If this weren't so sad...
 

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 01:58:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:28:57 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/8/15 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/8/2015 3:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...it would be hilarious...

Lone French Submarine Destroys Myth Of US Naval Superiority

If you listened to the Admirality within the Pentagon, the United States
Navy is one of the finest in the world. Our focus on the Aircraft
Carrier, split between 10 Supercarriers with four more under
construction, and 10 more lighter carriers, called “Amphibious Assault
Ships,” has given the US the largest carrier fleets in the world. In
fact, the US Navy has more carriers in active service than the rest of
the world, and it is the lynchpin of any US Navy actions. The myth of
the American carrier invulnerability is such that it is taken for
granted in our collective psyche.

And a lone French Submarine, the SNA Saphir, just demonstrated how
vulnerable they are. In a training exercise, the Saphir was tasked with
attacking U.S. Carrier Strike Group 12, led by the USS Theodore
Roosevelt, CVN-71, along with ballistic defensive warships and
anti-submarine warfare vessels. In a now redacted article, the French
Ministry of Defense described how the Saphir on its own managed to not
only approach the Roosevelt, but defeat it in simulated combat.

What the French demonstrated should not come as a surprise, however. As
the Canadian submarine HMCS Corner Brook demonstrated in 2007,
asymmetrical warfare is the Achilles heel for Aircraft carrier based
naval forces. The issue is so pronounced that the US Naval Institute has
been arguing against this carrier-first fleet design for years, saying
that in the modern combat environment, carriers could be “little more
than slow-moving targets.”

http://tinyurl.com/m3e8r66


What isn't a surprise: the U.S. military wastes trillions with its
arrogance.


Only thing wrong with your account:

The American Task Force and the French sub were practicing war games as
they would in an actual sea battle. The American Task Force at one
point assumed the role as the "enemy" and the French sub's mission was
to attack and sink the carrier and other ships, which they successfully
simulated.

What's missing is that the American Task Force still provided
command/control intel for the French sub as a participating ally, even
though they simultaneously played the "enemy".

A more accurate test would be to have no communications allowed, no
sharing of command/control intel and to allow the American Task Force
to take offensive/defensive actions against the sub.



I don't think it is necessary to go through all that trouble to sink or
disable one of our oversized carriers. A "smart" missile with a nuclear
explosive would do it.

Aircraft carriers are there to project force against 3d world
countries. When Zumwalt was asked how long our carriers would last
against the Soviets he said "a couple days".

I will say, we have pretty good detection capability against subs but
that is not the only danger.

The Chinese have a truck mounted missile that could take out a carrier
from 2 thousand miles away. The opinion about how many the Aegis
screen could take down is mixed.

Getting close to a carrier and hitting the carrier are not the same thing.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/2015 9:35 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 04:17:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/8/2015 11:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 17:08:19 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

We used to read stories of our previous class of diesel electric submarines getting within torpedo range of 'merican carriers. Didn't realize the newer Upholder class did the same thing.

BTW ..it was four submarines we took off British hands. Three are based in Halifax in various stages of operational readiness.

===

Those guys are so good at submarine tracking and identification that
they probably knew they were coming 100 miles away. The propellor
and hull noise of every ship and sub is totally unique, just like a
finger print or DNA sample. There are world wide networks of
underwater microphones that track ships and subs everywhere. The
noise signature of every one is in a database.



The US military system was called SOSUS. The stationary, land based
SOSUS systems have been phased out in favor of a ship and sub mounted
towed array system that can be used anywhere. It's a passive system and
compares noise signatures to a library of signatures contained it it's
computer system. It can detect and identify a vessel by name, it's
location, speed, course, etc., and like other systems the data is
networked via high speed communication links to many ships.

I was assigned to a project group in the Navy that had the first
operational towed array system installed. At the time it was called
"Interim Towed Array Surveillance System" (ITASS) and the first ship to
receive the equipment was the USS Van Voorhis, followed by two other
DE's of the same class. This was back in 1970. The system has evolved
and has been improved and is now standard equipment on most Navy combat
vessels and subs.

It's one of several methods for detecting and locating surface ships and
submarines. There are others currently deployed and being developed.
Blue/Green laser technology continues to be explored for sub detection
and communication purposes.


Don't forget the P-3's and their replacements. My niece is now piloting 'test bed'
P-3's, and the stuff is so classified she won't even tell her dad what it's about.


