.

The last straw of a person trying to prevent losing an argument is trying to discredit someones argument just for the sake of somehow winning an argument instead of learning and discussing the presented matters.

Usually, users in this forum try to learn and present and sometimes teach others about military affairs and not to argue for sake of winning an argument.

Werewolf wrote:Are you trying to discredit every single person that doesn't fit your views?

"every single person" would be ?  

Werewolf wrote:he is a military advisor with a high reputation.

Maybe in Disneyland . Here in the US , the military does not seek advise from retd. military officers . Certainly not officially .

Werewolf wrote:Usually, users in this forum try to learn and present and sometimes teach others about military affairs and not to argue for sake of winning an argument.

I may not be the best person to teach someone & I do not pretend to be one either . But what makes you think that I do not learn anything  from this forum ?

Let's keep this person's military designation aside & concentrate on what he says in this video .

Does he provide any empirical data .....NO

Does he state the reasons why carrier groups cannot protect themselves effectively ....... NO

He simply quotes a few US Government officials that US carriers can barely survive  for 2 -3 days against a Soviet attack .

So, if this makes him an expert then I am a general .

Deep Throat wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Can you show the members of this forum your "back-of-the-envelope calculations"?  

Sure , once you shed more light on  "the conventional wisdom (in the professional sectors)" that Carrier Groups can be sunk easily   

Coz , if carrier groups can "easily be sunk" that raises some important question -  Why is Russia  ( China , India among others ) building carriers & escorts ?

Do they have better protective mechanisms than US carrier groups ?

The purpose of my last post was to show to you that we know you have not made and could not have made any such "back-of-the-envelope calculations". Interestingly, your response to my post also proves my position.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The purpose of my last post was to show to you that we know you have not made and could not have made any such "back-of-the-envelope calculations". Interestingly, your response to my post also proves my position.

Why are you so emotionally wound up with the calculation ? I have provided a number , 5 - 6 Onix missiles can sink a carrier .
You do not see gravity , but it exists . Or do you insist on being provided with the calculations in order to believe it.

Nothing wrong with it but the questions related to jamming of cruise missiles were not asked .

We are not talking about land attack cruise missiles, we are talking about anti ship missiles.

Russian / Chinese cruise missiles will use terrain contour matching (TERCOM) Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) to home in on a target , just like NATO cruise missile. Now DSMAC will compare between sensed images and stored reference images to determine position measurements through the best match location of the image, and TERCOM will obtain the measurements through correlating a sensed terrain profile to a stored map terrain profile. Ergo, Electronic Countermeasures like End Game Countermeasures can be used against missile seekers during the last few seconds before target intercept.

Anti ship missiles are not cruise missiles... anti ship missiles use inertial guidance and satellite guidance because there is no terrain at sea to substitute to allow TERCOM.

Russian anti ship missiles use a range of terminal guidance from passive and active radar to IR sensors depending on the model and the sophistication. Some Granits (and therefore likely Onyx too) had their HE payload replaced with decoys and active jammers to defeat air defence systems, while others simply used the brute force of a tactical nuclear warhead.

The heavy steel plate armour protecting the Granits warhead is replaced with Titanium in the Onyx and the terminal guidance algorithms which make it a difficult target to hit are also unknowns that make physical and electronic interception uncertain.

Very simply with any type of missile... if you direct the number the target can defeat plus one then you win. By making the missiles fast and armoured and smart you decrease the number the target can handle at once.

The Russian Navy is in the process of rebuilding its fleet so instead of its capital ships and carriers and a few submarines carrying heavy supersonic anti ship missiles their future platforms will all be capable of carrying these weapons on the UKSK launch system... from corvettes to carriers and subs as well.

Add land based launchers and air launchers and the problem of amassing a large number of missiles will no longer be a problem...

The submarines of the adversaries will be hunted down by the P8A Poseidon .

AFAIK the TU 142 is out of production as on this date so the task for the Russian Navy to hunt for enemy submarines is going to be difficult

Two points... first the Tu-142 might be out of production but it is still in use... the B-52 and F-22 are out of production too. Second those Poseidons wont operate very well in the black sea or Pacific ocean within 400km of land because of S-400 batteries...

I would also suspect the new Morfei 9M100 with its lock on after launch capability could be mounted on SSNs and SSKs to defeat aircraft.

Deep Throat wrote:
Russian / Chinese cruise missiles will use  terrain contour matching (TERCOM) Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) to home in on a target , just like NATO cruise missile. Now DSMAC will compare between sensed images and stored  reference images to determine position  measurements through the best match location  of the image, and TERCOM  will obtain the measurements through correlating a sensed terrain profile to a stored map terrain profile. Ergo, Electronic Countermeasures like End Game Countermeasures can be used against missile seekers during the last few seconds before target intercept.

The submarines of the adversaries will be hunted down by the P8A Poseidon .

As Garry pointed out, for obvious reasons, TERCOM can not be used in an antishipping context, neither can DSMAC.

Neither TERCOM nor DSMAC can be used to home on a target either, as neither of them are homing guidance methods.

You obviously don't have any idea about any of these concepts, but you still write about them.

Also the airplane called P-8A is useless as a weapon system, specially in this context.

In short all your posts in this thread, including the rhetorical questions you ask in them, have been totally nonsensical. You may not know that, but you have absolutely no clue about the subjects that you are trying to talk about.

Stop trolling.

GarryB wrote:Anti ship missiles are not cruise missiles...

GarryB wrote: anti ship missiles use inertial guidance and satellite guidance because there is no terrain at sea to substitute to allow TERCOM.

Does the name Naval Strike Missile ring a bell ?

Gee , and it was me , who was accused of trolling .

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Also the airplane called P-8A is useless as a weapon system

And you know this how ? By flying it yourself or by shooting it down ?

Don’t bother to answer. I don’t really want to know