Hi Mike,
You and I are envisaging completely different scenario regarding the capability of these twenty year old boats. Getting away from coastal waters will not be conducive to your long term health and I suspect the commanding officers of these submarines may want to live to see their grand children??
My thoughts are that they should only 'play' to their strength, namely they will have to stay in locations close to land. This is the EXACT location where any right minded commander of a US Battle Group will
NOT put his fleet. Not going to happen.
It is plain wrong to suggest Iran does not have the ability to sink a battle group, both silly and naive, BUT......... I would very respectfully suggest that Iran is at best guilty of wishful thinking if they are of the opinion that the US Battle Group is going to make itself an easy target!! NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
I also accept that Kilo class submarines and other types are detectable, but when they are hiding, then detection is never going to be that easy. Talk to the gamekeeper and they will always brag about how easy it was to detect 'x' 'y' or 'z' but talk to the poacher and they could possibly show you pictures of a ship's propeller
that may have allegedly been hunting them down. Did the USA put a high degree of pressure onto the Russian Government in attempts to stop the sale of these boats to Iran. America is fully aware of the capabilities of this type of submarine.
Detecting a vessel out at sea when it is making a loud amount of noise does not compare with something lurking on the sea bed close inshore where it is possibly under the umbrella of surface to air missile protection. The diesel electric submarine is a slow snail compared to a Nimitz class carrier but when it drifts with the tides or travels at speeds of 3 knots or slower, then it is a devil to detect.
We also seem to be forgetting this class of vessel is fully capable of laying mines in the main shipping routes maybe just hours before an expected convoy, or group of vessels is due or they could possibly lay them just after a shipping lane has been swept. This might not match your scenario but it is one that no doubt the US are taking very seriously.
I agree with a few of the points made by SAM although he appears to enjoy a more confrontational approach and are we now in the age of the armed UAV which might be used to remove a number of these boats plus do we (we being NATO) have the numbers that can remain on station just waiting for an opportunity to remove any other surface threat that dares to show itself?
Originally Posted by WestCoast
The S-3 went out of service in 2009. SH-60 and P-3 are now the only USN ASW aviation assets.
Thank you very much for the update. Are you confident any battle group has the ability to protect itself from underwater attacks? I accept it will have a submarine escort attached to the group but are these units better off working at speeds FAR slower than the operational speed of the carrier? (I am aware of the high speeds a submarine can achieve but is speed a hindrance when trying to detect a very quiet enemy?)
Nice debate but we should all remember we are not invincible and was it HMS Gloucester that shot down a missile that was intent on spoiling the day of the powerful battleship USS Missouri a ship that possibly got too close to the action? Was Gloucester also the only warship to shoot down an inbound missile with a missile?
The Americans have been the victim of any number of attacks on their warships, be they small boat attack or mines.... To suggest they are invincible is asking for a lesson in reality. is it going to happen? I have no idea??? My post should be looked on as asking questions or trying to stimulate debate.
YES Iran is capable of sinking a Nimitz class carrier BUT I am of the opinion it would be
HIGHLY improbable and whilst they are in deep water then improbable might raise to probably impossible 