So what's to stop a frogman or team of frogmen from swimming up to it using powered swimsuits, attaching a large explosive underneath the keel and then goodbye carrier?
I heard the British SBS specialise in destroying ships in this fashion.
>>29946259
compartmentalization+ multi layered hulls. pretty much any military ship has this, but the larger the ship, the more effective it becomes.
>>29946259
A carrier on the move is too fast to catch. A carrier in the middle of a carrier group has sonar that will kill frogmen. A carrier in dock may be vulnerable if the mission is well planned but the distance to deploy and extract the frogman makes it a suicide mission, not something your elite troops would volunteer for.
its faster than most other ships, they would have to be dropped off by sub and we can find those, how much explosives are they gonna be carrying cause your gonna need alot and isnt this why we trained dolphins to try to protect our ships and find mines? i know they are not used.
>>29946292
>A carrier in the middle of a carrier group has sonar that will kill frogmen
Go to bed
>>29946259
Would need a massive fucking bomb or else it would just breach the hull at one point, flood one single compartment and the ship would still float just fine.
Could be done with a suitcase nuke though.
>>29946301
Go fuck yourself, sonar has killed plenty of people.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93222/could-submarine-sonar-kill-a-diver
The Soviets literally designed a nuclear-tipped cruise missile specifically to kill American supercarriers. Think about that for a moment. They figured they'd need a nuke to kill one.
>>29946259
>>29946298
This.
The dolphin corps, combined with the navigator tripping on LSD in an isolation pod on board will sniff them out before they even get close.
>>29946328
>Go fuck yourself, sonar has killed plenty of people.
Name one
>>29946259
Too big. It takes more than a couple holes to bring down a carrier.
>>29946328
>http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93222/could-submarine-sonar-kill-a-diver
You're using what is essentially yahoo answers as a source ?
>>29946278
A big enough bomb would snap the keel, essentially breaking the ship in two.
>>29946385
Izeet Madrawz, Hous Ben Pharteen, and Imin Yashed.
>>29946409
Unless you're bringing a nuke to the party, you aren't going to have a big enough boom for that.
>>29946278
Any submarine that gets a opportunity to unload on a U.S carrier would essentially be DOA, modern torpedoes will snap a destroyer in half, and were just talking one torpedo, multiple would be fired at a carrier.
>>29946292
>a suicide mission, not something your elite troops would volunteer for
Too bad China can and will throw wave after wave of people at a problem until it ceases to be a problem.
>>29946430
It's not pure explosive force, it's the vacuum the bomb creates underneath the ship, the explosive force lifts it up and then drops it into the vacuum created by the explosion. Snap goes the keel, goodbye carrier.
Using the ships size and weight against it if you will.
>>29946466
Even the chinese will not waste their own lives like that.
>>29946470
Yes, and even what naval torpedoes use can only do that to things as big as cruisers, not to mention this blades aren't on the hull.
>>29946292
A chinese sub surfaced within a few miles of a U.S carrier undetected.
>>29946493
It did not send out divers, wait for them to complete their mission then retrieve them though, that shit takes a lot of time.
>>29946259
Doesn't every semi-modern nation have missiles that can pretty much rekt large naval vessels? since most don't have effective missile defence systems or CIWS anymore?
>>29946514
If missile defense isn't included, then yes. Any ship can easily be destroyed, or made combat ineffective by ASMs. With defense included, you'd need missile swarms / hypersonic missiles.
>>29946259
>I heard the British SBS specialise in destroying ships in this fashion.
No, you're thinking of the French and Greenpeace ships.
>>29946328
Even if that were true, do you think the carrier just sits in port banging away with the active array?
>>29946466
Last time they did that was the chinese nationalist army against Imperial Japan. The commies never had the manpower to do that during the civil war and afterwards ahd an army experienced enough not to do it.
>>29946493
>Believing Chink propaganda.
The truth is probably the Chink sub malfunctioned and had to surface unwillingly near a US carrier. Then the sub skipper don wan no trouble with the China gov killing his entire family and cooked up a story he """" surprised""" a US carrier for grorious Chin-ur. All the while the US ship was aware of every fart in the chink sub.