I recently read that the P-8A Poseidon (replacement for the P3 Orion) is
having a few teething problems with some of it's systems. Once they
get them sorted out it should be a very capable ASW platform.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/15 9:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 9:35 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 04:17:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/8/2015 11:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 17:08:19 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

We used to read stories of our previous class of diesel electric
submarines getting within torpedo range of 'merican carriers.
Didn't realize the newer Upholder class did the same thing.

BTW ..it was four submarines we took off British hands. Three are
based in Halifax in various stages of operational readiness.

===

Those guys are so good at submarine tracking and identification that
they probably knew they were coming 100 miles away. The propellor
and hull noise of every ship and sub is totally unique, just like a
finger print or DNA sample. There are world wide networks of
underwater microphones that track ships and subs everywhere. The
noise signature of every one is in a database.



The US military system was called SOSUS. The stationary, land based
SOSUS systems have been phased out in favor of a ship and sub mounted
towed array system that can be used anywhere. It's a passive system and
compares noise signatures to a library of signatures contained it it's
computer system. It can detect and identify a vessel by name, it's
location, speed, course, etc., and like other systems the data is
networked via high speed communication links to many ships.

I was assigned to a project group in the Navy that had the first
operational towed array system installed. At the time it was called
"Interim Towed Array Surveillance System" (ITASS) and the first ship to
receive the equipment was the USS Van Voorhis, followed by two other
DE's of the same class. This was back in 1970. The system has evolved
and has been improved and is now standard equipment on most Navy combat
vessels and subs.

It's one of several methods for detecting and locating surface ships and
submarines. There are others currently deployed and being developed.
Blue/Green laser technology continues to be explored for sub detection
and communication purposes.


Don't forget the P-3's and their replacements. My niece is now
piloting 'test bed'
P-3's, and the stuff is so classified she won't even tell her dad what
it's about.


I recently read that the P-8A Poseidon (replacement for the P3 Orion) is
having a few teething problems with some of it's systems. Once they
get them sorted out it should be a very capable ASW platform.




Why bother with an expensive submarine when you can disable or sink a
carrier with an array of missiles fired from the backs of trucks?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Monday, 9 March 2015 10:31:43 UTC-3, John H. wrote:


I wonder what kick it gives them to misspell the name of a country.
--


Quit being such a drama queen, Johnny.
We're not making fun of the country's name...just how some of y'all talk.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/2015 9:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 9:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 9:35 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 04:17:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/8/2015 11:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 17:08:19 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

We used to read stories of our previous class of diesel electric
submarines getting within torpedo range of 'merican carriers.
Didn't realize the newer Upholder class did the same thing.

BTW ..it was four submarines we took off British hands. Three are
based in Halifax in various stages of operational readiness.

===

Those guys are so good at submarine tracking and identification that
they probably knew they were coming 100 miles away. The propellor
and hull noise of every ship and sub is totally unique, just like a
finger print or DNA sample. There are world wide networks of
underwater microphones that track ships and subs everywhere. The
noise signature of every one is in a database.



The US military system was called SOSUS. The stationary, land based
SOSUS systems have been phased out in favor of a ship and sub mounted
towed array system that can be used anywhere. It's a passive system
and
compares noise signatures to a library of signatures contained it it's
computer system. It can detect and identify a vessel by name, it's
location, speed, course, etc., and like other systems the data is
networked via high speed communication links to many ships.

I was assigned to a project group in the Navy that had the first
operational towed array system installed. At the time it was called
"Interim Towed Array Surveillance System" (ITASS) and the first ship to
receive the equipment was the USS Van Voorhis, followed by two other
DE's of the same class. This was back in 1970. The system has evolved
and has been improved and is now standard equipment on most Navy combat
vessels and subs.

It's one of several methods for detecting and locating surface ships
and
submarines. There are others currently deployed and being developed.
Blue/Green laser technology continues to be explored for sub detection
and communication purposes.


Don't forget the P-3's and their replacements. My niece is now
piloting 'test bed'
P-3's, and the stuff is so classified she won't even tell her dad what
it's about.


I recently read that the P-8A Poseidon (replacement for the P3 Orion) is
having a few teething problems with some of it's systems. Once they
get them sorted out it should be a very capable ASW platform.




Why bother with an expensive submarine when you can disable or sink a
carrier with an array of missiles fired from the backs of trucks?



Funny. Carriers don't get anywhere near within range of truck mounted
missiles and even if they did and were hit the damage would be minimal.

I agree ... a sustained attack of much more potent, long range missiles,
especially if nuclear armed, would be a serious threat but
the task forces that accompany the carriers are well equipped with
defensive systems. Nothing is foolproof but a carrier isn't that easy
to sink .. or even render totally inoperable.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/15 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 9:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 9:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 9:35 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 04:17:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/8/2015 11:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 17:08:19 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

We used to read stories of our previous class of diesel electric
submarines getting within torpedo range of 'merican carriers.
Didn't realize the newer Upholder class did the same thing.

