Replies

I have felt that the USN’s over reliance on supercarriers is an Achilles’ heel that the Chinese were bound to exploit. The scenario discussed in this article is a bit far fetched, but not totally unreasonable.

This stuff's been around forever. Forty years ago, the Naval Institute Proceedings was running articles that scenarized an "improved Forrestal" or Enterprise-class (yes, yes, class of one) CVA/CVAN falling victim, along with her escorting cruiser, to a lurking bad-boy 40-knot PT/PGM type element (two boats, say) nailing them both hard with anti-shipping missiles in a restricted seaway, then scooting away before escorting ships could respond.

The enemy asset that carrier battle groups have never, in any exercise, been able to deal with is a task group of SSN's and SSGN's opposing transit. Every year, for years and years, Atlantic Fleet admirals have run their LANTFLEX exercise on such scenarios, and the submarines have come out on top every time. Worry about that, because in the end power projection is what it's about, and a navy unable to protect convoys transiting contested waters can't get the strategic mission done.

bump

The enemy asset that carrier battle groups have never, in any exercise, been able to deal with is a task group of SSN's and SSGN's opposing transit. Every year, for years and years, Atlantic Fleet admirals have run their LANTFLEX exercise on such scenarios, and the submarines have come out on top every time.

Having participated in fleet exercises I am not impressed. You start out with the submarine in perfect position knowing where the battle group is located at the start. The hole premise is stupid. In reality a sub might have to travel hundreds of miles at a fairly high rate of speed(noise) and that is when you get them. In wartime a CVBG isn't going to even go into waters with a possub within 100 miles.