>>29947185
>in the middle of a carrier group
>>29947200
Uh huh. And you of course have access to classified sources telling you that, right?
>>29947200
This seems a bit delusional given how the swedes of all nations did nearly the same thing...
>>29946259
The threat of a ballistic missile turning your nation's capital into a memorial park.
>>29946328
still waiting for you to name one.
I mean its killed plenty of people so it must be easy right?
>>29946259
you dont need to do any of that
small bomb on the flight deck or even the catapult will ruin the flight ops, you can swim up to it with a yellowshirt or something under your wet suit and casually walk into the catapult room with a small bomb
>>29947245
you are delusional if you think a chinese sub can sneak into the middle of a carrier group during active operations
you are even more delusional if you think the chinese actually had anything, if they did they wouldn't publish it so the americans knows when to review their data and draw up counter measures in future events. even the chinks knows they are a none threat so they try to plaster some propaganda all over to look good
>>29947649
>still waiting for you to name one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-frogman_techniques
Fuck off troll.
>>29947759
>>29947649
>>29946402
>>29946385
>>29946328
>>29946292
Huh, was skeptical at first, do ships ping lethal sonar every now and then? That's prolly why so many whales are beaching themselves
> Derp derp I'm a while
Then suddenly
> BOOM
> Whale has permanently been fucked from miles and miles away by a carrier group
> Smaller sealife is BTFO
This is why the oceans are dying annon
>>29946493
>A chinese sub surfaced within a few miles of a U.S carrier undetected.
"Undetected."
>>29947834
They haven't really pinned down a universal cause for whale beachings but, yes, active sonar is one of the suspected factors that come into play.
>>29947759
Read it, never killed anyone.
Please show me this lethal sonar thats killed plenty of people you are so sure of.
PS - it's not trolling if you're genuinely wrong.
>>29947834
>derp
Kill yourself
>>29947834
It's a "side effect", not something the sonar is designed for.
Sonar is designed to pick up subs through kilometers of water. The pulse has to go through the water to ping off the sub, then only fraction of the reflected sound energy goes back in the direction of the sonar.
Modern (post 1960's) sonar are all in the megawatt range, because that's how much power you need to get solid signal above the noise level of the ocean through kilometers of water.
It's not designed to kill people, but if an unlucky frogman is within a few hundred meters of a sonar when it pings, that person is going to be liquefied.
>>29947759
>>29946328
>>29946292
It's almost two and a half bongs here so i'm going to bed. But i'll check up on this thread in the morning to see if you've scurried away.
Please do try and come up with some names or even cases where sonar has killed people.
>>29947990
DERP!
E
R
P
!
>>29946342
Those were more to kill or disable entire carrier battlegroups.
A ship drivers nightmare is pulling into port and finding someone has placed a command detonated mine next to the wharf.
Any port is littered with submerged rubish and a mine casing that does not look like a mine casing is hard to detect.
>>29948187
Considering how far apart ships are in a CBG, that's not even realistic be North Korea standards.
>>29946301
I dont think you understand how sound travels thru water....
>>29948293
What kind of port?
Boston Harbor? well trash is trash, and there's too much of it for people to care.
Norfolk? I'd expect stray plastic bags to be gathered up and disposed of.
>>29946345
>navigator tripping on LSD
spice, control, cuniverse, etc
>>29947111
Kek
>>29946493
How do we know it happened if the sub was never detected?
>>29947185
In port there are nets and sensors to prevent divers from accessing the boats. And they will kill you dead if you attempt to reach the boats.
Out of port, they move too quickly and unpredictability to reach.
>>29949080
A undetected chinese sub surfaced inside a carrier group, prior to surfacing they had know idea it was there.
>>29949203
A french sub did a similar thing during a drill, the carrier group failed to detect the sub and had it not been a game, she's dead in the water.
>>29949203
It wasn't undetected if it surfaced, anon.