BTW ..it was four submarines we took off British hands. Three are
based in Halifax in various stages of operational readiness.

===

Those guys are so good at submarine tracking and identification that
they probably knew they were coming 100 miles away. The propellor
and hull noise of every ship and sub is totally unique, just like a
finger print or DNA sample. There are world wide networks of
underwater microphones that track ships and subs everywhere. The
noise signature of every one is in a database.



The US military system was called SOSUS. The stationary, land based
SOSUS systems have been phased out in favor of a ship and sub mounted
towed array system that can be used anywhere. It's a passive system
and
compares noise signatures to a library of signatures contained it it's
computer system. It can detect and identify a vessel by name, it's
location, speed, course, etc., and like other systems the data is
networked via high speed communication links to many ships.

I was assigned to a project group in the Navy that had the first
operational towed array system installed. At the time it was called
"Interim Towed Array Surveillance System" (ITASS) and the first
ship to
receive the equipment was the USS Van Voorhis, followed by two other
DE's of the same class. This was back in 1970. The system has evolved
and has been improved and is now standard equipment on most Navy
combat
vessels and subs.

It's one of several methods for detecting and locating surface ships
and
submarines. There are others currently deployed and being developed.
Blue/Green laser technology continues to be explored for sub detection
and communication purposes.


Don't forget the P-3's and their replacements. My niece is now
piloting 'test bed'
P-3's, and the stuff is so classified she won't even tell her dad what
it's about.


I recently read that the P-8A Poseidon (replacement for the P3 Orion) is
having a few teething problems with some of it's systems. Once they
get them sorted out it should be a very capable ASW platform.




Why bother with an expensive submarine when you can disable or sink a
carrier with an array of missiles fired from the backs of trucks?



Funny. Carriers don't get anywhere near within range of truck mounted
missiles and even if they did and were hit the damage would be minimal.

I agree ... a sustained attack of much more potent, long range missiles,
especially if nuclear armed, would be a serious threat but
the task forces that accompany the carriers are well equipped with
defensive systems. Nothing is foolproof but a carrier isn't that easy
to sink .. or even render totally inoperable.





If we've learned anything since 9-11, it should be that there is no such
thing as a target that is invulnerable. There are hundreds of missile
variations held by dozens of countries around the world, and some are
guidable with heavy payload capabilities.



--
Proud to be a Liberal.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

On Monday, 9 March 2015 10:31:43 UTC-3, John H. wrote:


I wonder what kick it gives them to misspell the name of a country.
--


Quit being such a drama queen, Johnny.
We're not making fun of the country's name...just how some of y'all talk.

No. You're attempting to make fun of a country's name. What kick does it give you?
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Monday, 9 March 2015 13:16:09 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

On Monday, 9 March 2015 10:31:43 UTC-3, John H. wrote:


I wonder what kick it gives them to misspell the name of a country.
--


Quit being such a drama queen, Johnny.
We're not making fun of the country's name...just how some of y'all talk.

No. You're attempting to make fun of a country's name. What kick does it give you?
--


Yeah sure..Drama Queen...read above again....

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/15 12:41 PM, True North wrote:
On Monday, 9 March 2015 13:16:09 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

On Monday, 9 March 2015 10:31:43 UTC-3, John H. wrote:


I wonder what kick it gives them to misspell the name of a country.
--


Quit being such a drama queen, Johnny.
We're not making fun of the country's name...just how some of y'all talk.

No. You're attempting to make fun of a country's name. What kick does it give you?
--


Yeah sure..Drama Queen...read above again....


It's funny that Johnny and his buds are upset by that but not by the
horrific things Republicans are doing to this country.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/2015 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:20:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

If we've learned anything since 9-11, it should be that there is no such
thing as a target that is invulnerable. There are hundreds of missile
variations held by dozens of countries around the world, and some are
guidable with heavy payload capabilities.

We have been going along for 70 years thinking our military will be
invulnerable some day and we keep finding out war is a dangerous
business, no matter how much we spend on defense. 911 was just the 3d
world reminding us that no matter how many stand off weapons we use,
they can still hurt us.
I suppose it is important to remember that the last US warship
seriously damaged by a combatant was attacked by a small speed boat.


Right. Sitting in a supposedly friendly port, tied up to a pier
with half the crew on liberty call.

Put the USS Stark to sea and try to attack it in the same manner.