>>29949254
It was before it surfaced, which is the important part, But I agree a enemy sub lurking with a carrier in it's sights in no problem.
>>29949267
if it was hidden before surfacing, why not sink the carrier? fucking cowards.
>>29949279
Politics. Im sure the USN was none too pleased that it had been snuck up on
>>29946493
They did this by completely powering down the sub amd drifting in with the current and then blowing emergency ballast to surface. The sub was powerless and defenseless and the cbg could have just rammed it and the sub wouldnt have been able to do shit about it because it takes 2 hours to reinitialize and start up again. There was no "threat" from the sub. Also the cbg was not using active sonar and it's position was well known in advance due to it being a published exercise. Neither of which would be the case under other circumstances. The whole thing was just a stupid chicom publicity stunt.
>>29950244
Thank god for you anon, I thought I was gonna have to explain it on my phone, but you saved me the trouble!
>>29946493
>something something the Kitty hawk Running over a Russian submarines and bending the #3 prop shaft
>>29946259
Torpedo dolphins
>>29947872
Fucksake, can't build anything cool without nature getting all hissy about it.
No nukes or radiation will kill everything
No ships or oceans will be empty
Suck it up nature, you're supposed to be badass.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
It's harder for a submarine to get to a carrier if they're not on a well published exercise.
>>29946345
now thats a war i want to fight in
>>29947759
>>29946328
>>29946292
Wakey wakey, do you have a name for me yet ?
>>29946259
Frogmen cannot swim at an average speed of 20 knots in open water.
>>29949203
If it was undetected, why did it surface in the first place? It should have remained submerged, returned to port and then passed on its findings for a new infiltration method to be taught to all of its submarine crews. Instead it surfaced and in so doing alerted the US Navy to a gap in its defenses which it can now plug and pass the information on to its allies.
Either the Chinese submarine was forced to surface unwillingly, or they sacrificed a major tactical advantage for the sake of a quick headline in the evening paper.
>>29946292
>but the distance to deploy and extract the frogman makes it a suicide mission
Iran and norks have midget submarines
Wasn't a target found painted on an American ship docked in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or or Qatar or UAE a few years back?
>>29946298
>we can find those
Not diesel electric
>>29946514
Russia has big anti ship ballistic missiles, china is doing them now too
Everyone else has smaller harpoon/exercet style missiles
It's about time burgers woke up. Do we know who sonar has killed yet?
>>29949187
USS Cole would like a word with you.
>>29952494
>active sonar cares about your propulsion method
>>29953960
You mean the boat that was not fired on because of restrictive RoE?
>>29947200
Hey mon, what is da name of dat river in africa, you know de big one?
>>29946292
>sonar that will kill frogmen
didn't even know this could happen. Metal as fuck.
>>29954162
They were busy eating breakfast, the alarm wasn't raised.
>>29949279
Because that's a great way to start World War III?
>>29955511
Again, why not try to sink the carrier?
It would take the combined expended forces of the entire world to sink two carriers of the US, assuming the first one was by surprise. There would be 9 more of them to go at that point.
>>29955615
because the chink's currency is tied to the US dollaroo pretty hard and an outright war would cut off that trade and tank their economy
>>29955615
Because torpedoing an American carrier would result in a war that would ultimately result in the complete annihilation of the PRC military?
>>29955615
Sinking carriers becomes exponentially more difficult as you go. Getting through all 11 of ours would be impossible.
>>29948154
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-frogman_techniques
>>29952073
not him but here ya go friend
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93222/could-submarine-sonar-kill-a-diver
>>29955960
already ha both of these links in the thread, both are worthless.
please try and keep up.
Sonar has never killed anyone.
>>29956031
I'm not saying the guy saying it has,
I'm telling you it has the potential to kill just like the thousands of nuclear warheads that haven't killed anyone but have the potential to do so and same with with all those hypersonic AShMs that could kill a carrier but haven't done so yet.
>>29956031
how about this one
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2002/01/navy-admits-sonar-killed-whales
feel free to find the actual study as I don't have access to journals.
